1111111111111111111111111111111

PB96-194162 Information .

IMPROVED .s our busln.s•.

RECOMMEN~~T~~~~GES: PROV~~~~~:~A
CALIFORN SEISMIC DESIGN
FOR

APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL , REDWOOD CITY , CA

30 JUN 96

U.S. DEPARTM
National TeChniEN,T OF COMMERCE
ca 'nformat"Ion Service
 1111111111111111111111111111111
PB 96 - 194162

ATCBE

Improved Seismic Design

Criteria for California Bridges:
Provisional Recommendations

Applied Technology Council

Funded by
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

REPRODUCED BY: til§,

U.S. Department of CommerceJ
Na.tional Technical Information Service
Springfield, Virginia 22161
 Applied Technology Council

The Applied Technology Council (ATC) is a nonprofit, tax-exempt corporation established in 1971 through the
efforts of the Structural Engineers Association of California. ATC is guided by a Board of Directors consisting of
representatives appointed by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Structural Engineers Association of
California, the Western States Council of Structural Engineers Associations, and four at-large representatives
concerned with the practice of structural engineering. Each director serves a three-year term.

The purpose of ATC is to assist the design practitioner in structural engineering (and related design specialty
fields such as soils, wind, and earthquake) in the task of keeping abreast of and effectively using technological
developments. ATC also identifies and encourages needed research and develops consensus opinions on structural
engineering issues in a nonproprietary format. ATC thereby fulfills a unique role in funded information transfer.

Project management and administration are carried out by a full-time Executive Director and support staff.
Project work is conducted by a wide range of highly qualified consulting professionals, thus incorporating the
experience of many individuals from academia, research, and professional practice who would not be available
from any single organization. Funding for ATC projects is obtained from government agencies and from the
private sector in the form of tax-deductible contributions.

1996-1997 Board of Directors

John C. Theiss, President Douglas A. Foutch

C. Mark Saunders, Vice President James R. Libby
Bijan Mohraz, Secretary/Treasurer Kenneth A. Luttrell
Edwin T. Huston, Past President Andrew T. Merovich
Arthur N. 1. Chiu Maryann T. Phipps
John M. Coil Jonathan G. Shipp
Edwin T. Dean Charles H. Thornton
Robert G. Dean

Disclaimer

While the information presented in this report is believed to be correct, ATC and the sponsoring agency assume
no responsibility for its accuracy or for the opinions expressed herein. The material presented in this publication
should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of
its accuracy, suitability, and applicability by qualified professionals. Users of information from this publication
assume all liability arising from such use.

California Department of Transportation Disclaimer

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the
data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of
California or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or
regulation.

Cover Illustration:
New Pescadero Creek Bridge
Photo by Bob Colin, California Department of Transportation
 BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
PB96-194162
Report Nos: ATC-32
Title: Improved Seismic Design Criteria for California Bridges: Provisional
Recommendations.
Date: 30 Jun 96
Performing Organization: Applied Technology Council, Redwood City. CA.
S~onSOring Organization: *California State Dept. of Transportation, Sacramento. Div.
o Structures.
Contract Nos: CALTRANS-59N203
Type of Report and Period Covered: Final rept. 1 May 91-31 Oct 95.
NTIS Field/Group Codes: 50A (Highway Engineering), 500 (Soil &Rock Mechanics), 50C
(Constructlon Equlpment, Materials, &Supplies)
Price: PC A11/MF A03
Availability: Available from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
VA. 22161
Number of Pages: 225p
Ke words: *Highway bridges. *Earthquake engineering. *Seismic design. *Structural
1
re laDl lity. Earthquakes, Seismic effects. Structural response, Damage assessment.
Earthquake damage, Soil-structure interactions. Reinforced concretes. Steel
structures, Foundations(Structures). Load bearing capacity. Load distribution.
Stiffness, Performance evaluation.
Abstract: The ATC-32 report recommends revisions to the California Department of
Iransportation (Caltrans) seismic design standards, performance criteria.
specifications and practices. It is based on recent research in the field of bridge
seismic design and the performance of Caltrans-designed bridges in the 1989 Loma
Prieta and other recent California earthquakes. Specifically, the report provides
recommended revisions to Caltrans current Bridge Deisgn Specifications (BDS)
pertaining to seismic loading, structural response analysis, and component design.
Special attention is given to design issues related to reinforced concrete components,
steel components, foundations, and conventional bearings.
 ATC-32

Improved Seismic Design

Criteria for California Bridges:
Provisional Recommendations
by
APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 550
Redwood City, California 94065

Funded by
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. Box 942874
Sacrall1ento,CA 94274-0001
Mohsen Sultan, Contract Manager

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR!
PROJECT MANAGER
Richard V. Nutt

PROJECT SUBCONTRACTORS PROJECT ENGINEERING PANEL

Earth Mechanics, Inc. Ian Buckle, Chairll1an

(Foundation Design) Robert Cassano
Kercheval Engineers Allen Ely
(Bridge Design) Nicholas ForelI, ATC Board Representative
Kleinfelder/Geospectra Jall1es H. Gates
(Seisll1ic Loading) LM.Idriss
Modjeski & Masters, Inc. Roy A. Ill1bsen
(Steel & Bearing Design) Jall1es O. Jirsa
Moehle/Priestley Teall1 Jall1es R. Libby
(Concrete Design & Analysis) Joseph P. Nicoletti
Quincy Engineering Joseph Penzien
(Bridge Design) Maurice S. Power
RDD Consultants Jall1es Roberts
(Publications & Travel)

1996
 Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No 2. Recipient's Catalog No.
ATC-32 '111Il\ I' 111111'III I11111l\' II'
PB96 -194162
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

Improved Seismic Design Criteria for Califomia Bridges June 30, 1996
6. Performing Organization Report No.

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Applied Technology Council

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
Applied Technology Council
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 550
Redwood City, Califomia 94065 11. Contract or Grant No.
59N203

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Califomia Department of Transportation FINAL

Division of Structures 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Sacramento, Califomia 95807

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract

The ATC-32 report recommends revisions to the Califomia

Department of Transportation (Caltrans) seismic design
standards, performance criteria, specifications and
practices. It is based on recent research in the field of
bridge seismic design and the performance of Caltrans-
designed bridges in the 1989 Lorna Prieta and other recent
Califomia earthquakes. Specifically, the report provides
recommended revisions to Caltrans current Bridge Design
Specifications (BDS) pertaining to seismic loading,
structural response analysis, and component design.
Special attention is given to design issues related to
reinforced concrete components, steel components,
foundations, and conventional bearings.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

bridges, seismic design standards, performance

criteria, specifications, Bridge Design
Specifications, BDS

19. Security Classif. (of this report 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 214

FORM DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)


In May 1991, the California Department of Transporta-
tion (Caltrans) awarded Applied Technology Council
(ATe) a contract to conduct a critical review of the Cal-
trans Bridge Design Specifications (BDS) related to seis-
mic design and to recommend changes where needed.
This contract resulted in the development of the revised
BDS presented in this ATC-32 report, which provides a
number of recommended improvements to bridge
design practice. A companion document, ATC-32-1,
includes additional detailed discussion of these recom-
mendations. The recommendations apply to the seismic
design ofbridges throughout California.
Because of the broad range of expertise required to
develop comprehensive BDS, a 13-member advisory
Project Engineering Panel (PEP) was assembled to
review recommended changes as they were developed
and to provide guidance where needed. This panel was
composed ofIan Buckle (Chair), Robert Cassano, Allen
Ely, Nicholas Forell, James Gates, 1. M. Idriss, Roy Imb-
sen, James Jirsa, James Libby, Joseph Nicoletti, Joseph
Penzien, Maurice Power, and James Roberts. The affilia-
tions of these individuals are provided in the Project Par-
ticipants list.
The detailed technical work required for the devel-
opment of recommendations was performed primarily
by four specialty subcontractors. J.P. Singh and his staff
at Kleinfelder/Geospectra were responsible for develop-
ing new ARS spectra and other recommendations
related to seismic loading. Po Lam and his staff at Earth
Mechanics, working with Geoff Martin of the University
of Southern California, were responsible for developing
the foundation design guidelines. Nigel Priestley of the
University of California, San Diego and Jack Moehle of
the University of California, Berkeley developed the rec-
ommendations on response analysis and reinforced con-
ATC-32 Preface
Preface
crete design. They were assisted by Gregory Fenves ofthe
University of California, Berkeley. John Kulicki and his
staff at Modjeski and Masters developed new design cri-
teria for steel structures and conventional bridge bear-
ings.
Trial designs using the draft BDS were performed by
two bridge design consultants. John Quincy directed the
efforts of Quincy Engineering and Kosal Krishnan
directed those of Kercheval Engineers. Nonlinear
dynamic analysis studies to evaluate near-fault effects
were performed by Computech Engineering Services
under the direction of Ron Mayes. An independent
external review of the recommendations for structural
steel was conducted by Ahmad Itani of the University of
Nevada at Reno.
Technical editing and formatting of this report were
performed by Nancy and Rodney Sauer ofRDD Con-
sultants and the ATC staff. Their efforts are gratefully
acknowledged.
The efforts of several Caltrans personnel are also
gratefully acknowledged. Mohsen Sultan was the Con-
tract Manager and coordinated the technical participa-
tion of other Caltrans engineers. Dan Kirkland and Tim
Leahy served as Contract Administrators. They and their
staffprovided ATC with invaluable assistance in comply-
ing with Caltrans requirements. Finally, ATC wishes to
thank the many Caltrans engineers who have shown an
interest in this project by commenting on draft recom-
mendations and attending PEP and other meetings.
Christopher Rojahn,
ATC Executive Director
v
 Contents

Technical Report Documentation Page iii

Preface v

List of Figures ix

List of Tables xi

Figure Credits xiii

Introduction 1

Summary of Recommendations 5

Revised Bridge Design Specifications 13

Section 3: Loads " 15

Section 4: Foundations 83

Section 8: Reinforced Concrete " 129

Section 10: Structural Steel. 163

References 191

Appendix A: Guide to Bridge Design Specification Modifications 195

Project Participants 203

ATC Projects and Report Information 205

ATC-32 Contents vii

 List of Figures

Figure 1 Response modification factor Z 8

Figure RC3-1 Illustrations of full ductility structures and limited ductility structures. . 20
Figure RC3-2 North-South Ground motion recorded at Sylmar, January 17,1994 24
Figure R3-1 Proposed ARS curves for rock (M = 6.50 ± 0.25) 30
Figure R3-2 Proposed ARS curves for rock (M = 7.25 ± 0.25) 31
Figure R3-3 Proposed ARS curves for rock (M = 8.0 ± 0.25) 32
Figure R3-4 Proposed ARS curves for soil type C (M = 6.50 ± 0.25) 33
Figure R3-5 Proposed ARS curves for soil type C (M = 7.25 ± 0.25) 34
Figure R3-6 Proposed ARS curves for soil type C (M = 8.0 ± 0.25) 35
Figure R3-7 Proposed ARS curves for soil type D (M = 6.50 ± 0.25) 36
Figure R3-8 Proposed ARS curves for soil type D (M = 7.25 ± 0.25) 37
Figure R3-9 ProposedARS curves for soil type D (M = 8.0 ± 0.25) 38
Figure R3-1 0 Proposed ARS curves for soil type E (M = 6.5 ± 0.25) 39
Figure R3-11 Proposed ARS curves for soil type E (M = 7.25 ± 0.25) 40
Figure R3-12 Proposed ARS curves for soil type E (M = 8.0 ± 0.25) 41
Figure RC3-3 Effective stiffness of reinforced concrete structure 50
Figure RC3-4 Relationship between cracked-section (Ief[) and gross-section (r g) stiffness values of
reinforced concrete columns 51
Figure RC3-5 Superstructure torsion and column moments for frames under transverse
displacement 57
Figure RC3-6 Model for skewed expansion joint 60
Figure RC3-7 Model for seat-type abutment 61
Figure RC3-8 Load-displacement relationship for circular cross-section, cantilever-reinforced,
concrete column representative of modern Caltrans bridge designs. Column is
subjected to uniaxial lateral load and constant axial load 62
Figure RC3-9 Load-displacement relationship for circular cross-section, cantilever-reinforced,
concrete column representative of modern Caltrans bridge designs. Column is
subjected to biaxial lateral load and constant axial load. . 63
Figure RC3-10 Load displacement relationship for relatively low-aspect-ratio pier wall loaded in its
plane 64
Figure RC3-11 Three-spring model for reinforced concrete pier wall. 65
Figure RC3-12 Measured and idealized load-displacement relationship for restrainer with gap 66
Figure RC3-13 Mean relationships between strength-reduction coefficient (RJl) and displacement
ductility demand (11) .• .••••••••••••••..••.•••........••••..•••.••••••••••••.•.••• 72

ATC-32 List of Figures ix

Figure RC3-14 Shock spectra for a triangular pulse acting on an elastic-perfectly-plastic, single-
degree-of-freedom oscillator 74
Figure R3-13 Force-reduction coefficient, Z 76
Figure RC3-15 Static aspects of gravity load acting through lateral displacement for a cantilever 77
Figure RC4-1 Limits in the gradation curves separating liquefiable and nonliquefiable soils 92
Figure RC4-2 Definition of free face factors, Land H, and ground slope, S, for free-face ground-
spread displacement 94
Figure RC4-3 Definition of ground slope, S, for long, uniform slope ground spread displacement 94
Figure RC4-4 Recommendations for coefficient of variation in subgrade modulus with depth for
sand 105
Figure RC4-5 Recommendations for coefficient ofvariation in subgrade modulus with depth for
clay 106
Figure RC4-6 Lateral stiffness of free-headed piles 107
Figure RC4-7 Coefficient for lateral pile head stiffness (fixed head pile lateral stiffness) 108
Figure RC4-8 Coefficient for pile head rotation 109
Figure RC4-9 Coefficient for cross-coupling stiffness term 110
Figure RC4-1O Comparison of fixed head pile head stiffness at various embedments (0, 5, and 10
feet) III
Figure RC4-11 Comparison of the rotational stiffness coefficient at various embedments (0,5, and
10 feet) 112
Figure RC4-12 Comparison of the cross-coupling stiffness coefficient at various embedments (0, 5,
and 10 feet) 113
Figure RC8-1 Ratio of plastic moment at maximum curvature to design flexural strength 136
Figure RC8-2 Design aid for determining the compression strength of confined concrete 146
Figure RC8-3 Effective joint width for shear stress calculations 156
Figure RC8-4 External vertical joint reinforcement for joint force transfer 158
Figure RC8-5 Locations for vertical joint reinforcement 159
Figure R8-1 Additional cap beam bottom reinforcement for joint force transfer 160
Figure RC8-6 Effective superstructure width resisting longitudinal seismic moments 162
Figure RClO-1 Knee geometry 184
Figure RClO-2 Strength deterioration of knee joint 185
Figure RClO-3 Typical response to cyclic loading 186
Figure RClO-4 Failure modes of box-shaped columns 186

x List of Figures ATC-32

 List of TabLes

Table 1 Seismic performance criteria 5

Table 2 Site Characteristics for Standard Design Spectra 6

Table 3 Minimum Required Analysis 6

Table R3-1 Seismic performance criteria 18

Table R3-2 Minimum Required Analysis 25

TableR3-3 Soil Profile Types 42

Table RC3-1 Soil Profile Type Classification 43

Table RC3-2 Values of Site-Amplification Factor Fa as a Function of Soil Profile Types and
Shaking Intensity 45

Table RC3-3 Values of Site-Amplification Factor Fvas a Function of Soil Profile Types and
Shaking Intensity 45

Table RC3-4 Figure Numbers of Appropriate Design Spectra 46

Table RC3-5 Soil Coefficient Pi 48

Table R3-4 Values of T* (in seconds) 71

Table RC4-1 Relationship of Geologic and Water Table Criteria and Liquefaction Susceptibility
(Modified from Tinsley et al., 1985) 90

Table RC4-2 Minimum R for Lateral Ground Spread Models 95

Table RC4-3 Presumptive Pile Stiffness Values (as Derived From Caltrans BDS 4.3.4.8) 104

Table RC4-4 Lateral stiffness and pile capacity 115

Table R10-1 Minimum Material Properties for Structural Steel. 167

Table R10-2 Minimum Material Properties for Pins, Rollers, and Rockers 167

Table RlO-3 Limiting Width-to-Thickness Ratios 180

ATC-32 List of Tables xi

 Figure Credits

Geospectra: R3-1 through R3-12
Tsuchida, 1970: RC4-l
Bartlett and Youd, 1992: RC4-2 and RC4-3
Earth Mechanics, Inc.: RC4-4 through RC4-12
Nishimura, Hwang, and Fukumoto, 1992: RClO-l,
RCI0-2
MacRae and Kawashima, 1992: RClO-3, RCI0-4
Unknown: 1, RC3-1 through RC3-15, R3-13, RC8-3
through RC8-5, R8-1

ATC-32 Figure Credits xiii


Bridge failures during the October 17,1989 Loma Prieta,
California, earthquake demonstrated a clear need for
review and revision, as necessary, of the existing seismic
design standards and specifications for bridge structures
in California. Thirteen bridges sustained structural dam-
age severe enough to cause closure for extended periods
of time and 78 other bridges sustained major damage
(Housner et al., 1990). Damage included collapsed and
partially collapsed concrete bents; spalled concrete col-
umns; shifted superstructures; anchor bolt and expan-
sion joint damage; damage to bearings, caps, and
earthquake restrainers; large cracks in concrete box cul-
vert walls and ceilings; and failure of steel rocker bear-
ings. In addition, the month-long closure of the San
Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, where a link span col-
lapsed, and the brief closure of the San Mateo-Hayward
Bridge, which sustained rocker bearing damage, under-
scored the need for establishing and implementing seis-
mic design standards and criteria that will enable critical
structures to remain serviceable following severe earth-
quake-induced ground motions.
As a result of the effects of the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake on bridge structures, the Governor of Cali-
fornia appointed a Board ofInquiry to investigate dam-
age resulting from this earthquake and to develop
recommendations as to appropriate, necessary actions.
The Board made 52 specific findings and eight recom-
mendations (Housner, et al., 1990). Recommendation 6
calls for ensuring "that Caltrans seismic design policies
and construction practice meet the seismic safety policy
and goals established by the Governor". Part A reads:
"Review and revise standards, performance
criteria, specifications, and practices to ensure
that they meet the seismic safety goal estab-
lished by the Governor and apply them to the
design of new structures and rehabilitation of
existing transportation structures. These stan-
dards, criteria, and specifications are to be
updated and periodically revised with the assis-
tance of external technical expertise."
Concurrent with the development of the Board of
Inquiry's recommendations, Applied Technology Coun-
cil (ATe) submitted a proposal to Caltrans to review and
revise as necessary the existing standards, performance
criteria, specifications, and practices for the design and
construction of new bridge structures and the rehabilita-
tion of existing structures. The intent of the proposed
project was to provide criteria and methodology that will
ensure that California bridge structures of all types per-
ATC-32 Introduction
Introduction
form well in earthquakes and meet the seismic safety
goals established by the Governor. When ATe's pro-
posed project was funded by Caltrans in 1991 (ATC-32
project), the portion of the proposed project pertaining
to rehabilitation of existing structures was excluded
from the contract and deferred until a later date.
PROJECT SCOPE
The ATC-32 project team, which consisted of the Project
Manager, Subcontractors, and advisory Project Engi-
neering Panel(PEP), reviewed current Caltrans seismic
design procedures and recent research in the field of
bridge seismic design to identify ways to improve Cal-
trans' seismic design practice. This work focused on por-
tions of the then current Bridge Design Specifications
(BDS) pertaining to seismic loading, structural response
analysis, and component design. Special attention was
given to design issues related to reinforced concrete
components, steel components, foundations, and con-
ventional bearings. In addition, the specifications were
revised to more carefully consider displacements in an
attempt to satisfy the new performance criteria devel-
oped by Caltrans during the course of the ATC-32
project.
Several issues pertaining to earthquake ground
motions were considered outside the scope of the
project. Caltrans currently has hazard maps that are
consistent with safety evaluation under the newly estab-
lished performance criteria. These maps are based on the
concept of a maximum credible earthquake, which is
determined by the location, type, and extent of known
active faults. Seismic hazard is defined in terms of
expected peak rock acceleration values derived from an
average attenuation of the resulting rock and stiff soil
motions (determined from published attenuation rela-
tionships). New maps that will consider the effects of
thrust faults, added faults, and spectral accelerations are
currently under development by Caltrans, as a separate
effort.
Similarly, it was not within the scope of ATC-32 to
develop seismic hazard maps for functional-evaluation
earthquakes. Although the established seismic perfor-
mance criteria propose that functional-evaluation earth-
quakes be based on probabilistic principles (e.g., a 60-
percent chance of not being exceeded during the life of
the bridge), the absence of statewide site-dependent seis-
mic hazard maps that are consistent with the proposed
1
performance criteria was a factor in the development of
the ATC-32 recommendations.
PROGRAMMATIC AND TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS
During the course of the project, the ATC-32 project
team developed numerous recommendations pertaining
to the Caltrans BDS as well as to programmatic and
technical development actions that could be imple-
mented during or after completion of the project. The
technical recommendations are provided later in this
report. Recommendations pertaining to programmatic
and technical development actions follow.
1. The full implication of adopting the recommended
changes to the Bridge Design Specifications has yet
to be assessed through extensive trial applications. It
may be difficult to satisfy these design criteria for
certain bridge configurations under extreme loading
conditions. This may be a signal to designers of
potential difficulties with the performance or con-
structability of such bridges. Therefore, Caltrans
should initiate a trial application period in which the
impact of adopting the recommended changes to
the Bridge Design Specifications is assessed.
2. Selected external consultants should participate
during this trial application period in order to assist
Caltrans in making any required modifications to
the ATC-32 recommended Bridge Design Specifica-
tions.
3. During and following this trial application period,
Caltrans should assess the cost impact, design effort,
constructability, and expected performance of
bridges designed by the ATC-32 recommended
Bridge Design Specifications.
4. Caltrans should begin developing statewide seismic
hazard maps for functional evaluation. In addition,
existing statewide hazard maps for safety evaluation
should be updated to consider the probability of
seismic loading in conjunction with the current
deterministic approach.
5. Further development of the bridge design specifica-
tions would benefit from additional research. Spe-
cifically, research should be conducted for the
following purposes:
a. To develop a design methodology that more
accurately reflects the significant characteristics
of near-fault ground motion and its effect on
bridge structures.
2 Introduction
b. To develop a design methodology for consider-
ing vertical ground motion.
c. To develop simplified modeling techniques for
capturing the overall seismic response ofbridge
abutments within the overall bridge system,
including the effects of approach embankment
response and abutment wall/approach
embankment interaction. Such techniques
should address methods for determining equiv-
alent elastic stiffness, mass, and damping of
various abutment systems.
d. To develop and/or verify more realistic, univer-
sal shear capacity models applicable to all prac-
tical situations related to reinforced concrete
bridge columns. Adoption of the appropriate
model should be achieved through a peer
review process.
e. To establish a quantitative basis (e.g, allowable
concrete and steel strains) for assessing the
qualitatively defined performance (e.g., repair-
able damage, immediate use) ofbridge col-
umns. One item of particular concern is the
prevention oflow cycle fatigue failure oflongi-
tudinal reinforcement in lightly reinforced col-
umns.
f. To develop nonlinear techniques to distribute
lateral and vertical loads to individual piles in a
pile group.
6. Caltrans should continue to consider and/or
develop new and innovative design strategies to
meet its challenging seismic design problems.
TRIAL APPLICATIONS
The recommended Bridge Design Specifications in this
document have been reviewed by the ATC-32 Project
Engineering Panel (PEP). In addition, bridge design sub-
contractors were retained to perform trial designs using
the draft design specifications. Additionally, experts not
directly associated with the project were asked to review
portions of these specifications. As with any project of
this type, however, it is not possible to completely evalu-
ate the practical impact of each and every recommenda-
tion in all possible situations. This is why projects of this
type and size are traditionally followed by a period in
which the recommendations are applied on a trial basis
to a large number of actual cases. This project is no
exception, and in some ways such a trial application
period is particularly important in this case.
ATC-32
 The principal factor contributing to the increased
need for a trial application period is the time frame in
which these recommendations were developed. The
most critical elements of the recommended design speci-
fications (e.g., Z factors and rock spectra) were devel-
oped first and were subjected to a more thorough
evaluation by trial applications than were the elements
developed in the second phase of the project (e.g., spec-
tra for soil sites and joint shear requirements). In addi-
tion, ongoing laboratory research and the experience of
the 1994 Northridge earthquake contributed substan-
tially to the advancement of knowledge during the
course of this project, resulting in some modification
and enhancement of the recommendations. Finally, the
trial applications themselves led to additional modifica-
tions. Some of the modified provisions have not been
thoroughly tested in trial bridge designs.
It is not unrealistic to expect that future trial appli-
cations may point out the need for further modification
of these recommended specifications or associated Cal-
trans design procedures.
OTHER COMMENTS, FINDINGS, AND CAUTIONS
1. Although a critical review of the current Caltrans
Bridge Design Specifications found numerous
opportunities for improvement, the general concept
and format used in these specifications are reason-
able and suitable for further enhancement and
refinement. Some recommendations of the ATC-32
project have already been adopted by Caltrans.
2. The recommended changes to the Bridge Design
Specifications were developed as an integrated pack-
age. It is the intent that these recommendations,
when properly applied, may result in structures that
satisfy the performance criteria established by Cal-
trans. If not adopted in their entirety, care should be
exercised when applying any of the recommended
provisions in a piecemeal fashion.
ATC-32 Introduction
3. The state-of-knowledge of seismic design is contin-
uallyadvancing, and further improvements to the
Bridge Design Specifications may become necessary
in the future. Nevertheless, the framework of the
recommended Bridge Design Specifications should
readily allow the inclusion of such improvements as
they become available.
4. Some of the safety factors implicit in the current
BDS have been replaced with a more direct treat-
ment of safety margin.
REPORT ORGANIZATION AND COMPANION REPORT
The ATC-32 report includes a summary of the recom-
mended changes to the Caltrans BDS related to seismic
design, followed by the detailed specifications recom-
mended by the ATC-32 PEP. An article-by-article listing
of the entire Caltrans BDS is provided in Appendix A,
followed by a list of project participants and information
on other ATC projects and reports.
At the request of Caltrans, the detailed recom-
mended specifications have been written in specification
language consistent with the format of the current Cal-
trans BDS and Commentary. This was done to facilitate
evaluation and implementation of these recommenda-
tions by Caltrans. Although the recommendations are
similar in form to the current Caltrans BDS and retain
many of the same procedures, they differ fundamentally
from the current specifications in that they were devel-
oped primarily with displacement response in mind.
Therefore, individual recommendations should not be
interpreted out of context of the entire document.
The companion document, ATC-32-1 (ATC, 1996),
includes additional detailed discussion of the recom-
mendations. It also discusses alternative design methods
and areas of current research.
3
 Summary of Recommendations
Introduction
The current California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) Bridge Design Specifications (BDS)(Caltrans,
1986) are comprehensive provisions covering all aspects
of bridge design. They are based on the 1983 American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi-
cials (AASHTO) Bridge Specifications (AASHTO, 1983)
and subsequent interim modifications. Caltrans has fur-
ther modified these AASHTO specifications to suit its
specific needs, particularly in the area of seismic design.
This includes the use of elastic design spectra (ie., ARS
curves) and the introduction of period-dependent Z fac-
tors to account for ductility and risk in individual struc-
tural components. The basic earthquake design force is
therefore given by
EQ = mgARS (1)
Z
where m is the participating mass of the bridge, and g is
the acceleration of gravity.
The recommended changes to the Caltrans Bridge
Design Specifications that were developed as part of the
ATC-32 project deal only with those portions of the cur-
rent BDS that are related to seismic design. This involved
a complete revision of Article 3.21 dealing with seismic
loads; the addition of Article 4.5, which covers the seis-
mic design of bridge foundations; and the modification
and/or addition of several articles in Sections 8 and 10
that deal respectively with the seismic design of rein-
forced concrete and steel bridge components. Appendix
A is an article-by article listing ofthe entire Caltrans BDS
with those Sections and Articles that were modified as
part of the ATC-32 project shown in bold type. This out-
line is intended to provide a road map to the BDS
changes described later in this report. The following
paragraphs summarize the recommended changes to the
current Caltrans BDS.
Table 1 Seismic performance criteria
Ground Motion at Site Ordinary Bridges
Functional-Evaluation Service Level- Immediate
Ground Motion Repairable Damage
Safety-Evaluation Service Level- Limited
Ground Motion Significant Damage
ATC-32 Summary of Recommendations
Seismic Performance Criteria
Recently, Caltrans, with the support of an external Seis-
mic Advisory Board and the ATC-32 project team, has
developed a set of seismic performance criteria for new
bridges. These criteria, which are the basis for the recom-
mended revisions to the BDS, are summarized in Table
1.
In these criteria, both safety-evaluation and func-
tional-evaluation design earthquakes are defined. The
safety-evaluation earthquake, which Caltrans currently
defines deterministically as the Maximum Credible
Earthquake (MCE), has only a small probability of
occurring during the useful life of the bridge. A statewide
hazard map given in terms of the peak bedrock accelera-
tion generated by this level of earthquake has been avail-
able for some time (CDMG, 1992). In the newly defined
performance criteria, the safety-evaluation earthquake
may alternately be defined probabilistically as an earth-
quake with a 1000- to 2000-year return period. The
probabilistic safety-evaluation ground motion must be
determined on a site-specific basis.
The functional-evaluation earthquake is intended to
represent an event that has a reasonable probability of
not being exceeded (approximately 60%) during the life
of the bridge. Because no statewide hazard map for these
earthquakes has been developed at this time, the func-
tional-evaluation ground motion must also be deter-
mined on a case by case basis through site-specific
studies.
Performance is defined in terms of two criteria: the
service level of the structure immediately following the
earthquake and the extent (or repairability) of physical
damage. Although performance is defined qualitatively,
the recommended revisions to the BDS are based on a
more quantitative definition established by the ATC-32
project. Required performance varies for each of the two
earthquake loadings defined above. Required perfor-
mance also depends on whether a bridge is classified as
Important or Ordinary.
Important Bridges
Service Level - Immediate
Minimal Damage
Service Level- Immediate
Repairable Damage
5
Structural Action
A new requirement ofthe recommended ATC-32 BDS is
that the designer identify the type of structural action
desired. Fully ductile behavior assumes that the designer
will take maximum advantage of plastic hinging while
ensuring structural safety. This type of action implies
considerable damage and is reserved for Ordinary
Bridges only. Structural action consistent with limited
ductility is recommended for Important Bridges and
certain critical foundation components. This type of
structural action is intended to limit inelastic response to
levels consistent with reduced structural damage. Elastic
structures carry seismically induced loads elastically and
thus remain undamaged. Finally, the proposed specifica-
tions recognize the potential use of protective systems
that incorporate base isolation, passive energy dissipa-
tion, and other mechanical devices intended to control
seismic response, although no specific design guidelines
are given for these systems.
Seismic Loading
Recent studies of strong motion instrumentation results
have yielded information that makes it possible to refine
the current Caltrans design spectra. Therefore, new
design spectra for three earthquake magnitude ranges
were developed as part of the ATC-32 project. Because
some California sites can be adversely affected by Maxi-
mum Credible Earthquakes on a number of different
faults, it may be necessary to design for multiple spectra
in some cases.
The proposed family of site-dependent design spec-
tra, which vary from the current Caltrans curves, are
based on four of the six standard sites defined in a
ground motion workshop sponsored by the National
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER)
(Martin and Dobry, 1994). These standard sites are pri-
marily characterized by the typical shear wave velocity of
the upper 100 feet of the soil profile, as shown in Table
2. Spectra for type A (hard rock) and F (poor soils) sites
as well as type E sites with peak rock accelerations over
0.4 g must be determined on a site-specific basis.
Table 2 Site Characteristics for Standard Design
Spectra
Site Shear Wave
Designation Site Description Velocity Range
B Medium rock 2500 to 5000 ft/sec
C Soft rock/Dense soil 1200 to 2500 ft/sec
D Stiff soil 600 to 1200 ft/sec
E Soft soil < 600 ft/sec
6 Summary of Recommendations
The standard design spectra may also not be appro-
priate for sites adjacent to active faults. At these sites, the
standard spectra may account for the high spectral accel-
erations, but may not adequately account for the pulse-
type motion or the differences between fault-normal and
fault-parallel motions observed in past earthquakes. The
effect of these motions on structural response is most
accurately determined from an inelastic dynamic analy-
sis using spectrum-compatible motions that contain the
appropriate velocity pulses. The ATC-32 recommenda-
tions give some guidance for selecting appropriate time
history input motions.
The nature ofvertical earthquake loading is com-
plex: it depends on rupture mechanism, proximity ofthe
earthquake source, local soil conditions, and other fac-
tors. The ATC-32 revisions recommend that vertical
earthquake design loading may be taken as two-thirds of
the horizontal loading spectra for typical sites not adja-
cent to active faults. When available, site-specific vertical
loading spectra are preferred.
Analysis
Although the ATC-32 recommendations retain a force-
based design approach, some of the inherent shortcom-
ings of this approach have been overcome. This is done
through the use of new response modification factors
and modeling techniques for analysis that more accu-
rately consider seismic displacement. The ATC-32 pro-
cedures also provide specific means for directly
considering geometric and material nonlinearity in spe-
cial cases.
As shown in Table 3, the ATC-32 project has devel-
oped recommended requirements for the minimum
Table 3 Minimum Required Analysis
Functional Safety
Evaluation Evaluation
Ordinary Bridge None Required AorB
Type I
Ordinary Bridge None Required B
Type II
Important Bridge AorB AorB
Type I
Important Bridge B BandC
Type II
A = Equivalent Static Analysis
B = Elastic Dynamic Analysis
C = Inelastic Static Analysis (Substitution of Inelastic
Dynamic Analysis is Acceptable)
ATC-32
type of analysis that should be used under various cir-
cumstances. The type of analysis depends on whether or
not the bridge is classified as Important and on the com-
plexity of the structural configuration (Type I =simple
and Type II = complex). These analysis types include
Equivalent Static Analysis, Elastic Dynamic Analysis, and
Inelastic Static Analysis. Basic requirements for each of
these analysis types are also included.
Equivalent Static Analysis allows an equivalent static
force to be applied to the structure. The magnitude of
this force is determined from the value of the design
spectra at the structure's fundamental period ofvibra-
tion. This force is applied at the vertical center of mass
and distributed in the horizontal plane based on the dis-
tribution of mass in the structure or on the product of
mass distribution and displacement.
Elastic Dynamic Analysis is required when the dis-
tribution of stiffness and/or mass within the structure
and/or the configuration is complex enough to preclude
the reliable prediction of response without such an anal-
ysis. In most cases a multi-modal response spectrum
analysis using a lumped-mass "stick" model will satisfy
these requirements. It is Caltrans practice to use this type
of analysis for most bridges, since the analytical capabili-
ties are readily available to most designers. Member stiff-
ness values that account for cracking of reinforced
concrete members are to be used in both Equivalent
Static Analysis and Elastic Dynamic Analysis. This differs
from the current Caltrans practice of using gross section
properties for force demands.
Inelastic Static Analysis is required only when the
bridge is classified as Important and it is not simple in
configuration. The analysis, commonly referred to as a
"push-over" analysis, is done in conjunction with Elastic
Dynamic Analysis, and requires a preliminary determi-
nation of the strength and stiffness of critical members.
In this analysis, loads are applied incrementally until the
structure has reached ultimate displacements. At each
step, changes in the structure's characteristics due to
geometric and material nonlinearity are considered. The
effects of gravity loads including dead load and a portion
of the live load are also considered. Results of this analy-
sis are used to confirm that the structure is capable of
accommodating the displacement demands determined
from an Elastic Dynamic Analysis. A factor of safety of
1.5 for displacement capacity versus displacement
demand is recommended. In general, results of this anal-
ysis cannot be used to reduce design quantities deter-
mined from an Elastic Dynamic Analysis.
Although Inelastic Dynamic Analysis is not required
for any structure type, the ATC-32 criteria provide
guidelines for conducting such an analysis. This type of
analysis may be substituted for Inelastic Static Analysis.
Because member strength and stiffness values are a pre-
requisite, this analysis is used primarily for verifying a
completed design, although its results may be used to
ATC-32 Summary of Recommendations
reduce design quantities to 80 percent of those deter-
mined from elastic analysis. Both geometric and material
nonlinearity should be considered. In general a lumped-
mass "stick" model with five percent of critical damping
is appropriate. The maximum response to three repre-
sentative input motions or the average response to seven
such input motions is recommended.
As with current Caltrans practice, the results from
Equivalent Static Analysis or Elastic Dynamic Analysis
for orthogonal response spectrum loadings must be
combined to obtain design forces and displacements.
The results for each orthogonal loading are first
obtained by combining the maximum modal responses
according to the complete quadratic combination
(CQc) rule. The ATC-32 recommendations then pre-
scribe the "40 percent rule," as opposed to the "30 per-
cent rule" currently used by Caltrans for combining the
results for orthogonal loadings. In addition, vertical
motion is included when it is critical. Therefore, three
design load cases may be considered, each of which
includes 100 percent of the actions for loading in one of
the orthogonal directions plus 40 percent of the actions
for each of the remaining two orthogonal loadings.
Alternately, 100 percent of all three orthogonal loadings
may be applied simultaneously, and the modal results
combined using the square root of the sum of the
squares (SRSS) method. When either elastic or inelastic
time-history analysis is used, 100 percent of the loadings
in each of the orthogonal directions is applied simulta-
neously, and the resulting maximum actions are taken
directly from the analysis results.
The ATC-32 recommendations also provide a
method for adjusting the displacement results from an
Elastic Dynamic Analysis to better reflect the actual max-
imum inelastic displacements that are likely to occur
during an earthquake. The adjustment factor, R d, is
given by the following formula:
(2)
where
T = natural period of the structure
T* = predominant period of ground motion
Z = response modification factor
This adjustment factor was derived empirically for typi-
cal ground motions and may not be appropriate for
near-fault sites where pulse-type motions are likely.
Although several simplified methods have been sug-
gested for assessing the impact ofpulse-type motion on
structural response, Inelastic Dynamic Analysis is still
the most accurate method currently available for this
purpose.
7
 Caltrans currently determines component design
forces by dividing the forces obtained from elastic analy-
sis by Z factors to account for ductility and risk. Revised
Z factors have been developed as part of the ATC-32
project. Nonlinear dynamic analysis studies demon-
strated that very little, if anything, was lost in using a
simplified Z factor, as opposed to a more complicated
factor based on column aspect ratios. Therefore, the
ATC-32 recommendations include simplified Z factors
for columns and other components.•The full value ofZ
applies at a structural period of T*, and the value ofZ
decreases linearly with period. Z reaches a minimum
value of 1.0 at a period of zero. Charts showing new Z
factors, which are typically lower than those defined in
the current Caltrans Bridge Design Specifications, are
included in Figure 1.
nents. Use of capacity design principles allows the
designer a measure of control over the location of struc-
tural damage within the structure so that these locations
can be detailed to provide for ductile behavior. Capacity
design is a popular concept that is also included in the
current Caltrans Bridge Design Specifications and many
other seismic design specifications and guidelines.
Nonlinear analytical studies have been performed to
determine the dynamic effect of P-fl moments. It was
found that a biased response could be prevented ifyield-
ing was limited by keeping the plastic base shear at a high
enough level. The following equation given in terms of
the ratio of the ultimate displacement, 0u' divided by the
average column height, H, was established to prevent
bridge columns from being significantly affected by P-fl
moments.

Full Ductility Structures

5r-----,----"'T':":-:-::---::-r-:-----,--:----, (3)
N
:ri 4 I----+-+---=r---l----j-----l
o
u
§ 3 1----+--7L--+----f-----+----I Because a typical bridge column has a drift value of
g approximately 0.03, this implies a minimum plastic base
ijl 2 f----r-+-t-=oot----I-----+----l shear coefficient of approximately 0.12 to prevent unac-
a:
(l)
ceptable P-fl effects. When Equation 3 is not satisfied,
~ 1~ ~=t===I====l=====I====+====l
r- the ATC-32 recommendations require that the response
Brittle elements not designed by capacity design
o 0~---:0:-':.5:-----':1----:-1"::.5--=---'--:-2-=--...:::....-='2.5 analysis directly consider geometric nonlinearities such
Period Ratio, TIT* as the P-fl effect.

Design
Umited Ductility Structures
5
N
A great deal of recent research has focused on the design
Well conliJed concrete lOlumns, _
:d4
o
U
(l)

( steel COluins and pile rafts ofvarious structural components. Much of this research
has been aimed at assuring the ductile behavior of these
§ 3 \ components during large earthquakes. This usually
Transversely loaded piers;
g /'( abutment walls and wing walls requires careful attention to detail in the affected mem-
ijl2

~~
a:
(l)
~ 1
~
o "- Brittle elements not designed by capacity design
o 0.5 1 1.5
Period Ratio, TIT*
Figure 1 Response modification factor Z
The ATC-32 project also reviewed simplified design
procedures for restrainer cables. Although the current
Caltrans approach is not technically correct, no other
simplified method seems to give better results. Because
of this, and the general feeling that restrainers are sec-
ondary to the practice of providing adequate seat widths
at expansion joints, no change in the current Caltrans
method is recommended.
The ATC-32 recommendations provide that, when-
ever feasible, nonductile components and actions are to
be designed using capacity design principles that con-
sider the possibility of overstrength in ductile compo-
bers. When ductile response is not possible, or when it is
undesirable to incur the damage that inelastic response
implies, capacity design principles are applied to assure a
2 2.5 failure mechanism that protects critical components
from inelastic behavior. The ATC-32 recommendations
contain several provisions that address these design
issues for reinforced concrete and structural steel com-
ponents. These requirements are discussed briefly in the
following paragraphs.
Reinforced Concrete
Modifications to several aspects of reinforced concrete
design have been proposed by the ATC-32 project. These
include the design of ductile elements, the design of
nonductile elements and actions using capacity design,
and detailing of reinforced concrete for seismic resis-
tance.
As with current Caltrans procedures, flexural design
of ductile reinforced concrete columns is based on elas-

8 Summary of Recommendations ATC-32

tic moment demands that are divided by the appropriate
Z factor. The elastic moment demands are determined
from an analysis that reasonably simulates the degraded
stiffness of the bridge during a large earthquake and thus
uses cracked section properties for the columns. In
determining moment capacity, expected material
strengths are used rather than nominal material
strengths. Although lower Z factors are used in the rec-
ommended design specifications, trial designs and col-
umn design studies using these recommendations
showed that longitudinal column reinforcing steel was
actually less than that required by the current Caltrans
design specifications in most cases. This was primarily
attributed to the use of cracked section properties for
analysis, which resulted in lower elastic force demands
and the use of expected material strengths, which
resulted in higher capacities. The recommended ATC-32
design specifications place a lower limit of 0.01 on the
longitudinal column reinforcing steel ratio and an upper
limit of 0.04.
An evaluation of the displacement capacity/demand
ratio for columns designed by the ATC-32 recommen-
dations indicates that their expected performance is
superior to columns designed by the current procedures,
although expected performance varied significantly from
column to column. Improvement was primarily due to
increased displacement capacities resulting from more
stringent confinement requirements. The recommended
requirement for the volumetric reinforcement ratio of
spirally reinforced columns is given by:
Ps = O.16f ce [ O.5+TA
1.25PJ +O.13[p[-O.Ol]
Tye ce g
where
fee = expected concrete strength
Ire= expected yield strength of the reinforcement
P= column axial load
Ag = gross column area
PI = longitudinal reinforcement ratio
An additional requirement, which is designed to prevent
inelastic buckling of the longitudinal reinforcing requires
a volumetric ratio for spirals that is linearly related to the
number oflongitudinal reinforcing bars. Improved pro-
visions for transverse reinforcement of tied columns and
piers have also been included. A provision that allows
spirals and hoops to be designed directly using plastic
moment-curvature analysis considering the required
plastic hinge rotation has also been added to the recom-
mended design specifications.
Revised column shear design criteria are recom-
mended, which are consistent with the format of current
American Concrete Institute (ACI) provisions. Column
ATC-32 Summary of Recommendations
shear strength is suggested to be the sum of a contribu-
tion from concrete, Ve, and a contribution from hori-
zontal reinforcing steel, Vs• The nominal concrete
contribution to shear resistance is given by
(5)
within plastic hinge zones, and by
(6)
outside of plastic hinges. In both cases Pe is equal to the
design axial compressive force in the column, A g is the
gross cross-sectional area and A e is the effective shear
area which is 0.8 A g for columns. Slightly modified ver-
sions of these formulas are recommended for columns
subjected to axial tension.
The nominal shear contribution from reinforcing is
given by
(7)
for tied rectangular sections, and by
(4)
(8)
for spirally reinforced circular sections. In these equa-
tions, A v is the total area of shear reinforcement parallel
to the applied shear force, A h is the area of a single hoop,
Irhis the yield stress of horizontal reinforcement, D' is
the diameter of a circular hoop, and 5 is the spacing of
horizontal reinforcement along the axis of the member.
Shear demands in ductile columns are higher than
those required by the current Caltrans specifications.
The recommendations call for determining plastic
moments using capacity design principles in a manner
similar to current practice. They differ, though, in that
plastic moments are based on expected rather than
nominal material strengths and a higher overstrength
factor of 1.4. Alternate methods are recommended for
calculating plastic moments, but these also result in high
shear demands. The net result of the recommended
ATC-32 shear provisions is an increase in the require-
ments for column shear reinforcement, although the
previously defined confinement requirements will usu-
9
ally control the design of horizontal column reinforce-
ment, except for relatively short columns.
New anchorage provisions from the 1995 ACI com-
mittee recommendations are adopted as part of the
ATC-32 recommended design specifications. These pro-
visions have more liberal bar spacing requirements than
the 1989 ACI provisions. They also provide a generalized
method for considering non-standard cover, spacing,
and transverse reinforcing steel in tied columns. In addi-
tion, ATC-32 has added a new anchorage equation for
spirally confined column reinforcement. This equation,
which is based on recent laboratory experiments, can
reduce anchorage length requirements within bent caps
and footings, thus making it practical to use large-
diameter bars (#14 and #18) without hooks. To achieve
these reduced lengths, significant confmement reinforce-
ment is required within anchorage zones unless the
zones are confined by prestress or solid adjacent mem-
bers.
If sufficient spiral confmement reinforcement is
provided, the ATC-32 recommendations also allow a
reduction in the splice length of column reinforcement.
Splices are prohibited within a zone that includes the
plastic hinge length plus the column diameter. Although
the ATC-32 recommendations for splicing were devel-
oped from laboratory testing that included large-
diameter bars, lap splicing of #14 and #18 bars is
discouraged.
Longitudinal bar sizes in short columns that are
subjected to high moment gradients are limited, due to
flexural bond requirements. The limitation on bar size is
derived from the equations developed for bar splicing.
New design requirements for shear and bending
within footing and superstructure joints are also recom-
mended in the proposed ATC-32 design specifications.
These requirements are based on laboratory test results
and have been used in the design of some Northridge
earthquake replacement structures. The proposal
requires that joints be capable of resisting plastic column
moments through a combination of concrete and rein-
forcing steel action. Joint reinforcing requirements are
based on the magnitude of principal tensile stresses
within the joint. When these stresses are below 3.5 Ye,
steel reinforcement is required to carry 50% of these
stresses. For tensile stresses above 3.5Ye, specific ver-
tical, horizontal, and spiral joint reinforcement is
required. This reinforcement, which is specified in terms
of fixed percentages of the longitudinal column steel
anchored in the joint, must be placed in the cap beam or
footing within a distance equal to one-half the column
diameter. In addition, principal compressive stresses
within the joint are limited to 0.25 f c'
10 Summary of Recommendations
Structural Steel
Steel seismic design guidelines, which are absent from
the current Caltrans BDS, have been developed as part
of the ATC-32 project. Construction and detailing
requirements for steel framing and various types of steel
joints likely to be used in bridge work are spelled out.
These requirements are directed toward moment-
resisting beam-to-column connections, diaphragms and
cross-bracing, slip-critical bolted connections, concen-
trically braced steel frames, and stiffened as well as
unstiffened box sections. In addition, recommendations
for the seismic design of conventional bridge bearings
have been developed.
Moment-resisting beam-to-column joints, which
are typical in building construction, can also be used in
bridge structures. In bridges, the strong beam/weak col-
umn principle is mandated and panel zone detailing
requirements are prescribed that preclude yielding
within the joint. The ATC-32 recommendations require
that joint regions be designed to force plastic hinges to
form in the column at some distance from the joint in
order to avoid the brittle joint failures experienced in
steel moment-resisting building frames during the 1994
Northridge earthquake. The recommendations include
additional detailing, slenderness, and compression
flange bracing requirements that are intended to prevent
local buckling and assure ductile behavior.
The transmission ofseismically induced forces must
have a clear load path into the substructure. Typically,
these forces will be transmitted through the deck by dia-
phragm action or upper flange lateral bracing into end
cross-bracing or diaphragms, and finally through the
bearings and anchor bolts. Internal cross-bracing will
only be used for seismic resistance if deck diaphragm
action or upper flange lateral bracing is inadequate. The
seismically induced forces, which must take into account
the concentration of force due to misalignment of bear-
ings, etc., should generally be resisted elastically. In
highly skewed or unusual structures, sophisticated three-
dimensional analysis techniques may be required to
determine these forces. Capacity design principles result-
ing from substructure yielding can be used to limit bear-
ing forces. In special cases, force reduction will be
allowed due to bearing movement, provided that the rel-
ative movements are within acceptable limits. The use of
roller and rocker bearings are discouraged, as are pot
bearings subjected to high vertical accelerations.
Concentric bracing, which must be designed to
remain elastic, must satisfy specific slenderness require-
ments. In general, at least 30 percent of the seismically
induced forces to be resisted by such bracing must be
resisted by members acting in tension.
In order to insure ductile behavior of stiffened and
unstiffened box sections, the revised BDS requires that
details for stiffened columns comply with certain slen-
ATC-32
derness requirements and that the amount ofyielding be
limited through the use of Z factors. Minimum shear
strength requirements for unstiffened knee joints are
also specified. Many of these requirements are based on
recent Japanese research on steel bridge columns
(Kawashima et al., 1992).
Foundations
Foundation design guidelines that have been developed
as part of the ATC-32 recommendations include provi-
sions for site investigation; determination ofsite stability;
and modeling and designing of abutments and wing-
walls, pile and spread footing foundations, drilled shafts,
and earth-retaining structures. For the most part, these
recommendations tend to validate current Caltrans
practice although there are suggested refinements in
some cases. They include the latest results of research,
for example, abutment research at University of Califor-
nia, Davis (Maroneyet al., 1992). It should be pointed
out, however, that many issues related to the effect of
foundations on total system response are still not fully
substantiated.
The recommendations include guidelines for con-
ducting geotechnical site investigations when there is a
potential for large earthquake loadings. These guidelines
outline the information to be collected during such an
investigation and constitute a standard of practice.
The ATC-32 recommendations require that poten-
tial bridge sites be investigated for possible ground insta-
bilities. Site stability is affected by several factors
including liquefiable soils, lateral spreading, the presence
of soft clay soils, slope hazards, and surface fault rup-
ture. The commentary to the ATC-32 recommendations
provides methods for identifying, and guidance on
quantitatively evaluating, these hazards. In addition,
practical methods for mitigating some of these hazards
are discussed.
With respect to the passive pressure generated at an
abutment during an earthquake, the ATC-32 recom-
mendations provide for a uniform ultimate passive pres-
sure of7.7 kips per square foot, as is current Caltrans
practice. This pressure, which is intended for typical
eight-foot high abutment walls, is reduced linearly for
shorter abutment walls. This pressure is developed at lat-
eral wall displacements of 0.01 to 0.02 times the wall
height. Special modeling consideration must be given to
expansion gaps, lateral pile stiffness and abutment skew
angle. Modeling of abutment stiffness follows the cur-
rent Caltrans procedure in which a trial and error
approach is used to find the appropriate secant stiffness
of the abutments.
The ATC-32 recommendations require that pile
foundations have sufficient capacity to resist forces and
moments transmitted from the rest of the structure. Lat-
eral strength and stiffness is provided by the piles and
ATC-32 Summary of Recommendations
passive pressure on the sides of the pile cap. Bending
strength and stiffness is generally assumed to be attribut-
able only to the piles themselves. In general, it is appro-
priate to use ultimate force and moment capacities that
are consistent with the performance criteria when
designing pile foundations. Individual piles must gener-
ally be capable of resisting axial loads in both tension and
compression, as well as lateral loads. The ATC-32 com-
mentary provides an extensive guideline for modeling
and designing pile foundations including design charts
for determining pile head stiffness under various condi-
tions. Some of these charts account for the soil overbur-
den at a pile foundation, which can often have a
significant impact on pile lateral stiffness and strength.
Pile shafts are essentially an extension of the bridge
column into the ground and are a special form of pile
foundation used frequently in California. The ATC-32
recommendations provide guidelines for choosing the
correct parameters for considering soil-pile interaction
when designing and modeling this type of foundation. In
addition, a more rational criteria is suggested for deter-
mining the required pile length for lateral stability.
Provisions for designing spread footings are also
included in the ATC-32 recommendations. This type of
foundation must carry the necessary earthquake-
induced loads without excessive settlement or overturn-
ing. The allowable area of uplift for different types of
footings is specified and some guidance is given for
determining appropriate settlements under earthquake
loads.
The ATC-32 recommendations also contain specific
requirements for the design of earth retaining systems.
In addition to being structurally capable of resisting
static and dynamic earth pressures, earth retaining sys-
tems should not experience excessive lateral or rota-
tional movements.
Concluding Remarks
The ATC-32 recommendations represent a significant
step forward in bridge seismic design specifications. They
are built on the previous efforts of Caltrans and thus
retain many of the features of the current Caltrans
Bridge Design Specifications. However, they do differ
from the current Caltrans approach in some fundamen-
tal ways.
It would be a mistake to assume that the ATC-32
recommendations fully address all issues. Even during
the course of the project, ongoing research efforts and
experience from actual earthquakes were advancing the
state-of-knowledge, requiring that modifications be
made to draft recommendations on an ongoing basis. As
Caltrans begins to implement these recommendations, it
is expected that further modifications and refinements
may be required.
11
 Revised Bridge Design Specifications
The current California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) Bridge Design Specifications (BDS) are a
modified version of the 1983 American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges with
Interim Specifications for 1984, 1985, and 1986. Caltrans
uses these specifications for seismic design in lieu of the
current AASHTO Division I-A seismic design specifica-
tions and the current AASHTO LRFD bridge design
specifications.
The following pages contain the recommended
changes and additions to the current Caltrans BDS. Arti-
cles that are unchanged have not been repeated in order
to save space. Because the current Caltrans BDS is a
comprehensive document covering many aspects of
bridge design in addition to seismic design, only a rela-
tively small portion has been revised as a part of the
ATC-32 project. To help the reader put these recom-
mended changes and additions in perspective, an article-
ATC-32 Revised Bridge Design Specifications
by-article listing of the entire BDS is included in Appen-
dixA.
The recommended changes are presented in a two-
column format with specifications in the left column and
commentary in the right. Article numbering is consistent
with the current BDS, but equation, figure, and table
numbers are given consecutively as they appear in the
recommended revisions. Separate consecutive equation,
figure and table numbering schemes are presented for
both the specifications and the commentary. This was
done because, as ofthis writing, Caltrans has not decided
which of the recommendations will be implemented.
When articles are not modified or when it is recom-
mended that they be deleted, a note indicating this
action is provided at the location where the article would
normally appear. In addition, the ATC-32 Project Engi-
neering Panel (PEP) made several comments regarding
various recommendations, which appear as footnotes
throughout the revised BDS.
13
Section 3
BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Articles 3.1 through 3.20 not modified.
3.21 SEISMIC EFFECTS 1
Bridge structures shall be designed according to the
provisions of Article 3.21 to resist earthquake motions,
considering the relationship of the site to potentially
active seismic sources, the seismic response of soils at
the site, and the dynamic response characteristics of the
total bridge.
1. These recommended revisions to the Bridge Design Specifications
are intended to reflect a more realistic assessment ofthe behavior of a
bridge in a large earthquake. They include significant changes to both
seismic design demands and capacities. Although the net effect of these
changes does not appear to result in designs that are radically different
from current bridge designs in most cases, there may be some bridge
configurations that are significantly affected. Although trial designs and
other analytical evaluations of these specifications have been per-
formed, they have been limited in scope and cannot fully evaluate the
impact of these specifications in all cases. Therefore, it is recommended
that further trial applications be conducted to assess the full impact of
implementing these provisions.
ATC-32 8DS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads
Loads
COMMENTARY
C3.21 SEISMIC EFFECTS
Article 3.21 describes design requirements for earth-
quake resistance. The requirements are based on two-
level performance criteria, intended to preserve func-
tionality after earthquakes having a reasonable probabil-
ity of occurring once or more during the design life of
the bridge and safety after earthquakes having very low
probability of occurring during the design life of the
bridge. Different requirements exist for Important and
Ordinary Bridges.
The specifications contained in Article 3.21 are con-
sidered to represent minimum requirements for produc-
ing a structure with adequate proportions and details to
enable the structure to resist earthquake effects without
critical loss in strength. The specifications are based on
the assumption that the structure resists the maximum
specified earthquake effects by virtue of the stiffness
reduction and energy dissipation that result from non-
linear response. It is important that the structure be laid
out and proportioned so that a viable load path exists to
transmit inertial loads to the foundation. It is equally
important that structural elements be provided with
details that enable the bridge to respond in a ductile
manner.
The specifications have been written with the expec-
tation that nonlinear action during a design earthquake
will be restricted to zones that have been selected and
specially detailed for ductility by the designer. The
design process is intended to result in inelastic action
restricted to these locations, with other locations pro-
tected from inelastic action. In most cases, inelastic
action should be designed to occur in flexure in support-
ing columns and pier walls. The reasons are: (1) cross
15
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

sections are well defined and procedures for detailing for

ductility are well established, effective, and economical;
(2) damage can often be readily inspected following an
earthquake; and (3) damage can be readily repaired fol-
lowing an earthquake. Except in unusual cases, the
design should explicitly aim to avoid inelastic response in
foundations and superstructures. Two exceptions are
extended pile shafts that are allowed to yield below grade
and abutments and wing walls that are allowed moder-
ate levels of inelastic response. Brittle failures should be
avoided in all members except sacrificial members
designed to act as fuses.
Although not specifically covered in this specifica-
tion, hydrodynamic effects, including drag and added
mass, should be considered where important.
The overall design approach is derived from earlier
Caltrans design specifications. Important modifications
include two-level performance criteria (Article 3.21.2),
restrictions on types of structural action (Article 3.21.3),
restrictions on types of analysis (Article 3.21.4), new ARS
spectra (Figures R3-1 through R3-12), reduced compo-
nent design stiffnesses (Article 3.21.6.3), inelastic analysis
methods (Articles 3.21.7 and 3.21.8), modified design
displacements (Article 3.21.10), new force reduction fac-
tors Z (Article 3.21.11), and P-t:.. restrictions (Article
3.21.15). The calculated design displacements are likely
to exceed those obtained using the previous specifica-
tions for similar bridge structures.

3.21.1 Notation

A = Estimated mean acceleration at bedrock or

"rocklike" material from the safety-evaluation
earthquake.
A a = Effective peak acceleration-related acceleration
used in Table RC3-2.
A., = Effective peak velocity-related acceleration used
in Table RC3-3.
ARS = Five-percent-damped elastic acceleration
response spectrum at the site, expressed in
terms ofg.
d, = Total thickness of cohesive soil layers in upper
100 ft. at site.
di = Thickness of soil layer i
d s = Total thickness of cohesionless soil layers in the
upper 100 ft. at site.
F = The total uniform force applied to the
superstructure that will cause a one-inch
maximum horizontal deflection in the direction
of loading. This force represents the total
stiffness including the stiffness of the
superstructure, supporting members, and
surrounding soil. Units shall be consistent with
W.

16 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

Fa = Soil amplification factor for the acceleration

controlled part of the rock spectrum (Soil
profile type B).
Fv = Soil amplification factor for the velocity
controlled part of the rock spectrum (Soil
profile type B).
g = Acceleration due to gravity.
H = Maximum height of supporting member for a
frame between superstructure hinges.
Hi = Standard penetration resistance of soil layer i
N = Generalized standard penetration resistance for
upper 100 feet at site (commentary to Article
3.21.5.2).
Nch = Generalized standard penetration resistance for
only the cohesionless layers at site (commentary
to Article 3.21.5.2).
PI = Plasticity index of clay soil.
Rd = Amplification factor applied to elastic modal
spectral displacements to obtain design
displacements.
R = Five-percent-damped mean elastic acceleration
response spectra on rock (magnitude and
distance dependent).
S = Soil amplification spectral ratio.
Su = Undrained shear strength.
Su = Generalized undrained shear strength of the site
(commentary to Article 3.21.5.2).
Sui = Undrained shear strength of soil layer i
T = Fundamental period of vibration, in seconds, of
the bridge as a whole. For Equivalent Static
Analysis, compute T for entry to the ARS curves
by the expression

T = 0.32JWIF

T = Characteristic ground motion period,

corresponding to the peak of the input energy
spectrum. Values ofT* are given in Table RC3-
4.
V o = Base shear strength of a frame between
superstructure hinges, determined by plastic
analysis.
Vs = Generalized shear wave velocity for upper 100
ft. at a site (commentary to Article 3.21.5.2).
vsi = Shear wave velocity for soil layer i
W = Dead load of bridge or frame. Units shall be
consistent with F.
Z = Force reduction coefficient, see Figure 3-13
Ou = Maximum design displacement of a frame, from
Section 3.21.10.1.

ATC-32 8DS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads 17

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

3.21.2 Performance Criteria C3.21.2 Performance Criteria

All bridges shall be designed to meet the seismic perfor- Table R3-1 presents a matrix: of seismic performance
mance criteria given in Table R3-1. Definitions of the objectives defined as a function of ground motion at the
terms in Table R3-1 are given in Articles 3.21.2.1 site and the criticality/importance of the bridge
through 3.21.2.3. structure.

Table R3-1 Seismic performance criteria

Ground Motion at Site Ordinary Bridges Important Bridges

Functional-Evaluation Service Level - Immediate Service Level- Immediate

Ground Motion Repairable Damage Minimal Damage

Safety-Evaluation Service Level- Limited Service Level - Immediate

Ground Motion Significant Damage Repairable Damage

3.21.2.1 Bridge Category C3.21.2.1 Bridge Category

Each bridge shall be classified as either Important or
Ordinary, as follows:
(a) Important Bridge: Any bridge satisfying one or
more of the following:
.... required to provide secondary life safety
.... time for restoration of functionality after closure
would create a major economic impact
Two bridge categories are defined. A bridge providing
access to an emergency facility is an example of a bridge
that might be required to provide secondary life safety. A
bridge that serves as a major link in the transportation
system is an example of one whose loss (even tempo-
rary) might create a major economic impact. Normally,
it will be the responsibility of the owner to select the
appropriate bridge category.

.... formally designated by a local emergency plan as

critical.

(b) Ordinary Bridge: Any bridge not classified as an

Important Bridge.

3.21.2.2 Evaluation Levels C3.21.2.2 Evaluation Levels

(a) Safety-Evaluation Ground Motion: This ground
motion may be assessed either deterministically or
probabilistically. The deterministic assessment cor-
responds to the maximum credible earthquake
(MCE), as defined by the Division of Mines and
Geology Open File Report 92-1 (CDMG, 1992). A
probabilistically assessed ground motion is one
with a long return period (approximately
1000-2000 years).
For Important Bridges both methods shall be given
consideration; however, the probabilistic evaluation
shall be reviewed by a Caltrans-approved consensus
group. For Ordinary Bridges, the motions shall be based
only on the deterministic evaluation.
In writing this specification, it has been assumed that
Ordinary Bridges will automatically meet the perfor-
mance criteria for the functional-evaluation ground
motion if they are designed to meet the performance cri-
teria for the safety-evaluation ground motion following
the specifications in Sections 3, 4, 8, and 9. Therefore, an
explicit functional evaluation is not required for Ordi-
nary Bridges. Both the functional evaluation and the
safety evaluation are required for Important Bridges.
The definition of ground motions for design earth-
quakes and the role of probabilistic and deterministic
methods are subjects of continuing study. Revisions to
the definition of ground motion levels, including updat-
ing or revision of the Division of Mines and Geology

18 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
(b) Functional-Evaluation Ground Motion: This is a
probabilistically assessed ground motion that has a
60 percent probability of not being exceeded dur-
ing the useful life of the bridge. The determination
of this event is to be reviewed by a Caltrans-
approved consensus group.
3.21.2.3 Service Levels and Damage Levels
The following performance levels, expressed in terms of
service levels and damage levels are defined as follows:
(a) Service Levels
.... Immediate: Full access to normal traffic is avail-
able almost immediately following the earth-
quake.
.... Limited: Limited access (e.g., reduced lanes, light
emergency traffic) is possible within days of the
earthquake. Full service is restorable within
months.
(b) Damage Levels
.... Minimal Damage: Essentially elastic performance.
.... Repairable Damage: Damage that can be repaired
with a minimum risk oHosing functionality.l
.... Significant Damage: A minimum risk of collapse,
but damage that would require closure to repair.
1. There is still a need to define repairable damage quantitatively in
terms of allowable material strain or some other measurable physical
characteristic for both steel and reinforced concrete members. To a
certain degree, this becomes a subjective decision since different indi-
viduals view repairability differently. This issue was considered by the
PEP, but the wide range of opinion prevented consensus from being
achieved within the limited time available for this issue. Some discus-
sion of allowable strain levels is included in the companion ATC-32-1
Resource Document.
ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads
COMMENTARY
Open File Report 92-1 (CDMG, 1992), maybe incorpo-
rated in subsequently revised specifications.
Depending on the seismic activity of a given region,
the deterministic and probabilistic assessments may be
different. For example, the deterministic ground motion
assessments using the mean ARS spectra for the MCE in
the San Francisco Bay region correspond to return peri-
ods of about 300 to 400 years.
In the future, the role of the two methods in the
design of Ordinary Bridges will be reviewed by a Cal-
trans-approved consensus group.
C3.21.2.3 Service Levels and Damage Levels
These specifications are intended to produce bridge
designs consistent with these performance levels. How-
ever, the state-of-the-art in seismic design and the gen-
eral nature ofthis document are such that it is difficult to
guarantee that the performance levels will be achieved in
all cases. Designers should review the specific character-
istics of their projects and make a judgment as to
whether additional design features are necessary to
achieve the required performance.
With respect to damage levels, the following behav-
ior of concrete structures is intended.
• Minimal Damage: Although minor inelastic
response may occur, postearthquake damage is lim-
ited to narrow cracking in concrete. Permanent
deformations are not apparent.
• Repairable Damage: Inelastic response may occur,
resulting in concrete cracking, reinforcement yield,
and minor spalling of cover concrete. The extent of
damage should be sufficiently limited that the struc-
ture can be restored essentially to its pre-earthquake
condition without replacement of reinforcement or
replacement of structural members. Repair should
not require closure. Permanent offsets should be
avoided.
• Signiftcant Damage: Although there is minimum risk
of collapse, permanent offsets may occur and dam-
age consisting of cracking, reinforcement yielding,
and major spalling of concrete may require closure
to repair. Partial or complete replacement may be
required in some cases.
19
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
3.21.3 Structural Action
For design purposes, each structure shall be categorized
according to its intended structural action under hori-
zontal seismic loading. Categories are defined in (a)
through (d) below. Important Bridges shall not be
designed as Full-Ductility Structures.
(a) Full-Ductility Structure
Under horizontal loading, a plastic mechanism is
intended to develop. The plastic mechanism shall be
defined clearly as part of the design. Intended yielding
shall be restricted to locations that are readily accessible
for inspection following a design earthquake. Inelastic
action is intended to be restricted to flexural plastic
hinges in columns and pier walls and inelastic soil
deformation behind abutment walls and wingwalls.
Details and proportions shall ensure large ductility
capacity under load reversals without significant
strength loss.
(b) Limited-Ductility Structure
Under horizontal loading, a plastic mechanism as
described for Full-Ductility Structures is intended to
develop, but with reduced ductility demands. Yielding
may occur in areas that are not readily accessible for
inspection. Inelastic action is intended to be restricted
to flexural plastic hinges in columns and pier walls, and
inelastic soil deformation behind abutment walls and
wingwalls. Detailing and proportioning requirements
are the same as those required for Full-Ductility Struc-
tures.
(c) Elastic Structure
This is a structure that is intended to remain elastic up
to the design load under combined vertical and hori-
zontalloadings.
(d) Structure with Protective Systems
This is a structure incorporating seismic isolation, pas-
sive energy dissipating devices, or other mechanical
devices to control seismic response. Under horizontal
loading, a plastic mechanism mayor may not be
intended to form. The occurrence of a plastic mecha-
nism shall be determined by analysis.
20 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads
COMMENTARY
C3.21.3 Structural Action
It is intended that the design engineer make explicit
selections regarding the intended structural perfor-
mance, including locations of inelastic action that might
be implicit in the design. Furthermore, it is desirable
that Important Bridges and bridges having inelastic
action in locations where inspection is difficult be
designed for limited ductility so that expected damage is
reduced in comparison with Ordinary Bridges in which
full inspection is feasible. It may also be desirable in
some exceptional cases to design for elastic response or
to use protective systems. Therefore, each structure
should be categorized according to the classifications (a)
through (d) of Article 3.21.3.
Design force levels for Full-Ductility Structures,
Limited-Ductility Structures, and Elastic Structures are
different in this specification (Article 3.21.11). The force
reduction coefficients, Z, are smaller for Limited-Ductil-
ity Structures than for Full-Ductility Structures. The
force reduction coefficients for Elastic Structures should
be taken equal to unity.
Illustrations of Full-Ductility Structures and
Limited-Ductility Structures are given in Figure RC3-1.
(a) Full-Ductility Structure:
- Ordinary bridge
- Accessible plastic hinge location
(b) Limited-Ductility Structure:
- Important bridge
- Accessible plastic hinge location
(c) Limited-Ductility Structure:
- Important or ordinary bridge
- Inaccessible plastic hinge location
Figure RC3-1 ILlustrations of fuLL ductility structures
and Limited ductiLity structures.
Qualitative descriptions follow.
• Full-Ductility Structure: This is a structure that is
detailed for inelastic response. Its design is intended
ATC-32
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

to take full advantage of the available ductility

capacity under the safety-evaluation earthquake
loading. Because the inelastic deformation demands
may approach deformation capacities, significant
damage, as described in the commentary to Article
3.21.2, is expected for the safety-evaluation earth-
quake. Given the expected damage, Full-Ductility
Structures should be restricted to Ordinary Bridges,
with inelastic response occurring in locations that
can be inspected and repaired readily following an
earthquake. Classes of structures that should not be
designed as Full-Ductility Structures include
Important Bridges and Ordinary Bridges with
inelastic response occurring below grade, where
inspection is difficult.

Extended pile shafts are often proportioned so that

flexural plastic hinges form below grade. Because
these cannot be inspected readily for damage, such
extended pile shaft structures should not be
designed as Full-Ductility Structures.

Proportions and details for Full-Ductility Structures

should ensure large ductility capacity under load
reversals and/or unidirectional pulse-type motions
from near-fault effects without significant strength
loss. The provisions of Sections 8 and 10 are
intended to satisfy this requirement.

Preferably, inelastic response will be restricted to

column and pier wall plastic hinges and inelastic
soil deformation behind abutment walls and wing-
walls. Inelastic response of superstructure elements
may cause damage that is difficult to inspect and
costly to repair. Furthermore, extensive plastic hing-
ing in superstructure elements tends to result in
residual deformations that may make the structure
unserviceable and unrepairable. Therefore, super-
structure hinging under design horizontal earth-
quake forces should be avoided, preferably by using
the capacity design approach of Article 3.21.14. A
moderate level of inelastic response under vertical
input motions may need to be accepted for eco-
nomic reasons.

• Limited-Ductility Structure: This is a structure that

is detailed for inelastic response in the same manner
as a Full-Ductility Structure, but whose design is
not intended to take full advantage of the available
ductility capacity under the safety-evaluation earth-
quake loading (see Article 3.21.11.). Because the
intended inelastic deformation demands do not
approach deformation capacities, significant dam-
age, as described in the commentary to Article

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads 21

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

3.21.2, is not expected for the safety-evaluation

earthquake. Instead, repairable damage, as
described in the commentary to Article 3.21.2, is
expected. The reduced damage expectation makes
this designation appropriate for Important Bridges
and for any bridge in which inelastic response is
expected in an inaccessible location. Included in
this latter category are bridges with extended pile
shafts, where inelastic action is expected below
grade.

Ordinary Bridges with accessible plastic hinge loca-

tions, which normally are designed as Full-Ductility
Structures, may be designed as Limited-Ductility
Structures if it is desired to reduce the damage level.
This applies particularly to structures located in the
near-source region that could be subjected to ener-
getic, unidirectional pulse-type motions. Where
reduced damage is the objective, the design engi-
neer should consider checking deformation capaci-
ties using Inelastic Static Analysis, as described in
Article 3.21.7.

Because it is desirable that Limited-Ductility Struc-

tures have large reserve inelastic deformation capac-
ity, the proportioning and detailing requirements
are the same as those for Full-Ductility Structures.
Therefore, the standard details specified in Sections
8 and 10 may be used without modification. For
Important Bridges, the results of Inelastic Static
Analysis may indicate the need for enhanced details.

As with Full-Ductility Structures, it is preferred that

inelastic response be restricted to column and pier
wall plastic hinges, and to inelastic soil deformation
behind abutment walls and wingwalls. Superstruc-
ture hinging under design horizontal earthquake
forces should be avoided, preferably by using the
capacity design approach of Article 3.21.14. A mod-
erate level of inelastic response under vertical input
motions may need to be accepted for economic rea-
sons.

• Elastic Structure: This is a structure that is intended

to remain elastic under the safety-evaluation earth-
quake loading. For this reason, proportioning and
detailing requirements may be relaxed somewhat
from those required for Full-Ductility Structures
and Limited-Ductility Structures. However, because
inelastic response may occur for loadings exceeding
the design earthquake loading, the structure should
be provided with considerable ductility capacity,
and the capacity design approach should be used to
prevent brittle failure modes from occurring. Spe-

22 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
3.21.4 Structural Design Requirements
A structure may be designed by any approved method
satisfying the requirements of statics and kinematics if
the structural actions of Article 3.21.3 are identified
clearly and if experimental evidence and analysis dem-
onstrate that the performance criteria of Article 3.21.2
are satisfied.
Except for sites close to potentially active seismic
sources, sites with unusual geologic conditions, and
unusual structures, the requirements of the preceding
paragraph may be satisfied as follows:
(a) The initial design is to be based on either Equiva-
lent Static Analysis (Article 3.21.5) or Elastic
Dynamic Analysis (Article 3.21.6), as indicated in
Table R3-2. These analysis methods use linear elas-
tic analysis of the bridge structure to determine the
design displacements (Article 3.21.10) and design
forces (Article 3.21.11). Actions on restraining fea-
tures (Article 3.21.12) are also determined. Stan-
dard member details are adopted, as specified in
Sections 8 and 10.
ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads
COMMENTARY
cific design proportioning and detailing require-
ments for Elastic Structures have not been
established. Proportioning and detailing criteria
should be established for individual bridges. These
criteria should be independently reviewed.
It is emphasized that the ARS spectra used to estab-
lish the safety-evaluation loading represent mean
response spectra, rather than upper bound spectra.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that all potential earth-
quake sources are identified on current hazard
maps, and it is also unlikely that the potential
ground motions associated with known sources are
completely defined by current knowledge. There-
fore, response amplitudes exceeding the calculated
design values are not unexpected. This is why struc-
tures designated as Elastic Structures should be
designed to have some ductility capacity, even
though the intention is for effectively elastic struc-
tural performance.
• Structure with Protective Systems: The specification
allows for design of structures with protective sys-
tems, including seismic isolation devices, passive
energy dissipating devices, and other mechanical
devices to control seismic response. This document
does not include explicit provisions for structures
with protective systems. Criteria should be estab-
lished for individual bridges. These criteria should
be independently reviewed.
C3.21.4 Structural Design Requirements
General Considerations
Articles 3.21.4 through 3.21.15 present design specifica-
tions that are considered adequate for design of typical
structures intended to meet the performance criteria of
Article 3.21.2. These specifications were developed on
the basis of analysis, experimentation, and experience.
Alternate approaches to design are permitted where it is
demonstrated by experimental evidence and analysis
that the performance criteria of 3.21.2 are satisfied, and
where the alternate approaches are approved by a Cal-
trans-approved consensus group. Alternate approaches
may be particularly desirable for unusual and complex
structures, for unusual geologic conditions, and for sites
adjacent to active faults.
Design of structures near active faults requires con-
sideration of the effects of near-source ground motions.
At least four effects are prominent. The first of these is
high effective peak ground acceleration, which is
accounted for to some degree by the ARS curves.
23
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
800
-800 L-.l..-.l..-.L-.L-...l--'--'---L---L-L-L-L----'---l.---L--l---JI....-I.-L.-.I..-..l----'--_..J._~
120
-30 L-L.-.l...-.L-..llJ--..l--'--'---L---L-L-L-L----'---l.---L--l---JI.-I.-l...-.::':-.L--'---'--'-.:!c!--l.--L--L--L-::J
o 15
TIME (SEC)
Figure RC3-2 North-South Ground motion recorded at
SyLmar, January 17, 1994.
(b) Inelastic Dynamic Analysis (Article 3.21.8) may be
used to refine design requirements determined in
Article 3.21.4(a), except that design displacements,
design forces, and quantities of transverse rein-
forcement shall not be less than 80 percent ofval-
ues required by Elastic Dynamic Analysis.
(c) Either Inelastic Static Analysis (Article 3.21.7) or
Inelastic Dynamic Analysis (Article 3.21.8) shall be
used to verify deformation capacity ofthe structure
in the Safety Evaluation of the Important Bridge
Category having Configuration Type II (Table R3-
2). Inelastic Static Analysis shall not be used as the
basis for reducing design quantities required by
Elastic Dynamic Analysis.
In Table R3-2, a Configuration Type I bridge is one
with continuous superstructure, well-balanced spans,
supporting bents with approximately equal stiffness,
and insignificant vertical response. Bridges in this cate-
gory may include one- and two-span bridges with short
spans, with small skew, and without intermediate
superstructure hinges. A Configuration Type II bridge is
one with intermediate superstructure hinges, irregular
configuration, bents ofnonuniform stiffness, significant
skew, or spans likely to be excited by vertical input
motion.
24 8DS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads
COMMENTARY
MAX· 8?6.c
__.L_'__'
I i
".r . -128.9 l
MAX • ~32.5
.,
20 25 30
The second is that near-source ground motions may
contain large amounts of energy in long-duration, unidi-
rectional pulses (Singh, 1981; Singh, 1985). The pulse-
type motions were first observed in near-fault recordings
of the 1966 Parkfield earthquake. A more recent exam-
ple, from the 1994 Sylmar record of the Northridge
earthquake is given in Figure RC3-2. The magnitude-
and distance-dependent ARS curves for acceleration val-
ues of 0.5, 0.6, and 0.7 g do contain some pulse-related
long-period energy.
The third effect is that source directivity causes dif-
ferences between fault-normal and fault-parallel
motions at periods longer than one-half second (Singh,
1981; Singh, 1985; Singh, 1995; and Somerville, et al.,
1995). The magnitude- and distance-dependent ARS
curves are for average near-fault conditions and can be
modified to fault-normal and fault-parallel conditions
using the factors proposed by Sommerville et al. (1995).
The fourth effect is that the ratio ofvertical to hori-
zontal spectra at short periods is much larger than the
commonly assumed ratio of two-thirds. Some additional
discussion of the effects of near-source ground motions
on structural response is included in the commentary to
Article 3.21.10.
Description of Recommended Design Procedure
Table R3-2 describes the minimum analysis require-
ments. The requirements vary with bridge category, con-
figuration type, and evaluation level (functional or
safety). The two bridge categories include Ordinary
ATC-32
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

Table R3-2 Minimum Required Analysis Bridges and Important Bridges, as described in Article
3.21.2. Configuration Type I is intended to include
Functional Safety bridges with simple response characteristics, including
Evaluation Evaluation bridges with continuous superstructure, well-balanced
spans, supporting bents with approximately equal stiff-
Ordinary Bridge None Required AorB ness, and insignificant vertical response. Configuration
Type I Type II is intended to include bridges with more com-
Ordinary Bridge None Required B plex response characteristics that are unlikely to be rep-
Type II resented well by Equivalent Static Analysis, including
Important Bridge AorB AorB bridges with intermediate superstructure hinges, irregu-
Type I lar configuration, bents of nonuniform stiffness, signifi-
Important Bridge B BandC cant skew, or spans likely to be excited by vertical input
Type II motion. Bridges with such irregularities may also be
more vulnerable to near-fault motions.
Analysis method "A" is Equivalent Static Analysis (Arti- According to Table R3-2, the design of a bridge is to
cle 3.21.5); analysis method "B" is Elastic Dynamic be based on either Equivalent Static Analysis or Elastic
Analysis (Article 3.21.6); and analysis method "c" is Dynamic Analysis procedures, depending on the config-
Inelastic Static Analysis (Article 3.21.7) or Inelastic uration type and importance. According to these proce-
Dynamic Analysis (Article 3.21.8)1 dures, a linear elastic model of the bridge is analyzed for
the ARS or site-specific spectra to determine forces and
displacements. Design forces in plastic hinge regions are
taken equal to forces obtained from the elastic analysis
divided by the force reduction coefficient Z obtained
from Article 3.21.11. Forces outside plastic hinge regions,
and shears in plastic hinges, are determined using the
capacity design approach, as specified in Article 3.21.14.
Design displacements are taken as equal to the displace-
ments obtained from the elastic analysis factored by Rd,
as specified in Article 3.21.10.
For Important Bridges, Inelastic Static Analysis or
Inelastic Dynamic Analysis is required to verify the
deformation capacity of the structure for the safety-eval-
uation earthquake. In most cases, Inelastic Static Analy-
sis will be used. Where Inelastic Static Analysis or
Inelastic Dynamic Analysis indicate that the deformation
capacity is inadequate, the structure is to be modified (by
changing stiffness, strength, details, configuration, or
some other parameters) until all deficiencies are elimi-
nated. Where Inelastic Dynamic Analysis shows that the
bridge is overdesigned, design quantities may be reduced
by up to 20 percent, provided that the revised design is
adequate according to the Inelastic Dynamic Analysis.
Inelastic Static Analysis may not be used as the sole basis
for reducing design quantities.
Although inelastic analysis is required only for
Important Bridges, Inelastic Static Analysis is encour-
1. Caltrans has indicated its intent to use nonlinear static analysis in
conjunction with elastic dynamic analysis as a routine design proce- aged for all bridges because of the insight that it may
dure. The PEP endorses this approach since it gives the designer provide into the behavior of the structure and its design
greater insight into the potential seismic behavior of the bridge being requirements.
designed. Also, adopting a two-step design approach at this time will
make it easier to implement a true two-level design approach in the
future. A true two-level design approach, which many PEP members
feel is a worthwhile goal for Caltrans, would involve force design at the
functional-evaluation level and a displacement design check at the
safety-evaluation level.

ATC-32 8DS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads 25

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

Considerations Leading to Recommended Design

Procedure

Several considerations influenced the recommendations

for minimum analysis requirements in Table R3-2. Some
of these are summarized below.
For one- or two-span bridges with monolithic abut-
ments, the superstructure is likely to respond effectively
as a rigid body. Furthermore, for structures in which the
skew is small, the lateral stiffness is likely to be con-
trolled by the abutments. A moderately sophisticated
Elastic Dynamic Analysis model will not provide much
insight into response beyond that which may be
obtained by Equivalent Static Analysis. For this reason,
Equivalent Static Analysis is specified as a minimum for
Type I bridges.
Bridge dynamic response is influenced by skew.
Therefore, for short-span bridges with significant skew
(exceeding 30 degrees), Equivalent Static Analysis is not
allowed. Elastic Dynamic Analysis is required instead.
For multi-span, continuous bridges having uniform
support conditions and small skew, static analysis is
likely to provide an adequate measure of expected
response. However, Elastic Dynamic Analysis is pre-
ferred for the purpose of assessing lateral displacements
and the effects of higher modes. The abutment stiffness
is likely to dominate response for many of these struc-
tures. Therefore, for Elastic Dynamic Analysis it is essen-
tial to correctly model the abutment stiffness and mass
properties.
For skewed bridges, curved bridges, and bridges
with intermediate superstructure hinges, static methods
are not likely to provide a realistic assessment of ex-
pected response. Elastic Dynamic Analysis including all
significant vibration modes is preferred as a minimum.
Variation of subsurface conditions along the length
of a bridge may result in significant variations in ground
motions at different supports. Similarly, long bridges are
subjected to spatial and temporal variations of ground
motion along the length even when subsurface condi-
tions are constant. Elastic Dynamic Analysis is preferred
for analyzing such structures. The commentary to Arti-
cle 3.21.6 describes a simple and approximate approach
to deal with these problems.
For long-span bridges and bridges with outriggers
or C-bents, vertical response may be significant. In the
design of such bridges, vertical response should be con-
sidered directly in a response-spectrum analysis of an
elastic model that includes all significant vibration
modes. Bridges with unbalanced spans may be prone to
global torsional responses that result in increased flex-
ural deformation demands on some elements. Elastic
Dynamic Analysis is more appropriate for these struc-
tures than is Equivalent Static Analysis.

26 8DS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

Bridge response to the safety-evaluation earthquake

and, in particular, to the near-source motions of this
event is likely to involve significant levels of inelastic
response. Linear elastic analysis provides only an
approximation of the expected response, and could be
seriously in error in certain cases. This is especially true
for skewed bridges, bridges with in-span expansion
joints, and highly irregular bridges. Inelastic analysis
methods are likely to provide an improved representa-
tion of actual inelastic response. Therefore, for Impor-
tant Bridges of configuration Type II it is required to
carry out either an Inelastic Static Analysis or Inelastic
Dynamic Analysis to check that the final design is ade-
quate. Inelastic response analysis is likely to provide an
improved set of design values for Ordinary Bridges as
well; for these bridges it is encouraged but not required.
While inelastic analysis is likely to better represent
response than linear elastic analysis, the engineer must
understand that all analysis procedures are approximate.
The inherent uncertainties in the specification of the
ground motion, behavior ofthe soil and foundation, and
the anticipated behavior of the structural components
make the analysis results uncertain. Although current
analysis and design procedures do not explicitly account
for the uncertainty, the engineer must recognize it as a
fundamental characteristic of the design problem.
Assumptions and estimates in the model must be judged
against the uncertainty in the complete problem. Fur-
thermore, design proportions and details must be judged
against these uncertainties as well, with final selections
making allowance for the possibility that the analysis
results might err nonconservatively. Experience with
modern bridges in California indicates that current
strength requirements and detailing practices produce
structures that perform adequately despite all the uncer-
tainties in the design environment. It is for this reason
that the specification does not permit more than a 20-
percent reduction in the standard requirements even
when Inelastic Dynamic Analysis indicates a greater
reduction is warranted.
When Inelastic Static Analysis is carried out, the tar-
get displacement is commonly gauged from results of a
linear elastic analysis model. Several uncertainties are
therefore introduced, including ground motion repre-
sentation, displacement estimation, and phasing of
orthogonal responses. For this reason, the specification
does not permit reductions from the standard require-
ments based solely on Inelastic Static Analysis.
The specifications were written to allow for both a
functional evaluation and a safety evaluation for any
bridge, although the functional evaluation is not
required for Ordinary Bridges. For the safety-evaluation
earthquake, the designer must consider the following:

ATC-32 80S Recommendations, Section 3: Loads 27

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
3.21.5 Equivalent Static Analysis
3.21.5.1 Application of Lateral Loads
Seismic load shall be assumed as an equivalent static
horizontal force applied to individual frames. The total
applied force shall be equal to the product of ARS and
lv, but not less than 0.4W. The lateral force may be
applied at the vertical center of mass, and shall be dis-
tributed in the horizontal plane in proportion either
with the mass distribution or with the product of the
mass distribution and displaced shape.
28 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads
COMMENTARY
• Overall response amplitudes must be controlled to
preclude pounding between adjacent structures of
different height (pounding at expansion joints is
considered acceptable and pounding of adjacent
structures of equal height may be acceptable) and
instability due to P-Ll effects.
• Local plastic deformation demands in members
selected for inelastic response must be less than
plastic deformation capacities. For Ordinary
Bridges, the specifications do not require that any
damage be "repairable." For Important Bridges,
replacement of a structure may involve delays. For
these structures, the plastic demands must be con-
trolled sufficiently so that members can be
"restored" to near their original condition.
• Other members must be protected from inelastic
response, and nonductile failure modes should be
avoided in all members.
For the functional-evaluation earthquake, the anal-
ysis is applied to a structure for which a safety evaluation
would also be required. Therefore, it would not be nec-
essary to check pounding (between adjacent structures),
instability, and demands in capacity-protected mem-
bers. Instead, the analysis would be limited to checking
demands at locations where plastic hinges are allowed to
form in the safety-evaluation earthquake. Some inelastic
response is acceptable so long as damage requiring repair
is avoided.
(3.21.5 Equivalent Static Analysis
The specification permits use of Equivalent Static Analy-
sis for one- and two-span continuous structures with
small skew, even though it is recognized that dynamic
response will occur during an earthquake. The rationale
is that, in most cases, moderately sophisticated dynamic
analysis will not provide significant additional insight
into behavior, and will not in general result in additional
safety. The engineer should recognize that the Equiva-
lent Static Analysis method is best suited for structures
with well-balanced spans and supporting elements of
approximately equal stiffness. For these structures,
response is primarily in a single mode and the lateral
force distribution is simply defined. For unbalanced sys-
tems, or systems in which vertical accelerations may be
significant, the Elastic Dynamic Analysis method of Arti-
cle 3.21.6 should be used.
Two options in applying Equivalent Static Analysis
are allowed. In the first option, lateral load is distributed
to the superstructure in proportion with the mass distri-
bution. This distribution is consistent with the assump-
ATC-32
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
3.21.5.2 Seismic Loading
Five-percent-damped elastic ARS response curves from
Figures R3-1 through R3-12, or from equivalent site-
specific elastic response spectra, shall be used as the
static loading. Standard soil profiles in Figures R3-1
through R3-12 shall be as defined in Table R3-3.
ATC-32 BOS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads
COMMENTARY
tion that the superstructure displaces as a rigid body. In
reality, the superstructure deforms under the action of
lateral load, resulting in lateral inertial forces that are not
precisely in proportion with the mass distribution. The
second method, which is more theoretically rigorous,
specifies that the lateral load should be applied in pro-
portion with the product of the mass distribution and
the displaced shape. A simple means of employing the
second method is as follows: (1) Apply lateral load to the
superstructure in proportion with the mass distribution,
and monitor the resulting displaced shape of the super-
structure. (2) Redefine the lateral load to be in propor-
tion with the product of superstructure mass and the
displaced shape obtained from step (1). This second
approach is recommended in the AASHTO guide speci-
fications. Although it is more theoretically rigorous, the
AASHTO approach is not required as part of this specifi-
cation because it is believed that the added rigor does not
add appreciably to the design outcome for this class of
structure.
The minimum lateral force ofOAWis unchanged
from the value contained in the current Caltrans Bridge
Design Specifications.
C3.21.5.2 Seismic Loading
Some aspects of the ground motion representation are
presented below.
Ground Motion Representation
The new procedure for developing seismic loading
maintains the deterministic ARS approach.
A: Peak Rock Acceleration. This procedure still uses
the deterministic A values obtained from the CDMG
Open File Report 92-1 entitled "Peak Acceleration from
Maximum Credible Earthquakes in California Rock and
Stiff Soil Sites." The peak acceleration values reported in
these maps are mean values obtained using the CDMG
(1992) attenuation relationships. It is understood that
Caltrans is in the process of updating the acceleration
attenuation relationships in order to produce a new map
of peak acceleration values.
R: Rock Spectra. The existing Caltrans R curve for
rock (depth of alluvium 0-10 feet) are magnitude-inde-
pendent. The new rock spectra R have been modified to
become magnitude- and distance-dependent. The spec-
tral shapes for acceleration values between 0.1 and O.7g
(in 0.1 g increments) for three magnitude groups
(6.5±0.25, 7.25±0.25, and 8.0±0.25) are shown in Fig-
ures R3-1 through R3-3. These spectra are for Califor-
nia-type rock and correspond to NEHRP Soil Profile
Type B. These curves are a reasonable upper bound of
29
 2.0 r--,--..,.--....---....---..,...-.,---.,---..,-----r---,--,...--.,......--r---r--...,....-....,

1.6
SOIL PROFILE TYPE B (ROCK)
MAGNITUDE: 6.5± 0.25

z
o
i=
-< 1.2
cr.
w
--'
w
U
U
-<
;i 0.8
cr.
f-
U
w
0..
(/)

0.4

2 3 4
PERIOD (sec)

50 I I I I I I I I I
I I I
I I I

f- -
40 I-- -
~

.s:
f-
f- -
Z
w
:::2
W
30 I-- -
U
-<
-'
0..
(/)
f- -
0
-'
-< 20 I-- -
cr.
f-
U
W
0..
f- -
(/)
0.60
10 I--
0.50 -

I-

o
o 2 3 4
PERIOD (sec)

Figure R3-1 Proposed ARS curves for rock (M = 6.50 ± 0.25)

30 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads ATC-32

 2.0 ....---..,..--....,--""'"T""---.-----,--,..--..,---.--......,....-----r-----,,...--,....--....,--""'"T""---,----,

0.79

SOIL PROFILE TYPE B (ROCK)

1.6 MAGNITUDE: 7.25± 0.25

z
o
t=
« 1.2
e:::
w
--l
W
U
U
«
~ 0.8
e:::
f-
u
W
Q.
(/1

0.4

2 3 4
PERIOD (sec)

50 ....---..,..--....,--""'"T""---.-----,--,..--..,---.--......,....-----r-----,--,....--....,--""'"T""---,----,

40
"'"
.!::
f-
z
w
w 30
:2
u
«--l
Q. 0.79
(/1
0
« 20
--l

e::: 0.69
f-
u
W
Q.
(/1
0.59
10 0.49
0.39
0.29
0.19
0
0 2 3 4
PERIOD (sec)

Figure R3-2 Proposed ARS curves for rock (M = 7.25 ± 0.25)

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads 31

 2.0 .--.,...--.,...--...,...--...,...---r---...,...--..,..--..,..--.,...--.,...---,----,----,----,---..,----,

0.79

1.6 SOIL PROFILE TYPE B (ROCK)

MAGNITUDE: 8.0± 0.25

z
o
i=
<: 1.2
0::
w
....J
W
U
U
<:
<i 0.8
0::
I-
U
W
0..
If)

0.4

o.ot:::~~~~~
o 2 3 4
PERIOD (sec)

50 .---.,...--.,...--..,..--..,..---r---..,..--..,..--.,...--.,...---,----,----,----,---..,--..,--..,

40
,..-...
.S:
I-
z 0.79
w
w 30
~

u
<:
....J
0..
If)
0
<: 20
....J

0::
I-
U
W
0..
If)

10

oa-....•
o 2 4
PERIOD (sec)

Figure R3-3 Proposed ARS curves for rock (M = 8.0 ± 0.25)

32 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads ATC-32

 2.0 ,----r---,----,.--,--,-----r-----,--,...---r-----r-----,.--..,...---r----r--r-----,

SOIL PROFILE TYPE C

1.6 MAGNITUDE: 6.5± 0.25
~
C]l
~
Note: Peak ground acceleration values
z not in parentheses are for rock (Soil
0 Profile Type 8) and peak ground
f=
« 1.2 acceleration values· in parentheses
0::
w are for Soil Profile Type C.
-l
W
U
U
«
-l
« 0.8
0::
f-
U
W
0-
(f)

0.4

0.0
0 2 3 4
PERIOD (sec)

50 I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I

f- -

40 I-- -
~

.~
f- -
f-
Z
W
:::i;
w
30 - -
u
«
-l
0-
(f)
- -
is
« 20
-l - -
0::
f-
U
w
0-
- 0.6g (0.6g) -
(f)
0.5g (0.5g)
10 -
0.3g (0.33g)

0
-

0
~
- I I
2
I I I I
3
I I
0.2g (0.24g)

I
0.10 (0.120)
I
4
PERIOD (sec)

Figure R3-4 Proposed ARS curves for soil type C (M = 6.50 ± 0.25)

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads 33

 2.0 .----...,.....--...,...---,---,.---.,..--...,..---,---,.---.,..-----r---,....--...,.....--...,..---,---,.---,

SOIL PROFILE TYPE C

1.6 MAGNITUDE: 7.25± 0.25
~

0">
~

Note: Peak ground acceleration values

Z
0 not in parentheses are for rock (Soil
f= Profile Type B) and peak ground
<l: 1.2
a:: acceleration values in parentheses
w are for Soil Profile Type C.
--l
W
U
U
<l:
--l
<l: 0.8
a::
I-
u
w
0-
(f)

0.4

2 3 4
PERIOD (sec)

50 .----.,..--...,..----r--,.---.,..--.....,....----r--,.---.,..--......,...--,....--.,..--.....,....----r--,.---.,

40
~

.~

I-
z 0.7g (0.7g)
w
::2 30
w
U
<l:
--l
0-
(f)
0 0.6g (0.6g)
--l 20
<l:
a::
I-
u 0.5g (0.5g)
w
0-
(f)
0.4g (O.4g)
10 0.3g (0.33g)
0.2g (0.24g)
0.1g (0.12g)

0
0 2 3 4
PERIOD (sec)

Figure R3-5 Proposed ARS curves for soil type C (M = 7.25 ± 0.25)

34 8DS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads ATC-32

 2.0 ,..--...,---r--,--;---.,.---r----r--,....--.,...---,---;---.,.---.--....,.--,........---,

SOIL PROFILE TYPE C

1.6 MAGNITUDE: 8.0± 0.25
C;;
"--' Note: Peak ground acceleration values
z not in parentheses are for rock (Soil
0
i= Profile Type B) and peak ground
« 1.2 acceleration values in parentheses
cr
w are for Soil Profile Type C.
-J
W
U
U
«
-J
« 0.8
cr
t-
U
W
0..
(fl

0.4

2 3 4
PERIOD (sec)

50 .----,........-,........-..,.--,--,.--.....,.--,---,----,---,;---,........-,........-..,.--..,---.---,

40

t-
Z
W
~ 30
w
u
«-J
0..
(fl
o
;i 20
cr
t-
U
W
0..
(fl
0.29 (0.249)
10
0.19 (0.129)

o~-­
o 2 3 4
PERIOD (sec)

Figure R3-6 Proposed ARS curves for soil type C (M = 8.0 ± 0.25)

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads 35

 2.0 ,..--..,..---;---r----r--,..--..,..--...,.---,---r----r--,..--.,.--...,.---,---r----r

SOIL PROFILE TYPE D

MAGNITUDE: 6.5± 0.25
1.6
~
Q'\ Note: Peak ground acceleration values
'-"
not in parentheses are for rock (Soil
Z Profile Type B) and peak ground
0
;::: acceleration values in parentheses
« 1.2 are for Soil Profile Type D.
0:::
w
-.J
W
U
U
«
-.J
« 0.8
0:::
f-
U
w
a...
U1

0.4

o.o~~~~~
0 2 3
PERIOD (sec)
4

50 ,...--...,......--,-----,---r---r----,-----,r---..,..---r----r--,..----r---,-----r--,..--,

40
~
C

f-
Z
w
w 30
:::2'
u
«-.J
a...
U1
is
« 20
-.J

0:::
f- 0.6g
u
w 0.5g
a...
U1
.4
10 0.3

2 3 4
PERIOD (sec)

Figure R3-7 Proposed ARS curves for soil type D (M = 6.50 ± 0.25)

36 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads ATC-32

 2.0 .---.,..----,-----,--,....--.,....---,-----,--,....---,....---.---,----r---,-----r--,-----.

SOIL PROFILE TYPE D

1.6 MAGNITUDE: 7.25± 0.25
C;; Note: Peak ground acceleration values
~

z not in parentheses are for rock (Soil

0 Profile Type B) and peak ground
i=
<t 1.2 acceleration values in parentheses
0:: are for Soil Profile Type D.
W
-l
W
U
U
<t
-l
<t 0.8
0::
......
U
W
0...
(fJ

0.4

2 3 4
PERIOD (sec)

50 r----r--...,....----,.--,..---r---,-----,.--,---..,.----,-----..,--,....---,....---,-----..,---,

40
~

.~
0.79 (0.79)

......
z
w
w 30
::2
U
<t
-l
0... 0.69 (0.69)
(fJ
0
-l
<t 20
0:: 0.59 (0.59)
......
u
w 0.49 (0.449)
0...
(fJ
0.39 (0. 369)
10
0.29 (0. 28 9)

0.19 (0. 169

0
0 2 3 4
PERIOD (sec)

Figure R3-8 Proposed ARS curves for soil type 0 (M = 7.25 ± 0.25)

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads 37

 2.0 .---.,..--...,......--,..-.....,...---,.--,..--.,..---,----,..-.....,...---,--,--...,......-...,..-.....,---,

SOIL PROFILE TYPE D

1.6 MAGNITUDE: 8.0± 0.25
Note: Peak ground acceleration values
nat in parentheses are for rock (Soil
z Profile Type B) and peak ground
o
i= acceleration values in parentheses
« 1.2 are for Soil Profile Type D.
a::
w
...J
W
U
U
«
~ 0.8
a::
f-
u
W
0...
V1

0.4~~~~
0.0 2 4
0
PERIOD (sec)

50 ,..---r---r---r---r-----r-----r-----r-----r-----r----.,.--.,.--.,.--.,.--.,...--.,...----,

40
,......
.S:
f-
Z
W
::;; 30
w
u
«
...J
0...
V1
0
« 20
-'
a::
f-
u
W
0...
V1

10

OL-_~:::::::L__..L. _ _L.._ _.L_ ___l._ _L...-_..I.-_...J-_....J..._---J._--l_ _.l..__..l-_....J..._ __1

o 2 3 4
PERIOD (sec)

Figure R3-9 Proposed ARS curves for soil type D (M = 8.0 ± 0.25)

38 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads ATC-32

 2.0 .---,...------,----,--,--.-......,.-.....,.-.....,.--,---,-,--,--,--,----r--,

.........
1.6 SOIL PROFILE TYPE E
MAGNITUDE: 6.5± 0.25
0'
---
Z
Note: Peak ground acceleration values
not in parentheses are for rock (Soil
0
i=
«
0:::
w
1.2 Profile Type B) and peak ground
acceleration values in parentheses
...J are for Soil Profile Type E.
w 0.39 & 0.49 (0.369)
u
u
«
...J
«
0:::
t-
0.8
U
W
0-
(f)

0.4
0.0 ot_.L_-L_-l__L====::::~==2C=~~~~S~~f3~SE~E~~~a4
PERIOD (sec)

.........
40
.f
t-
z
w
:<
u
w
30
«
...J
0-
(f)

«
0
...J

0:::
t-
20 0.49 (0.369)
u 0.39 (0.369)
w
0-
(f)

10 0.29 (0.349)

0.19 (0.259)

00 2 3 4
PERIOD (sec)

Figure R3-10 Proposed ARS curves for soil type E (M = 6.5 ± 0.25)

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads 39

 2.0 r--,...-..,...---r---r--r--.,--...,..---r--,-----;--,---.,...--,---r--,---,

SOIL PROFILE TYPE E

1.6 MAGNITUDE: 7.25± 0.25
Note: Peak ground acceleration values
z not in parentheses are for rock (Soil
o Profile Type B) and peak ground
F= acceleration values in parentheses
« 1.2
e::: are for Soil Profil e Type E.
w
--'
w
U
u
«
<i. 0.8
e:::
t-
u
W
0-
V1

0.4

o.o~~~~~~
o 2 3 4
PERIOD (sec)

50 r--,---.,--.,...-..,.---,--,---,--,----;--r--,--...,.--....---,--...,...---,

40
~

.s
t-
Z
w
w 30
::2
u
«
--'
0-
V1
0
--' 20
O.4g (0.36g)
«
e:::
t- 0.3g (0.36g)
u
W
0-
V1 0.2g (0.34g)
10

0.' (0.25g)

3 4

Figure R3-11 Proposed ARS curves for soil type E (M = 7.25 ± 0.25)

40 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads ATC-32

 2.0 ,..--...,..--...,----r--,..---.--"""T'"----,.--..,.--..,..--.....,..----,..--..,.--..,..--.....,..----,----,

SOIL PROFILE TYPE E

MAGNITUDE: 8.0± 0.25
1.6
Note: Peak ground acceleration values
:§ not in parentheses are for rack (Soil
z Profile Type B) and peak ground
0
f= acceleration values in parentheses
« 1.2 are for Soil Profile Type E.
0::
w
--l
W
U
U
«
--l
« 0.8
0::
f-
U
W
0...
(f)

0.4

0.0 L..-_..J..__....l..._.......l._ _" - - _ - ' - _........_ - - '_ _.l.-_...J..._--J.._--''--_..l-_...J..._--J.._--'_---'

o 2 3 4
PERIOD (sec)

50 ...--...,......-"""T'"----.,.---r---...,------r-----,..--...,..--...,----r--,..--...,..---,----r--,..----,

40
,.....,
.~

f-
Z
w 0.49 (0.369)
::::;:
w 30
u
«--l
0... 0.39 (0.369)
(f)
0
0.29 (0.349)
« 20
--l

0::
f-
U
W
0...
(f)
0.19(0. 259)
10

OL..-_e=:;;;"".........l__........L_ _ _ _.l.__....l..._.......l._ _l..__..J..__.......l__

.l..-_~_.....l.._..-J __l._ _ '--___I
o 2 3 4
PERIOD (sec)

Figure R3-12 Proposed ARS curves for soil type E (M = 8.0 ± 0.25)

ATC-32 8DS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads 41

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Table R3-3 Soil Profile Types a
Soil
Profile
Type Soil Profile Description
A Hard rock with measured shear wave velocity
vs > 5,000 ft/s (1,500 m/s)
B Rock with shear wave velocity 2,500 < vs ~
5,000 ft/s (760 mls < vs~ 1,500 m/s)
C Very dense soil and soft rock with shear wave
velocity 1,200 ft/s < V s ~ 2,500 ft/s (360 mls <
Vs ~760 m/s) or with either standard penetra-
tion resistance N > 50 or undrained shear
strength su~ 2,000 psf (100 kPa)
D Stiff soil with shear wave velocity 600 ft/s < v,
.s;. 1,200 ftls (180 mls <vs.s;. 360 m/s) or with
either standard penetration resistance 15 .s;. N
.s;. 50, or undrained shear strength 1,000 psf.s;.
su < 2,000 psf (50 kPa.s;. Su < 100kPa)
E A soil profile with shear wave velocity Vs < 600
ftl s (180ml s) or any profile with more than 10
ft (3 m) of soft clay, defined as soil with plas-
ticity index PI > 20, water content w ~ 40 per-
cent, and undrained shear strength Su < 500
psf(25 kPa)
F Soils requiring site-specific evaluation:
1. Soils vulnerable to potential failure or
collapse under seismic loading; ie., lique-
fiable soils, quick and highly sensitive
clays, collapsible weakly-cemented soils
2. Peat andlor highly organic clay layers
more than 10 ft (3 m) thick
3. Very high-plasticity clay (PI> 75) layers
more than 25 ft (8 m) thick
4. Soft-to-medium clay layers more than
120 ft (36 m) thick
a. The soil profile types shall be established through
properly substantiated geotechnical data.
42 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads
COMMENTARY
the mean spectral values obtained using various spectral
relationships.
S: Site Modification Factors. New S factors have
been developed using the soil profile types and soil
amplification factors developed at a workshop on how
site response should be reflected in seismic code provi-
sions (Rinne, 1994; Martin and Dobry, 1994). Table
RC3-1 summarizes the new soil profile types, which are
the same as those adopted in the 1994 NEHRP Provi-
sions (BSSC, 1994).
The following steps have been recommended for
classifying a site according to these new soil profile types:
1. Determine whether the site fits into one of the four
Type F categories that require site-specific evalua-
tion. If so, classify the site as a type F profile and
carry out the required evaluation.
2. Determine whether there is a soft clay layer that is
over ten feet (three meters) thick. Soft clay is
defined as having an undrained shear strength
Su < 500 psf (25kPa), moisture content ~40 percent,
and plasticity index PI > 20. If this criterion is satis-
fied, classify the site as a type E profile.
3. If the site cannot be classified as soil profile type E
or F by steps 1 and 2, categorize the site by perform-
ing one or more of the following three calculations
and using the results to select the appropriate soil
profile type from Table RC3-1 (see the definitions
that follow for details):
a. calculate vfor the top 100 feet (30 meters)
b. calculate N for the top 100 feet (30 meters)
c. calculate Nch for cohesionless soil layers
(PI < 20) and Su for cohesive soil layers
(PI ~ 20) in the top 100 feet (30 meters)
Definitions
The defmitions given below apply to the upper 100 feet
(30 meters) of the site profile. Profiles containing dis-
tinctly different soil layers shall be subdivided into lay-
ers, each designated by a number that ranges from 1 (at
the top) to n (at the bottom), where there are a total of n
layers in the upper 100 feet (30 meters). The symbol i in
the following expressions refers to anyone of the layers
between 1 and n.
ATC-32
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

v
s is the generalized shear wave velocity for the
upper 100 feet of the soil profile defined as

Table RC3-1 Soil Profile Type Classification

Soil Profile Type vs Nor Nch

E < 600 ftis « 180 m/s) < 15 < 1,000 psf ( < 50 kPa)
D 600-1,200 ft/s 15-50 1,000-1,999 psf
(180-360 m/s) (50-99 kPa)
C 1,200-2,500 ft/s >50 L2,OOO psf
(360-760 m/s) (100 kPa)

n
d. ~
if'I 1
vs =n- -d.
r--!.
i = 1 vsi

n
where.r d i is equal to 100 feet (30 meters)
1 = 1

Vsi is the shear wave velocity oflayer i in feet per second

(meters per second).

dj is the thickness of any layer i between 0 and 100 feet

(30 meters)
-
N is the generalized standard penetration resistance of all
soils in the upper 100 feet (30 meters) of the soil profile
defined as

- ~ d.1
.2-
N - 1
- --;;cr.
1=

r-":
i= IN i

n
where.r d i is equal to 100 feet (30 meters)
1= 1

N i is the standard penetration resistance oflayer i (ASTM

DI586-84), not to exceed 100 blows per foot, as
directly measured in the field without corrections.

Nch is the generalized standard penetration resistance

for only the cohesionless soil layers ofthe soil profile
defined as

where

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads 43

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

ds is the total thickness of cohesionless soil layers in the

top 100 feet (30 meters)
n d·
I,~
i= INi
incluges cohesionless soil layers only when calculating
Neh.

su is the generalized undrained shear strength of the

upper 100 feet of the soil profile defined as

de
su=~
I,--':
i = 1 Sui

where

de is the total thickness (l00 - d s ) of cohesive soil layers

in the top 100 feet (30 meters).

Sui is the undrained shear strength oflayer i in psf (kPa),

not to exceed 5,000 psf (250 kPa), as determined by
ASTM 2166-91 or D2850-87.

n d.
I, --.: includes cohesive soil layers only
i = 1 Sui

The plasticity index PI is determined according to

ASTM D4318-93.
Moisture content is determined according to ASTM
D2216-92.
}lote: if calculation c as defined above is used and
the Neh and sui criteria differ, select the site classifica-
tion with the softer soils (for example, E rather than D).
The shear wave velocity for rock, Soil Profile Type
B, shall be either measured on-site or estimated by a geo-
technical engineer or engineering geologist/seismologist
for competent rock with moderate fracturing and
weathering. Softer and more highly fractured and weath-
ered rock shall either be measured for shear wave veloc-
ity or classified as profile type C.
A classification as hard rock, profile type A, shall be
supported by shear wave velocity measurements either
on-site or on profiles of the same rock type in the same
formation with an equal or greater degree of weathering
and fracturing. Where hard rock conditions are know to
be continuous to a depth of 100 feet (30 meters), surficial
shear wave velocity may be extrapolated to assess s • v
A site shall not be classified as a rock site (profile
types A or B) ifthere is more than ten feet (three meters)
of soil between the rock surface and the bottom of the
spread footing or mat foundation.

44 8DS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

Profile type A corresponds to hard rock conditions

found most commonly in the northeastern United
States. Rocks corresponding to profile type B are more
comparable to the rock types found in California. The R
curves shown in Figures R3-1 through R3-3 correspond
to California-type rock (profile type B). Curves for pro-
file type A are not provided.
The values of the soil amplification factors Fa and Fv
for the acceleration- and velocity-controlled parts of the
spectrum for different levels of shaking for the various
soil profile types are given in Tables RC3-2 and RC3-3,
respectively.
Table RC3-4 shows which figures display the correct
ARS curves for profile types C, D, and E over three dif-
ferent magnitude ranges.

Table RC3-2 Values of Site-Amplification Factor Fa as a Function of Soil Profile Types and Shaking Intensity
Shaking Levels"

Soil Profile Type Aa~O.lg A a = O.2g A a = O.3g A a = OAg Aa'LO.5g

A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0
D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0
E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9
F
a. Site-specific geotechnical investigations and dynamic site response analysis shall be performed to determine the seis-
mic coefficient for profile types F and E when effective peak acceleration-related accelerations A a exceed 0.4.

Table RC3-3 Values of Site-Amplification Factor Fv as a Function of Soil Profile Types and Shaking Intensity
Shaking Levels"

Soil Profile Type A v ::; O.lg A v =O.2g A v =O.3g A v =OAg A v ;;:: O.5g

A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
C 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3
D 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5
E 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4
F
a. Site-specific geotechnical investigations and dynamic site response analysis shall be performed to determine the seis-
mic coefficient for profile types F and E when effective peak acceleration-related accelerations A a exceed 0.4.

ATC-32 80S Recommendations, Section 3: Loads 45

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

Table RC3-4 Figure Numbers of Appropriate Design Spectra

Soil Profile Type 6.5 ± 0.25 7,25± 0.25 8.0± 0.25

C R3-4 R3-5 R3-6

D R3-7 R3-8 R3-9
E R3-10 R3-11 R3-12

The deterministic assessment of ground motion for

the safety-evaluation earthquake using the ARS curves
described above is about the mean values. Reasonable
mean-pIus-one sigma values can be obtained by multi-
plying the mean spectral ordinates by a factor of 1.5.
Site-specific equal-hazard spectra for a desired
return period can be generated using the seismic hazard
analysis for the appropriate region.

3.21.5.3 Distribution of Seismic Force

The distribution of the seismic force to individual

members shall reflect the stiffness of the superstructure
and supporting bents or piers, including restraint at the
abutments.

3.21.5.4 Combination of Effects

Responses in multiple directions shall be determined

according to Article 3.21.9.

3.21.6 Elastic Dynamic Analysis (3.21.6 Elastic Dynamic Analysis

3.21.6.1 General C3.21.6.1 General

Seismic response shall be determined as structure
displacements and individual member forces using
dynamic analysis techniques considering stiffness,
damping, and mass of the structure and soil.
Seismic design ofmost bridge structures will normally be
carried out using linear Elastic Dynamic Analysis. For
safety evaluation, linear analysis of response will usually
indicate stress above the limits oflinear behavior in some
elements. The presence of such stress in the linear elastic
model signals that nonlinear response is likely to occur.
As a structure responds in the nonlinear range, effective
member stiffness values change, internal forces redis-
tribute, energy dissipation characteristics vary, and over-
all response amplitudes deviate from those indicated by
an elastic analysis. When nonlinear response is indicated
by a linear response analysis, the engineer should recog-
nize that the results of linear response analysis are not
wholly correct and must be interpreted to achieve useful
and reliable conclusions for design.
Sources of nonlinear response include: the soil, the
behavior of which is strongly dependent on the strain
level; cyclic yielding of structural components; opening
and closing (pounding) of decks at expansion joints;
engagement, yielding, and'release of restrainers; and the
complex behavior of abutments. The extent of the non-

46 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
3.21.6.2 Analysis Model
A modal spectral analysis based on the application of a
response spectrum of ground acceleration to a lumped-
mass space frame model of the structure is recom-
mended. The number of degrees of freedom and the
number of modes considered in the analysis shall be
sufficient to include all critical response modes.
ATC-32 80S Recommendations, Section 3: Loads
COMMENTARY
linear behavior that is permitted depends on the bridge
category (Ordinary Bridge versus Important Bridge),
accessibility of the inelastic region for inspection, and the
design earthquake (safety-evaluation ground motion or
functional-evaluation ground motion).
Although the actual response may be nonlinear, a
linear analysis model can provide useful insights into
expected behavior, including indications of the total dis-
placement amplitude and local ductility demands.
Expected displacement amplitude is discussed in the
commentary of Section 3.21.10. Expected ductility
demands are discussed in the commentary to Section
3.21.11.
C3.21.6.2 Analysis Model
The bridge analysis is normally carried out using modal
spectral analysis of a linear model of the bridge. If
response history analysis is used, it is recommended that
several ground motions are used. Specific recommenda-
tions for response-history analysis are given in Section
3.21.8.4.
A linear model of a bridge is constructed using the
finite element method, in which the assemblage of the
elements represents the characteristics of the system.
Most earthquake analyses ofbridges can be performed
using models consisting of three-dimensional frame ele-
ments, or so-called "stick" models. Columns and bent
caps usually can be adequately modeled by frame ele-
ments; there may be significant approximations in mod-
eling ofbridge decks or pier walls by equivalent frame
elements. l
The analysis model must adequately represent the
mass of the bridge. The decks and supporting girders are
usually the largest mass in a typical bridge. The mass of
other structural components such as bents, piers, and
footings should be included in the model, but they are
usually a small percentage of the total mass. Nonstruc-
tural mass, including pavement topping, railings, side-
walks, catwalks, and signage, should be included. It is
not necessary to include the mass oflive loads. Studies of
short bridge overcrossing response during recent earth-
quakes indicate that response may be driven largely by
movement at the abutment; the analysis model must
attempt to represent not only the abutment stiffness but
the abutment mass (Werner, 1993).
1. Simplified abutment modeling (including the effect of approach
fills) by using elastic analysis techniques (ie., equivalent stiffness, mass,
and damping) is a subject that is not fully understood and requires
additional study. The latest state-of-the-art related to this subject is dis-
cussed further in the Commentary to proposed changes to Section 4 of
the recommended BDS and Chapter 4 of the companion ATC-32-1
Resource Document.
47
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

The mass distribution in a stick model is determined

by the number of elements used to represent individual
components. The mass distribution must be able to rep-
resent the vibration modes of the components that con-
tribute to the earthquake response of the system. It is
usually sufficient to model a single span using five ele-
ments. Such a model captures the rigid-body modes of
the span, and the first symmetric and antisymmetric
modes in the vertical and transverse directions. Many
vibration modes may contribute significantly to the
response oflong spans, in which case more elements
should be used to capture more modes of the span.
A more refined judgment about the mass discretiza-
tion can be based on an estimate of the vibration periods
of the span. The vibration period (in seconds) of a single
span can be expressed as:

where L is the span length, m is the mass per unit length,

and EI is the flexural rigidity of the span. Depending on
the support conditions at the ends of the span, the coef-
ficient Pi is bounded by the simply supported case and
the fixed-support case for each mode of vibration, as
given in Table RC3-5.

Table RC3-S Coefficient Pi

Pi for Simple Supports Pi for Fixed Supports

Mode Type of Mode (upper bound on period) (lower bound on period)

1 first symmetric 2.00 1.3

2 first antisymmetric 1.00 0.80
3 second symmetric 0.67 0.57
4 second antisymmetric 0.50 0.44
higher modes alternate symmetric and 2/ i 2
antisymmetric (2i + 1)

Five elements per span are sufficient for a good rep-

resentation ofthe first three vibration modes of a span. If
the higher vibration periods of a span are within the
range of the amplified-acceleration portion of the earth-
quake response spectrum or near the lower vibration
periods of the entire bridge, it is necessary to include
more elements to capture the higher vibration modes. If
the contribution of the ith vibration mode is to be
included in the analysis, the span should be modeled by
2i -1 elements over the length of the span.
Along with translational inertias, the rotational
moment of inertia of the superstructure should be

48 80S Recommendations, Section 3: Loads ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

lumped at the nodes, particularly for spans supported by

single-column bents and C-bents.
A column can generally be modeled with a single
element because the mass participation ofthe columns is
relatively small compared with the deck, and column
vibration modes have short vibration periods. For col-
umns taller than 15 meters, several elements should be
used at intervals no greater than eight meters. Cap
beams and outriggers themselves have short vibration
periods compared with the bridge, so one element is
usually sufficient to capture the rigid-body modes of
these elements. However, more elements may be neces-
sary to represent the stiffness and connectivity of these
components.
Other large masses are the pile caps, which should
be included as nodal masses because they are generally
assumed to be rigid for earthquake analysis.

3.21.6.3 ModeL Stiffness C3.21.6.3 ModeL Stiffness

The structural model shall include the effects of crack-
ing on stiffness of reinforced concrete members and
shall include the restraint of the surrounding soil.
Representing the linearized structural stiffness of a com-
plex bridge system responding nonlinearly involves sig-
nificant approximations. Two general approaches are
recognized here. The first approach is to construct a lin-
earized model whose stiffness approximates the stiffness
of the bridge as it approaches the displacement at which
significant yielding occurs. The second approach is to
construct a linearized model with stiffness that approxi-
mates the secant stiffness of the bridge at the maximum
anticipated displacement level. Conventional Caltrans
practice is to use a combination ofthese two approaches,
with framing member stiffness taken equal to the stiff-
ness near yield and abutment stiffness taken equal to a
secant value. Only this approach is described here.
Where seismic isolation or other protective systems are
used, the effective stiffness values should be derived con-
sidering the characteristics of the system, and the results
should be reviewed independently.

Framing Member Stiffness

An objective of the analysis is to estimate inelastic

response quantities using results from the elastic analysis
model. This is possible using relationships established
for simple oscillators whose initial stiffness is linear to
the yield point.
The real bridge is likely to display nonlinear
response before yielding, as a result of concrete cracking
and nonlinear soil response. Ifwe are to use the relation-
ships established for the simple oscillators, it is necessary
to select a single-valued stiffness that corresponds to an
effective stiffness near "yield" of the bridge, as shown in
Figure RC3-3. For structural steel members, it is appro-
priate to use the elastic stiffness. For reinforced concrete

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads 49

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

Gross-Section Effective
Stiffness Stiffness

Load

Bilinear Response Envelope

RC Member Response Envelope

Displacement
Figure RC3-3 Effective stiffness of reinforced concrete structure.

structures, different assumptions apply depending on

the extent of cracking expected in the various members,
as well as the expected effect of cracking on stiffness.
For reinforced concrete structures in which plastic
hinges are expected to form in the columns, the follow-
ing assumptions regarding element stiffness are usually
appropriate.

• For columns, the fully-cracked flexural stiffness is

appropriate. The stiffness should represent effects of
reinforcement slip from adjoining footings, pile
caps, or bent-cap joints. For structures supported
on columns ofnearly equal length and cross section,
it is appropriate to approximate the column
cracked-section stiffness, including reinforcement
slip, by half the gross-section stiffness. Where col-
umns vary, the cracked-section stiffness can be
approximated using Figure RC3-4. To account for
reinforcement slip from adjoining footings, pile
caps, or bent-cap joints, the cracked-section stiff-
ness obtained using the stiffness reduction factors of
Figure RC3-4 should be modified by the factor
(1- 0.811 ), where I is in meters and represents the
length from point of maximum moment to the
point of zero moment or contraflexure.

• For box-girder spans, longitudinal framing stiffness

is reduced owing to shear lag effects. For typical
box-girder construction, an effective width of box-
girder should not exceed the width of the column

50 BOS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

Ol
c::::
Jii 0.70 _ _- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ast/A g = .04
ci
~
a: c.so _ _- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A s t / A g =.03
en
en
w
- _ _- - - - - - - - - - - - - Ast/A g =.02
zu.
u. ~_-------Ast/Ag =.01
j::
en 0.-'0
o
~
..J 0.30
W

'P'f"'I'....,.-............~...............,.-......,....~- .......- ............-~.................

C..20 ~......
0.90 O.C~ 0.10 O.:~ 0.20 0..25 o.io 0..!5
AXIAL LOAD RATiO P/f~ Ag
Figure RC3-4 Relationship between cracked-section (l eff) and gross-section (1 9) stiffness values of rein-
forced concrete columns. See Section 8 for definition of other variables.

plus a width equal to twice the beam depth of the

cap on both sides of the column. Furthermore, the
flexural moment of inertia of a reinforced concrete
span should be reduced to three-fourths of the gross
moment of inertia to account for cracking. For pre-
stressed spans, no stiffness reduction due to crack-
ing is required.

• Where member torsion plays a significant role in

response, effective torsional stiffness of reinforced
concrete beams should be taken as equal to the
cracked-section value, and may be approximated as
being equal to KtPtn, where Kt = uncracked tor-
sional stiffness, Pt = volume ratio of transverse rein-
forcement, and n = ratio of Young's modulus of
steel to that of concrete. Because significant levels of
cracking are not expected in most cases in a box-
girder span, the torsional stiffness of the span may
be assumed to be equal to the gross-section value.
Torsional stiffness of prestressed sections may be
taken equal to the gross-section value.

• Shear and axial stiffness values of columns, piers,

bent caps, box girders, and other similar compo-
nents should be based on the gross-section values,
without a stiffness reduction to account for crack-
ing.

• Rigidity of column-cap joints should be taken into

account. In most cases, it is sufficient to model the
joint as a rigid block.

ATC-32 80S Recommendations, Section 3: Loads 51

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

Expansion Joint Modeling1

The dynamic response of multiple-span bridges is com-

plicated by the expansion joints separating the frames.
The restrainers at expansion joints also affect dynamic
response. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the restrain-
ers depends on the initial gap. Because these effects are
nonlinear in nature, linear dynamic analysis procedures
can be expected to produce only approximate estimates
of actual response.
The earthquake response ofbridges with expansion
joints can be bounded approximately by two linear mod-
els, referred to as the "tension model" and the "com-
pression model". In the tension model, spans on either
side of the expansion joint are joined by an element hav-
ing axial stiffness equal to the tension stiffness of the
restrainers. In the compression model, spans on either
side of the expansion joint are joined by an element hav-
ing infinite axial stiffness. In both cases, rotation at the
hinge is unrestrained.
For most structures, the tension model produces
results similar to those that are obtained for analysis of
the isolated frames.
Analysis for forces on and displacements of a frame
may be carried out by modeling the subject frame plus
any adjacent frames within two-frames distance from
the subject frame (and abutments if any are within two
frames). It is not necessary to use boundary frames
beyond the actual frames included in the model. There-
fore, a model for a straight or curved bridge may consist
ofbetween three and five frames in a structure. A model
for an interchange may include more frames because of
the more complicated geometry created by intersecting
frame lines. The use of significantly more than the rec-
ommended number of frames is discouraged because
larger models do not necessarily result in a better repre-
sentation of the dynamic response of the system with
expansion joints. Also, there is a greater possibility that
important vibration modes will be overlooked in the
analysis oflarge models.
Variation of subsurface conditions along the length
of a bridge may result in significant variations in ground
motion along the length. Currently available computer
programs do not facilitate use of multiple support input
motions. For structures supported on soils whose prop-
erties vary significantly along the length, the following
procedures are recommended. (1) Construct a "com-
pression model" of the bridge using the number of
frames recommended in the preceding paragraph. Ana-

1. Peer Review Panels on some past Caltrans retrofit projects have

required a "stand alone" analysis of each frame of a multi-frame
bridge. Designers may wish to consider the benefits of such analyses on
future bridge design projects.

52 8DS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

lyze the model assuming uniform support input motion,

using the ARS spectrum appropriate for that length of
the bridge. (2) Construct an isolated model for each
frame. Analyze each frame for the ARS spectrum most
appropriate for that frame.
Long bridges are subjected to spatial and temporal
variations of ground motion along their length. Along
with those conditions identified in the preceding para-
graph (and which tend to be the most significant where
they occur), traveling waves also affect the response of
long structures. The assumption of uniform ground
motion appears conservative because it forces the entire
bridge to vibrate in phase, whereas spatially varying
ground motion produces out-of-phase dynamic
response, which in most cases tends to cancel the energy.
For long structures with intermediate expansion joints,
the advantages of out-of-phase dynamic response are
commonly lost because out-of-phase movement is taken
up in the expansion joints. Therefore, the assumption of
uniform ground motion may be reasonable. Addition-
ally, in some cases out-of-phase ground motion may
cause amplified response because of impact of adjacent
frames. Another aspect to consider is that spatial varia-
tion of the support displacements produces so-called
pseudo-static stresses. These stresses do not appear to be
significant for bridges with a large number of relatively
short spans interconnected by expansion joints. They
may be of some consequence in long, continuous
bridges. Furthermore, some classes of structures (e.g.,
suspension bridges and cantilever bridges) may be sensi-
tive to spatially varying ground motion because the non-
uniform motion induces vibration modes not excited by
uniform ground motion, such as rocking of the piers.
These aspects should be considered when selecting the
ground motion representation.

Soil Stiffness

Although it is not practical to include all the effects of

the soil and foundation on the earthquake response of a
bridge, it is important to recognize that soil-structure
interaction introduces flexibility and energy dissipation.
The stiffness and damping properties of a foundation
depend on the characteristics of the soil, piles, and the
connections between the piles and pile cap. For use in
the Elastic Dynamic Analysis procedure, the founda-
tion/soil rotational and translational flexibilities for col-
umns and pier walls should be secant values based on
the maximum loads expected from the column or pier
wall. Soil springs at abutments and wing walls should be
input as a secant value consistent with the expected level
of deformation. Refer to Section 4 for detailed modeling
procedures for the soil-foundation system.

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads 53

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
3.21.6.4 Seismic Loading
Five-percent-damped elasticARS response curves from
Figures R3-1 to R3-12 or from equivalent site-specific
elastic response spectra shall be used as the horizontal
response-spectrum loading. Where applicable, vertical
response-spectrum loading shall be taken as two-thirds
of the horizontal spectrum curves, except where site-
specific evaluation is used to define vertical response-
spectrum loading. Standard soil profiles in Figures R3-1
through R3-12 shall be as defined in Table R3-3. In
cases where soil andlor special mechanical devices influ-
ence energy dissipation appreciably, and where justified
by experimental evidence and analysis, damping
exceeding five percent ofthe critical value is allowed.
54 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads
COMMENTARY
C3.21.6.4 Seismic Loading
Modal spectral analysis of a bridge structure normally
uses ARS response curves for five percent of critical
damping.
Vertical response may be significant for certain
bridge structures, especially those having long spans,
outriggers, cantilevers, or C-bents. In these cases, the
effects of vertical ground motion input should be consid-
ered. The relationship between horizontal and vertical
input ground motion characteristics is a complex one
depending on rupture mechanism, rupture proximity,
local soil conditions, and other factors. In general, both
the spectral ordinates and the spectral shapes vary for
vertical and horizontal motions at a given site. The sim-
plistic specification ofArticle 3.21.6.4 regarding vertical
response spectrum loading should be replaced by a more
appropriate representation whenever better information
is available.
See commentary Article 3.21.5.2 for a discussion of
ground-motion representation.
Damping
The damping for a dynamic analysis using the response
spectrum method must be specified by modal damping
ratios. Studies of flexible reinforced concrete structures
founded on firm materials indicate that reasonable
response quantities can be obtained using viscous damp-
ing equal to five percent of the critical value combined
with the effective stiffness described in Article 3.21.6.
Therefore, the ARS spectra were derived for this damp-
ing ratio.
An exception is short bridges for which the response
may be dominated by the behavior of the abutment. In
such cases, most of the damping is due to energy dissipa-
tion in the abutments. Based on the information from
Seed, et al. (1984) for cohesionless soils, it is reasonable
to use a viscous damping ratio of 8 percent to 20 percent
for abutment fills in which the maximum shear strain
ranges between 0.05 percent and 0.5 percent, respec-
tively. The design spectrum must be modified for these
higher levels of damping. Field studies reported by Tsai
and Werner (1993) indicate that these approaches may
be warranted for some bridge designs. However, use of
five-percent damping is usually a conservative alterna-
tive.
Higher damping ratios may also be appropriate for
bridges with seismic isolation or supplemental damping.
These should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and
the conclusions independently reviewed.
ATC-32
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
3.21.6.5 Combination of Effects
Responses in multiple directions shall be determined
according to Section 3.21.9.
3.21.7 Inelastic Static Analysis
3.21.7.1 GeneraL
Seismic response shall be determined as local displace-
ments, individual member deformations, and individ-
ual member forces using Inelastic Static Analysis
techniques, considering nonlinear stiffness properties
of the structure and soil.
3.21.7.2 AnaLysis Procedure
A step-by-step lateral-displacement response analysis of
a space-frame model of the structure is recommended.
The number of degrees of freedom considered in the
analysis shall be sufficient to represent all critical
response modes. Gravity loads shall include dead loads.
Live loads shall also be considered where their effects
are significant. Seismic loads may be assumed to act in
one horizontal direction only. Nonlinear effects of grav-
ity loads acting through lateral displacements shall be
included where significant.
ATC-32 8DS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads
COMMENTARY
(3.21.7 Inelastic Static Analysis
C3. 21. 7.1 GeneraL
Inelastic Static Analysis is a procedure to check inelastic
behavior of a bridge when subjected to lateral displace-
ment amplitudes consistent with those expected during
the design earthquake. The analytical model represents
the nonlinear load-deformation behavior of the compo-
nents, including the soil. Because the analytical model
accounts for the redistribution of internal actions as
components including the soil respond inelastically,
Inelastic Static Analysis is expected to provide a more
realistic measure of behavior than can be obtained from
elastic analysis procedures. Inelastic Static Analysis (or
alternately Inelastic Dynamic Analysis) is required for
the safety evaluation of Important Bridges. Use of
Inelastic Static Analysis for Ordinary Bridges and for the
functional evaluation is optional. As noted in Section
3.21.4(c), Inelastic Static Analysis may not be used to
reduce the requirements indicated by the Equivalent
Static Analysis or Elastic Dynamic Analysis methods.
C3.21.7.2 AnaLysis Procedures
The analysis model should in general be a three-dimen-
sional space-frame model of the bridge, including the
soil-foundation system. In most cases, it will be suffi-
cient to model individual frames between in-span super-
structure hinges; in many cases it will be sufficient to
model individual bents. Frame or individual bent mod-
els often are preferred because greater detail in analytical
modeling and interpretation of results is possible. When
individual frame or bent models are used, care must be
taken to represent the interaction effects among adjacent
frames and bents.
The analytical model should be developed to ade-
quately represent important flexural, shearing, torsional,
and axial force deformabilities and strengths. Columns
(including extended pier shafts), bent caps, and outrig-
gers can commonly be represented using line elements
with nonlinear response represented by concentrated
plastic hinges at critical locations. Fiber models are also
suitable. Pier walls can be modeled using line elements,
truss elements, or planar finite elements. The super-
structure, if included in the model, can be represented
by line elements. Where the analysis results indicate that
superstructure strength is approached under the design
loading, the model of the superstructure should be suffi-
55
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

ciently detailed to indicate local distributions of internal

moments and forces. In many cases a grid model can be
used for this purpose. The model should include
increased rigidity of cap-column joints.
VVhere inelastic response may occur along the span
of a member (usually a bent cap or superstructure), the
member should be modeled in a manner that will repre-
sent these effects. It may be appropriate to place nodes at
several locations along the member length for this pur-
pose. Static shear, moment, and torsion diagrams should
be compared with strength values along the full span
length to ensure that all sources of nonlinearity are
identified.
The analysis model should be capable of represent-
ing the effects of gravity loads on behavior. In general,
because response is dependent on load history, the grav-
ity load effects should be in place before applying lateral
loads. In most cases, it is sufficient to represent only
dead loads, including the superstructure, bents, and
nonstructural mass. Live load normally need not be con-
sidered, except for cases where live loads represent a sig-
nificant portion of total superstructure loading. VVhere
live load is included, it is normally adequate to represent
it as 15 percent of the AASHTO design lane live loading,
but other patterns ofloading should be considered
where they are likely to occur and may be critical.
Seismic loads may be applied in one horizontal
direction at a time. Normally, two load cases will be con-
sidered, one transverse to the alignment of the super-
structure and the other parallel to that alignment. For
longitudinal loading it is likely to be necessary to model
the entire frame including the superstructure. For trans-
verse loading, it is often feasible to model individual
bents. However, for curved frames and frames sup-
ported by columns of variable length or variable bound-
ary conditions subjected to transverse displacements, it
should be recognized that kinematics may produce tor-
sion in the superstructure and reversed curvatures in
supporting columns (Figure RC3-5). These interactions
should be taken into account.
Explicit consideration of concurrent loading in two
orthogonal directions is not required, but in the assess-
ment of capacities it should be considered that orthogo-
nal response exists. For example, when designing a
structure for displacement response in one direction, it
should be recognized that simultaneous displacements
are likely in the orthogonol direction, and the simulta-
neous occurrence may reduce the deformation capacity.

3.21.7.3 StructuraL ModeL C3.21. 7.3 StructuraL ModeL

The structural model shall include the effects of con- Framing member models should include at least a bilin-
crete cracking and other material nonlinearities on ear load-deformation relation to represent response of
stiffness of members, and shall include the restraint of the member both before and after yielding, although

56 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

the surrounding soil. Inelastic response characteristics

of the analysis model shall be justified by experimental • superstructure torsion
evidence. movement

tr

(a) Curved Superstructure

superstructure twist
due to varying pier rotation

20-ftcolumn

movement
30-ftcolumn

4O-ftcolumn

(b) Varying Pier Heights

Figure RC3-5 Superstructure torsion and coLumn

moments for frames under transverse dispLacement.

more realistic representations are encouraged. VVhere

strain-hardening models are used, results should be
checked to ensure that calculated actions do not exceed
strengths. Models capable of realistic modeling of
unloading stiffness are encouraged, although not
required. Refer to the commentary to Article 3.21.8.3 for
additional details on framing-member models.
Models for seat-type abutments should be capable
of representing nonlinear response properties associated
with the bearings, the gap between the superstructure
and abutment, the passive resistance of the soil behind
the abutment backwall, the passive resistance behind the
footing/pile cap, the pile group stiffness, and other
aspects, as appropriate. Bearings may be either linear or
nonlinear depending on deformation levels and bearing
properties. Passive resistance of the soil should be mod-
eled using compression-only elements. Details of
soil/foundation models are presented in Section 4.
Models for integral abutments should be capable of
representing nonlinear response properties associated
with the passive resistance of the backfill soil, the pile
group stiffness, wingwall effects, and other aspects as
appropriate. Details of soil/foundation models are pre-
sented in Section 4.
Other foundation elements should be modeled to
represent their nonlinear response characteristics.
VVhere significant nonlinearities are not anticipated, the
soil/foundation system may be modeled using linear

ATC-32 BOS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads 57

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
3.21.7.4 Distribution of Loading
The center of mass of the superstructure shall be dis-
placed in steps to displacement amplitudes derived from
dynamic response analyses according to Section
3.21.10.3. In multi-level structures supported by com-
mon elements, except where otherwise justified, lateral
forces shall be applied to the center of mass of the major
elements of the superstructure in proportion with the
product of their mass and centroidal height above the
base, and the upper level shall be displaced in steps to dis-
placement amplitudes indicated by dynamic response
analyses. Local displacements and individual member
deformations and forces shall be monitored at each step.
3.21.7.5 Structural Capacity
Member forces and flexural plastic hinge rotations
obtained from Article 3.21.7.4 shall not exceed capaci-
ties calculated according to Sections 8 and 10.
3.21.8 Inelastic Dynamic Analysis
3.21.8.1 General
Seismic response shall be determined as structure dis-
placement and individual member forces using
dynamic analysis techniques that consider nonlinear
stiffness, damping, and mass properties of the structure
and soil.
58 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads
COMMENTARY
elastic translational and rotational springs having secant
stiffness values corresponding to values expected for the
actions applied by the framing members. Where nonlin-
ear response is expected, including uplift, the soil/foun-
dation model shall be nonlinear. Details of
soillfoundation models are presented in Section 4.
C3.21.7.4 Distribution of Loading
The analysis may be carried out under either displace-
ment control or force control. The displacement or force
increments should be sufficiently small that the develop-
ment of inelastic response, including force redistribu-
tion, can be correctly represented. Some computer
analysis packages will produce erroneous results if large
increments are used. The user should verify that the
increments are adequate to correctly model the
behavior.
Although it is necessary to carry out the analysis
only to the target displacement level, useful information
about ultimate behavior, including margins against col-
lapse, can be obtained by carrying out the analysis to
larger lateral displacements.
C3.21.7.5 Structural Capacity
Member forces and flexural plastic hinge rotations
obtained from the Inelastic Static Analysis are to be
checked against available capacities. The analysis should
include checks of actions (forces, moments, deforma-
tions, etc.) in plastic regions as well as forces outside the
plastic regions to verify that the inelastic action does not
occur in unintended locations. The evaluation shall
include framing members and their connections, rein-
forcement anchorage, foundations, and all other vulner-
able components.
(3.21.8 Inelastic Dynamic Analysis
C3.21.8.1 General
Inelastic Dynamic Analysis is a procedure to check
inelastic behavior of a bridge when subjected to input
ground motions consistent with those expected during
the design earthquake. The analytical model represents
the nonlinear load-deformation behavior of the compo-
nents, including the soil. Because the analytical model
accounts for the redistribution of internal actions as
components including the soil respond inelastically,
Inelastic Dynamic Analysis is expected to provide a more
realistic measure of behavior than can be obtained from
elastic analysis procedures. Inelastic Dynamic Analysis
(or alternately Inelastic Static Analysis) can be used to
satisfy the required analysis for the safety evaluation of
ATC-32
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

Important Bridges. Use of Inelastic Dynamic Analysis

for Ordinary Bridges and for the functionality evalua-
tion is optional. As noted in Section 3.21.4(b), Inelastic
Dynamic Analysis may be used to reduce by up to 20
percent the requirements indicated by the Equivalent
Static Analysis or Elastic Dynamic Analysis methods

3.21.8.2 Response-History AnaLysis C3.21.8.2 Response-History AnaLysis

A response-history analysis of a lumped-mass space- Dynamic response-history analysis is normally carried

frame model of the structure is recommended. The out using numerical step-by-step integration of the
number of degrees of freedom considered in the analy- equations of motion. As applied by commonly available
sis shall be sufficient to excite all critical response computer codes, the response history is divided into a
modes. Inertial mass shall consider dead loads only. sequence of short intervals, and response is calculated
Gravity loads shall include dead loads. Live loads shall during each step for a linear model having properties
also be considered as gravity loads where their effects equal to those at the beginning of the time step. The
are significant. Nonlinear effects of gravity loads acting properties are updated at the end of the interval, or the
through lateral displacements shall be included where interval may be subdivided automatically if significant
their effects are significant. events (nonlinearities) occur during the interval. The
integration method and the length of the time step
should be investigated to demonstrate accuracy and sta-
bility of the integration procedure.
The model should contain sufficient detail that a
realistic representation of response is obtained. As a
minimum, analysis for forces and displacements of a
frame may be carried out by modeling the subject frame
plus any frames within two-frames distance of the sub-
ject frame (and abutments if any are within two frames).
Models including more frames are acceptable. In select-
ing the size of the model, the analyst should be aware of
tradeoffs between longer frame models with limited
local modeling details and shorter frame models with
greater local modeling details. The number of degrees of
freedom and placement of nodes should be sufficient to
represent actual behavior of the bridge. Refer to the
commentary to Article 3.21.6 for discussion of selection
of nodes and nodal masses.
Typical elements to be included in the model are:
Superstructure-In most cases it will be adequate to
model concrete box-girder superstructures using linear,
elastic, three-dimensional line elements. More detailed
models may be required for other superstructure ele-
ments, or in cases where nonlinear superstructure
response is anticipated.
Bent caps -In most cases these can be modeled
using linear, elastic, three-dimensional line elements.
More detailed models may be required in unusual situa-
tions and where nonlinear response is anticipated.
Columns--Usually columns will be modeled using
three-dimensional line elements having inelastic
response properties with a yield surface described by the
interaction between axial load and biaxial bending. In
most cases, torsion and shear actions can be modeled
using linear elastic properties.

ATC-32 8DS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads 59

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

Pier walls-Usually pier walls will be modeled using

either three-dimensional line elements, truss elements,
or planar finite elements with a yield surface described
by the interaction between axial load and biaxial bend-
ing. Nonlinear shear deformations may need to be mod-
eled. Usually, torsion can be modeled using linear elastic
properties.
Cap-Column joints-The rigidity ofjoints should be
modeled. In many cases, it is appropriate to assume the
joint volume to be rigid, although the possibility of flex-
ible joints (especially in steel construction) should be
considered.
Expansion joints-These usually should be modeled
as three-dimensional nonlinear hinge elements that
account for tension-only nonlinear restrainer action,
compression-only impact effects occurring at the edges
(not centerline) of the deck, hinge seat gaps, supereleva-
tion in the deck, skewed hinge geometry, and transverse
shear keys. Figure RC3-6 depicts an example of a model
of a skewed expansion joint (Imbsen, 1994).
Impact Spring

Rigid Bar

Vertical Spring.
Figure RC3-6 Model for skewed expansion joint.

Foundations-These usually will be modeled as

either nonlinear elements or as equivalent linear ele-
ments having translational and rotational stiffness val-
ues compatible with the expected actions during the
design earthquake, taking into account deformations of
the soil, stiffness of pile groups, passive resistance of
footings and pile caps, and possible uplift.
Abutments-These will usually be modeled as non-
linear elements that represent the tension-only nonlin-
ear restrainer action, compression-only impact effects at
the edges of the superstructure, compression-only yield-
ing of the backfill soil, stiffness of pile groups, nonlinear
response of wingwalls, seat gaps, and skewed hinge

60 BOS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
3.21.8.3 Structural Model
The structural model shall include the effects of con-
crete cracking and other material nonlinearities on the
stiffness of members, and shall include the restraint of
the surrounding soil. Inelastic response characteristics
of the analysis model shall be justified by experimental
evidence. Viscous damping equal to five percent of the
ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads
COMMENTARY
geometry. Figure RC3-7 depicts an example of a model
of an abutment (Imbsen, 1994).
Expansion
Wall stiffness spring
jO~tjgap
.
Footing stiffness spring
1------'
Pile stiffness spring
Abutment Bridge Deck
Figure RC3-7 Model for seat-type abutment.
Variation of subsurface conditions along the length
of a bridge may result in significant variations in ground
motion along the length. Wave passage effects may also
be important for some bridges. It may be possible to
input different ground motions at different support
locations; for such an analysis an effort should be made
to represent coherency and site conditions. Alternately,
analyses can be carried out for segments of the bridge for
ground motions representative of individual segments.
Typically, a segment will include a central frame for
which design actions are being sought plus any frames
and abutments within two frames of that frame.
The analysis model should be capable ofrepresent-
ing the effects of gravity loads on behavior. This will usu-
ally include only dead loads, as described in the
commentary to Article 3.21.7.2. The action of gravity
loads acting through lateral displacements (the P-l:.
effect) will reduce lateral load strength ofthe system, the
reduction increasing with increasing lateral displace-
ment. A possible consequence of the P-l:. effect is a grad-
ual or sudden accumulation oflateral displacements in
one direction, leading to increases in demands or in
some cases leading to collapse. It is not sufficient to sim-
ply adjust the strength of the bridge or bridge compo-
nents to approximate the P-l:. effect. Instead, the
Inelastic Dynamic Analysis is required to include the P-l:.
effect explicitly as part of the resistance function for the
bridge model. Most computer codes for Inelastic
Dynamic Analysis are designed to include the P-l:. effect.
C3.21.8.3 Structural Model
The linear and nonlinear properties of the components
of the bridge should be adequately represented in the
analysis model. For nonlinear elements, hysteresis rela-
tions under reversed cyclic loading should be consistent
with observations from experiments. Where simplified
strain-hardening models are used, results should be
61
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

critical value or less shall be assumed for all critical
response modes in addition to inelastic energy dissipa-
tion, except that higher viscous damping values are
allowed where justified by experimental evidence and
analysis.
checked to ensure that calculated actions do not exceed
strength values. Additional details of the nonlinear mod-
els are provided below.
Superstructure and Bent Caps--In most cases the
design should avoid nonlinear response in these compo-
nents. Therefore, it is appropriate to model these with
linear elastic elements. Stiffness assumptions for the lin-
ear elastic models should be consistent with the stress
levels and anticipated cracking, as described in the com-
mentary to Article 3.21.6.3.
Columns--Usually columns will be designed to
develop flexural plastic hinges at one or both ends.
Therefore, it is necessary to model the column elements
using inelastic models that properly represent load-
deformation behavior under inelastic, cyclic deforma-
tion and force reversals. Figure RC3-8 plots the load-dis-
placement response measured in a laboratory test on a

150.0~------r------r-------r------'

100.0

-en
Il.

-c
52
~
50.0

0 0.0
...J
C
w
:::i
Il. -50.0
Il.
~

-100.0

-150.().
-8.0 -4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0
TOP DISPLACEMENT (IN)

Figure RC3-8 Load-dispLacement relationship for circuLar cross-section, cantilever-reinforced, concrete column
representative of modern Caltrans bridge designs. Column is subjected to uniaxial lateraL load and constant
axial load.

circular cross-section, cantilever, reinforced concrete

column representative of modem Caltrans bridge
designs (Chai, 1993). Axial load was constant, and lateral
load was applied along one axis only.
Characteristics of the behavior include (1) initial
stiffness degradation due to concrete cracking and rein-
forcement slip from the foundation block, (2) yielding
in the load-displacement relation due to flexural yield-
ing at the fixed end, (3) moderate strain hardening fol-
lowing yield, (4) unloading slope that decreases with
increasing displacement amplitude, and (5) a moderate

62 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

amount of pinching around the point ofload reversal.

Strength degradation is expected to be minimal in a col-
umn satisfying the modern Caltrans requirements. Fig-
ure RC3-9 plots the behavior of a column under biaxial
lateral loading with axial load that was equal to a con-
stant plus a linear function of the lateral load in one
direction (Mazzon~ 1995). Note that behavior on the
tension and compression sides varies and that resistance
along one lateral axis is a function of the lateral load
applied along the orthogonal lateral axis.

80 1--,----,--,---,----r---,---.-----,,--~--_r356

60 -j---t------i---t---t---+---t---f---J---+---l-267

40 -t---t-----j---t---+--+-;;~~"rl~+-++---;f_---+---+ 178

~ 20 -t----j----i---t---+----r-=:JI 89 .--,

~
'-' ~
'-'

~ 0 0
~
~ ~
00. -20 -t---+----if---t7L----h#HI-i. -89 00.

-40 +--+--+---t4-:JIf~~-i----+--I--~-+--I- -178

-60 +---j---+--+--t---t--+--+---1---+---.f- -267

-80 +-----;I----+--+--+---t--+--4---1---+---I- -356

-12.5 -10 -7.5 -5 -2.5 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5
Drift (%)

Figure RC3-9 Load-dispLacement relationship for circuLar cross-section, cantilever-reinforced, concrete coLumn
representative of modern CaLtrans bridge designs. CoLumn is subjected to biaxiaL LateraL Load and constant axial
Load.
The behaviors described in Figure RC3-9 can be
approximated using either fiber models or concentrated
plastic hinge models with stiffness and strength values
calculated according to conventional procedures. Fiber
models subdivide the column cross-section into steel,
plain concrete, and confined concrete fibers, each having
representative hysteretic material properties, which are
subsequently integrated to compose the section load-
deformation behavior. Concentrated plastic hinge mod-
els represent the yielding region with a concentrated
plastic hinge having appropriate hysteretic properties.
Fiber models tend to be better able to represent triaxial
behavior of the column under the relatively random
load histories to which the column is subjected, but are
relatively computationally inefficient. Concentrated
plastic hinge models may not be able to adequately
model triaxial interaction effects, but are more computa-
tionally efficient. Whatever model is used, the analyst

ATC-32 BOS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads 63

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

should verify with component studies that the model

adequately represents the column hysteretic behavior.
For reinforced concrete columns it is usually considered
sufficient for the model to represent linear behavior to
yielding, modest strain-hardening after yielding, stiff-
ness degradation upon load reversal, and interaction
with axial load and transverse lateral loading. Behavior
before cracking and pinching are commonly ignored.
Bilinear, non-stiffness-degrading models usually should
not be used for reinforced concrete columns.
Pier walls-Usually pier walls will be designed to
develop flexural plastic hinges at one or both ends.
Under out-of-plane loading, flexural response is similar
to that for a column. For in-plane loading, the nonlinear
response can be dominated by either flexural or shearing
action, depending on the level of shear stress. Figure
RC3-10 plots the load-displacement response measured

200
505
, •• a
.. .. , .. ,
'
150
II)

~ 100
lli
~ 50
~ Rexural Crack
e
<ll
0
c;
.... -50
"tl
~
~-100
'<:(
....
.... ,.,
-150
",
.. , .... .. , •
Measured
Calculated
-200
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Lateral Deflect/on at Load PoInt, In.

Figure RC3-l0 Load displacement relationship for relatively low-aspect-ratio pier waLL loaded in its plane.
in a laboratory test on a wall having aspect ratio near
unity, for which shear cracking preceded flexural yield-
ing (Sozen, 1993). Axial load was constant, and lateral
load was applied in the plane of the wall only. Character-
istics of the behavior are similar to those identified for
columns, although there is a tendency for greater stiff-
ness degradation at higher shear stress levels. Although
not clear in the figure, studies indicate that slip of rein-
forcement from the foundation may cause displace-
ments equal to those caused by conventional flexure
before yielding (Sozen, 1993). Interactions between
biaxial lateral loads have not been investigated in this
system.
The behavior of a pier wall subjected to out-of-
plane lateral loading can be modeled using the proce-
dures described for reinforced concrete columns under

64 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

uniaxial lateral loading. Behavior under in-plane loading

may be modeled using line elements, truss models, or
planar finite elements. A simple approach is to model
the wall as three springs in series, as suggested by Figure
RC3-11 (Sozen, 1993). The flexural spring has flexural
stiffness and strength values calculated according to con-
ventional procedures for columns. The shear spring has
initial stiffness and strength representing pre-cracking
response, with parameters calculated according to con-
ventional procedures. Following cracking, the shear
spring stiffness is reduced to approximate post-cracking
stiffness. The slip spring has a linear elastic stiffness cal-
culated based on an assumed bond stress-slip relation.
Details of the stiffness calculation are given in the figure.
Hysteretic response for the flexure and shear springs can
be modeled using stiffness-degrading rules.

Flexural Sheor Slip

Deformation Deformotion Deformotion

Figure RC3-11 Three-spring modeL for reinforced con-

crete pier waLL.

Cap-Column joints-Reinforced concrete joints

should be designed to remain essentially elastic in
response to worst-case loadings. In reinforced concrete
construction, it is usually appropriate to assume that the
joint volume is rigid. In steel construction, the joint flex-
ibility should be modeled. Shear yielding should be
modeled if it is possible for the joint to yield in shear
under worst-case loadings. Simple bilinear models usu-
ally are adequate for modeling the nonlinear behavior of
yielding steel joints.
Expansion joints-Details of modeling expansion
joints depend on the details of the expansion joint itself.
Figure RC3-6 depicts an example for reference. In this
model, tie stiffness springs represent the restrainers.
Restrainer properties can be based on the stress-strain
relations reported in Caltrans Memo to Designers 20-3.
The example in Figure RC3-12 suggests that a bilinear
relation with strain hardening and a gap will adequately
represent the restrainer. Impact springs, vertical springs,
and shear springs can be simple linear springs with high
stiffness.
Foundations-Modeling of foundations will depend
on the stress levels and foundation details. See Section 4
for detailed modeling procedures.
Abutments-Details of the abutment model will
incorporate aspects of expansion joint modeling and

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads 65

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

. ELONGATION - mms
o 25.4 50.8 76.2 101.6 127.0 152.4 1n.8 203.2 228.6 254.0 304.8
200 889
I V4-' btlr ASTM A -722 'willi su."p'."""'tlr, '.f1ui,."",n,':h.
r y Y
175

150
r .".- ~
-r I
778

667

125 556
en

.,
CL
~IOO 445 z
I
o
c o
3 75 I I . I 334 ~

I
I ....-~ -6XJ9 C'tlb1fFed.Spec·tH-w-4IOC) ..J
I ~
50 222
~ ~ V
/} I
25
f4 II I V
j

, .
, I itlg• '·jg'1 S i 1/4·
III

o
2 3 4 567 8 9 10 II
ELONGATION - Inches

Measured
(Caltrans Memo to Designers 20-3, May 1994)

F
I~
(Tension)

fye-----/i -

gc gt
gc = Impact gap
gt = restrainer gap
dy = restrainer yield
displacement
(Compression) fy = restrainer yield
force
Idealized
Figure RC3-12 Measured and idealized load-displacement relationship for restrainer with gap.

66 BOS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
3.21.8.4 Seismic Time-History Loading
Where Inelastic Dynamic Analysis is used to reduce
design requirements as allowed in Section 3.21.4(b), or
to satisfy the analysis requirements for Important
Bridges as allowed in Section 3.21.4(c), the following
requirements shall be satisfied. The bridge shall be ana-
lyzed for an ensemble of ground motions along each
principal direction whose characteristics bound the
expected design ground-motion parameters. Ampli-
tude, frequency content, long-period wave forms
(velocity and displacement time histories), and duration
of each motion shall be consistent with the site condi-
tions and evaluation type (functional evaluation or
safety evaluation). Vertical ground motion should be
considered where important. Design actions shall be
taken to be equal to either the maximum values calcu-
lated for three ground motions in each principal direc-
tion, or the mean values calculated for seven ground
motions in each principal direction.
ATC-32 8DS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads
COMMENTARY
foundation modeling. See relevant discussion of these
subjects in the commentary to Article 3.21.8.3.
Energy dissipation in the analytical model occurs
both by viscous damping and by hysteretic energy dissi-
pation. It is recommended to use viscous damping equal
to five percent ofthe critical value. The reason is that this
will produce results consistent with results from the
Elastic Dynamic Analysis for low response amplitudes,
and because viscous damping at or around this level
does not significantly affect inelastic response where the
behavior is dominated by hysteretic response for large-
response amplitudes. Although some computer codes
enable the analyst to select five percent of critical damp-
ing for all modes, most do not. It is considered accept-
able to use Raleigh damping (mass and stiffness
proportional damping) that has five-percent damping at
the longest period and at the shortest period likely to
contribute significantly to the displacement response. By
so doing, intermediate periods will be underdamped
(conservative) and shorter periods that do not contrib-
ute significantly will be overdamped (Clough, 1993).
Higher damping is likely to be appropriate only for
cases where special energy dissipating devices are used.
For short structures where abutments control the
response, it has been shown that effective damping is
higher than five percent of the critical value. However,
the nonlinear response model should represent this
action through abutment hysteretic response rather than
through increased viscous damping.
(3.21.8.4 Seismic Time-History Loading
There is no unique ground motion for a given site. For
safety or functional evaluation, the possible ground
motions can vary widely depending on rupture mecha-
nism, location, propagation path, and geologic condi-
tions. Bridge response may vary widely to these possible
ground motions. Therefore, it is preferable to evaluate
the bridge response for several (rather than a single)
ground motions that are comparable with the smooth
design spectra. Maximum design response for three
spectra-compatible ground motions or the mean
response for seven such motions is a standard criterion
in structural design practice. The specific requirement of
this section is that this is the minimum number of
ground motions to consider when Inelastic Dynamic
Analysis is used to satisfy requirements for Important
Bridges or to reduce design requirements for any bridge
below the standard requirements. When Inelastic
Dynamic Analysis is used only to gain improved per-
spective on response, and not to satisfy specific require-
ments of this document, fewer than the minimum
number of ground motions may be considered. How-
ever, the analyst should recognize the limitations of
67
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
3.21.8.5 Combination of Effects
Responses in multiple directions shall be determined
according to Article 3.21.9.
3.21.8.6 Structural Capacity
Member forces and flexural plastic hinge rotations
obtained from Article 3.21.8.5 shall not exceed capaci-
ties calculated according to Sections 8 and 10.
68
COMMENTARY
using fewer than the recommended number of ground
motions.
The character of near source time histories is greatly
dependent upon the point(s) of rupture initiation and
direction(s) of rupture propagation (Singh, 1985). The
energetic unidirectional pulse-type motions (also
referred to as "fling") are present in the direction of
propagation. When time histories are selected for
response spectral matching for the near-field conditions
it is important that they contain proper pulse-type
motions of the forward direction and the waveforms of
the fault-normal or fault-parallel ground motion as the
question may be. It should be pointed out that the spec-
tral matching process cannot build a rupture directivity
pulse or the wave form offault-normal and fault-parallel
motions where these features are not present to begin
with.
Ground motions are amplified in basin structures
due to trapping and focusing of seismic energy within
dipping layers of the near-surface sediments. As wave
energy enters the thickening margin of a basin, the waves
can become trapped as surface waves which propagate
laterally across the basin with slow apparent velocities.
Since the surface waves decay slowly with distance, this
leads to amplified motions and extended durations of
shaking in the basin sites. This suggests that care must be
taken when selecting ground motion time histories for
sites located in basin environments that include proper
long-period content, waveforms, and durations for
reflective basin effects.
C3.21.8.5 Combination of Effects
Except in unusual cases, ground motions will be input
simultaneously in either two horizontal directions or
two horizontal directions plus the vertical direction.
This being the case, it is not necessary to use the combi-
nation rules of Article 3.21.9.2(a). Instead, the design
response quantities will be governed by Article
3.21.9.2(b); that is, the design ground motion is taken to
be equal to the maximum results obtained for three
ground motions or the mean for seven ground motions
(see Section 3.21.8.4).
BOS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads ATC-32
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
3.21.9 Combination of Effects
3.21.9.1 General
Earthquake actions shall be determined for seismic
input in at least two orthogonal directions (usually the
horizontal longitudinal and transverse axes of the
bridge). The longitudinal axis of a curved bridge may
be represented by a chord connecting the two abut-
ments. Seismic input along the vertical axis is to be con-
sidered where its effects are significant.
3.21.9.2 Design Procedures
Earthquake actions determined according to Article
3.21.9.1 shall be combined as follows:
(a) For structures designed using Equivalent Static
Analysis or modal spectral dynamic analysis, seis-
mic effects shall be determined for the following
three load cases, except that Seismic Load Case 3
may be ignored where vertical seismic effects are
not significant:
Seismic Load Case 1: Combine the actions resulting
from the transverse loading with 40 percent of the cor-
responding actions from the longitudinal and vertical
loadings.
ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads
COMMENTARY
C3.21.9 Combination of Effects
C3.21.9.1 General
Design should consider the effects of ground motions in
two orthogonal horizontal directions in all cases. Verti-
cal input should be considered for unusually long spans,
for outriggers, for "c" bents, and for cantilevers.
For modal spectral analysis, as commonly used with
Elastic Dynamic Analysis, the structural model should
be analyzed for the spectra applied separately along the
orthogonal axes. The results are combined according to
Section 3.21.9.2(a), which is intended to provide a rea-
sonable estimate of the multiaxial actions to be used for
design.
For response-history analysis, as commonly used
for Inelastic Dynamic Analysis, the structural model
should be analyzed for simultaneous ground motions in
the two horizontal (or two horizontal plus one vertical)
directions. By applying the motions simultaneously, a
range of simultaneous design actions can be obtained
for comparison with an interaction surface. An example
is a reinforced concrete bridge column, for which it is
necessary to determine biaxial bending moments and
axial load at discrete times for comparison with the P-
Mx-Myinteraction surface. This is the approach of Arti-
cle 3.21.9.2(b).
Common practice is to apply one of the horizontal
ground motions in the longitudinal direction, defined
parallel to a chord connecting the ends of the bridge,
and to apply the other horizontal ground motion in the
transverse direction. Studies have shown that this is not
necessarily the most critical set of directions along which
to apply the ground motion representation. However,
within the overall uncertainty of the design problem,
this design simplification is considered adequate.
C3.21.9.2 Design Procedures
There are two ways of considering the combination rules
for design. If the objective is to find the maximum
response to multi-component ground motions for a sin-
gle response quantity, a preferred approach is to use the
square root of the sum of squares (SRSS) combination
rule (Note that the complete quadratic combination, or
CQC, does not apply). On the other hand, if the objec-
tive is to locate the response to multi-component
ground motion on a failure surface (such as a P-MrMy
interaction diagram for a column), alternate approaches
may be preferred. Considering the latter to be the objec-
tive, one approach based on minimizing the worst error
for an elliptic failure surface is to use the combination
rule identified in Article 3.21.9.2(a).
69
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Seismic Load Case 2: Combine the actions resulting
from the longitudinal loading with 40 percent of the
corresponding actions from the transverse and vertical
loadings.
Seismic Load Case 3: Combine the actions resulting
from the vertical loading with 40 percent of the corre-
sponding actions from the transverse and longitudinal
loadings.
(b) For structures designed using response-time-his-
tory analysis, the input motions in orthogonal
directions shall be applied simultaneously, and
individual responses shall be monitored directly.
Where this is not feasible, analysis may be for indi-
vidual input motions, and responses may be com-
bined according to paragraph (a) of this article.
3.21.10 Design Displacements
70 BOS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads
COMMENTARY
To clarify the intention of the combination rule of
Article 3.21.9.2(a), consider an example of a reinforced
concrete bridge column design. Under longitudinal
loading, denote axial load, moment about x axis, and
moment about y axis as pL, MxL, and M/, respectively.
Under transverse loading, similarly use pT, M x T, and
My T, and under vertical loading use pV, M x v, Myv. Then
for Seismic Load Case 1, the simultaneous design actions
are axial load, P, moment about x axis M", and moment
about y axis, My, where P = pT + O.4(pL + pV), M x = Mx T
+ Oo4(MxL + M xv), and My = M/ + Oo4(M/ + M/).
These design actions are compared with the biaxial
bending and axial load interaction diagram for the col-
umn. Similar results and comparisons are obtained for
Seismic Load Cases 2 and 3, and the worst case is used
for design.
The coefficient of 0.4 for horizontal ground motion
loading (that is, the specification to use 40 percent of the
response due to loading in the orthogonal directions)
differs from the current Caltrans specification, which
uses a coefficient of 0.3 (or 30 percent). The coefficient
0.3 was derived assuming that the response-spectrum
loading represented the maximum principal direction,
with the orthogonal ground motion intensity being 85
percent of this value. For the case where the response
spectrum represents the average ground motion inten-
sity, as is the case in this specification, the correct coeffi-
cient is 004.
The current Caltrans specification considers only
combination of actions due to horizontal input motions.
The extension to include vertical input motions was
done without extensive study. The coefficient 0.4 applied
to load combinations involving three components of
motion is done on an interim basis. In the interim, it
provides a simple approach to a very complicated non-
linear interaction surface. This rule is the subject of con-
tinuing study.
C3.21.10 Design Displacements
Displacements of a structure during an earthquake may
be of equal or greater importance than the forces that
develop in the structure. For any structure, lateral dis-
placements determine whether adjacent frames or struc-
tures impact. For Full-Ductility and Limited-Ductility
Structures, lateral displacements determine inelastic
deformation demands in plastic hinges and other ductile
regions. Results of nonlinear dynamic analysis may be
used directly to estimate expected displacements. Results
oflinear dynamic analysis require some interpretation if
the structure responds to the design earthquake in the
nonlinear range
ATC-32
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

3.21.10.1 Adjustment of Elastic Displacement C3.21.10.1 Adjustment of Elastic Displacement

Horizontal displacements calculated from Elastic
Dynamic Analysis shall be multiplied by the factor Rd
to obtain design displacements.
R d =(1- ~) ~ + ~ ~ 1
The value of Z used shall be taken equal to the max-
imum value of Z used in the design of that frame. Values
of y* are given in Table R3-4.
A common approximation for design purposes, known
as the equal-displacement rule, is that the peak displace-
ment amplitude for a structure responding inelastically
is equal to the peak displacement amplitude calculated
R3-1 for the same structure (same initial period and viscous
damping ratio) responding elastically. It should be noted
that the equal-displacement rule is not theoretically
based; rather, it is an observation made from experimen-
tal and analytical studies. The equal-displacement rule

TableR3-4 Values of y* (in seconds)

M= 6.5± 0.25 M = 7.25 ± 0.25 M= 8.0± 0.25

g B C D E B C D E B C D E
--- --- ---
0.1 0.32 0.45 0.46 0.44 0.41 0.53 0.56 0.56 0.51 0.69 0.71 0.71
0.2 0.37 0.44 0.49 0.64 0.42 0.53 0.55 0.74 0.47 0.61 0.65 0.85
0.3 0.35 0.43 0.50 0.73 0.38 0.51 0.55 0.76 0.48 0.64 0.65 0.98
0.4 0.39 0.47 0.50 0.87 0.42 0.56 0.59 0.93 0.46 0.62 0.66 1.04
0.5 0.37 0.46 0.50 0.42 0.53 0.62 0.45 0.59 0.70
0.6 0.35 0.44 0.50 0.43 0.54 0.64 0.46 0.60 0.76
0.7 0.50 0.66 0.76 0.54 0.71 0.80

holds only in an average sense, and even then only for a

restricted period range. For short-period structures, lin-
ear response models tend to underestimate inelastic dis-
placement amplitudes. Article 3.21.10.1 attempts to
establish an estimate of inelastic displacement amplitude
from the amplitude calculated assuming elastic
response.
Equation R3-1 produces a displacement amplifica-
tion factor Rd = 1 for Y~ Y*. In effect, this is stating that
the equal displacement rule is adequately valid if the
effective initial period T of the structure is equal to or
exceeds the characteristic ground motion period, Y*.
The period y* corresponds to the peak of the input
energy spectrum, and may be taken as the intersection of
the nearly constant velocity and nearly constant acceler-
ation ranges of the elastic response spectrum. Values of
y* are indicated in Table R3-4. For soft soil sites, values
of T exceeding 1.0 seconds are not unusual, and site-
specific analysis is required.
For Y < Y*, Equation R3-1 produces a displacement
amplification factor Rd greater than unity, reflecting the
observation that inelastic displacement amplitudes tend
to exceed amplitudes calculated with a linear-elastic
response model. The form of the equation was selected
to approximate results of analytical studies of single-
degree-of-freedom systems (Miranda, 1991). These

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads 71

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

results indicated that mean displacement ductility

demands could be held approximately constant if
strength was equal to the elastic strength demand for
zero period, equal to the elastic strength demand divided
by the target displacement-ductility ratio for T =1'*, and
varied linearly between these two points (Figure
RC3-13). Algebraic manipulation results in Equation
R3-1.

RIl
8.0 ROCK
(a)
....... " ..
6.0

4.0

2.0
........ Statistical study [21]
- - Miranda (Eqs. 38 & 39)
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
PERIOD [sec]
RIl
8.0 JL=~. ALLUVIUM
(b) .'

6.0
..... -_ .....

4.0
....... -_ - ..

2.0
•••••••. Statistical study [21]
- - Miranda (Eqs. 38 & 40)
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
PERIOD [sec]

Figure RC3-13 Mean relationships between strength-

reduction coefficient (R,J and displacement ductility
demand (/l).

The observation that linear response analysis can be

used to estimate overall nonlinear response amplitude
does not carry over directly to local displacements and
deformations. Where it is critical to identify local nonlin-
ear deformations, for example in Important Bridges,
either Inelastic Static Analysis or Inelastic Dynamic
Analysis is recommended.
The displacement amplification factor, Rd , does not
account for effects of near-source ground motions. I
Design of structures near active faults requires special
considerations with respect to energetic long-duration
pulse-type loadings not taken into account in the ARS
spectra or in developing the factor Rd.

72 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
3.21.10.2 Inelastic Displacements
Displacements calculated from Inelastic Dynamic Anal-
ysis may be used directly in design, but shall not be less
than 80 percent of the values determined from Article
3.21.10.1.
ATC-32 8DS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads
COMMENTARY
A structure that yields during a long-duration pulse
(impulse loading) may experience very large displace-
ment and ductility demands, and it may sustain large
residual deformations. The extent of these actions
depends on the strength and initial period of the struc-
ture, as well as the amplitude, duration, and shape of the
pulse. Some theoretical solutions of structural response
to impulsive loadings are available (Biggs, 1964). For
example, the shock spectra in Figure RC3-14 indicate the
effect of pulse duration on ductility demand for the case
of a simple triangular pulse acting on an elasto-perfectly-
plastic single-degree-of-freedom structure (Bertero et
al., 1991). Studies of simple bridge structures subjected
to near-source ground motions have also been con-
ducted (Mayes, 1995). When designing structures adja-
cent to potentially active faults, the nature of potential
ground motions should be investigated and the likely
impact of those ground motions on structural response
should be gauged, taking into consideration the effects of
impulsive motions on a yielding system. Additionally,
the design should be modified from the standard design
outlined in this specification with due consideration of
the importance of the bridge.
C3.21.10.2 Inelastic Displacements
Inelastic Dynamic Analysis, as specified in Article 3.21.8,
takes nonlinear response characteristics into account
directly, so results do not need to be modified according
to the requirements of Article 3.21.10.1. Because of sig-
nificant uncertainties in ground motion definition and
structural modeling, it is recommended that no less than
80 percent of the standard requirements be used even if
Inelastic Dynamic Analysis indicates less than that level
is acceptable.
1. The issue of near-source ground motions with high velocity pulses
arose late in the ATC-32 project and there was not enough time to
arrive at a consensus approach to this problem. Three basic approaches
were considered. The first is simply to conduct an inelastic dynamic
analysis of all structures in near-fault regions. Acceleration histories
used for these analyses should contain identifiable near-fault motion
effects. The second method is the use of a modified Z factor at near-
fault locations. Something similar to this has been proposed by the
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) for its lateral
force provisions. but some PEP members felt the SEAOC modification
factors were inappropriate for the higher peak bedrock accelerations
used by Caltrans. Caltrans may wish to consider slightly lower modifi-
cation factors on an interim basis. A third method would involve a sep-
arate pulse loading for structures near faults. Because near-source
effects are currently not considered. Caltrans should develop interim
design guidelines for considering this problem. even if they are not vig-
orously correct. In addition, Caltrans should conduct further studies to
refine these guidelines based on the latest research into this topic. Fur-
ther information on the issue of near-source motion may be found in
ATC-32-1. the Resource Document.
73
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

100
eo
•
11.. /1';.0.2 ~~0.*?1= 0.5 C"O.6
., 'I
I I· I I II
0.7-r-
I
/ / I I
I i I / 1/ 1/ / II I
I
I
I
I ·1 I If IJ
I
I

I--
r - -~
i
,.....- -; V- -V I/ -/-ij ~+ bl- - II ,- -~-
0.8-l.-.

10
~-r-
I

I
I
-i-
! !I V 71-
I V
l4 ~l
V
,- l-

1/
V
V
~

/
I
I - 1-

J
~ --{-
I
I

8 / / ./
I I I 1.- ,..-- II
I V ./1 /
I
5
1/ :I / V /
V I I 1/ 0.9-l--
I

I Iii v v
J 1/ ~ I j :J I
I'
~;+-/ -f l-) k':V
Vv
k
"'l
_1-
P\t ......... v ,....- ,-
l:::=
~ --,-
2

t/j/ v!/
~
')'/ V
~ ~r- ~V 1--- -i-
I

~ v-- vI--'
' - 1-

1.0 /
N
/ 0/
/ ./
J l./
/'
V ......
"- r-
[Vyr\ / r\ 1/1\
........
l/
./
f"\ I.OC-r-
I

0.8 t.20+--
./ ./ / /./ r-....
/y A ./ .- ~ "./ '\./" 1.60~
/1/

R~:fzi~
0.5 V /

VI""~
V /t/
V/V ~ I "l I
I I C
0.2
V;(- ~..l.
I t
I
I
r
I
I
t
--
I
r--
VI I ~ r.-j r,l till.
~-+- ~+ Resistance Displacement ~-
I I Triongulor pulse
tunct>()tl function I
I I ; lo~d I I . I I I I I I I I I
0.1
0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 1 2 5 8 10 20
t~/T

Figure RC3-14 Shock spectra for a trianguLar pulse acting on an elastic-perfectly-plastic, singLe-degree-of-
freedom osciLLator.

3.21.10.3 Target DispLacement Capacity C3.21.10.3 Target DispLacement Capacity

The target displacements for Inelastic Static Analysis The Inelastic Static Analysis procedure of Section 3.21.7
shall be 1.5 times the displacements obtained from is required to be used to check deformation capacities
Article 3.21.10.1 for the safety-evaluation earthquake. versus deformation demands for the safety evaluation of
Important Bridges. In establishing the criteria for its use,
the variabilities associated with Inelastic Static Analysis
need to be considered. Data available at the present time,
combined with the crudity of the basic analytical model,
do not justify a detailed probabilistic analysis. Rather,
engineering judgment has been applied, considering
known variabilities, to establish the requirement of this
section. The following aspects were considered:
Analyses of available test data for columns satisfying
the recommended criteria indicate that the ratio
between available displacement ductility capacity and
capacity calculated according to the procedures of Sec-

74 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
3.21.11 Design Forces
The following requirements apply depending on the
intended structural action, as defined in Article 3.21.3.
3.21.11.1 FuLL-Ductility Structures and Limited-
Ductility Structures.
For functional evaluation of Important Bridges, mem-
ber forces and moments calculated from Articles 3.21.5
or 3.21.6 shall not exceed member design strengths,
except that larger calculated actions are permitted if
analysis demonstrates that the functionality require-
ments are satisfied.
For safety evaluation, locations of inelastic action
are to be identified clearly. Design forces and moments
associated with those actions shall be at least equal to
the forces and moments obtained from Articles 3.21.5
or 3.21.6 divided by the force reduction coefficient, Z,
which is interpolated from Figure R3-13. Full-Ductility
values apply only to Ordinary Bridges and only when
intended inelastic action forms in accessible locations.
Otherwise, Limited-Ductility values shall be used.
Design forces and moments associated with loca-
tions of inelastic action shall be increased to include the
effects of gravity loads acting through the lateral dis-
placements (P-L1 effects), as required by Article 3.21.15.
Plastic hinge design shear strength and design
strengths of members resisting the plastic hinge
moments shall be determined from the capacity design
procedures of Article 3.21.14. For superstructure ele-
ments, the design forces shall also include forces from
vertical seismic input motions where they are impor-
tant. Design forces in restraining elements shall be
determined according to Article 3.21.12.
ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads
COMMENTARY
tion 8 ranges from about 1.3 to 1.9, with a mean of
about 1.5.
The response modification factor, R d , given by
Equation R3-1 represents a mean relation between
inelastic and elastic responses. Mean-plus-one-stan-
dard-deviation values are about 1.5 times larger than the
mean values.
Ground motion representations are inherently
uncertain. The ARS response curves represent mean
spectral responses. Mean-plus-one-standard-deviation
ARS values are about 1.5 times the mean values.
Although site-specific response curves are required for
Important Bridges, and therefore ARS response curves
normally are not to be used for these bridges, the level of
uncertainty in any design ground motion should be duly
noted.
(3.21.11 Design Forces
The requirements are organized according to whether
they apply to ductile structures, elastic structures, or
protected structures.
C3.21.11.1 FuLL-Ductility Structures and Limited-
Ductility Structures
Direct design for the functional-evaluation earthquake
is required only for Important Bridges (Table R3-2). Full
service access for Important Bridges is required almost
immediately after this event. In addition, minimal struc-
tural damage should be experienced. On the basis of
required performance, there should be no crushing of
the concrete, and residual crack widths should be
acceptably small so that remedial action is not required.
Calculations based on an acceptable crack width of one
millimeter at rest after the earthquake suggest that at the
maximum response, the tensile steel strains should not
exceed about 0.01. To avoid concrete crushing, concrete
strain at the maximum response should not exceed
about 0.004. A direct evaluation of whether a structure
satisfies the functionality criteria is possible using either
(a) Inelastic Dynamic Analysis or (b) Inelastic Static
Analysis, where the structural model is displaced to
amplitudes expected for the functional-evaluation
earthquake. It is appropriate to assume that the displace-
ment amplitude for the functional-evaluation earth-
quake is equal to the displacement calculated using
elastic analysis, without modification.
For Important Bridges, Inelastic Static Analysis is
required for safety evaluation. Therefore, for these
bridges, a direct check of functionality by nonlinear
analysis does not require a significant amount of effort
beyond that required for safety evaluation. However, if
the functionality check reveals inadequacies in the struc-
75
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

Full Ductility Structures tural system, the entire system must be reproportioned,
5.-------.------,----,------,.---..., and a significant amount of design effort may be lost. For
N this reason, and in the interest of simplicity, Article
;i41----t---f-----:..r----t----t-----f
3.21.11.1 permits the functionality check to be carried
8 out using elastic analysis. Although some nonlinear
§ 3 1----t--7'f<..---t-::----I---:----:--+----f
:g response is permissible, it is difficult, in simple terms, to
:::l
~ 2 1---r--t--\-:::;;;;;ooI----I----+----f express the permissible amount in relation to the elastic
a:
Gl analysis. For this reason, when elastic analysis is used as
If~ 1 I-~=.=*===I===*===*====l the sole means of checking functionality, Article
o L -_ _---I...B_ritt
_·_le_e_le_m~e_nts_n_ot_d_es_'ig~n_ed_by:..capa_.:.~c_ity:.._de_s...::ig:....n..J 3.21.11.1 requires that the structure remain fully elastic.
o 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
A rational analysis, involving Inelastic Static Analysis or
Period Ratio, TfT*
Inelastic Dynamic Analysis is permitted and may result
in considerable economy in some structures.
Umited Ductility Structures For the safety-evaluation earthquake, it will usually
5
not be practical to design the structure to remain elastic.
N
:d4
Well COnfi~ed
concrete Llumns, _ In a structure designed according to these recommenda-
Gl
8
§ 3
( steel cOluins and pile rafts
tions, inelastic action can be expected to be predomi-
\ Transversely loaded piers; nantly in the form of flexural plastic hinge rotations
:g
:::l
"'02
~( abutment walls and wing walls occurring in preselected locations. In most structures, it
~
~ ~ will be most practical to select plastic hinges to form in
Gl
~ 1 the columns. Using the standard design procedures of
If
o "- Brittle elements not designed by capacity design Article 3.21.4, design moments at plastic hinges will be
equal to moments calculated from the Equivalent Static
o 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Period Ratio, T/T* Analysis or Elastic Dynamic Analysis divided by the
force-reduction coefficient, Z, interpolated from Figure
Figure R3-13 Force-reduction coefficient, Z. RC3-13. Note that different coefficients apply to Full-
Ductility and Limited-Ductility Structures.
For periods T greater than r (see discussion in the
commentary to Article 3.21.lO.1), the values ofZ for
Full-Ductility Structures are approximately equal to cal-
culated displacement ductility capacities, with some
allowance for judgment considering redundancy and
conservatism in the predictive equations. For Limited-
Ductility Structures, values were reduced to provide for
increased serviceability and a greater margin of safety
against collapse. Values of Z decrease linearly from the
maximum values to unity as period decreases to zero.
This decrease has been shown to be necessary to main-
tain approximately constant displacement ductility
demands that are equal to the value ofZ at periods
T.::;:r.
Gravity loads acting through lateral displacements
affect the distribution of moments in a structure. For a
bridge column, the effect is illustrated in Figure RC3-15.
There is an increase in the base moment relative to the
value due to lateral load alone, and the moment distri-
bution is changed slightly. For practical cases, the shift in
the moment distribution in a column is not important
and can be ignored. Where a column responds inelasti-
cally, the P-A effect does not add to the base moment,
because the moment is limited by the moment capacity.
Instead, the presence of P-A moment reduces the lateral-
load resistance. The reduction increases with increasing
lateral displacement, which may in some cases result in

76 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
v
"of--J....--=::::::::::=::::::=:======
'{, +---
3.21.11.2 Elastic Structures
Design strength values shall be at least equal to the
forces and moments obtained from Articles 3.21.5 or
3.21.6. Where inelastic response is likely to occur at
greater than the design loading, the capacity design
approach of Article 3.21.14 will be applied to avoid
nonductile response modes if possible. Design forces in
restraining elements shall be determined according to
Article 3.21.12.
3.21.12 Restraining Features
Positive longitudinal restraint shall be provided
between adjacent sections of superstructure at all inter-
mediate expansion joints. Restraint shall be provided
by hinge restrainers or other flexible, single-direction
ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads
COMMENTARY
(a) Structure (b) Moment (c) Moment (d) Combined
and Loading due to V due to P Moments
-- ---- --- -- --
v =Yield Shear (P- Ll not considered)
0
Vp =Yield Shear (P- Ll considered)
0 =Yield displacement
0
Figure RC3-15 Static aspects of gravity load acting
through lateral displacement for a cantilever.
instability. Section 3.21.15 describes an approximate
procedure for taking this effect into account in design.
Design forces outside yielding regions, and design
shear forces within flexural plastic hinges, are calculated
using the capacity design principles of Article 3.21.14,
except for restrainers, which are covered in Article
3.21.12.
C3.21.11.2 Elastic Structures
In designing an Elastic Structure, it may be anticipated
that elastic or nearly elastic response will result. How-
ever, it must be realized that a great deal of uncertainty
exists in the definition of the design ground motions and
analytical models. For this reason, it is prudent to
assume the possibility of some inelastic response.
Aspects of capacity design may be appropriate, and
moderate levels of ductility should be provided by
proper detailing and proportioning.
(3.21.12 Restraining Features
Procedures for the design of restraining features are the
subject of current research. At the time of this writing,
no consensus on design approach has been reached. The
proposal is to retain the current Caltrans procedure,
77
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

restraining devices that limit superstructure displace-
ment.
pending future research findings and consensus-build-
ing efforts.
Additionally, designs that rely on restrainers only as
a secondary system are encouraged. These include
superstructures capable of cantilevering from support-
ing piers rather than relying on support at the seat and
superstructures with conservatively long seats that rely
on seat length rather than restrainer resistance as the
primary means of avoiding unseating.

3.21.12.1 Restrainer Design Forces

Seismic forces in hinge restrainers and other similar

devices shall be determined using the Equivalent Static
Analysis method (Article 3.21.5). The longitudinal stiff-
ness of one adjacent superstructure frame including any
restraint at the abutment, gaps at joints, and gaps in
restrainers shall be considered when determining the
total stiffness of the frame moving away from the joint.
Only one span at a time shall be considered when ana-
lyzing multiple simple spans.

3.21.12.2 Shear Key Design Forces

Seismic forces in shear keys and other "fixed" restrain-

ing devices shall preferably be determined using the
Elastic Dynamic Analysis method (Article 3.21.6).

3.21.12.3 Single-Span Bridges

Restraining features for one-span bridges will not nor-

mally require detailed analysis. However, any connec-
tions between the span and the abutment shall be
evaluated by the Equivalent Static Analysis method
(Article 3.21.5). One-span superstructures fixed to the
abutment in the transverse direction may be assumed
to have a zero period of vibration in that direction.

3.21.12.4 Vertical Restrainers

Hold-down devices shall be provided at all supports

and intermediate hinges where the vertical seismic force
opposes and exceeds 50 percent of the dead-load reac-
tion. In this case, the minimum seismic design force for
the hold-down device shall be the greater of

(a) 10% of the dead-load reaction or

(b) 1.2 times the net uplift force.

78 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
3.21.13 Seismic Design of Bent and Pier
Foundations
3.21.13.1 General
Bent and pier foundations shall be designed for the
lesser of forces resulting from seismic plastic hinging
(Article 3.21.14) or dead loads plus the elastic ARS
forces.
3.21.13.2 Pile Deformations
Pile design shall consider the consequences of deforma-
tions due to seismic ground distortions.
3.21.13.3 Other Design Requirements
The requirements of Section 4 shall be satisfied.
3.21.14 Capacity Design
Whenever feasible, structural elements and actions
shall be designed to remain in the nearly elastic range
under extreme loading conditions by considering the
inelastic force and moment capacity of the ductile ele-
ments in the structural system.
ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads
COMMENTARY
C3.21.13 Seismic Design of Bent and Pier
Foundations
3.21.13.1 General
Design should account for at least the minimum of (1)
the actions associated with plastic hinging in the fram-
ing members and (2) the elastic forces calculated for the
design loading. Where elastic forces are used, the
designer is cautioned that actions larger than design
actions are possible if ground motions exceed the design
ground motion or if the analysis model is in error. The
ARS spectra represent mean response quantities, so
larger values should be anticipated. Approximations
required in modeling bridge structures do not necessar-
ily produce conservative results. Some judgment in
deciding foundation design actions is necessary. It is
generally preferable to design for the plastic hinging
forces, except in unusual cases.
Article 3.21.13.3 specifies that the relevant specifica-
tions of Section 4, Foundations, shall be satisfied in
addition to the specific requirements of Article 3.21.13.
C3.21.14 Capacity Design
Capacity design is a procedure to control the locations of
inelastic action in a structure. The procedure involves
several steps, as follows:
1. Locations where inelastic response is intended to
occur are identified. These locations are commonly
plastic hinges in columns. This step is required by
Article 3.21.3.
2. Plastic hinges are proportioned for the design loads.
This step is required by Article 3.21.11.
3. Plastic hinges are detailed to ensure ductile
response. This step is required by Articles 8.17 and
8.18 and Section 10.
4. Plastic moment strengths are calculated considering
actual proportions and expected material over-
strengths. This step is required by Articles 8.16.4.4
and 10.19.3.1.
5. The structure is reanalyzed to determine the inter-
nal forces that will develop throughout the structure
when the plastic moment strengths are reached.
This step is required by Article 3.21.14.2.
6. Design strengths of members and their connections
outside plastic hinges, and design shear forces in
plastic hinges, are taken as equal to the forces from
79
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
3.21.14.1 AppLicability
Capacity design shall be applied to Full-Ductility Struc-
tures and Limited-Ductility Structures. Capacity design
shall be considered for Elastic Structures in which load-
ings greater than the design loading are likely to result
in inelastic action.
3.21.14.2 Capacity Design Forces
The structure shall be analyzed under lateral forces that
produce likely plastic mechanisms of the structure.
Gravity loads shall include dead loads. Live loads shall
also be considered where their effects are significant.
Locations of plastic hinges shall be clearly identified
and shall be consistent with the intended structural
action, as defined in Article 3.21.3. Probable plastic
moment strength values in columns, pile shafts, and
pier walls shall be defined according to Article 8.16.4.4.
Inelastic Static Analysis, as described in Article 3.21.7,
can be used to satisfy the requirements of this
paragraph.
3.21.14.3 Design Strengths
Design strength values of members and their connec-
tions outside plastic hinges, and design shear forces in
plastic hinges, shall be equal to the forces and moments
obtained from the analysis described in Article
3.21.14.2.
80 BDS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads
COMMENTARY
step 5, and these parts are designed to have reliable
strength exceeding the design strengths. This step is
required by Article 3.21.14.3.
The procedure relies on adequate knowledge of
plastic hinge strengths, lateral and vertical load distribu-
tions, and reliable strengths to resist design actions cor-
responding to plastic hinging. While there are
uncertainties associated with each of these, capacity
design is believed to provide an adequate measure of
safety against nonductile or cosdy damage associated
with reaching strength in unintended locations of the
structure.
C3.21.14.1 AppLicability
Full-Ductility Structures and Limited-Ductility Struc-
tures are expected to develop lateral load strengths in
plastic hinge regions and to require ductile response.
Capacity design is required for these structures to pro-
vide reasonable assurance that a predictable and ductile
response mechanism will develop in the design event.
Given uncertainties in definition of the ground motion
and analysis model, it is possible that structures
designed for elastic response will be loaded beyond their
strength and require ductile response. Therefore, capac-
ity design should be considered for these structures as
well.
C3.21.14.2 Capacity Design Forces
The analysis associated with capacity design should con-
sider all reasonable load combinations. For single-level
structures, the lateral force distribution usually can be
assumed to be a simple pattern of loads applied at the
superstructure level. Gravity loads should be in place for
the analysis. The analysis should consider the likelihood
that biaxial lateral loading is present. In general, it is
acceptable to assume that while the structure is displaced
in one direction to the maximum displacement it is dis-
placed to about 60 percent of the maximum value in the
orthogonal direction. The extent to which biaxial lateral
action should be considered will depend on the unique
characteristics of the bridge.
C3.21.14.3 Design Strengths
It is common to make simplifying assumptions when
analyzing a structure for the plastic mechanism. For
example, it is common to assume that columns in sin-
gle-column bents respond as ideal cantilevers under
transverse loading. As shown in Figure RC3-5, the actual
conditions may be different, and they may pose a more
ATC-32
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

critical loading. These aspects should be investigated

carefully.

3.21.15 P-f). Effects (3.21.15 P-f). Effects

Dynamic effects of gravity loads acting through lateral
displacements shall be included in the design by use of
Inelastic Dynamic Analysis as described in Article
3.21.8, except the effects may be ignored where the fol-
lowing relation is satisfied.
Vo au
w ~4 H R3-2
in which Vo = base shear strength of the frame obtained
from the plastic analysis of Article 3.21.14, W = dead
load ofthe frame, au =maximum design displacement
of the frame from Article 3.21.10.1, andH= the maxi-
mum height of the frame.
Tendencies toward tall bridge structures supported on
relatively slender columns have led to concerns about
dynamic stability because ofthe so-called P-f). effect. Tall
structures have relatively long periods, and therefore
tend to have relatively low lateral-load strengths and rel-
atively large lateral displacements under earthquake
loading. Because the lateral load strength is low and the
lateral displacements are high, these structures are
thought to be particularly vulnerable to the effects of
gravity loads acting through lateral displacements; that
is, the P-f). effect.
Figure R3-15 defines the static aspects of the P-f).
effect. For P > 0, the axial load P acting through the lat-
a
eral displacement produces a moment at the base of
the cantilever equal to the product pa. For a column
with base moment strength equal to Mp, the lateral load
strength in the presence of gravity load P is given by
M p pa
Vp = - - -
L L
It is seen from this expression that the lateral load
strength is decreased by the P-f). effect. It may also be
seen that P-f). effects are greatest for structures with
small base-shear strength (MpIL) and structures with
large lateral-drift ratios (aiL).
The P-f). effect tends to weaken a structure as dis-
placements increase. Thus, there is a tendency, once a
structure yields in one direction, for it to continue to
yield in that direction, leading to progressively worsen-
ing damage. Near-fault, pulse-type or long-duration
ground motions can be particularly damaging because
both conditions can accumulate inelastic deformations
in one direction.
Studies demonstrate that P-f). effects are strongly
dependent on the hysteretic model (Mahin, 1991; Priest-
ley, 1993). These studies conclude that steel structures,
which tend to have bilinear response characteristics, are
more susceptible to P-f). effects than are reinforced con-
crete structures with stiffness-degrading characteristics.
Structures with inherent material strain-hardening tend
to be less susceptible to P-f). effects than structures with
non-strain-hardening behavior.
It may be shown that P-f). effects are worse for struc-
tures supported on flexible foundations. Therefore, it is
important to include soil/foundation flexibility in the
P-f). evaluation.
Equation R3-2 presents a simple procedure for
checking if P-f). effects are likely to be significant. It is
based on results of numerical studies (Mahin, 1991;

ATC-32 BOS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads 81

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

Priestley, 1993) that indicate negligible P-L1 influence

when the inequality is satisfied. The results were
obtained using single-degree-of-freedom oscillators.
The extension of these results to multiple-degree-of-
freedom bridge structures is based on judgment. When
the inequality of Equation R3-2 is not satisfied, either
the design should be modified to satisfy it, or Inelastic
Dynamic Analysis should be used to directly evaluate the
P-L1 influence.

82 BOS Recommendations, Section 3: Loads ATC-32

Section 4
Foundations

BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

4.0 APPLICATION

Unless otherwise noted, capacities and loads referred to

in Articles 4.1 through 4.4 are for Service Load Design
for nonseismic loads. Article 4.5 describes the require-
ments for seismic loads (Group VII Loads).

Articles 4.1 through 4.3.3 not modified.

4.3.4 Load Capacity of Piles

Article 4.3.4.1.1 not modified.

4.3.4.1.2 The values of each of these cases shall be

determined by making subsurface investigations or
tests and by referring to other available information.
Consideration shall also be given to:

(1) The difference between the supporting capacity of

a single pile and that of a group of piles.

(2) The capacity of the underlying strata to support

the load of the pile group.

(3) The effects on adjacent structures of driving piles.

(4) The possibility of scour and its effect.

(5) The transmission of forces from consolidating

soils.

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations 83

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
(6) The reduction in soil-bearing capacity due to cyclic
degradation effects, especially at poor soil sites.
(See Commentary 4.5.5 for additional discussions).
Articles 4.3.4.1.3 through 4.3.4.5 not modified.
4.3.4.6 Uplift
4.3.4.6.1 Friction piles may be considered to resist an
intermittent but not sustained uplift. Resistance for
standard piles may be equivalent to 40 percent of both
the allowable and the ultimate compressive load capac-
ity, except that for seismic loads, 50 percent of the ulti-
mate compressive load capacity may be considered.
Design uplift capacities exceeding those above
must be demonstrated by a comprehensive site-specific
analysis that considers the structural capacity of the
piles and anchorage as well as the soil capacity (espe-
cially uplift capacity based on skin friction). The maxi-
mum uplift capacity for design shall be the lower of the
structural and the soil capacities.
Articles 4.3.4.6.2 through 4.4.9 not modified.
84 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations
COMMENTARY
C4.3.4.6 Uplift
In the design of pile footings, the possibility of uplift on
any pile should be investigated.
End bearing piles should not be considered to resist
an uplift force in excess of their weight unless special
provisions are incorporated at the pile tip or along the
length of the pile, such as belling or socketing the end of
the pile or installing shear lugs along the length of the
pile. The uplift capacity of any such special provisions
should be verified by an uplift pile-load test.
Friction piles derive a major portion of their axial
load resistance incrementally along the length of the pile
by friction. Uplift capacity of a pile shall be determined
by a geotechnical engineer using site-specific soil and
pile data. The capacity value should be checked against
the structural capacity of the pile as well as the capacity
of the connection detail. The details of Caltrans standard
Class 45 and 45C piles, Class 70 and 70C piles, and 16-
inch cast-in-drilled-hole piles are adequate for an uplift
force equal to 50 percent of the ultimate compressive
axial load capacity for earthquake loads. When the 50-
percent value is exceeded, the structural capacity of the
pile and the connection details must be designed on a
project-specific basis. If necessary, an uplift pile-load test
can be conducted to determine the capacity.
The details for Caltrans standard Class 45 and 45C
piles, Class 70 and 70C piles, and 16-inch cast-in-
drilled-hole piles are adequate for an uplift force of 40
percent of the ultimate compressive axial load capacity
for sustained loading and 50 percent for short duration
earthquake loading. When this uplift force is exceeded,
these piles must be specially designed, including the
design of the connection to the footing.
Eccentric load tests on groups of piles capped with a
rigid footing have indicated that the exterior piles have
higher reactions than do the interior piles and that cor- .
ner piles have the highest reactions. Because it is not
practical to control the maximum uplift resistance pro-
vided by soil friction (i.e., build in a load fuse), it is
important that in the design of a pile footing, the
demand for uplift resistance at any pile be limited to the
structural capacity of the pile and its connection.
Because of various uncertainties including the magni-
tude of earthquake load and actual soil capacities, a
ATC-32
 Bridge Design Specifications
4.5 SEISMIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
4.5.1 Seismic Design Philosophy
The effect of foundation and abutment stiffness and
capacity, based on the best estimate of site conditions
and soil parameters, shall be considered in analyzing
overall bridge response and the relative distribution of
earthquake effects to various bridge components.
The unreduced ultimate capacity of foundations
and abutments, consistent with the performance crite-
ria described in Article 3.21.2, may be used to resist
safety-level earthquake loading.
Seismic design requirements for typical short-span
bridge foundations are described in Sections 4.5.4
through 4.5.6. For unstable soil sites (as defined in
4.5.3) or for unusual or major bridges, special studies
and a more detailed site investigation program are
required. These studies shall include an evaluation of
seismic hazards and potential site instabilities, as well as
soil-structure interaction studies to evaluate foundation
kinematic interaction, differential ground motion, and
cyclic degradation effects.
ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations
Commentary
higher factor of safety should be adopted in the design of
connection details so that the probability of achieving
the desired soil failure mode is increased (see Commen-
tary to Article 4.5.1).
C4.5 SEISMIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
C4.5.1 Seismic Design Philosophy
The basic process in foundation design involves first esti-
mating the forces and displacements on a specific foun-
dation component, then ensuring that the component
has the capacity to accomodate the forces and displace-
ments. In the case of earthquakes, the most difficult
aspect relates to determining the appropriate level of the
resulting forces and displacements. Unlike static loads,
where forces and displacements are readily determined,
response to earthquake loads depends on the dynamic
response characteristics of the overall bridge, which in
turn is affected by the foundation stiffness.
In many cases, the seismic demand of the founda-
tion obtained from an analysis is an artifact of the
dynamic model. For example, as is the case in structural
design, a linear response spectrum analysis using initial
foundation stiffness often predicts unrealistically high
foundation forces. Response analysis for foundation
design should include sensitivity analyses to evaluate the
potential variations in soil behavior that can occur dur-
ing the duration of an earthquake.
Another aspect ofthe current design process is that it
does not consider some important loading mechanisms,
namely those associated with ground movements rather
than inertial loading of the structure. Review of perfor-
mance of foundation systems in past earthquakes (Lam,
1994) suggests that bridge foundations have performed
well during moderate (up to magnitude 7) earthquakes,
with relatively few cases ofbridge collapse due to failure
of foundations. However, past performance records also
indicate that foundation failures were the main causes of
bridge failure for very large earthquakes (Magnitude
above 7), as evident from the 1964 Alaskan earthquake,
the 1964 Niigata earthquake, the 1990 Philippines earth-
quake, and the 1991 Costa Rica earthquake. In all these
earthquakes, foundation failure related to lateral spread-
ing and loss of foundation bearing capacity associated
with soil liquefaction were the principal cause of bridge
collapse. Such a load case is not accounted for in present
design practice.
A discussion is presented in the ATC-32-1 docu-
ment (ATC, 1996) on an alternate foundation design
philosophy that emphasizes designing the foundation to
ensure a preferred mode of failure in case of overload
and the need to evaluate displacement aspects rather
than the magnitude of force. This approach is basically
85
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

compatible with present-day practice of applying ductil-

ity design principles to superstructures. In addition to
improved performance, such an approach leads to more
economical foundations in high seismicity areas such as
California. Designing to ensure the preferred mode of
failure is very important due to various uncertainties
(i.e., with respect to loading as discussed above).
Irrespective of the design philosophy, a design pro-
cedure must address the following three requirements:

1. Structural Details. The foundation must be detailed

to prevent failure and preferably to achieve the
desirable failure mode, which in most cases is fail-
ure in the soil rather than in connections and struc-
tural components. Connections and structural
details must be adequate to provide a load path to
transfer the load to the soil. This aspect has added
significance at poor soil sites, where the potential
for ground movement is much more significant.
Improving the connection details and providing for
a more flexible foundation type improves the
chance of a bridge surviving soil liquefaction.

2. Bearing Capacity. Adequate bearing capacity must be

ensured to prevent excessive settlements. Cyclic deg-
radation effects must be included for the earthquake
loading condition. Past experience suggests that at
normal soil sites (i.e. other than poor soil sites as
defined in 4.5.3 Commentary), foundations designed
to the traditional factors of safety have sufficient
reserve to account for cyclic degradation effects.
However, foundations at river crossings and poor soil
sites (liquefiable and soft, sensitive clay sites) have
experienced bearing capacity failure during large
earthquakes. Cyclic degradation effects need to be
accounted for when assigning the soil capacities as·
part of foundation design for poor soil sites.

3. Tolerable Displacement. Attention needs to be placed

on displacement aspects in addition to force and
capacity issues. Some criteria have been developed
by Moulton et al. (1985) and Duncan and Tan
(1991) for service-level loads. They can serve as a
conservative presumptive criteria for earthquake
loads. Higher values can be used, based on evalua-
tions conducted for a specific bridge. On the basis
of the work reported by Moulton et al. and Duncan
and Tan, the presumptive tolerable foundation
movement criteria are as follows:

... Angular distortion: up to 0.008 radian

... Lateral deflection: up to two inches

86 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

Displacement criteria developed from an analysis of

site-specific structural capacities and configurations shall
be used where possible, in place of the above criteria.

4.5.2 Site Investigation C4.5.2 Site Investigation

A site investigation program shall be conducted to pro- Present Caltrans practice involves site-specific investiga-
vide adequate information for proper foundation tions for every bridge project. Some general information
design. on the basic requirements of geotechnical programs can
be found inAASHTO (1978) and FHWA (1982).
The importance of the site investigation program
becomes more critical when seismic considerations are
included in the foundation design. The following com-
ments discuss the elements of a thorough site investiga-
tion, with special reference to current Caltrans practice.
Presenting an accurate, standardized description of
the site soil conditions on the log-of-test-boring (LOTB)
is the first step in proper foundation design. The LOTB
should describe soils according to the Unified Soil Clas-
sification System presented in ASTM D-2487. The first is
a field visual inspection, which is followed by conduct-
ing index tests (i.e., grain size and Atterberg limits) in
the laboratory. Data from these tests are used to correct
the soil description on the field boring log. Such a labo-
ratory index test program should be conducted to
ensure proper classification of the soil type on the LOTE.
LOTBs for older bridges designed by Caltrans very
often provide only a generic description of the soil type
without blowcount data. The LOTBs for bridges built in
recent years most often have adopted the Unified Soil
Classification. However, it sometimes appears that the
LOTBs are based on visual inspection and lack a parallel
laboratory program to verify the soil type description.
At liquefiable and soft-soil sites (see Commentary
to 4.5.3), extra effort is required to ensure that the data
obtained from the site investigation program are mean-
ingful. The following recommendations cover the spe-
cial considerations for such sites.

• Using the appropriate drilling equipment is most

important for liquefiable and soft clay sites. As dis-
cussed more fully below, rotary-wash boring with
drilling mud is the most reliable drilling method for
such sites.

• For loose silts and soft clay sites, the use of a thin-
wall, selby-tube push sampler can enhance the
chance of recovering more undisturbed samples for
laboratory testing.

• Other less conventional tests, such as cone-pene-

trometer and geophysical shear-wave tests should be
considered for such sites.

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations 87

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

• There is more of a need to combine the expertise of

both a geologist and a geotechnical engineer to pro-
duce the LOTB for such sites, to include both the
geologic history and the mechanical-property infor-
mation of the soil layers.

Site investigations shall be conducted by qualified geo-

technical engineers and geologists. A foundation report
shall be prepared that addresses the following seismic
design issues:

• Active earthquake faults affecting the site

• The potential for surface fault rupture

• The extent of variation in soil conditions along the

bridge

• Site classification in relation to standardized elastic

response spectra or the appropriate site-specific
response spectra, as defined in Article 3.21.5.2

• Potential for ground liquefaction

• Potential for ground setdement

• Potential for lateral ground movement

• Slope stability

• Ground water conditions

For liquefiable or soft soil sites (see Commentary 4.5.3

for definitions of these sites), the geotechnical report
shall also include the following information:

• Carefully conducted standard penetration tests

(SPTs) shall be carried out using proper equipment
and procedures with blowcount measurements at
five-foot intervals.

• Depth at which ground water is encountered shall

be measured, where applicable.

• Liquefaction strengths of saturated cohesionless

soils (silts and sands) shall be determined from nor-
malized SPT blowcount correlations.

• Soil index tests, including grain size distribution

and Atterberg limit tests shall be conducted.

• Where potentially liquefiable, saturated, nonplastic

silts are encountered, cyclic triaxial or cyclic simple
shear tests on high-quality, thin-wall tube samples

88 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
. 4.5.3 Site Stability
Bridge sites shall be evaluated for potential instabilities
related to (l) soil liquefaction, (2) the presence of soft
clays, (3) slope hazards, and (4) fault crossing. When
such potential instability exists, special studies shall be
conducted and structural and/or site-enhancement
measures shall be implemented to mitigate the effect of
these instabilities to the extent that the performance
criteria of Article 3.21.2 will be satisfied.
ATC-32 BOS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations
COMMENTARY
shall be conducted, where feasible, to determine liq-
uefaction strengths.
• Laboratory measurement of both the peak and the
residual undrained shear strength of saturated, soft,
cohesive soils shall be conducted, where feasible.
• In situ tests including cone-penetrometer tests and
geophysical shear-wave velocity measurements shall
be conducted at poor soil sites, where feasible.
(4.5.3 Site Stability
There are four categories of sites that warrant additional
efforts to address earthquake-hazard issues. The follow-
ing definitions apply to both the specifications and the
commentary:
• Liquefiable sites-sites that contain one or more
identifiable layers of potentially liquefiable deposits
• Soft clay sites-sites that contain sensitive, organic,
very high plasticity, or soft/medium-stiff clays
• Slope hazard sites-sites for which known landslide
hazards exist, as inferred from past historical and
geological information or observable landslide scars
• Fault-rupture special study zone sites-sites where
there is a potential for surface ground displacement
due to fault rupture
• Unstable sites-sites with one or more of the above
four site conditions
• Poor soil sites-sites classified as either liquefiable
or soft clay sites
Liquefiable Sites
Table RC4-1 provides a set of criteria that is appropriate
for preliminary screening of liquefiable versus non-liq-
uefiable sites. With the exception of those sites that fall
into the very low liquefaction potential category, further
efforts are necessary to evaluate the liquefaction hazard
of the site by more detailed analyses. Past case histories
(Barlett and Youd, 1992) suggest that liquefaction can
extend to a depth of 60 feet. Therefore, emphasis should
be placed on liquefaction analysis for the upper 60 feet
of the soil profile.
When liquefiable sites (Holocene sand and silt sites)
are encountered, the key information to be developed
during the site investigation includes:
89
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

Table RC4-1 Relationship of Geologic and Water Table Criteria and Liquefaction Susceptibility (Modified from
Tinsleyet al., 1985)

Depth to groundwater, in meters

Sedimentary Unit
0-3 3-10 10-15 >15
Holocene
Latest ......................... Very hifh Moderate2 Low Very low
to high

Earlier ...................... High Moderate Low Very low

Pleistocene
Late ........................ Low Low Very low Very low

Middle and early ........................ Very low Very low Very low Very low

Tertiary and pre-Tertiary ............... Very low Very low Very low Very-low

1 Areas are mapped as having very high susceptibility if fluvial channel and levee deposits are known to
be present; sediment deposited in other sedimentary environments is considered to have high susceptibility.

2 fluvial deposits having high suceptibility occur rarely and are not widely distributed; other sediments
are moderately susceptible to liquefaction.

• geologic information

• ground water data

• grain size information

• blow count data

The subject of liquefaction has been extensively

researched in the past 30 years. Detailed discussions on
liquefiable soil types can be found in Ishikara (1985);
Seed, Idress, and Arango (1983); and Seed et al. (1985).
Soil Borings. Properly recorded blowcount data are
key for assessment of the liquefaction potential of a
given sandy site. The use of proper drilling equipment
and standardized blowcount procedures are very impor-
tant for liquefiable sites. Rotary-wash borings are pre-
ferred over auger borings for such sites. The use of a
rotary-drill rig in conjunction with casing or drilling
mud has been found to be the most reliable method to
prevent cave-in problems and to enhance the chance of
recovering undisturbed soil samples and reliable blow-
count measurements. If a hollow-stem auger is used,
maintaining a water column inside the hollow stem
above the water table is very important in preventing
soils from running up into the stem when the center rod

90 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

is removed to insert the soil sampler and/or to record the

blowcount. In addition, the use of standardized SPT
equipment (e.g., the use of safety hammers) and proce-
dures are all key to obtaining meaningful blowcount
data to address the liquefaction problem. In situ tests
such as cone-penetrometer soundings are also valuable
for defining the soil layering and therefore the extent of
the liquefiable soil layers.
Geologic Information. Most of the sites that have liq-
uefied in past earthquakes contained Holocene soil
deposits. The soil layers should be correlated with the
geologic units on the LOTB for liquefiable sites. Table
RC4-1 presents some criteria for relating geologic
soil units and ground water data to liquefaction
susceptibility.
Grain Size. Figure RC4-1 summarizes the grain-size
distribution of the soil types that are vulnerable to lique-
faction. Grain-size distribution curves should be devel-
oped for liquefiable layers. As shown in the figure, fine
sands (particle size ranging from 0.075 to 0.425 mm)
comprise the majority of the most liquefiable soils.
Medium sands (particle size ranging from 0.425 to 2
mm) and nonplastic silts (particle size less than 0.075
mm) are also relatively vulnerable to liquefaction.
Coarse sands (particle size ranging from 0.425 to 4.75
mm) are relatively less likely to liquefy than other sands
and nonplastic silts. Gravels and clays are generally less
prone to liquefaction.
Although grain size information is very important
for a liquefaction evaluation, additional information is
necessary if the soil has a high fines content (i.e., parti-
cles less than 0.075 mm in diameter). Both silts and clays
are classified as fines, but they have very different physi-
cal behavior and liquefaction characteristics. The
proportion of clay in the fines is very important for
determining the liquefaction potential of the soil. Seedet
al. (1983) discussed this aspect of soil analysis in detail
and recommended various rules for the conditions
under which silts and clays are liquefiable. For these
types of soils, Atterberg limit tests are very useful. Gen-
erally, if the soil exhibits sufficient plastic behavior such
that the plasticity index versus the liquid limit is plotted
above the ''A'' line, the soil can be regarded as non-lique-
fiable. Atterberg limit data are also required in the Seed
et al. (1983) procedure for screening liquefiable versus
non-liquefiable fines. Readers are alerted to new lique-
faction hazard screening criteria by Youd and Gummow
(1995).
Reduction in Foundation Capacity. One of the major
damaging aspects ofliquefaction is the loss of founda-
tion capacity. Such loss in capacity should be accounted
for in design.
Lateral Ground Spread. In recent years, in addition
to determining whether the soil at a given site is liquefi-

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations 91

 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
I

: Sands :
Clays and Silts ~-------------------,-----------------r--------~ Gravels
: Fine : Medium: Coarse:
O.075mm 0.425mm 2mm 4.75mm

~
/- r
/ ' ,
1 '
~
I
1/
1/
/ : / : X
" /' I , , / ' ,

I
/ I ' ': I:,,' : I I
0
CO
··· ······ ·· . f I
· . · · · · · · · . · ····:·1..· · · · . · . · · · . · . · · . · ;· · · ·
' " ,
:··/
i
I
· ···;········.. ··/· · :· ·
"
.
I
I
I '.
'I' I ,
I
I ,
' V I
I
I I
I
I

Eo-<
::c: : ," I l ::
: ,: Boundaries: /'[ : /
....
t'
J:a
I ' for most: : : I
~ 0 I , . liquefiable sc}il ' I I

to
..........................1
I I
,J...i........
, -:
.. ..I• L
-:
: /...
I 1
.
>-
o:l
I
II '
1/
1
'
II
, ' II II '
I I
~
J:a
I
I
I
V
I,

I'
1"

....Z : I " I
I ',
~
I
I
I
II , ,I
I
,
, " I
II
II
I
··· --;··.. ······ · · . ····.. ·········f··f ····l·····..····..··..······..·········· ·· ·····-[···..····.. ·j ········l·· ········/··!··.. ············.. ······· [
Eo-<
Z
J:a
U
~
°"'<t<
I
I
J
I

,
,'I
'
I
,
'
' I'
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I1
I
I
.

J:a B d' ,
p.. 'i:
I
I I

I
oun ane~
for potentially
:,
I'
.
,
::
I
I I

I
I
:
I

0
C\l
........../.
I I
./.. : liquefiable soil!
I
1..
I
..1
,I
/... : .1..
I
.

!
I ,
/ '
J
I
~ ,II
!
I
,,' / , /:1, I II
/ V :
;, I
. I
o-t----,--,-,.--r-r-rrrt---r--,-..,-L,.-.,.-,rrrr---f----,-...,-1....,......,.-r--r-..,..-!

10- 1

GRAIN SIZE (mm)

Figure RC4-1 Limits in the gradation curves separating liquefiable and unliquefiable soils.

92 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

able, emphasis has been placed on evaluating the lateral

ground displacement potential associated with the liq-
uefied soil. Past case histories strongly suggest that most
bridge damage at liquefied sites has been related to
excessive lateral ground displacement. A number of
researchers have studied the lateral ground displacement
problem and empirical equations are emerging for
design applications (e.g., Bartlett and Youd, 1992).
These studies indicate that the average grain size, the
average fines content (proportion of the soil mass by
weight with particle size finer than 0.075 mm), blow-
count, earthquake magnitude, and site-to-earthquake-
source distance are important parameters affecting the
magnitude of lateral ground displacement. In addition,
it has also been found that the magnitude of ground dis-
placement is also very sensitive to the proximity of a free
face (such as a river bank) and the overall slope angle of
the ground (even a few percent ground slope can have
an effect). Figures RC4-2 and RC4-3 provide some indi-
cation of the topographic features that should be docu-
mented and measured as part of the site investigation.
For sites that have a factor of safety less than one with
respect to liquefaction, the extent of lateral ground dis-
placement should be assessed using the following equa-
tions.

Free face model:

Log(DH + 0.01) = -16.366 + 1.178 M - 0.927 Log R

- 0.013 R + 0.657 Log W
+ 0.348 Log TIS
+ 4.527 Log(100 - PIS) - 0.922 D50 ls

Ground slope model:

Log(DH + 0.01) = -15.787 + 1.178 M - 0.927 Log R

- 0.013 R + 0.429 Log S
+ 0.348 Log TIS
+ 4.527 Log( 100 - PIS) - 0.922 D50 ls

where log is common log (base 10)

DH = the horizontal displacement (m)

M = the moment magnitude of earthquake
R = nearest horizontal distance to the seismic energy
source (km)
W = the free-face ratio; i.e., 100 HIL (%)
S = the ground slope (%)
TIS = the thickness of saturated sands with blowcount
(NI)60::; 15 (m)
PIS = average fines content in TIS particle size < 0.075
mm (%)
D50 1S =the average grain size (mm)

ATC-32 80S Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations 93

 L
3>1
l'
H
x
POSrTlVE GROUND SLOPE
Y L OlSPLACEI.IENT VECTOR

L - DISTANCE FROM TOE OF FREE FACE TO DISPLACEMENT VECTOR.

H - HEIGHT OF FREE FACE ~.e., CREST - TOE ELEVATION)
S - SLOPE OF NATURAL GROUND TOWARD CHANNEL - 100 YfX. (in percent)
W - FREE FACE RATIO - 100 HIL. (LIl percant)

CASE 1 - MEASUREMENT OF FREE FACE FACTORS AND GROUND SLOPE FOR

GROUND SLOPING TOWARD CHANNa (I.E. POSTIVE GROUND SLOPE).

Y
x
DISPLACEMENT VECTOR
NEGATIVE GROUND SlOPE

L - DISTANCE FROM TOE OF FREE FACE TO DISPLACEMENT VECTOR.

H - HEIGHT OF FREE FACE (L6., CREST - TOE ELEVATION)
S - SLOPE OF NATURAL GROUND AWAY FROM CHANNEL - -100 YfX. ~n percent)
W - FREE FACE RATIO -100 HIL. (1Cl percent)

CASE 2· MEASUREMENT OF FREE FACE FACTORS AND GROUND SlOPE FOR

GROUND SLOPING AWAY FROM CHANNEL (I.E. NEGATIVE GROUND SlOPE).

Figure RC4-2 Definition of free face factors, Land H, and ground slope,S, for free-face ground-spread displace-
t
ment.

HOlE; UPPER UNE (;E tu:U,E)K::E

EXTENDS lOO"Y1 FROII TOE ,~
:~

~
OI8PlACEWEllTYECTOA---" 'z
. ~-,+--"""'-;:~
Y1 CRE&f y :~

TOE '--- x -J i~
I llXl"'Yl 031'!
!

S(")-lD'J(Y/Xl

CASE 2· DEFNT'1OH 01' 8 FOR CASE3

ICASe,· OEflNTlOH OF GROUND SLOPE. S. FOR
I LONQ UNIFORM SI..OPES.
'MiERE DISPUCalDIT VECTOR IS BELOW Lf'PER
UNE OF INFl.I.eICE. IllJT N!J<NE CREST.

NOTE; LOWER UNE OF INR.UBa

~ EXTENDS lOO"Y1 FROIol CREST.
ffi,
~r- 1lXl"V1 :;3
I CP£ST
CREST _

~X1­
~:
~: ~1 ~ I
VI

~i TOE~ y
Ii:'"----~L:;;~=DlSPLNElENT==-- x~ TOE

S (%) -100(Y/Xl • (")-'llll(Y1/X1)

CASE 3· DERHmoN OF S FOR CASES CASE •• CEl'lNlTlOll 01' S FOR C\SSS

WHEl'f DlSPl.ACEUEl/T VECTOR IS ABOVE '-""Ell WHER£ DISPUCEllEI/T ~ IS l.OCATED
UNE 01' INFUJENCE. BUT ANNE TOE. IlETWEEN Tl£ CR£ST AND Tl£ TOE.

Figure RC4-3 Definition of ground slope, S, for long, uniform slope ground spread displacement.

94 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

The lateral ground spread models have been developed

using data from stiff soil sites in the western United
States and Japan. They are considered appropriate for
seismic sources and ground motion attenuation charac-
teristics of the western United States. The equations are
considered invalid for a site-to-seismic source distance
below a threshold value, given in Table RC4-2.

Table RC4-2 Minimum R for Lateral Ground Spread

Models

M R(km)

6.5 0.25
7.0 1
7.5 5
8.0 10
8.5 25
9.0 50

Bartlett and Youd's lateral spread prediction model

is based largely on empirical data. One of its drawbacks
is that a very large statistical scatter was observed in the
empirical data. The presented equations merely repre-
sent the mean value prediction. The database upon
which these equations were developed indicate that dis-
placement magnitude can vary by a factor of two
between the mean value and the 92-percent confidence
level. Other researchers (e.g. Hamada, 1992) have
offered different lateral-spread prediction models based
more on mechanistic theory than on empirical data. The
Barlett and Youd models are relatively simple and
account for most appropriate parameters that appear to
affect lateral spreading.
Dynamic Settlement. The potential for dynamic set-
tlement should be evaluated at loose sand sites. Guid-
ance on dynamic settlement considerations is given in
Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) and Pyke, Seed, and Chan
(1975).
Liquefaction Mitigation. A number of methods are
available to mitigate liquefaction problems. These
include

• Removal or replacement of liquefiable soils.

• Dynamic compaction. This method entails drop-

ping weights of 10-50 tons from heights of 50-150
feet. The weights impact grids ranging in size from
7 x 7 to 25 x 25 feet. The effective depth that can be
compacted depends on the size of the weights, the
height of the drop, and the soil type. The effective
depth is typically limited to 40 feet. Generally this

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations 95

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

method is suitable for clean sands and gravels at

sites free from existing structures.

• Vibro-compaction. This method involves inserting

and withdrawing a large vibrating probe. The probe
is inserted to the depth for which compaction is
required. Sometimes granular backfill is added and
densified during withdrawal of the probe. This
method is most effective for particle sizes larger
than about 0.2 mm.

• Vibro-replacement (Stone column). This method is

very similar to vibro-compaction, but gravel or
crushed stone is backfilled and compacted during
withdrawal of the vibrator to leave "stone columns"
about three feet in diameter. The columns are
placed in a grid with spacings ranging from 6 to 11
feet. In addition to the densification, the stone col-
umns also improve drainage and reinforce the soil.
This method can be used to treat soils with smaller
particle size that are not suitable for vibro-compac-
tion alone. It can also be used for silts and clays.

• Compaction grouting. For sites where vibratory

densification may be impractical because of poten-
tial damage to nearby structures, compaction grout-
ing can be used to inject a stiff soil-cement-water
mixture to form grout bulbs in the soil, which dis-
place and densify the ground.

Soft Clay Sites

New soil site classifications have been developed for the

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
(NEHRP) provisions. A preliminary version of the new
provisions identified a Class F site condition for which
site-specific studies to determine the site-specific design
spectrum are mandatory. These Class F sites include a
number of soil conditions, as follows:

• Soils vulnerable to potential failure or collapse

under seismic loading, including liquefiable soils,
quick and highly sensitive clays, collapsible weakly-
cemented soils, etc.

• Sites with peats and/or highly organic clays exceed-

ing ten feet in thickness

• Sites with a major layer of very high plasticity clays

with PI >75%, exceeding 25 feet in thickness

• Sites with layers of very soft or medium-stiff clays,

exceeding 120 feet in thickness

96 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

Site Response. The potential for amplification of

ground motions from a distant earthquake at soft clay
sites was first recognized in the 1985 Mexico earthquake
and was seen again during the 1989 Lorna Prieta earth-
quake. A mechanistic explanation for the large site-
amplification effects observed for soft clay sites was
given by Bielak and Romo (1989). They attributed the
effect to the relatively linear stress-strain behavior and
small damping exhibited by clays for strain levels during
freefield site response. Another factor contributing to
the large amplification effects in 1985 and 1989 is that at
both Mexico City and the San Francisco Bay Area, the
soft clay is often underlain by bedrock at a relatively
shallow depth (approximately 200 feet). This configura-
tion gives rise to a large impedance contrast, which leads
to a pronounced site period and results in a higher
degree of resonance. Site-specific response analyses shall
be conducted at Class F sites. Data typically required for
site response analyses are shear-wave velocity profiles,
soil moduli, and soil damping versus strain amplitude
curves. Therefore, in situ tests such as geophysical tests
for shear-wave velocity would be desirable for such soil
sites. Collecting undisturbed samples for consolidation
tests to determine past stress history, index tests for
Atterberg limits, and initial and remolded (or residual)
shear strength and dynamic tests (cyclic triaxial and sim-
pIe shear tests) of the soft clays are important for charac-
terizing soft clay sites.

Slope Hazard Sites

Earthquakes have been recognized as major causes of

landslides. It is essential to make use of available geo-
logic information to evaluate potential slope hazards.
Geologic literature is often the source of information of
past landslide activities, geologic units that are landslide
prone, etc. Sites that have experienced landslide prob-
lems from other loading conditions (e.g., static gravity
and ground water) would also be vulnerable to landslid-
ing during earthquakes. Therefore, existing geologic
data should be used to identify whether there are land-
slide hazards at a given bridge site. At those sites that
have been known for landslide hazards, slope stability
analyses should be conducted. Seismic slope stability can
be evaluated using conventional pseudo-static slope sta-
bility analyses. The magnitude of earthquake-induced
slope movements can be addressed using Newmark's
sliding block analysis. Simplified equations (e.g., Frank-
lin and Chang, 1977) can be used to quantify the magni-
tude of slope movements in Newmark's sliding block
models.
As discussed earlier, empirical equations have been
provided by researchers (e.g., Bartlett and Youd, 1992)
for determining the lateral ground displacements at liq-

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations 97

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

uefied soil sites. Such empirical procedures are consid-

ered reasonable to complement the above-discussed
deterministic slope stability procedure (Newmark's slid-
ing block in conjunction with pseudo-static slope stabil-
ity analysis). The deterministic procedure allows the
analysis to reflect site-specific soil data (e.g., residual
strength parameters) and the local slope configuration
and detailed ground motion information. It is more
refined than the empirical approach (e.g., Bartlett and
Youd, 1992). The empirical approach is appropriate for
addressing the lateral ground-spread problem for very
gently sloping ground at a site not immediately in the
vicinity of the slope embankment (i.e., several hundreds
of feet from a river bank). The deterministic approach
would be more reliable in the immediate vicinity of the
slope or embankment. However, as discussed earlier,
there is a significant level of overall uncertainty in all
current approaches used to estimate the magnitude of
lateral and vertical ground displacement. Also, there is a
significant uncertainty with respect to the appropriate
soil strength parameter (e.g., residual shear strength of
soils) to be used in such ground-deformation evalua-
tions. More research in the area of ground deformation
is needed. More detailed background information on
the subject has been extracted and included in the
ATC-32-1 document (ATC, 1996).

Fault Rupture Hazard Sites

There is California state legislation (the Alquist-Priolo

Special Study Zone Act) that forbids constructions and
development activities at sites that are known to have
fault rupture hazards from active faults, unless the
project is adequately investigated and evaluated. The
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG)
publishes and maintains a set of maps that designate
zones as having fault rupture hazards. Although Caltrans
is exempt from this legislation, it would still be appro-
priate to make use of the CDMG information to evaluate
the potential for fault rupture at a given bridge site. At
sites that are identified as special study zones, it would
be appropriate to conduct more detailed geologic map-
ping and investigations to clarify the relative location of
the fault trace in relation to the bridge structure. Infor-
mation developed from such investigation programs
should be provided to CDMG to enhance the database
of that agency.

4.5.4 Abutments and Wingwalls (4.5.4 Abutments and Wingwalls

The participation of abutment walls in the overall Prior to an earthquake, abutments and wingwalls
dynamic response of bridge systems to earthquake function as fill-retaining systems. Therefore, they are
loading and in providing resistance to seismically generally designed as retaining walls, based on the
requirements set forth in the Caltrans Bridge Design Aid

98 BOS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
induced inertial loads shall be considered in the seismic
design of bridges.
Damage to abutment walls that is allowed to occur
during earthquakes shall be consistent with the perfor-
mance criteria described in Section 3.21.2.
Abutment participation in the overall dynamic
response of bridge systems shall reflect the structural
configuration, the load-transfer mechanism from
bridge to abutment system, the effective stiffness and
force capacity of wall-soil systems, and the level of
expected abutment damage.
The capacity of abutments to resist the bridge iner-
tialload shall be compatible with the structural design
of the abutment wall (i.e., whether part of the wall will
be damaged by the design earthquake) as well as the soil
resistance that can be reliably mobilized. The soil capac-
ity shall be evaluated based on an applicable passive
earth-pressure theory.
ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations
COMMENTARY
Articles 1.1 through 1.6 and the earth-pressure load as
defined in Article 3.20 of the Caltrans Bridge Design
Specifications. Although retaining walls are designed for
relatively small active earth pressures (say a static lateral
earth-pressure coefficient of 0.3), most free-standing
retaining walls not associated with other structures have
performed well during past earthquakes (see further dis-
cussion in 4.5.8). On the other hand, certain bridge
abutments, especially skewed abutments, have been
known to be highly prone to damage during earth-
quakes. The drastic difference in performance between
retaining and abutment walls can be attributed to the
fact that free-standing retaining walls are not prevented
from moving in ways that relieve the earthquake-
induced soil pressure, whereas abutment movements are
typically restricted to some degree by the bridge struc-
ture. In addition, the inertial load of the bridge forces
the wall to move into the backfill soil, creating a passive
earth-pressure loading condition on the abutment walls.
The magnitude of the passive earth pressure is generally
extremely high as compared to the active pressure (pas-
sive-pressure coefficient is generally over 30 times that of
the active-pressure coefficient). If a wall is designed for
the lower active pressure only, it would be highly vulner-
able to damage when subjected to the passive pressure
loading condition. Caltrans has adopted a design philos-
ophy that controlled abutment damage is acceptable.
Experience from past earthquakes indicates that follow-
ing such damage, emergency repairs are effective in
restoring the bridge to a usable condition within a short
time.
Given that it is impractical to design abutments for
no damage in an earthquake, the most immediate need
regarding abutment design is to characterize the abut-
ment stiffness for dynamic response analysis of the
bridge, in order to capture the overall bridge displace-
ment amplitude and the load distribution to columns or
piers so that the integrity of the overall bridge can be
evaluated. The following aspects should be considered in
characterizing the abutment stiffness in the overall
bridge model.
• The designer should examine the connection
between the bridge and abutment walls. Many wing
walls are not tied structurally to the abutment back-
wall and therefore cannot mobilize any wing-wall
stiffness in the bridge model.
• The designer should evaluate whether the abutment
wall would be damaged during the design earth-
quake, to determine the portion of the wall height
that the bridge can rely on to mobilize the backfill
resistance.
99
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

• Flexibility of the abutment walls should be consid-

ered in determining the extent to which the wall
would be effective in mobilizing backfill resistance.
Simplified models of a cantilever beam on elastic
springs indicate that an 18-inch thick concrete wall
cannot mobilize the soil resistance beyond five feet
from the point of support. For typical box-girder
bridges, the Caltrans practice oflimiting the soil
resistance at the back wall to an eight-foot wall
height is reasonable. Soil resistance mobilized
beyond the effective height should be ignored in
bridge response analysis. For other bridge types
(e.g., slab bridges), a smaller wall height (i.e., the
effective depth below the soffit) would be appropri-
ate. Similarly, only the effective width of the wing
wall should be accounted for in developing soil
resistance to the inertial load in the transverse direc-
tion. The soil resistance of deeper back walls or
longer wing walls can be used if the structural con-
figuration justifies the assumption (e.g., non-canti-
lever walls).

• The designer should estimate the backfill pressure

capacity. Research at the University of California at
Davis (Maroney et al., 1994) showed that 7.7 ksf
average soil pressure capacity is reasonable for an
eight-foot wall height. The average unit soil pres-
sure capacity (i.e., 7.7 ksf) should be reduced lin-
early in proportion to wall height for wall heights
less than eight feet, in accordance with the effective
overburden pressure of frictional backfills. These
are some typical rule-of-thumb parameters for
assessing the backfill capacity for abutment design.
Although these parameters have been found to pro-
vide reasonable designs, more rigorous analysis pro-
cedures that can implement more site-specific soil
and structural data have been developed from
recent research. Some information from this
research is presented in ATC-32-1 (ATC, 1996).

• Site-specific backfill properties can be used to deter-

mine abutment capacity in lieu of the presumptive
values based on appropriate passive earth-pressure
theory. Some discussions on passive earth-pressure
theories are provided in ATC-32-1 (ATC, 1996).

• The designer should estimate the magnitude of dis-

placement required to mobilize the ultimate pas-
sive-pressure capacity. Clough and Duncan (1991)
suggested movements ranging from 0.0 1 to 0.02 of
wall height. The Ue. Davis data suggested a move-
ment of 0.006 of effective wall height. A wall move-
ment of 0.01 of wall height to mobilize the full

100 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

ultimate passive pressure would be reasonable for

most typical conditions.

• The displacement to mobilize the soil resistance

should be added to the size of the movement to
close the gap at expansion joints for seat-type abut-
ments when determining effective abutment stiff-
ness in bridge response analysis.

• Analysis results should be checked to see whether

the load distributed to the abutment has exceeded
the estimated soil capacity for the abutment. If nec-
essary, the abutment stiffness should be reduced
and the dynamic analysis repeated until the results
reflect the proper load distribution between the
abutments and the bridge columns.

• Similar procedures can be used to evaluate the

transverse stiffness of wing walls. Factors to adjust
for the flexibility of the wing wall and to account for
the combined effects of a pair of wing walls at each
abutment can be found in Caltrans Bridge Design
Aids 14-1 through 14-10 (Caltrans, 1989). Effective
wing wall width should be limited to five feet as dis-
cussed previously, unless a different value can be
justified for the specific structural configuration
(e.g., non-cantilevered wing wall).

• Past earthquake performance reveals that skewed

abutments are highly vulnerable to damage, espe-
cially at the wing wall that forms an acute angle with
the back wall (i.e., the acute wing wall). Therefore
the wing wall stiffness should be either reduced for
the acute wing wall, or ignored for highly skewed
abutments. In addition to reducing the effective
abutment stiffness in the transverse loading direc-
tion, the skewness of the abutment introduces sig-
nificant differences in the transverse abutment
stiffness in the positive versus the negative loading
direction. This effect could induce torsional
response in the bridge, leading to a significantly
higher level of displacement at the acute wing wall
than at the obtuse wing wall, and hence a higher
level of damage at the acute wing wall. The skew
angle at abutments should be reduced, even at the
expense of increasing the bridge length. This is
especially pertinent for long, curved connectors for
which large earthquake displacements and forces
are anticipated at the abutments. Adding CIDH
piles at the acute wing wall can also be used to min-
imize damage to skewed bridges.

• The Caltrans Design Aids Articles 14-1 through 14-

10 (Caltrans, 1989) recommend typical stiffness val-

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations 101

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
4.5.5 PiLe Foundations
The following design requirements shall apply to
bridges on deep foundations including large diameter
drilled shafts, driven concrete and steel piles, driven
steel shells filled with concrete, and cast-in-drilled-hole
piles:
(a) Lateral foundation design forces associated with
Group VII Loading shall be based on either (i) plas-
tic hinging of the bridge column, (ii) linear
dynamic response analyses using the appropriate
elastic response spectrum (e.g., ARS), or (iii) more
advanced nonlinear or linear dynamic response
analyses. The governing foundation design forces
shall be based on the maximum forces that can be
102 80S Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations
COMMENTARY
ues for standard piles of 40 kips/in per pile, with a
lateral capacity of 40 kips at abutments. This value
is reasonable and the complexities of most abut-
ment configurations render further refinements on
the lateral pile stiffness at abutments meaningless in
practice. Stiffness of the piles is generally very small
compared to the backwall and should be neglected
in the longitudinal abutment stiffness calculations
to minimize complexity in the analysis (e.g., adjust-
ments of pile stiffness for gaps at expansion joints,
accounting for breakoffs of part of the wall, or when
the wall is on bearing pads and not directly con-
nected to the pile foundation). The pile stiffness is
significant when compared to the transverse abut-
ment stiffness and should be included in the calcu-
lations where appropriate (e.g., where there are
shear keys to mobilize the foundation stiffness or
the wall is monolithic with the foundation).
The above requirements address the need for abut-
ment modeling to evaluate the integrity of the bridge
structure. They do not address the integrity of the abut-
ment system itself with respect to the design earthquake
load. For Important Bridges, where functionality of the
bridge must be ensured during and immediately follow-
ing an earthquake, the structural component of the
abutments must be designed to accommodate the
required earthquake load and the passive-pressure con-
ditions. Detailed guidelines on designing abutments to
prevent abutment damage require further development
and most of all, innovation in abutment configurations.
The use of structural approach slabs would increase the
chance of the bridge remaining functional following
earthquakes. Implementation of ongoing research find-
ings is encouraged to improve the performance and sur-
vivability of bridge abutments in earthquakes.
(4.5.5 PiLe Foundations
Cyclic Degradation on Bearing Capacity. Adequate bear-
ing capacity must be ensured to prevent bearing capacity
failure of the pile foundation. The traditional safety fac-
tor of two for service-level loads appears to be adequate
for most sites without poor soil. There have been many
case histories of bearing capacity or excessive settlement
failure from past earthquakes at poor soil sites. This
indicates that the traditional static factor of safety of two
may not be adequate to allow for cyclic degradation
effects. Therefore cyclic degradation effects should be
explicitly taken into account in pile capacity evaluations
at poor soil sites. The Caltrans BDS pile design criterion
should be interpreted that "after allowance for cyclic
degradation effects, the ultimate pile capacity should be
two times that of the compressive load required to resist
ATC-32
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
transmitted to the foundation (See Commentary
3.21.7).
(b) The capacity of pile foundations and their individ-
ual components to resist seismic loading shall be
based on ultimate structural and soil capacities,
consistent with the safety-evaluation earthquake
performance criteria described in Article 3.21.2.
(c) Effects of loading from earth pressure generated by
lateral ground displacements and dynamic settle-
ment associated with liquefaction or soft-soil
response shall be accounted for at poor soil sites.
(d) Stronger connection details and the choice of more
compliant pile types, and detailing of piles for
potential in-ground hinges (e.g., at boundaries of
liquefied or soft soil layers) shall be evaluated at
such poor soil sites.
(e) The use of batter pile groups shall be based on
load-deformation analysis of the pile group config-
uration.
(f) Foundation stiffness shall be accounted for in the
dynamic response analysis of the overall bridge
(See Commentary 4.5.5).
(g) Rotational and lateral displacements at founda-
tions shall be consistent with the performance cri-
teria described in Article 3.21.2 (See Commentary
4.5.1).
ATC-32 BOS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations
COMMENTARY
the demand for service-level load cases (ie., dead weight
plus live load)". Experience suggests that explicit cyclic
degradation evaluations should be carried out for the
following soil/pile conditions
• At river crossings or foundations in open water
• At liquefiable sites
• At soft clay sites (sensitivity of the clay is four or
greater).
• For friction piles where the pile tip is not embedded
in bedrock, or where a high proportion (over 50
percent) of the ultimate capacity would come from
skin friction rather than from end-bearing.
• For long and slender piles (pile length over 50 feet)
where the cyclic pile top displacement amplitude is
sufficiently large to initiate cyclic degradation ofskin
friction (i.e., zero-to-peak cyclic pile top displace-
ment in excess ofO.s inch). Past cyclic loading pile
test data suggest that the mechanism of shear stress
reversal (or plastic slippage) at the soil-pile inter-
face, induced by rocking motion of the superstruc-
ture is the key mechanism of cyclic degradation of
the skin-friction component of pile capacity.
Lam (1994) presented some procedures for soil-pile
interaction analysis, including aspects for rate and cyclic
degradation effects that can be used in a comprehensive
soil-pile interaction analysis. However, such analyses
might not be practical for common usage. In lieu of soil-
pile interaction analysis, the factor of safety can be
increased to three to arrive at the allowable compressive
pile load from the ultimate pile capacity as determined
from conventional pile capacity procedures. Some infor-
mation soil-pile analysis is included in ATC-32-1 (ATC,
1996).
Uplift Capacity. While the presumptive values on
uplift pile capacities (based on structural capacity) typi-
cally assumed by Caltrans (ie., 50 percent ofthe ultimate
compressive capacity, as stated in Caltrans BDS Com-
mentary, Article 4.3.4.6) is reasonable, the uplift capacity
of a pile can vary significantly. Therefore, site-specific
evaluation must be conducted to determine the uplift
pile capacity. The uplift soil capacity must then be
checked against the capacity of the pile connection
details and the structural capacity of the pile.
Connection Details. As stated in Caltrans BDS Com-
mentary, the details for the standard Class-45 and 45C
piles, Class-70 and 70C piles, and 16-inch cast-in-
drilled-hole standard Caltrans piles are adequate for an
uplift force equal to 50 percent of the ultimate compres-
103
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

sive axial load capacity (two times the allowable pile

loads of 45 and 70 tons). When the 50 percent value is
exceeded, the structural capacity of the pile must be cal-
culated from a project-specific analysis. Connection
details must be designed on a project-specific basis as
well, and shown on the design plan. As discussed in the
section on displacement-based foundation design in
ATC-32-1, the connection details should be strength-
ened whenever possible to exceed the uplift soil capacity.
This enhances the chance that a ductile soil failure mode
will occur.
Lateral Pile Stiffness. The subject oflateral pile stiff-
ness has been heavily researched during the past 20
years. There is no lack of procedures for conducting soil-
pile interaction analysis. However, many procedures are
not sufficiently simple for practical applications. The
state-of-practice is to use beam-column models sup-
ported by nonlinear lateral springs (p-ycurves). The
most widely adopted p-y procedures are those developed
by Reese et al. (1974) for sand and Matlock (1970) for
clays. Linear subgrade stiffness values, as recommended
by Terzaghi, have also been widely used by geotechnical
engineers.
In the past, Caltrans has recommended some pre-
sumptive stiffness values (BDS Article 4.3.4.8 dated Jan-
uary, 1993) for service load design at a pile deflection of
one-quarter inch. These stiffness values can also be used
for earthquake design, as summarized in Table RC4-3.

Table RC4-3 Presumptive Pile Stiffness Values (as

Derived From Caltrans BDS 4.3.4.8)

1/4 in. defl. Stiffness

Pile Type Load (kips) (kip/in)

16" CIDH 13 52
IS" driven concrete 13 52
12" driven concrete 5 20
12" or 10" steel flange 5 20
8" steel flange 4 16
Timber 5 20

The tabulated stiffness values were based largely on

pile load tests. They tend to underestimate the pile stiff-
ness in view of the fact that most pile footings are
embedded some distance below grade (with the pile top
typically under five feet of overburden).
Lam has developed a series oflinear pile-head stiff-
ness design charts to expedite soil-pile analysis, as shown
in Figures RC4-4 through RC4-12. The stiffness charts
arise from the basic beam-on-elastic subgrade reaction
theory first proposed by Terzaghi (1955). Such proce-
dures have been widely used for pile design for over 30

104 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations ATC-32

 FRICTION ANGLE.cP·
28· 29'" 30" 38·

VERY LOOSE MEDIUM DENSE VERY

o LOOSE DENSE
04-----J------....------..----J-----r--1...------.f

Recommended by Terzaghi, 1955

(After O'Neill and Murchison, 1983)

oOJ ~------J----__L . - - - - - - + _ - _ ----t----r------t

(J)
~
ro
H
b1)
a
(\J
-f---------i-------if--~,;£--- ""L------+-----i
,..D
~
C/).

a 4------+----~~---_+----...;..----...,

o 20 YO 60 80 100

Rel.ative Density (Percent)

Figure RC4-4 Recommendations for coefficient of variation in subgrade modulus with depth for sand.

ATC-32 BOS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations 105

 BLOWCOUNT (BLOWS/FT)

0 2 4 8 15 30

STIFF VERY STIFF HARD

Q
Q
.....
SOFT

-
C":>
c: VERY SOFT
~
-uS
;:::...

C/)
Q
QO

w
zu.
u.
i=
C/)
W Q
Cl \Q
«
II: 2
(!)
EdLB/IN )
III ////
:::>
CJ)
///
Z
Z ,./
0 Q
-.:r
i= ,,"'bOW
~
II: /""..~~;9
« ~~
>
u.
0
u.:
U. Q
W N
0
()

o 1 2 3 4 5
COHESION (ksf)

Figure RC4-5 Recommendations for coefficient of variation in subgrade modulus with depth for clay.

106 80S Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations ATC-32

 \0
Q
~

-
I.' ...-:
j..- ~ r..,....-
Z v I---' ::,....-" V
::::::: b;:::j;.o
co ~ ~ V I--'"

-
...J

c:i
Z
Ifl
Q
~
..........-:: ~ l--:
l;::t::
~ ~ l\J,..
~J,.. V
V
V
V I---'
I--'"
j..-I-'

0
()
0
<{
w
:c
w
I
----- ~ ~ .....
V
p;::..
-
~

~ .....
.....
1--'
V
~

./'
./

.,..- ~
.,..- .....
V" ...-":r\
~ '"\ \ 1\[\
\\' ~\ 1\/\ ~
.....-V ......
L..--'

.,..- ~
W
a:
u.
...Q
~
V
~
V
~~
I--' V
V
V KS K
~~
~ ....... j..-

a: f 200
0 f 150
u. ...... 1./ I,..- ....... I" \
C/)
CJ)
w
zu. ...-
.,..- !-'" -- .....
~
........... 1\ \ \
l\\\
f = 100
f = 80
f =60

~
i-"'" f =40
C"l ........- V
u. .............. ............... f =20
Q
i=
C/) ~ f = 10
...J f =5
<{ f =1
a: l..-""'" \
f =0.5
w
~
f= 0.1
...J
N Coeff. of Variation of Soil Reaction
Q Modulus with Depth, f (LB/IN 3)
~
'" I
10 10 1011 1012
BENDING STIFFNESS, EI (LB-IN 2)

_Pe,1i
FREE HEAD PILE STIFFNESS
2
I
K
=KIi - ~
,I Ka
~~
I
I
I
= 0.41
I
I ~1\1/5
I
T= \T7

Figure RC4-6 Lateral stiffness of free-headed piles.

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations 107

 r--
Q
?""4
.
-co
Z
:::::::
l.----: t::~
~
-
-I
<0
\D
f = 200 ..... ~~
v:::
~ b:=:
~~ ~ ...
V I--" ~
0-w
«
Q
?""4 -:
. f
f
=
=
150 ~
100 ~ ./ ./'
:c f = 80 ~ V-~ t...-"'" ~ ~

0 f = 60 "- "
~ ~ ...... V v .,.,... ....
I..-'
J..-~
w V ~ i::=-I,.o v V
I..-'
./'V
x
-
u:::
CJ)
CJ)
It'I
Q
?""4
~ I,.o~
L,......-:: t::::: l...-
~
~ t:::: i--'"
......~ ."
f-'f-' t>< vf"-, ~

i-"'"
~~
l,..-
...... ~

W
Z
u. .,......
./'

u.
i= ~
L...- ~
..........
I-""
.,.... K" p..: D
I-""
.,....K f"-,i" .....
i"-~ V
CJ)
."V ~

V .....
-I
« I-"'" j;'
f
~
i--'" I" = 40
z V
0 ~ V V i--'"
f-'l-'
I..-' J>" f = 20
f = 10
~
?""4
f = 5
-I ~ f = 1
.....
"" "
CJ) ~ J..-"
Z .,.... f = 0.5
«
a::
l-
~
" f = 0.1
V Coeff. of Variation of Soil Reaction
t') V
Q
?""4
V .
Modulus with Depth, f (LB/IN3 )
, •• I .
10 10 1011 10 13
BENDING STIFFNESS, EI (LB-IN 2 )

I
Pt =KS'5+ Kss·e
I
, /
Mt = K 5+ se Ke' e
K =1.0765·E·1
T3
~1/5
T =\ f I

Figure RC4-7 Coefficient for lateral pile head stiffness (fixed head pile lateral stiffness).

108 80S Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations ATC-32

 ~¥
-=
z
«
~ v~t::
Ci
« "¢ ~~ ~ ,,-~~
-
a:
CD
...J
Z
I
~

"l~ '"
/

~ ~~ ..-
~ I
en
Cf)
w
=-.
=
~
~~ "'->' ~
f 200
z~ r/ "- f 100
~ 'l "'- "- "'- f'f = 60
i=
Cf) 'l ""
:;-' ~ ~ f'f = 10
...J V.h :;-' ,/ ~ f'f = 5
« =
~ ~
V f'-f 1
z I"~~ =
=
IX)
H 0.5
0 ~
- f = 0.1
~
t-
O i'7/ VV
a: ' / p /'
~/
/' Coeff. of Variation of Soil Reaction
r--
=
~
Modulus with Depth, f (LB/IN 3)
I I I I I I II I

10 10 1011 10 12
2
BENDING STIFFNESS, EI (LB-IN )

Pt =K6-0+ KIl9-a
\
,I
Mt =KooO+ Ke-a
I
I
K =1.499- E·I
I T3
I
I ~1/5
I
T =\ f I

Figure RC4-8 Coefficient for pile head rotation.

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations 109

 --
m
...J "l'"A
,.....
~ 1''''-:::

r;:;
~ [...01..-

=
Q()
<Cl
1/
co .-I
~
en
CI)
..... /'
w ~A ~ 1./ ......
Z v KP. ...... V .;-
u..
~ ~ ~~
u..
fQ$ ~ Kt'-- k" .;- .....
t;
(!J
Z
=
t--
.-I
......
f
f
......
200
150
::J 7 ~ V.) '.:::: f 100
D. ~ ~~ V/, ...... 1A" V f = 80
:::>
0
()
k:%:; f¢ r;:; 'i ..... [...0 )
~'"i"- "'"
~" f = 60

~
I..-'" [...oJ.-

= ~ r::
V V f = 40
/ . r:::
""
I
CI) \C 1/ [...oJ.- i"- f = 20
CI)
.-I f = 10
0
a: f = 5
() =
/' 1/ 1"-. "-. f 1
f = 0.5
./ ./
v./ [...0
"'"
f = 0.1

V Coeff. of Variation of Soil Reaction

./ Modulus with Depth, f (LB/IN 3 )
n-r
• II 'I I

10 10 1011 10 12
2
BENDING STIFFNESS, EI (LB-IN )
,.....
MI.e

_PI,O
Pt = Ko 5+ Koeoe
0

Mt =K065+ Keoe

Koe =0.999 Eol 0

T2
l.lli1/ 5
T =\ f J

Figure RC4-9 Coefficient for cross-coupLing stiffness term.

110 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations ATC-32

 r--.
............ 0
:z: ~ EMBEDMENT
............ O'
CD
.-J - - - - S'
------...0 --- 10' L-- .- !-
:::.:::
.--...
<.D
0 l---
.- '-
- V
-- vv
0 ~
- f = 100
«
l.LJ
::x: ~~..... -- -
0
l.LJ
X
------
-- :.-- -- ""- ./
/'

L--
-- -- -- ----
--
l.L.
"--" I,{) -- .- .-- ~
~
;:; -::::
---- --
i.-' .-
V')
V')
l.LJ
0
~
,
----
Z
l.L.
l.L.
-- V
~
'0>-

--~
l)o(

'" I,....-,
l- t...--
v
L-- . .-1- f'-, k::::'";: vI-'
V')
-q-
........
.- ~ -- vl--"
.:::,~ ~
--
.
.-J
« 0 l--- I-
V
:z:
0
-i f = 10 f-

I-
« ..- I-"
f =1
.-J
V')
.-
----
" "- f = 0.1
:z: ,.-1-
« ,.,., .-
------ vI-" Coeff. of Variation of Soil Refction
0:::
I- a
-i
V "'adulus wifh Depth, f (LB/IN )
I
IJ
10 10 1011 10 12
BENDING STIFFNESS, EI (LB-IN 2 )

PI = K& . 0 + K 6 .·8
I.lt=K u ·& +K.·8

\.Ie.a
,r--
_FI,~

,,

Figure RC4-10 Comparison of fixed head pile head stiffness at various embedments (0, 5, and 10 feet).

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations 111

 -<
0
, >

....... EMBEDMENT
0'
...--..
:z: - - - - 5' -6 !.t
<!
---10' ~p ~~ ~
Cl 0

~V ~ V v
<! -<
a:::
~ 0
ro .......
--l
I
:z: .~v ~, /' "
/ / / Ih
-----
~
<D
v J? i'-~
!.t

/~
::::" "'~r-..
"
~k
-
V') (])
~:
;..-
V')
0
UJ
:z: ......
L.... -'/ f 100
l.L.. '/.~/ "- "-
l-
V')
V/ #/
.,... ~ "'-- 'f = 10
~ '/.fJ .L. ~
--'
« ~. 'f = 1
:z:
0
CO
0
......
.,,:, l% ~~ ~ ~
f = 0.1 r:-
I-
<X: v'/ ih'.
I- ./
0 V
a::: 1/// h- I--
V./?
l'- ~ Coeff. of Variation of Soil Refclion
0 l..Iodulus with Depth, f (LB!IN )
....... , 'I

10 10 10 11 10 12
BENDING STIFFNESS. EI (LB-IN 2 )

PI = Ki · 8 + KH·e

~= Ki, ·8 + K.·e

Figure RC4-11 Comparison of the rotational stiffness coefficient at various embedments (0, 5, and 10 feet).

112 80S Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations ATC-32

 - EMBEDMENT
0'
- - - - S'
--- 10' ,- i--v
....-....
V
~
CD a::>
-l
a
.......
Ql
..0 ./--/
~ 1/ __ '/
./
1:72 /. ~
(/)
V y
(/)
l..L.J
./ "<: h
:?'
Z
L.-
L.-
l"-
a
~- /
/
,/
.....1..-
::;..... "" '>;
V
~
~.1

I-- .......
--
(/)
L/".r~
/ "-
<..:>
......- --;;; -- 1/..- / ~
f = 100
z /' 1..- / .... ~
-l ..-[7 L....- v . ..-: I"..... v 4) ~ r--.
CL
=> co
0
u
I
a
.......
v- /'
......
),,-- b V , - ~

"'-"
f'
~ f = 10 -
(/)
....-
(/)
0
v..-- /
/--./
'/ "-
f =1
~
..... / "-...
U ./ ..... ~,-/ f = 0.1
~
ID :/" Coeff. of Variation of Soil Refclion
a Modulus with Depth, f (lB/IN )
....... I I I
'I II

10 10 10 11 10 12
BENDING STIFFNESS, EI (LB-IN 2 )

Pt= K,' 8 + K,.·e

~ = K,.' 8 + K. ,e

l.Io.e
C- pt .&

Figure RC4-12 Comparison of the cross-coupling stiffness coefficient at various embedments (O, 5, and 10 feet).

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations 113

 Bridge Design Specifications Commentary

years, and guidance is available regarding the input soil

parameters to use in the design charts (e.g., NAVFAC,
1986). The pile stiffness values presented in the design
charts compare favorably with the presumptive stiffness
values tabulated in Table RC4-3. The design charts pro-
vide stiffness values for various pile-head embedment
and boundary conditions (these factors significantly
affect pile stiffness). The lateral pile stiffness should be
compatible with the pile-cap connection. For example,
an assumption of a free pile head may be appropriate for
timber and steel piles, whereas an assumption of a fixed
head may be appropriate for concrete piles, based on the
Caltrans standard pile details. In addition to the lateral
stiffness, the charts can be used to estimate pile head
moment versus lateral load (e.g., for a fixed-head pile).
Pile Analysis for Liquefied Soil. Recent unpublished
centrifuge tests conducted by Ricardo Dobry at the
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute indicates that fully liq-
uefied sands (from freefield liquefaction effects) has a
residual strength of about 10 percent of the initial p-y
curve resistance, as determined by Reese's p-y proce-
dure. The 10 percent residual strength is appropriate for
fine sands. Other soil types that are less prone to lique-
faction are expected to have higher residual strength val-
ues.
Lateral Pile Capacity. The subject oflateral pile
capacity requires an appreciation ofboth geotechnical
and structural engineering principles. The soil resistance
over the entire pile length generally far exceeds the
demand of the lateral load on the pile foundation. The
issue is not whether there is adequate soil resistance, but
whether the resistance can be mobilized before struc-
tural failure of the pile and before deflections that would
cause distress to the bridge become excessive. A rigorous
process to evaluate lateral pile capacity would involve a
soil-pile interaction analysis to determine the axial load,
bending moment, and shear load along the pile length,
which can then be checked against the structural capac-
ity of the pile. The results should also be checked to
determine if the deflection is excessive. Table RC4-4 pro-
vides Caltrans guidelines for lateral pile capacity and
corresponding stiffness that were used in retrofitting the
San Francisco double-deck viaduct. The guidelines were
based on pile load tests, as interpreted and summarized
by Caltrans. They are applicable for normal soil sites.
Allowable loads and displacements are based on
both pile and pile-cap interaction with surrounding soils
and reflect current Caltrans standard pile details.
The previously presented values on pile stiffness
and capacity represent typical rule-of-thumb values that
can be used for normal soil sites and typical pile footing
configurations. The effects of pile embedment at most
pile footings in the constructed condition would justify a
higher capacity and stiffness, which can be developed

114 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

TableRC4-4 Lateral stiffness and pile capacity

Allow-
Ultimate able
Capacity Displ. Stiffness
Pile Type Soil Type (KlPile) (inch) (klin)

Steel Dense 100 3 35

Granular
Steel Loose 75 3 25
Granular
Steel Soft Cohe- 60 2 30
sive
Concrete Dense 40 1 40
Granular
Concrete Loose 40 2 20
Granular
Concrete Soft 40 2 20
Cohesive

from a site-specific soil-pile interaction analysis. Figures

RC4-4 through RC4-12 can be used to facilitate the stiff-
ness comparison for pile embedments of 0, 5, and 10
feet. Pile stiffness and shear capacity for poor soil sites
(liquefiable and soft clay sites, especially if the pile top is
submerged or within five diameters to ground water)
should be determined from site-specific analysis.
In recent years, significant advancements have been
made in understanding the aspects oflateral stiffness
and capacity of pile footing foundations for highway
bridges. Some discussions on these aspects will be pro-
vided in ATC-32-1. Some of these aspects include:

• Interaction between the pile cap and the supporting

piles

• The depth of ground cover above the pile founda-

tion

• Ductility capacity of the pile member

Refinements in considering these aspects have

become more common in conventional design practice.
Designers now often attempt to incorporate the effects
of specific soil conditions, pile footing configuration,
and mechanical behavior of the specific pile types in
design. In conducting project-specific analyses, either to
provide for lateral capacities or to account for softer soil
characteristics at poor soil sites, proper accounting ofthe
structural and pile connection details is necessary.
Determining the structural capacity of Caltrans standard
concrete piles can follow the procedure described
in Calrans Memos to Designers 22-1 (July, 1989). Inter-

ATC-32 80S Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations 115

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
4.5.5.1 Pite Shaft Foundations
Pile extensions and column shafts, where piles are
extended above ground to directly support the super-
structure without a pile cap, shall be detailed in accor-
dance with the requirements for ductile columns.
116 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations
COMMENTARY
action diagrams for standard reinforced concrete piles
are available in Bridge Design Aid 16-9 (October, 1990).
C4.5.5.1 Pile Shaft Foundations
This type of bridge structure includes bridges in which
the bridge column is extended into the ground as a
large-diameter drilled shaft (typically several feet in
diameter) and bridges in which conventional smaller-
diameter driven piles (say 16-inch piles) are extended
above ground to support the bridge deck. As discussed
in the specification, the overall dynamic response of this
type of bridge structure is very sensitive to the stiffness
characteristics of the pile foundations, especially rota-
tion of the pile.
Past earthquake performance indicates that whereas
large-diameter drilled shafts appear to have performed
adequately, pile-extension bridges (e.g., the Struve
Slough bridge, which collapsed during the Lorna Prieta
earthquake) appear to be more vulnerable to earthquake
damage. It appears that the reinforcing details for many
existing pile extensions (even the unsupported portion)
resemble those for piles. Therefore, they contain less
transverse reinforcement than typical reinforced con-
crete columns. This reduced transverse reinforcement
may have contributed to the relatively poor performance
of pile-extension bridges. However, it should be pointed
out that this design deficiency exists only in older Cal-
trans standards. Current practice and standards require
ductile detailing of the unsupported portion of the pile
extension. Therefore, pile-extension structures built
using the new seismic design criteria would probably
perform substantially better.
Proper modeling of pile-shaft foundations is
required to capture the overall response of pile-shaft
structures. Caltrans procedures for pile-shaft design as
outlined in Bridge Design Aids 12-30 through 12-49
(Caltrans, 1986) provide a good framework for the
design of drilled shafts. The following sections provide
some specific comments in relation to the design proce-
dure.
P-y Curves for Large Diameter Shafts
The conventional approach of soil-pile interaction anal-
ysis tends to underestimate the subgrade resistance for
large-diameter shafts, because most lateral soil support
(p-y) criteria are based on data from pile load tests using
24-inch-diameter piles. Evidence from testing oflarger
diameter shafts such as those on the Century Freeway
(FHWNCNSD-88) suggests significantly higher soil
resistance for these piles. The higher resistance has been
attributed to diameter effects (Pender, 1990 and Stevens
and Audibert, 1979). Lam and Martin (1986) attribute
ATC-32
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

the higher resistance oflarge-diameter shafts to the

mode ofsoil resistance associated with the shaft rotation,
which is not accounted for by the translational mode of
soil (p-y) resistance. Also, the difference in construction
methods (casting concrete in a drilled hole versus pile
driving) could alter the soil (p-y) behavior. Irrespective
of the reason for the higher resistance, it is evident that
the present p-y criteria underpredict the soil resistance
for large-diameter shafts. Modification ofthe commonly
used Reese and Matlock p-y criteria is recommended for
large-diameter drilled shafts.
In Reese's p-y criteria for sands, the input soil
parameters include the friction angle <1>, which controls
the ultimate resistance of the p-y curves and an initial
modulus of subgrade-reaction coefficient k Ob/in 3),
which controls the initial tangent stiffness of p-y curves.
To modify the p-y curves for the apparent diameter
effects, the k value can be increased in linear proportion
to the drilled shaft diameter in excess of two feet. For
example, for a medium-dense sand, a k value of 80 pci
would normally be used to develop p-y curves in Reese's
procedures. For a four foot diameter shaft, the appropri-
ate k value would be 160 pci The friction angle and the
ultimate soil resistance on the p-y curves should there-
fore remain unchanged.
Similar adjustments in Matlock's p-y criteria for
clays can be made to develop p-y curves for large-diame-
ter shafts. In Matlock's criteria for clay, the input soil
parameters include cohesion c ,which controls the ulti-
mate resistance of the p-y curves and a soil-strain value
e" defined as the strain amplitude that occurs at one-half
the maximum stress on laboratory undrained compres-
sion tests of undisturbed soil samples. A typical value of
e, is about 0.01. For a four foot diameter shaft, the
appropriate e, value would be 0.005. The cohesion, and
the ultimate soil resistance on the p-y curves should
therefore remain unchanged.
A similar adjustment procedure can be adopted
when using Figures RC4-4 through RC4-12 for large-
diameter drilled shafts. The subgrade stiffness parameter
f can be increased in proportion to pile-shaft diameters
for diameters larger than 24 inches.
The above adjustments are justified only for certain
situations such as large-diameter shafts supporting high-
way bridges where both the shear and the moment load
produce pile deflection in the same direction and the pile
is constructed by casting concrete in a drilled hole. For
other structures, such as offshore platforms or concrete
pile footings, the pile top at the mudline would experi-
ence a negative moment due to the constraint ofthe steel
frame. For such configurations, adjustments to the p-y
curves to account for the apparent diameter effects
would not be justified. The diameter effect is evident

ATC-32 80S Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations 117

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

from pile load tests, only because most pile load tests are
free-head load tests.

Equivalent Cantilever Length

The equivalent cantilever concept has been commonly

used to extend the point of fixity of the shaft to about
three to four diameters below grade to account for the
flexibility of the embedded shaft. The three to four
diameters value arose from linear beam-on-elastic-sub-
grade analyses that do not account for nonlinear
moment-curvature behavior of the shafts. Research data
from D.C. San Diego (Budek, 1994) indicate that the
plastic hinge would develop at shallower depths due to
such structural nonlinearity. In addition, current sub-
grade theories tend to underpredict the soil stiffness at
grade. Furthermore, concrete sidewalks or pavements
often exist around drilled shafts. The shear resistance
due to pavements has typically been neglected in analy-
sis. All these factors can lead to an overly large equiva-
lent cantilever length. The overestimate on the
equivalent cantilever length can lead to underprediction
of shear load corresponding to the flexural moment
capacity of the shaft. This is nonconservative and there
have been a number of incidents to indicate that the
presence of concrete sidewalks or floor slabs contributed
to column shear failures in past earthquakes (e.g., Olive
View Hospital in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake and
the Imperial County Services Building failure in the 1979
Imperial Valley earthquake). The equivalent column
length for shear load determination associated with plas-
tic moment load should be assumed to be no deeper
than two shaft diameters and should be assumed to be at
grade when concrete pavement is present, unless a gap in
the pavement is provided around the shaft.

Cracked Sectional Modulus

Recent test data further show that minor cracking occurs

at a relatively low nominal moment value on large-
diameter shafts and therefore cracked sectional proper-
ties should be used in dynamic response analyses of
structures supported by drilled shafts.

Minimum Pile Length

Current Caltrans practice involves pile length sensitivity

studies using nonlinear load-deformation analysis for
determining the critical pile length that ensures that
minimum stability ratio criteria are met. Whereas the
concept of ensuring some level of stability (safety mar-
gin) in the design is quite rational, the parameter called
the "stability ratio" has no physical meaning and can
lead to unreasonable designs in many cases. For exam-

118 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
4.5.5.2 Pile Footing Foundations
Pile footings shall be designed to resist shear and
moment from Group VII loads. At normal soil sites, the
ultimate lateral resistance of pile caps acting against soil
may be included in the forces resisting the relative hori-
zontal movement of the foundation. At liquefiable and
soft clay sites, the pile-cap resistance shall be neglected.
When yielding of piles will occur below the pile
footing, pile/footing connection details shall be suffi-
cient to prevent pile pull-out, and transverse reinforce-
ment in concrete piles at the pile head shall be in
accordance with Section 8.18.2.2.4.
When reliable uplift pile capacity from skin-fric-
tion is present, and when the pile/footing connection
detail and structural capacity of the pile are adequate,
uplifting of a pile footing is acceptable, provided that
the magnitude of footing rotation will not result in
unacceptable performance.
ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations
COMMENTARY
pIe, for the same soil condition and the same lateral load
demand, the stability ratio concept requires a larger pile
length for a larger diameter pile, even though the larger
pile would have a higher lateral soil capacity and there-
fore a higher factor of safety in relation to lateral load
demand.
A more rational approach would be to ensure that
the pile length is adequate to provide stable load-deflec-
tion characteristics (e.g., meet an absolute deflection
limit or a deflection limit that is a proportion of pile
diameter) for an overload condition (e.g., a factored
load of two times the demand level). The approach
could further require that P-L1 effects be incorporated in
the pile solutions. Such an approach, which recognizes
the safety margin in relation to the loading condition,
are better than the stability-ratio concept, which overly
penalizes large-diameter shafts with respect to the pile
length requirement. This penalty is unreasonable and
often leads to complexities in construction (e.g., the tip
of the shaft needs to be extended below the ground water
table to meet the stability-ratio criteria). The stability-
ratio criteria are also unreasonable for many retrofit sit-
uations in which large-diameter drilled shafts are used at
abutments, primarily to provide additional lateral stiff-
ness, not to support the weight of the bridge structure.
C4.5.5.2 Pile Footing Foundations
So far as resistance of pile footings is concerned, the
overturning moment is resisted primarily by axial pile
capacity, whereas the lateral shear load is resisted prima-
rily by the lateral force capacity of piles. Since the axial
pile capacity is largely provided by soil resistance at
depth and lateral capacity by soil resistance at very shal-
low depth, there is very little cross-coupling between the
moment and the lateral load capacities for pile footings.
Therefore, soil-pile interaction can be evaluated inde-
pendently with respect to the two modes ofloading. The
following comments are provided regarding design
aspects for overturning moment and lateral load at pile
footings.
Rotational Stiffness and Capacity
There is ample evidence to suggest that the rotational
stiffness of a pile footing has more significant influence
on the overall bridge response than does the lateral stiff-
ness. The rotational stiffness and moment capacity of
pile footings are largely related to the axial pile stiffness
and the ultimate compressive and uplift pile capacities.
The axial stiffness of a pile-soil system can be developed
by computer beam-column analyses (Lam and Martin,
1986) or by simplified graphical methods (Lam and
Martin, 1984). The ultimate and allowable compressive
119
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

and uplift pile capacities should be documented in the

design.
The bending stiffness at individual pile heads can
contribute rotational stiffness to the pile footing, in
addition to the axial pile stiffness. However, this compo-
nent of stiffness is usually small and unreliable because
oflocal concrete cracking at the pile top or pinned pile-
head connection detail. The bending stiffness at the pile
top should hence be neglected, or a pinned head condi-
tion be assumed when estimating the rotational stiffness
of pile footings.

Lateral Stiffness and Capacity

The lateral stiffness of a pile is very sensitive to the pile

head connection details as well as the depth of embed-
ment of the pile head. These factors should be properly
taken into account in evaluating the lateral stiffness of
the pile footing. The soil resistance at the pile cap can
contribute a significant lateral stiffness to the pile foot-
ings (Abcarius, 1991). At normal, stable soil sites, the
resistance of the pile cap can be included in calculations
of the lateral shear force resistance. However, at poor soil
sites (liquefiable and soft clay sites), the potential loss of
bearing capacity of the surficial soils could be a concern,
and the pile cap resistance should be ignored. However,
the designer should be aware that it is generally uneco-
nomical to allow the shear load to control the number of
required piles, considering that the pile is effective in
mobilizing soil resistance at only about the upper five
pile diameters. Other design strategies can be used to
resist the shear load, including:

• Use of thicker or larger footings and including the

pile cap resistance at normal, stable soil sites. The
procedure discussed for abutment backwall stiffness
and capacity can also be used for pile caps

• Use of deeper pile footing embedment, which

would increase the resistance of both the pile and
pile cap

• Modification of the pile top connection detail to

achieve a greater degree of pile head fixity (e.g.,
embedding the pile top deeper into the pile cap)

• Strengthening the structural capacity of the pile at

approximately the upper ten pile diameters

• Use of more ductile pile types that can develop soil

resistance to a higher amplitude of pile deflection

• Soil improvement at shallow depths around the pile

footing and pile head at poor soil sites

120 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

The source of the lateral capacity (in terms of pile

versus pile cap) and the magnitude of deflection to
develop the capacity should be documented in the geo-
technical report.

Structural Types Consideration

The general philosophy in foundation design is to

include a load fuse located in the bridge column. There
is significant merit in this concept due to the many
uncertainties in the magnitude of earthquake load and
the desire to restrict damage to those components above
ground that can be easily inspected and repaired. For
column footings, the load can be effectively limited by
the design of plastic hinging at the column, in which
case the chance of overload in the foundation would be
low. However, the flexural strength of pier walls in the
strong bending direction of the wall would be very high
and the plastic hinge could be forced to form in the pile
head-pile cap connection. A stronger connection detail
and a more ductile pile would enhance the chance of
improved performance of the overall system.

Pile Foundations at Poor Soil Sites

Stronger connection details and more ductile pile types

should be used at poor soil sites (i.e., liquefiable sandy,
soft clay, and landslide-prone sites). At these sites, large
freefield ground displacements would be likely for the
large safety-level earthquake design condition, in addi-
tion to the inertial load of the superstructure. The load-
ing condition associated with ground displacement is
difficult to analyze and design for, due to uncertainty in
the magnitude and mode of ground displacement as well
as the soil property itself. However, the use of stronger
connection details and more ductile pile types will allow
the foundation system to accommodate ground dis-
placement and improve the chance of survivability.

Batter Piles

There has been controversy regarding the use of batter

piles, based on their performance in past earthquakes.
Before deciding to use batter piles, the benefits of these
piles should be weighed against the additional complex-
ity in design, difficulty in construction, and potential
reduced performance. The major benefit of using bat-
tered piles relates to mobilizing larger axial stiffness to
increase the lateral stiffness of the pile group. However,
construction practice generally limits the batter angle.
Although the axial stiffness is relatively large as com-
pared to the lateral pile stiffness, it is finite, and therefore
a realistic assessment of the potential increase in lateral
stiffness by pile battering must be evaluated by a load-

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations 121

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

deformation analysis to account for the pile configura-

tion in conjunction with realistic axial and lateral pile
stiffness characteristics. Experience indicates that in
many cases, the benefit of the increase in the lateral stiff-
ness by pile battering is relatively minor, especially at
poor soil sites, which usually require the use oflong fric-
tion piles.
In the past, designers often implicitly assumed that
the axial stiffness of batter piles was infinite relative to
the lateral stiffness, which directly led to the assumption
that all the lateral force in a batter pile group will be
resisted by the axial pile force and that therefore, a batter
pile need not be designed for bending moment. Such an
assumption is probably the cause of poor performance
of batter piles in past earthquakes (e.g., at Port of Oak-
land during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake). All the
damaged batter piles had poor connection details, as
well as inadequate transverse steel for resisting the flex-
ural moment at the pile head. As discussed above, the
assumption of an infinite axial stiffness is invalid. Expe-
rience in load-deformation analyses of batter pile groups
(especially in the post-elastic range) indicates that batter
piles experience a large bending moment that, in most
cases, is of about the same magnitude as that experi-
enced by a corresponding vertical pile group. Therefore,
batter piles must be detailed for moment and shear load.
Soil-pile interaction must also be considered in the
design of batter pile groups. Most conventional design
analyses only address inertial loading from the super-
structure and not the loading arising from lateral
ground displacement (e.g., lateral spread ofliquefied soil
or lateral embankment movement). For such condi-
tions, the stiffer batter pile groups attract very large
forces and do not perform well compared to the more
compliant vertical pile groups. Batter pile groups should
be avoided at poor soil sites (liquefiable and soft soil sites
or sites that are known to be unstable), unless detailed
analyses are conducted to address all the above issues by
personnel experienced in soil-pile interaction analysis.

Group Effects

For typical pile footings (i.e., fewer than 20 piles at three

diameter center-to-center spacing), group effects can be
ignored in considering the rotational response of pile
groups, because the response of individual piles within
the group are not in phase. At a given time, some of the
piles are compressed whereas others are uplifted from
earthquake-induced moments. There could be some
group effects in regard to lateral loading due to pile
shadowing effects. However, for a typical footing, group
effects are relatively small (about 20 percent). Most
available pile-group test data are from monotonic load-
ing tests or from simplified analyses that tend to over-

122 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
4.5.6 Spread Footing Foundations
Spread footings shall be designed to resist shear and
moment from Group VII loads. The seismic design
requirements for spread footing foundations are essen-
tially similar to the requirements for pile footings with
respect to stiffness modeling and the guidelines for tol-
erable foundation displacements. Additional require-
ments for the design of spread footings are as follows:
(a) Spread footing foundations shall be designed for
proper performance under earthquake group loads
(Group VII Load). The design capacity shall reflect
the capacity of the foundation soil, the structural
capacity of the footing, and the connection details
between the column and the footing. Ultimate
bearing capacity may be used for seismic design.
(b) The effect of overturning moment (eccentricity
loading) and lateral loading (inclined loading) on
bearing capacity shall be considered in the seismic
design of spread footings (See Commentary 4.5.6).
(c) Total foundation settlement and differential settle-
ments between adjacent bents shall not result in
ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations
COMMENTARY
dramatize group effects. Bogard and Matlock (1983)
offered a practical method to account for group effects
based on limited cyclic pile-group test data. These
authors indicate that group effects would be reduced
under cyclic loading conditions. This is particularly valid
for softer soils, where cyclic loading tends to remold a
zone immediately around the pile, with the weakened
soil becoming less effective in transferring induced
stresses to the neighboring piles. In general, group effects
would be more significant for stiffer soil and for static
loading conditions. However, such situations are gener-
ally less critical design concerns. In view of the overall
uncertainties, it is recommended that group effects be
neglected for earthquake loading at three-diameter cen-
ter-to-center spacing or higher.
Group effects can become very important for large
pile groups, such as those at major bridges crossing
water (e.g., the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge).
Such structures can have several hundred piles in a
group. The configuration changes drastically from long
slender piles to a reinforced soil-mass system in which
the overall configuration of the pile group rather than
individual piles can become the governing mechanism.
For cases in which group effects can be important, they
shall be properly accounted for in the analysis. Such sys-
tems warrant finite-element analysis to account for
potential group effects.
C4.5.6 Spread Footing Foundations
The traditional procedure to determine the size of
spread footings is based on the use of s~rvice-Ievelloads
along with allowable bearing pressures for specific soil or
rock types. The allowable bearing pressure is most often
based on presumptive values specified in design codes
rather than on fundamental soil mechanics bearing
capacity theories and soil strength parameters. After ini-
tially sizing the footing, current Caltrans design practice
requires a check of the footing for the seismic (Group
VII) loading. This involves conducting a statically deter-
minant analysis (using the combination of axial load and
moment associated with the Group VII loads) of a rigid
footing model to determine the maximum soil pressure
at the edge of the footing and the proportion of the foot-
ing uplifted from the soil surface. The maximum soil
pressure demand is then compared against a maximum
ultimate bearing pressure recommended by the geotech-
nical engineer. A factor of safety of three is commonly
used in relating the allowable bearing pressure to the
ultimate bearing pressure. As discussed above, the allow-
able bearing pressure is generally based on rather con-
servative presumptive values in design codes, rather than
more basic bearing capacity theories.The geotechnical
123
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
unacceptable performance of the bridge (See Com-
mentary 4.5.1).
(d) The area of uplift of spread footings due to over-
turning moment for single-column bents shall not
exceed 0.25 of the width of the footing. The eccen-
tricity shall not exceed 0.33 of the width of the foot-
ing for multiple-column bents.
124 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations
COMMENTARY
report and the design plan for the safety-evaluation
earthquake shall document both the allowable capacities
for service-level loads and the ultimate capacities for
both compressive and uplift loading conditions for
earthquake loads.
Although there is little evidence to suggest that the
above practice has led to poor performance of spread
footings in past earthquakes, there are some develop-
ments in the AASHTO code that could lead to adopting
more basic bearing capacity theories in the design of
future bridges. In the interest of a simple design proce-
dure, the service-load design method relies heavily on
the presumptive allowable bearing pressure rather than
on the more basic bearing capacity theories that are the
cornerstones of soil mechanics theories. The effects of
the lateral shear load are ignored in the traditional
design procedure. Unlike pile foundations for which the
moment-plus-dead load can be uncoupled from the
shear load in soil capacity determinations, dead weight,
moment, and shear on a spread footing will be resisted
by the same soils atshallow depths. Therefore, it is
invalid to assume that the soil capacities are independent
of the various modes of loading.
Theoretically, the dead load, moment, and lateral
shear need to be simultaneously considered in bearing
capacity evaluations for spread footings. The classic
bearing capacity theory can be used to determine the
ultimate bearing capacity for such a combined loading
condition, with the moment and shear load on the foot-
ing represented by a statically equivalent eccentric and
inclined load. There are relative merits in both
approaches. The traditional allowable pressure approach
is more simple and practical, whereas the classical bear-
ing capacity theory is more rigorous and represents the
future trend for spread footing design, as evident in the
recently adopted load-factor design procedure (NCHRP
Report 343).
Unlike a pile footing, where the uplifted pile would
provide a restoring force on the footing, the portion of
the uplifted spread footing area would lead to significant
geometric nonlinearity and can alter drastically the rota-
tional stiffness of the footing. Therefore, there is an
added incentive to provide an additional conservatism
in limiting the uplift area in the design of spread foot-
ings.
It is recommended that the traditional service-load
design approach be used for service-load design to deter-
mine the footing size initially. However, in the course of
checking the design for Group VII loads, the classic bear-
ing capacity theory should be used for checking the ade-
quacy of the footing, with due consideration of the
combined effects of dead, moment, and lateral loads. A
factor of safety of 1.0 is adequate for this analysis.
Detailed procedures are included in NCHRP Report 343.
ATC-32
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
4.5.7 Retaining Structures
Lateral and rotational movement of earth retaining
structures during an earthquake shall be limited to val-
ues that satisfy the requirements of the performance
criteria described in Section 3.21.2. In addition, retain-
ing walls shall be structurally capable of withstanding
the static and dynamic earth pressures generated dur-
ing the design earthquake.
Type-selection studies for earth retaining systems
shall consider the historic performance of these systems
in seismically active regions and at poor soil sites.
Design earth pressures (static and dynamic) shall
consider the effect of restrained movement on the earth
retaining system.
ATC-32 8DS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations
COMMENTARY
(4.5.7 Retaining Structures
There are two basic tasks in designing retaining struc-
tures:
1. Determining the overall size and configuration.
This is generally controlled by the overall stability
(referred as external stability) of the retaining sys-
tem.
2. Structural design of the retaining system to with-
stand a given earth pressure on the retaining wall.
Overall Stability
Review of past practice suggests that most conventional
retaining structures are designed for service level (non-
earthquake) loads in conjunction with an adopted factor
of safety. In the overall stability evaluation, the factor of
safety generally varies from 1.5 to 2. In general, service-
level loads are based on static, active earth-pressure con-
ditions (e.g., the lateral earth-pressure coefficient of 0.3
in Caltrans practice for retaining walls).
Dynamic, active earth-pressure requirements have
been introduced into the AASHTO Bridge Design Speci-
fications in the context of requirements for estimating
potential movement of the retaining wall in seismic
design. However, many designers consider the require-
ment too complex. In manycases, the designer assumes
that the inherent reserve in the static design (static factor
of safety) would be adequate to limit the displacement to
an acceptable level for earthquake loading. In past earth-
quakes, free-standing retaining walls (not associated
with other structures) appear to have performed well,
even though most retaining walls have been designed
only for the relatively low static, active earth-pressure
coefficients.
Although there are some case histories of earth-
quake damage to certain type of retaining walls (e.g.,
crib walls) in past earthquakes, the good performance of
retaining walls probably indicates that when allowed to
yield, excessive soil pressure on the wall is relieved, and a
small amount of movement is of little consequence.
Most of the case histories of retaining wall failure
(mostly unrelated to earthquakes) appear to be associ-
ated with clay soils, either as retained fill or as founda-
tion soils.
From past performance histories, it is suggested that
typical retaining walls (typically less than 30 feet high
and not associated with adjacent structures) should be
designed using static earth-pressure theories without
considering earthquake loads. However, it is suggested
that the adopted factor of safety should be 1.5 for sandy
soils (both backfill and foundation soils are cohesion-
125
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

less), whereas the factor of safety be increased to 2 for

clay soils (clay used either as backfill or found in founda-
tion soils).
Additional materials have been included in
ATC-32-1 (ATC, 1996), which provides some informa-
tion on active and passive earth-pressure theories,
including dynamic, active pressure theories. Design
charts have also been developed to facilitate the determi-
nation ofearth-pressure coefficients. Furthermore, some
design charts have been provided for permanent dis-
placement solutions of the Newmark sliding-block
model to simplify the process of applying dynamic,
active earth-pressure theories and permanent displace-
ment evaluation procedures for earthquake loads.

Structural Design

It should be recognized that the static, active earth-pres-

sure condition represents the minimum earth pressure
that would be exerted on the wall, and that the wall must
be allowed to move to relieve excessive earth pressure for
the low-pressure assumption to be valid. There are many
scenarios in which the earth pressure would exceed the
static, active earth-pressure coefficient. Whereas the
static, active earth pressure may be adequate for evaluat-
ing the overall stability of the retaining wall, it may not
provide an adequate margin of safety for structural
design. Various factors, including unexpected restraint
ofthe wall from nearby constructed facilities and uneven
earth-pressure distribution could result in localized
higher soil pressure on the wall that should be accounted
for in structural design. Although there are load factors
and material strength-reduction factors inherent in
structural design codes to provide for the needed margin
of safety for unusual conditions (ie., wall height higher
than 30 feet or adjacent to other structures), it is recom-
mended that the structural design of the retaining wall
be based on other more refined approaches or a more
conservative basis.
One alternative is to design for a dynamic active
earth pressure condition in conjunction with using the
appropriate horizontal acceleration coefficient (say 0.5 of
the peak ground acceleration coefficient) as suggested in
the 1992 AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications (Section
6 in Division I-A for abutment design). Many designers
consider the dynamic, active earth-pressure theory
overly complex and problematic. In such a case, a more
simple approach would be to design the retaining wall to
a higher static earth-pressure coefficient in the service-
load design scenario; say to the at-rest earth-pressure
condition (coefficient of about 0.5 in conjunction with
the appropriate factor of safety).

126 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

Poor Soil Sites

Because the availability of conventional nonproprietary

and proprietary retaining wall designs has grown expo-
nentially in recent years, many alternatives are now
available to the designer. Therefore, selection of the
appropriate type of retaining wall has become a major
design consideration. At poor soil sites, in view of the
significantly higher potential for ground displacements
(i.e., total and differential horizontal displacement and
vertical settlement), use of a retaining wall that can tol-
erate ground displacements (e.g., MSE walls) shall be
considered. Such retaining walls also have good inherent
earthquake performance.

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 4: Foundations 127

 Section 8
Reinforced Concrete

BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

8.1 APPLICATlON 1

8.1.1 General

The specifications of this section are intended for

design of reinforced (non-prestressed) concrete bridge
members and structures. Bridge members designed as
prestressed concrete shall conform to Section 9.

8.1.2 Notation

The following notation is in addition to that shown in

the current BDS.

A bI = area of longitudinal reinforcing bar being

spliced (Article 8.33.2.4)
A. = effective shear area of columns or beams
A hb = area of hoop or spiral bar
Ajv = area of reinforcing required to provide tie force
Ts (Article C8.34.4.2)

1. This section on reinforced concrete design includes new methods

for calculating flexural and shear strength, anchorage and splice
lengths, transverse confining reinforcement and joint reinforcement.
Although these methods may be an improvement over current prac-
tice, many of them are based on an interpretation of recent research
that has not been subjected to the traditional peer review required by
the American Concrete Institute (ACI) prior to code adoption. The
PEP did not feel it had the depth and/or breadth of expertise to ade-
quately fill this role of peer review. For this reason, some subcontractor
recommendations that would have tended to make designs less conser-
vative have not been included, and there is a concern that designs may
be overly conservative in some areas. The PEP recommends that Cal-
trans conduct additional trial applications of these recommendations.
The PEP also recommends that the new requirements be subjected to
the traditional peer review process for reinforced concrete design pro-
visions. These recommendations also apply to some of the alternative
methods such as the shear capacity model described in the accompa-
nying resource document, ATC-32-1, even though these methods have
not been adopted into the recommendations.

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete 129

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

A st = total area of column reinforcement anchored in

the joint
bje = effective joint width
D = diameter of circular columns
D' = diameter between centerlines ofperipheral hoop
or spiral
d bb = effective diameter of bundled bars as defined in
Article 8.33.3.2
dbl = nominal diameter of column longitudinal
reinforcement being anchored or spliced
(Article 8.33)
Eds = "double modulus" of steel, defined in C18.2.2.2
Ei = initial modulus of elasticity of longitudinal
reinforcement
Esu = effective secant modulus of elasticity of
longitudinal reinforcement measured from
current stress Isu to ultimate stress Iu
Et = initial modulus of elasticity of transverse
reinforcement
f'cc = compression strength of confined concrete
f'ce = expected concrete compression strength
f'co = maximum feasible concrete compression
strength
Ih = average normal stress in the horizontal direction
within moment resisting connection
Ie' = equivalent uniform confinement stress as
defined in Equation 8-24
Is = maximum tensile stress in column longitudinal
reinforcement (Article 8.33.2.3)
Isb = axial stress in reinforcing bar at inelastic
buckling
Iu = ultimate stress in reinforcing steel
Iv = average normal stress in the vertical direction
within moment resisting connection
ire = expected yield stress of column longitudinal
reinforcement
irh = specified yield stress of transverse reinforcement
iro = maximum feasible yield stress of column
longitudinal reinforcement
Iyv = yield stress of vertical stirrup or tie (Article
8.35.2.3)
H = length of pile shaft!column from ground surface
to point of zero moment above ground
h b = cap beam or footing depth
h c = lateral column dimension (as defined in
C8.34.3.1)
hs = superstructure depth
i! ac = length of column bar embedment into cap beam
or footing (Articles 8.33.1.2 & 8.34.4.4)
i! b = length used for flexural bond requirements
(Article 8.33.3)
i! c = length of column between point of maximum
moment and point of zero moment

130 BOS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

i 0 = length of the plastic end region requiring special

confinement
i p = plastic hinge length
is = splice length
nb = number of column longitudinal reinforcing bars
distributed around section that are subject to
inelastic buckling if cover concrete spalls
Pc = principal compression stress within moment
resisting connections (Article 8.34.3.1)
Pt = principal tensile stress within moment resisting
connections (Article 8.34.3.1)
Tb = horizontal tie force required for joint shear force
transfer
Tc = Tension force in column reinforcement to be
transferred to joint
Ts = vertical tie force required for joint shear force
transfer
vhv = average shear stress in the hv plane within
moment resisting connection (Article 8.34.3.1)
Ccu = required compression strain for confined
concrete
Cs = reinforcing steel strain
<1>0 = overstrength ratio (Mp/Md)
a p = required plastic hinge rotation
PI = column longitudinal reinforcement ratio
Pv = minimum volumetric ratio ofvertical stirrups in
footing (Article 8.35.2.3)
J.lw = section curvature ductility capacity
'If = curvature
'lfp = plastic curvature
'Ifu = ultimate curvature
'lfy = yield curvature

Articles 8.2 through 8.15 not modified.

8.16 STRENGTH DESIGN METHOD {LOAD FACTOR

DESIGN}

8.16.1 Strength Requirements

8.16.1.1 Required Strength C8.16.1.1 Required Strength

Except for Group VII loads, the required strength is the
strength necessary to resist the factored loads and forces
applied to the structure in the combinations stipulated
in Article 3.22.
For Group VII loads, the required strength of plas-
tic hinges is the strength necessary to resist the factored
loads and forces applied to the structure in the combi-
It is emphasized that all forces acting on a structure must
be in equilibrium at all times. This also applies to the
determination of appropriate forces for design under
Group VII loads. Thus, in the preliminary design of duc-
tile columns, where required strength is calculated by
reducing the results from a dynamic elastic analysis by a
force-reduction factor Z, this factor Z must initially be

ATC-32 8DS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete 131

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

nations stipulated in Article 3.22. Additionally, the
required strength of members outside the plastic hinges
is the strength necessary to equilibrate the forces associ-
ated with development of maximum plastic moment in
potential plastic hinges, in accordance with Article
8.16.4.4.
All sections of structures and structural members
shall have design strengths at least equal to the required
strength.
applied to both seismic moments and seismic axial force.
The final design will be based on axial forces in equilib-
rium with gravity loads and the nominal flexural
strength of the plastic hinges.
'When determining response under overstrength
conditions, where the plastic regions develop plastic
moment capacity (see Article 8.16.4.4), the column axial
force resulting from seismic response will need to be
increased by the overstrength factor, and all elements of
the structure that are to be protected against inelastic
action must be designed for required strength. The
strength is calculated by combining actions due to grav-
ity loads and the column overstrength forces, now con-
sidered as actions applied at plastic hinge locations. In
this analysis, gravity loads do not induce additional
moments at the plastic hinges, which can thus be con-
sidered as perfect hinges for the gravity load analysis.

8.16.1.2 Design Strength C8.16.1.2 Design Strength

8.16.1.2.1 The design strength provided by a member The coefficient l/J provides for the possibility that where
or cross section in terms of load, moment, shear, or strength is the prime concern, imperfections in the
stress shall be the nominal strength calculated in accor- equations for nominal strength or small adverse varia-
dance with the requirements and assumptions of the tions in material strength, workmanship, and dimen-
strength design method, multiplied by a strength- sions, while individually within acceptable tolerances
reduction factor l/J. and limits of good practice, may combine to result in
understrength.
8.16.1.2.2 The strength-reduction factors l/J shall be as A strength-reduction factor l/J = 1.0 is applied to the
follows: flexural design of ductile columns for Group VII loads.
This is because the actual flexural strength is expected to
(a) Flexure, or axial tension and flexure be developed in the design earthquake. Design using a
(except for Group VII column design) l/J = 0.90 strength-reduction factor l/J < 1.0 is not specified because
flexural understrength only marginally increases the
(b) Shear l/J=0.85 ductility demand on the column. On the other hand, use
of a flexural strength-reduction factor will result in a
(c) Axial compression and flexure proportionate increase [i.e., l/l/J] in the required
(except Group VII columns): strength of all capacity-protected actions and members,
including the foundations, with a significant increase in
members confined by spirals or structural cost.
circular ties l/J=0.75

members confined by
rectangular hoops l/J = 0.70

(d) Flexure or axial force and

flexure for Group VII columns. l/J = 1.0

(e) Column or pier wall "pinned"

connections-axial compression l/J=0.9

(f) Bearing on concrete l/J=0.7

132 80S Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

The value of cj> may be increased linearly from the value

for compression members to the value for flexure as the
design axial load strength cj>Pn decreases from 0.10 fe A g
or cj>Pb , whichever is smaller, to zero.

8.16.1.2.3 The development and splice lengths of rein-

forcement specified in Article 8.24 through 8.33 do not
require a strength-reduction factor.

8.16.2 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS

8.16.2.1 AppLication

The strength design of members for flexure and axial

loads shall be based on the assumptions given in this
article, and on the satisfaction of the applicable condi-
tions of equilibrium of internal stresses and compatibil-
ity of strains. Members shall be designed for flexural
strength in accordance with Articles 8.16.2.2 and
8.16.2.3, except for ductile columns, which shall be
designed for flexural strength in accordance with Arti-
cles 8.16.2.2 and 8.16.2.4.

8.16.2.2 GeneraL Assumptions

8.16.2.2.1 Strains in reinforcement and concrete are

directly proportional to the distance from the neutral
axis.

8.16.2.2.2 The stress in reinforcement below its design

yield strength shall be the product of Es and the steel
strain. For strains greater than yield strain, the stress in
the reinforcement shall be considered independent of
strain and equal to the design yield strength, except as
specified by Article 8.16.2.4.

8.16.2.2.3 The tensile strength of the concrete shall be

neglected in flexural strength calculations.

8.16.2.2.4 An equivalent rectangular stress block (or

other appropriate shape justified by experimental
results) may be assumed to represent the concrete stress
distribution in compression.

8.16.2.2.5 The approximation permitted by Article

8.16.2.2.4 may be taken to be satisfied by a rectangular
stress block of average stress 0.85 fe (or 0.85 f ce for
Group VII columns) of depth ~lcwhere cis the distance
from the extreme compression fiber to the neutral axis,
and
(fc- 4OOO )
0.85 ~ ~l = 0.85 - 0.05 1000 ~ 0.65 R8-1

ATC-32 BOS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete 133

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
For Group VII columns, f~ should be replaced by f~e in
Equation R8-1
8.16.2.2.6 Axial forces acting on the section must be
in equilibrium with forces inducing the design flexural
strength.
8.16.2.3 Additional Assumptions for Members Other
than Ductile Columns
Design flexural strength is obtained when the extreme-
fiber compression strain is equal to 0.003.
8.16.2.4 Additional Assumptions for Ductile Columns
8.16.2.4.1 Design flexural strength is attained when
the extreme-fiber compression strain is equal to 0.004,
and shall be computed based on expected concrete com-
pression strength f~e and expected yield strength /ye
where
f:e =1.3f:
R8-2
fye =1.1fy
8.16.2.4.2 As an alternative to the assumptions of
Articles 8.16.2.2.2 and 8.16.2.2.4, design flexural
strength of ductile columns may be assessed by
moment-curvature analysis, where effects of confine-
ment on the concrete compression stress-strain rela-
tionships and of reinforcement strain-hardening are
considered.
134 8DS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete
COMMENTARY
C8.16.2.2.6 Article 8.16.2.2.6 simply requires that the
axial forces and biaxial moments assumed to be acting at
a section must be in equilibrium with the external loads
assumed to be acting on the structure.
C8.16.2.4 Additional Assumptions for Ductile Columns
C8.16.2.4.1 The provisions of this section are intended
to provide a more realistic estimate for design strength
of ductile columns for Group VII loads. An ultimate
extreme-fiber, concrete compression strain of 0.004 is
adopted. This is less than the strain at onset of cover
spalling for most columns (Mander, Priestley, and Park,
1988b) and considerably less than the expected strain at
maximum response to the design earthquake.
An expected concrete compressive strength
of f:e = 1.3f: recognizes the typically conservative
nature of concrete batch design, and the expected
strength gain with age beyond the 28-day datum used
for assessment of f:. Tests on cores taken from older
California bridges have consistently yielded compression
strengths exceeding 1.5 f: .
An expected reinforcement yield stress of Ire = 1.1 Ir
implies design to Ire = 66 ksi for grade-60 reinforcement.
The actual yield stress may be anywhere in the range 60
- 78 ksi, and the value of 66 ksi may be considered a
"characteristic" strength, as is commonly used in design
in other countries, rather than an absolute guaranteed
minimum Cfr = 60 ksi). The comparatively small but real
possibility that yield stress may be less than Ire will result
in a reduced ratio of actual plastic moment strength to
design strength, thus conservatively impacting capacity
protected members and actions.
C8.16.2.4.2 Design flexural strength will normally be
assessed using traditional, conservative section design
procedures using equivalent compression stress-block
assumptions and simplified representations of reinforce-
ment stress-strain characteristics. However, it is now
becoming comparatively routine to carry out more real-
istic analyses of the full force-deformation characteris-
tics of ductile columns using moment-curvature
analyses. Article 8.16.2.4.2 permits design flexural
strength to be assessed from such an analysis. Because
excessive strain hardening of the steel will result in
ATC-32
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

higher design flexural strength values than are desirable,

reinforcing steel strains should be limited to Es < 0.015.

Article 8.16.3 not modified.

8.16.4 Compression Members

8.16.4.1 General Requirements

8.16.4.1.1 The design of members subject to axial load

or to combined flexure and axial load shall be based on
stress and strain compatibility, using the assumptions
given in Article 8.16.2. Except for Group VII loads, slen-
derness effects shall be included according to the
requirements of Article 8.16.5.

8.16.4.1.2 Members subject to compressive axial load

combined with bending shall be designed for the maxi-
mum moment that can accompany the axial load. The
factored axial load Pu at a given eccentricity shall not
exceed the design axial strength <j>Pn(max) where

Except for Group VII loads, slenderness effects

shall be evaluated in accordance with Article 8.16.5.

Articles 8.16.4.2 through 8.16.4.3 not modified.

8.16.4.4 Maximum Plastic Moment C8.16.4.4 Maximum Plastic Moment

8.16.4.4.1 The maximum plastic moment is defined as
the maximum moment that is expected to develop in
the plastic hinge region of a ductile column, at peak
plastic rotation, considering maximum feasible mate-
rial strengths, effects of confinement of concrete, and
strain-hardening oflongitudinal reinforcement.
8.16.4.4.2 Where design flexural strength is based on
the assumptions of Article 8.16.2.4.1, the maximum·
plastic moment shall be assumed to be 1.4 times the
design flexural strength.
8.16.4.4.3 Where design flexural strength is based on
moment-curvature analysis in accordance with Article
8.16.2.4.2, the maximum plastic moment may be taken
as either 1.4 times the design flexural strength, or 1.15
times the moment developed in the hinge at the design
Actual moment capacity developed in the plastic hinge
of a column may still considerably exceed the design
strength, despite the less conservative estimates of design
strength adopted for ductile columns in Article 8.16.2.4.
This is because the concrete compression strength will
probably exceed t:e t:
= 1.3 at the time of the earth-
quake, and strength will be further enhanced by the
effects of lateral confinement provided by spirals, hoops
or ties. Typically this additional strength will not have
been considered in the estimate of design flexural
strength.
More important is the influence of reinforcement
stress. It is not uncommon to find grade-60 reinforce-
ment with yield stress in the range 75-80 ksi. At maxi-
mum displacement response, maximum steel strains will
generally be much larger than that corresponding to
onset of strain-hardening. As a consequence, the actual

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete 135

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
displacement response. Alternately, plastic moments
may be found directly from the moment-curvature
analysis at the curvature corresponding to peak dis-
placement response, where maximum feasible material
strengths feo = 1.7 fe and fro = 1.25 fr are assumed. In
both alternatives considered in this Article, inelastic
static analysis as provided in Article 3.21.7 or inelastic
dynamic analysis as provided in Article 3.21.8 shall be
used to determine plastic hinge curvature at peak dis-
placement.
Articles 8.16.4.5 through 8.16.5 not modified
136 BDS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete
COMMENTARY
steel stress of reinforcement located with maximum dis-
tance from the neutral axis may be as high as 20 to 30
percent above actual yield stress, particularly for col-
umns with low longitudinal reinforcement ratios, and
low axial load ratios.
The consequence is that the column moment capac-
ity may greatly exceed the design strength This phenom-
enon is illustrated in Figure RC8-1, where the ordinate is
the overstrength ratio, «Po' which is defined as the ratio of
plastic moment strength to design strength based on
Article 8.16.2.4. This figure indicates that a ratio of 1.4 is
appropriate. It should be noted that the value of 1.3 used
in previous versions of the BDS may not be sufficiently
conservative in some cases, particularly considering the
lower estimate of design strength used.
Article 8.16.4.4.3 allows a relaxation ofthe 1.4 factor
when the overstrength is estimated from a moment-cur-
vature analysis. Design efficiencies will often be available
when this option is taken.
1.0 +-,,-r-'-":"l':""""'''''''"""T'"",-r-....,....,....,.....,....,r-r--'-r-r-r-,....,.....j
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Anal Load Ratio PIt'...
circular column. D=60 in (1524 mm)
1.5.,-------------------,
1.0 -t-.......-.-..-,-.--r-..-....,..........,....,.-.-,.......,-...........,....,.-.-,.......,--.--l
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
A%ia1 Load Ratio PIt'...
square column 48%48 in (1219:1:1219 mm)
Figure RC8-1 Ratio of plastic moment at maximum
curvature to design flexural strength.
ATC-32
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
8.16.6 Shear2
8.16.6.1 Shear Strength
8.16.6.1.1 Design of sections subjected to shear shall
be based on
R8-4
where Vu is the factored shear force at the section con-
sidered, and V n is the nominal shear strength, computed
by
R8-S
where V, is the nominal shear strength provided by the
concrete in accordance with Article 8.16.6.2, and Vs is
the nominal shear strength provided by the transverse
reinforcement in accordance with Article 8.16.6.3.
8.16.6.1.2 When the reaction, in the direction of
applied shear, introduces compression into the end
regions of a member, sections located less than a dis-
2. The PEP opted not to include the shear capacity model recom-
mended by the subcontractor due to a lack of consensus among project
participants. Many project participants felt that because of the amount
of change being proposed and the fact that these changes may yield less
conservative results than current ACI provisions, a more traditional
peer review similar to that received by American Concrete Institute
CACI) code provisions would be required before adopting these
changes. The decision not to use the proposed shear capacity equations
was made even though some of the trial designs and applications indi-
cated there was a potential for congestion of transverse column rein-
forcement in some cases. Obviously, this is a potential problem that
Caltrans needs to be aware of during the trial application period.
ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete
COMMENTARY
(8.16.6 Shear
Shear strength of concrete members should incorporate
the influence of axial force, ductility level, aspect ratio,
and transverse reinforcement. Conservative and simpli-
fied provisions are included in this section, based on
ACI318 equations, with minor changes.
1. The concrete contribution to shear strength, V"
within plastic hinges has been reduced, since the
ACI318 equations are not always conservative for
plastic hinges. This is particularly true of the previ-
ous BDS edition, which did not incorporate the
reduction to V, when Pe < O.OSfcAg' as is required in
Chapter 21 of ACI318.
2. Special equations for "beams," "columns," and
"piers" in previous editions of the BDS have been
replaced by two categories: "members subjected to
flexure and axial compression" and "members sub-
jected to flexure and axial tension." The reason for
this is that cap beams, and many other bridge com-
ponents, are subject to significant axial forces. Tra-
ditionally, designers have ignored these because they
are designing "beams." This may be unsafe where
axial tension is present, and unnecessarily conserva-
tive when axial compression is present. Axial forces
in cap beams of multi-column bents should always
be considered when determining both flexural and
shear strength.
These provisions will result in a requirement for
greater amounts of transverse reinforcement for ductile
columns than required by previous BDS editions. Test
results (Priestley, Verma, and Xiao, 1994) indicate that
actual shear strength will often exceed the design
strength given by these equations by more than 100%.
137
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

tance d from the face ofsupport may be designed for the

same shear Vu as that computed at a distance d.

8.16.6.2 Shear Strength Provided by Concrete

8.16.6.2.1 Except for the end regions of ductile col-

umns, the nominal shear strength provided by concrete
for members subjected to flexure and axial compression
shall be computed using units of pounds and inches by

R8-6

where for columns, the effective shear area A e = O.8Ag

and for beamsAe = bwd. For tapered webs of beams bw
shall be the average width, or 1.2 times the minimum
width, whichever is smaller.
Within the end region of columns, extending a dis-
tance from the critical section or sections not less than
LSD for circular columns or I.Sh for rectangular col-
umns, the nominal shear strength provided by concrete
for members subjected to flexure and axial compression
shall be computed using units of pounds and inches by

R8-7

8.16.6.2.2 Except for the end regions of ductile col-

. umns, the nominal shear strength provided by concrete
for members subjected to flexure and axial tension shall
be computed using units of pounds and inches by

R8-8

Within the end region of columns, extending a dis-

tance from the critical section or sections not less than
LSD for circular columns or I.Sh for rectangular col-
umns, the nominal shear strength provided by concrete
for members subjected to flexure and axial tension shall
be computed using units of pounds and inches by

Note that Pe is negative for tension in Equations

R8-8 and R8-9 and the effective shear area A e in Equa-
tions R8-8 and R8-9 is as defined in Article 8.16.6.2.1.

138 8DS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

8.16.6.2.3 Nominal shear strength provided by con-

crete for members constructed of lightweight concrete
shall be 75% of the values given by the relevant Equa-
tions of Articles 8.16.6.2.1 or 8.16.6.2.2.

8.16.6.3 Shear Strength Provided by Transverse

Rei nforcement

8.16.6.3.1 Where the shear force, V u' from factored

loads, or from equilibrium considerations when plastic
moments develop in column hinges, exceeds shear
strength ep V, ' shear reinforcement shall be provided to
satisfy Equations R8-4 and R8-5. In no case shall trans-
verse reinforcement be less than that required by Article
8.16.6.11.2. Shear strength provided by transverse rein-
forcement shall be computed in accordance with Arti-
cles 8.16.6.3.2 through 8.16.6.3.10.

8.16.6.3.2 When shear reinforcement perpendicular

to the axis of a member with a rectangular section is
used:

R8-10

where A v is the total area of shear reinforcement parallel

to the applied shear force with a spacing of 5 along the
axis of the member, and d may be taken as equal to 0.8
times the depth of the member section measured in the
direction of the shear force under consideration.
Shear reinforcement shall be continuous between
section flexural tension and compression stress
resultants.

Articles 8.16.6.3.3 through 8.16.6.3.6 not modified.

8.16.6.3.7 Nominal shear strength provided by trans-

verse circular hoops or spirals in circular sections shall
be computed by

1t A
hb yh f D'
Vs = -2--~-
s R8-11

where D' is the diameter between centerlines of the

peripheral hoop or spiral, and A hb is the cross-sectional
area of the hoop or spiral bar.

8.16.6.3.8 Nominal shear strength provided by inter- C8.16.6.3.8 Theoretical considerations and experimen-
locking spirals in noncircular sections shall be taken as tal evidence [MacLean et al., 1993; Benzoni & Priestley,

ATC-32 8DS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete 139

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

the sum of all individual spiral strengths calculated in 1996] indicate that the shear strength imparted by inter-
accordance with Equation R8-11. locking spirals should be equal to the sum of the individ-
ual spiral strengths.
8.16.6.3.9 Where more than one type ofshear rein-
forcement is used to reinforce the same portion of the
member, shear strength Vs shall be computed as the
sum of the V s values computed for the various types.

8.16.6.3.10 When shear strength V s exceeds 4 J1cbwd ,

spacing of shear reinforcement shall not exceed one-
half the maximum spacing given in Article 8.19.3.

8.16.6.3.11 Shear strength Vs shall not be taken as

greater than 8 J1cb w d.

8.16.6.3.12 When flexural reinforcement located

within the width of a member used to compute the
shear strength is terminated in a tension zone, shear
reinforcement shall be provided in accordance with
Article 8.24.1.4.

Articles 8.16.6.4 through 8.16.6.8 not modified.

Article 8.16.6.9 to be deleted. (Refer to Articles 8.16.6.2

and 8.16.6.3.)

Article 8.16.6.10 to be deleted (covered by 8.33).

8.16.6.11 SpeciaL Provisions for Group VII Loading

8.16.6.11.1 The design shear force V u on each princi-

pal axis of each member under Group VII loading shall
be the lesser of the shear force existing in equilibrium
with maximum plastic moments developed in potential
plastic hinges, in accordance with Article 8.16.4.4, or the
unreduced elastic ARS seismic forces, in combination
with the remainder of Group VII loading.

8.16.6.11.2 The amount of transverse reinforcement

provided shall not be less than that required by Article
8.18.2 for confinement or by Article 8.19.1 for minimum
shear reinforcement.

Articles 8.16.7 through 8.17 not modified.

140 6DS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
8.18 REINFORCEMENT OF COMPRESSION MEMBERS
8.18.1 Maximum and Minimum Longitudinal
Reinforcement
8.18.1.1 Maximum LongitudinaL Reinforcement
The area oflongitudinal reinforcement for compression
members shall not exceed 0.04 times the gross areaAg of
the section except at lap splices.
8.18.1.2 Minimum LongitudinaL Reinforcement
The minimum area of longitudinal reinforcement shall
not be less than 0.01 times the gross area Ag ofthe sec-
tion. 3
8.18.1.3 Transverse SpiraL Spacing
The center-to-center spacing of interlocking spirals or
hoop cages in oblong columns shall not be greater than
0.75 times diameter of the cage. The overlaps shall be
interlocked by a minimum of four longitudinal bars.
8.18.1.4 Minimum Pier Reinforcement
The minimum area of longitudinal reinforcement in a
pier shall conform to 8.18.1.2.
8.18.2 Lateral Reinforcement
8.18.2.1 GeneraL
8.18.2.1.1 Lateral reinforcement for compression
members shall consist of either spiral reinforcement,
hoops, or a combination oflateral ties and cross ties.
Ties shall only be used when it is not practical to pro-
vide spiral or hoop reinforcement. Where longitudinal
bars are required outside the spiral or hoop reinforce-
ment, they shall have lateral support provided by bars
spaced and hooked as required for cross-ties. The
hooked bars shall extend into the core of the spiral or
hoop a full development length.
3. The PEP did not adopt the subcontractor's recommendation to
reduce the lower limit for reinforcing steel to 0.007 times the gross area
of the section. The principal reason for this was concern over recent
research that indicates low-cycle fatigue of the main reinforcing steel
may be a problem. Because columns with lower levels of reinforcing
steel are subjected to higher steel strains, the current lower limit of 0.0 1
was left unchanged.
ATC-32 BOS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete
COMMENTARY
C8.18.1 Maximum and Minimum Longitudinal
Reinforcement
C8.18.1.1 Maximum LongitudinaL Reinforcement
The upper limit for columns has been reduced from 0.08
to 0.04. For longitudinal steel ratios exceeding 0.04, con-
gestion is excessive, ductility capacity is reduced, and
shear stresses in monolithic connections between col-
umns and cap beams or columns and footings exceed
allowable limits. Thus, dependable ductile response can-
not be assured from more heavily reinforced members.
C8.18.1.4 Minimum Pier Reinforcement
The minimum longitudinal reinforcement ratio for piers
has been increased to conform with the above require-
ments for columns.
C8.18.2 Lateral Reinforcement
C8.18.2.1 GeneraL
Lateral reinforcement is required in columns to provide
confinement to the concrete, to restrain compression
bars against buckling, and to enhance shear strength,
which is covered by Article 8.16.6. Under ductile
response to the design-level earthquake, extreme-fiber
compression strain must be expected to exceed the
crushing strain, rendering the cover concrete ineffective.
If adequate, well-detailed, transverse reinforcement is
provided to confine the core, the maximum usable com-
pression strain in the core concrete is greatly enhanced,
and strain levels as high as five percent are not uncom-
mon in column tests.
Spiral or circular hoop reinforcement is usually
considered more effective in confining concrete. There-
fore, it is recommended in preference to rectilinear ties.
An exception is for pier walls where numerous overlap-
ping circular hoops are impractical.
141
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

8.18.2.1.2 Reinforcement required for Article

8.18.2.1.1 may be used to satisfy shear requirements of
Article 8.16.6.3.

8.18.2.1.3 Lateral reinforcement shall extend into cap

beams and footings at a transverse reinforcement ratio
equal to that in the column, unless a higher level is
required by Articles 8.33.1.2, 8.34.3.2, or 8.34.4.4.

8.18.2.1.4 Lateral reinforcement for compression

members constructed in monolithic form with the cap
or footing shall be continued into the cap or footing for
the full length of straight main reinforcement from
compression members, or for the straight portion of
hooked main reinforcement from compression mem-
bers.
This reinforcement may be in the form of hoops or
spirals and may be discontinuous at the bottom flexural
reinforcement of the cap.

Article 8.18.2.1.5 to be deleted.

8.18.2.2 Spirals and CircuLar Hoops C8.18.2.2 Spirals and CircuLar Hoops

8.18.2.2.1 Except as permitted by Article 8.18.2.4, spi-

ral and tie ratios shall conform to the requirements of
Articles 8.18.2.2.2 through 8.18.2.2.8.

8.18.2.2.2 Within plastic end regions of ductile col- C8.18.2.2.2 The levels oflateral reinforcement for con-
umns, as defined by Article 8.18.2.2.5, the volumetric finement required by Equations R8-12 and R8-13 have
ratio P5 of spiral or circular hoop reinforcement shall been set to ensure that the dependable section curvature
not be less than ductility capacity will be at least Jl'l' = 'I'z/'lIy = 13.
Expected (ie., mean) curvature ductility capacity will be
about 50% larger; ie., Jlw =20. A value of flw = 13 is suffi-
1.25PeJ
fce[ 0.5 + IT
Ps = 0.16
r ye ce g
+ 0. 13(P r 0.01) R8-12 cient for the levels of displacement ductility implied by
the force-reduction factors Z of Article 3.21.11.
Because of the high levels of strain within the plastic
nor less than end region, column longitudinal reinforcement can be
subjected to alternate tensile and compressive yield. This
Ps = 0.0002 nb creates a potential for lateral buckling of the bars. Two
modes ofbuckling need to be considered. The first
where nb is the number oflongitudinal bars contained involves buckling over a length equal to the vertical
by the spiral or circular hoop and that are subject to spacing of the transverse reinforcement. The require-
inelastic buckling when cover concrete spalls. Equation ment (in Article 8.21.1.1) that the transverse reinforce-
R8-13 need not be satisfied for columns with aspect ment not be spaced wider apart than six times the
ratios MIVD < 4. longitudinal reinforcing bar diameter, will restrain the
longitudinal bar against this form of buckling for effec-
tive compression strains of at least four percent.
The second form of buckling involves a buckling
length greater than the spacing of the transverse rein-
forcement, and occurs when the spacing is small, but the

142 BOS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
4. Equation R8-13 represents a new requirement intended to prevent
inelastic buckling of the main column-reinforcing bars at plastic
hinges. Although the requirement is based solely on the number of
longitudinal column bars and not on their size, some physical test
results as well as an analytical evaluation of bar buckling support the
need for such a lateral reinforcing requirement. However, some judg-
ment was used in selecting the 0.0002 coefficient in this equation, and
there is concern among some PEP members that it will lead to exces-
sive lateral reinforcement in some cases, which may encourage design-
ers to opt for fewer large diameter bars whenever possible. This
solution may in turn have other adverse effects such as reduced bond
or reduced plastic tensile strain capacity in the bars, which may not be
the intended result of this provision. The PEP recommends that this
provision be given special attention during the trial evaluation period.
ATC-32 60S Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete
COMMENTARY
volumetric ratio of confinement is inadequate to provide
the necessary lateral restraining force to the longitudinal
reinforcement. It can be shown (Priestley, Seible, and
Calvi, 1996) that the amount of transverse reinforc-
ement in the form of hoops or spirals required to
restrain this form ofbuckling is
Ps
0.45
= EdsE
nib RC8-1
t
where
su4E E j
Eds = ----~ RC8-2
(~+JE/
is the double modulus of the longitudinal reinforcement
at Isb' the axial stress in the bar at inelastic buckling; Et is
the modulus of elasticity of the transverse reinforce-
ment; Ej is the elastic modulus of the longitudinal rein-
forcement; and Esu is the secant modulus from Isb to fu'
the ultimate stress. The double modulus is used because
when the bar is on the strain-hardening part of the
stress-strain curve, buckling induces reduced compres-
sion strain on the outside of the bar, for which the
unloading modulus of Ej is appropriate; while on the
inside of the bar, compression strains increase rapidly,
for which a modulus of Esu is appropriate.
For grade-60 reinforcement, and a compression
strain of four percent, it can be shown that Equation
RC8-1 reduces to
Ps = O.00013nb RC8-3
where nb is the number oflongitudinal bars in the col-
umn. If a column has more than one ring (layer) oflon-
gitudinal bars, nb is the number ofbars in the outermost
ring, adjacent to the spiral or circular hoop reinforce-
ment.
Equation RC8-3 does not consider interaction
between confinement and bar buckling. The action of
confinement places lateral pressure on the longitudinal
bar-intensifying the tendency for buckling. This interac-
tion has not yet been successfully modeled, but it has
been found in experiments that Equation RC8-3 is not
always sufficient to restrain longitudinal bars from buck-
ling. As a consequence, this value has been increased by
50 percent to give Equation R8-13, which, from compar-
ison with experiments, has been found to be adequately
conservative.
When the column has a high moment gradient (ie.,
the aspect ratio MND is low), the compression strain in
the reinforcement reduces rapidly with distance from
the critical section, and as a consequence, the tendency
for buckling, which requires a significant length of col-
umn bar to be at high strain, is reduced. Consequently
143
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

Article 8.18.2.2.2 only requires Equation R8-13 to be sat-

isfied for comparatively slender columns (MND > 4).
Equation R8-13 may result in large transverse steel
requirements in some cases, particularly large-diameter
columns, which will tend to have a large number ofbars.
In these cases, the designer should consider two or more
rings oflongitudinal reinforcement configured such that
the inner rings will remain laterally supported by con-
crete even after cover concrete spalls.
8.18.2.2.3 Outside plastic end regions defined in
Article 8.18.2.2.5 of ductile columns, the volumetric
ratio Ps of spiral or circular hoop reinforcement shall
not be less than 50% of the amount given by Equation
R8-12.

8.18.2.2.4 Piles and pile shafts with diameters less

than three feet shall have a volumetric ratio, Ps' ofspiral
or circular hoop reinforcement not less than

P 0.45[~: -1J~:J
s =
R8-14

but not less than that required by Article 8.18.2.2.2 and

Article 8.18.2.2.3.

8.18.2.2.5 The plastic end region of a column shall be

that portion included within a length .eo measured from
the critical section for moment. The distance .eo shall be
the greater of

(a) the section dimension in the direction considered.

(b) that portion of the column over which the moment

exceeds 80 percent of the moment at the critical
section.

For axial load ratios P /fceAg ~ 0.3, the length.eo

shall be increased by 50 percent.

8.18.2.2.6 Splices in spiral or hoop reinforcement shall

be by welding or mechanical couplers capable of devel-
oping the ultimate strength of the spiral or hoop bar.

8.18.2.2.7 Spirals or hoops shall be ofsuch size and so

assembled to permit handling and placing without dis-
tortion from designed dimensions.

8.18.2.2.8 Spirals or hoops shall be held firmly in place

by attachment to the longitudinal reinforcement and
held true to line by vertical spacers.

8.18.2.3 Ties

Tie reinforcement for compression members shall con-

form to the following:

144 BOS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

8.18.2.3.1 All bars shall be enclosed by lateral ties at

least #3 in size for longitudinal bars that are #10 or
smaller, and at least #4 in size for longitudinal bars that
are #11, #14, or #18 as well as bundled longitudinal
bars. Deformed wire or welded wire fabric of equivalent
area may be used.
The total cross-sectional area, Ash' of tie reinforce-
ment for a rectangular column in the direction perpen-
dicular to core dimension he shall not be less than

R8-15

The transverse reinforcement ratio As/site in either

direction in any pier wall need not be greater than
0.0025.

8.18.2.3.2 Vertical spacing of ties for pier walls shall

not exceed the least dimension of the compression
member, or 12 inches. When bars larger than #10 are
bundled more than two in anyone bundle, the spacing
shall be one-half that specified above.

8.18.2.3.3 Ties shall be located vertically not more

than half a tie spacing above the footing or other sup-
port, and shall be spaced as provided herein to not more
than half a tie spacing below the lowest horizontal rein-
forcement in members supported above.

8.18.2.3.4 Lateral tie reinforcement shall be provided

by single or overlapping closed ties, or a single closed tie
combined with cross ties.
Ties shall be so arranged that every comer and
alternate longitudinal bar or bundle of bars shall have
lateral support, but no intermediate bar or bundle shall
be farther than six inches clear on either side from such
a laterally supported bar or bundle. Bars at the comers
of closed ties may be considered laterally supported if
the included angle of the tie does not exceed 135
degrees.
Closed ties shall be terminated with 135-degree
hooks. The hook extensions shall be the larger of ten tie
diameters or six inches.
Cross ties shall be hooked at both ends and placed
normal across core section. Each hook will engage the
perimeter tie at a longitudinal bar on the opposite face
of the column. Hook details shall be in accordance with
either of the following:

(a) Continuous ties with a 135-degree hook on one end

and a 90-degree hook on the other. Cross ties shall
be alternated so that hooks of the same degree are

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete 145

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

not adjacent to each other both vertically and hori-

zontally.

(b) Lap spliced tie with at least 135-degree hooks at

each end.

Detail (a) shall not be used for members with axial

load ratios P/fceAg > 0.3.

8.18.2.4 Spirals and Hoops Designed by Plastic C8.18.2.4 Spirals and Hoops Designed by Plastic
Analysis Analysis

8.18.2.4.1 Where column transverse reinforcement C8.18.2.4.1 As an alternative to the prescriptive

requirements are based on moment-curvature analyses
in accordance with Article 8.18.2.4.3, and an assessment
of required plastic hinge rotation Sp' the amount of
transverse reinforcement provided in the plastic end
region as defined by Article 8.18.2.2.5 shall not be less
than
R8-16
where Ecu is the required compression strain given by
R8-17
requirement of Equation R8-12, the amount of hoop or
spiral reinforcement in a column may be determined in
accordance with Article 8.18.2.4 from the required plas-
tic rotation of the plastic hinge found from an inelastic
static analysis as described in Article 3.21.7 or inelastic
dynamic analysis as provided in Article 3.21.8. This
method will also require a moment-curvature analysis of
the section. Amounts of transverse reinforcement found
from this approach will often be less than those obtained
from Equation R8-12.
In this approach, the compression strength of the
confined concrete, fcc ' is required. This can be found
from the following equations (Mander, Priestley, and
Park, 1988):
RC8-4

where

JR. = O.5P sf yh RC8-S

Thus, solving for Ps requires some iteration. This
can be simplified by use of the relationship between Ps
and fcc/fce shown in Figure RC8-2 (Priestley, Seible, and
Calvi, 1996). Alternatively, the simplified expression of
Article 8.18.2.4.2 may be used.

2.00+--:;---------..,~--:,..._--*_7_,

1.75

f;" 1.50
f'
'"

1.25

0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030

p,

Figure RC8-2 Design aid for determining the compres-

sion strength of confined concrete.

146 8DS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

8.18.2.4.2 Unless calculated directly, the confined

compression strength in Equation R8-16 may be taken
as

fcc = 1.5 f,e R8-18

8.18.2.4.3 The plastic hinge length £p in Equation R8- C8.18.2.4.3 Article 8.18.2.4.3 defines the plastic hinge
17 shall be taken as length, £p- This is the equivalent length of column over
which the plastic curvature is assumed constant in order
R8-19 to obtain the correct plastic rotation. That is,

where plastic hinges form against a constraining struc- RC8-6

tural member, and
It should be noted that this is not the same as the
£p = 1.00D + O.06H R8-20 plastic end region (Article 8.18.2.2.5) over which special
detailing requirements must be met to ensure adequate
where plastic hinges form below ground level in ductile confinement of concrete and buckling restraint.
pile shafts. For columns where the plastic hinge forms against a
supporting member, such as a footing or cap beam, the
plastic hinge length comprises two components: 0.08£"
which recognizes the spread of plasticity proportional to
the length from the critical section to the point of con-
traflexure; and 9db£, which recognizes the increased
plastic rotation due to strain penetration of the longitu-
dinal reinforcement into the footing.
Analysis and experiments on ductile pile shaft/col-
umn designs (Budek, Benzon~ and Priestley, 1995) indi-
cate a longer plastic hinge length, given by Equation R8-
20 is appropriate for this class of structure.
8.18.2.4.4 In Equation R8-19, the length £, shall be
taken as the distance from the section of maximum
moment in the plastic hinge to the section of zero
moment (contraflexure point) at maximum displace-
ment response.

Articles 8.19 through 8.20 not modified.

8.21 SPACING LIMIT FOR REINFORCEMENT

8.21.1 Basic Spacing Requirements for Cast-in-

Place Concrete

For cast-in-place concrete the clear distance between

parallel bars in a layer shall not be less than one and
one-half bar diameters, 1.5 times the maximum size of
the coarse aggregate, or 1.5 inches.

8.21.1.1 The maximum spacing oflateral reinforce-

ment in plastic end regions of compression members
shall not exceed the smallest of: (1) one-fifth ofthe least
dimension of the cross-section for columns and one-

ATC-32 80S Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete 147

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

half ofthe least cross-section dimension for piers, (2) six

times the nominal diameter of the longitudinal rein-
forcement' and (3) eight inches.

8.21.1.2 Compression members shall contain at least

eight longitudinal reinforcing bars spaced essentially
uniformly around the section. Pier walls shall be rein-
forced along both faces with longitudinal reinforcing
bars spaced no greater than 1.5 times the pier thickness.

8.21.2 Precast Concrete

For precast concrete (manufactured under plant-con-

trol conditions) the clear distance between parallel bars
in alayer shall be not less than one bar diameter, 1-113
times the maximum size of the coarse aggregate, or one
inch.

8.21.3 Multiple Reinforcing Layers

Where positive or negative reinforcement is placed in

two or more layers, bars in the upper layers shall be
placed directly above those in the bottom layer with the
clear distance between layers not less than one inch.

8.21.4 Spliced Reinforcement

The clear distance limitation between bars shall also

apply to the clear distance between a contact lap-splice
and adjacent splices or bars.

8.21.5 Bundled Bars

Groups of parallel reinforcing bars bundled in contact

to act as a unit shall be limited to a maximum of four in
anyone bundle. Bars larger than #11 shall be limited to
two in anyone bundle in beams. Bundled bars located
within the span of a member shall terminate at points at
least 40 bar diameters apart. Where spacing limitations
are based on bar diameter, a unit of bundled bars shall
be treated as a single bar of a diameter derived from the
equivalent total area.

8.21.6 Walls and Slabs

In walls and slabs the primary flexural reinforcement

shall be spaced no farther apart than 1.5 times the wall
or slab thickness, or 18 inches, whichever is less.

Articles 8.22 through 8.24 not modified.

148 BOS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

8.25 DEVELOPMENT OF DEFORMED BARS5 AND. C8.25 DEVELOPMENT OF DEFORMED BARS AND
DEFORMED WIRE IN TENSION DEFORMED WIRE IN TENSION

8.25.1 Development Length
Development length Rd, in terms of diameter db for
deformed bars and deformed wire in tension, shall be
determined from either Article 8.25.2 or 8.25.3, but Rd
shall not be less than 12 inches.
Article 8.25 reflects the requirements of the 1989 ACI
Building Code but in the more "user friendly" format
presented in the 1995 ACI Building Code. Refer to the
Commentary in the appropriate ACI Building Code for
further discussion.

8.25.2 Commonly Occurring Conditions

For deformed bars and deformed wire, Rd I db shall be

as follows:

No.6 and smaller bars

and deformed wires No.7 and larger bars

Clear spacing of bars being developed or spliced not less than db'
clear cover not less than db ' and stirrups or ties throughout Rd
not less than the code minimum
Rd fP~A Rd fy<X~A
or
db = 25Jic db - 20Jic
Clear spacing ofbars being developed or spliced not less than 2db
and clear cover not less than db'

Rd 3fy<X~A
Other cases
db = 50Jic

8.25.3 General Conditions

For deformed bars and deformed wire, Rd I db shall be:

R8-21

in which the term (c + Ktr ) Idb shall not be taken as

greater than 2.5.

5. The recommendations for development of reinforcing bars, with

the exception of Article 8.33, are based on the 1995 ACI recommenda-
tions, which were developed for bars at yield stress. The ACI equations
do not account for strain hardening or cyclic loading. It is therefore the
practice in many design specifications (AASHTO Division I-A and
AASHTO LRFD) to use additional bond length at locations of cyclic
stress reversals. Caltrans should consider using the bond length adjust-
ment factors specified by AASHTO.

ATC-32 BOS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete 149

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

8.25.4 Modification Factors

The factors for use in the expressions for development

of deformed bars and deformed wires in tension in Arti-
cles 8.25.2 and 8.25.3 are as follows:

a is the reinforcement location factor.

Horizontal reinforcement so placed that more than
12 inches offresh concrete is cast in the member below
the development length or splice: a = 1.3
Other reinforcement: a = 1.0

~is the coating factor

Epoxy-coated bars or wires with cover less than
3db or clear spacing less than 6db : ~ = 1.5
All other epoxy-coated bars or wires: ~ = 1.2
Uncoated reinforcement: ~ = 1.0

However, the product of a~ need not be taken as

greater than 1.7.

Yis the reinforcement size factor

No.6 and smaller bars and deformed wires: y = 0.8
No.7 and larger bars: y= 1.0

'A is the lightweight aggregate concrete factor

When lightweight aggregate concrete is used:
'A = 1.3
However, when concrete tensile strength, f et , is
specified, 'A shall be permitted to be taken as

fK
6.7 ~J;;

but not less than 1.0

When normal-weight concrete is used: 'A = 1.0

c is the spacing or cover dimension, inches

Use the smaller of either the distance from the cen-
ter of the bar or wire to the nearest concrete surface or
one-half the center-to-center spacing of the bars or
wires being developed, in square inches

K tT is the transverse reinforcement index

A tr f yt
Ktr = 1500sn
where
A tr = total cross-sectional area of all transverse
reinforcement which is within the spacing 5 and
which crosses the potential plane of splitting
through the reinforcement being developed, in
• 2
m.
fyt = specified yield strength of transverse
reinforcement, in psi

150 BDS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

5= maximum spacing of transverse reinforcement

within .ed' center-to-center, in inches
n = number of bars or wires being developed along
the plane of splitting

It shall be permitted to use Ktr = 0 as a design simplifica-

tion even if transverse reinforcement is present.

8.25.5 Excess Reinforcement

Reduction in development length shall be permitted

where reinforcement in a flexural member is in excess of
that required by analysis except where anchorage or
development for!r is specifically required or the rein-
forcement is designed for seismic loading. When
allowed the reduction in length shall be
(As required)/(As provided).

8.26 DEVELOPMENT OF DEFORMED BARS IN C8.26 DEVELOPMENT OF DEFORMED BARS IN

COMPRESSION COMPRESSION

8.26.1 Development Length
Development length .ed' in inches, for deformed bars in
compression shall be computed as the product of the
basic development length .edb ofArticle 8.26.2 and appli-
cable modification factors of Article 8.26.3, but.ed shall
not be less than eight inches.
8.26.2 Basic Development Length
The weakening effect of flexural tension cracks is not
present for bars in compression and usually end bearing
of the bars on the concrete is beneficial. Therefore,
shorter basic development lengths .edh are specified for
compression than for tension. The basic development
length may be reduced 25 percent in Article 8.26.3.2
when the reinforcement is enclosed within a column-
type spiral or an individual spiral around each bar or
group of bars.

The basic development length .edb shall be

fy
O.02db {jf R8-22
.jfc
but not less than

R8-23

8.26.3 Modification Factors

Basic development length .edb shall be permitted to be

multiplied by applicable factors for the conditions
described in the paragraphs below.

8.26.3.1 Excess reinforcement

Reinforcement in excess of that required by analysis:

multiply by (As required)/(As provided).

8.26.3.2 Spirals and ties

Reinforcement enclosed within spiral reinforcement

not less than 1/4 inch diameter and not more than 4

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete 151

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
inches pitch or within No.4 ties in confonnance with
Article 8.18.2.3 and spaced at not more than 4 inches on
center: multiply by 0.75
Article 8.27 not modified.
8.28 DEVELOPMENT OF BUNDLED BARS
8.28.1 Development Length
The development length of individual bars within a
bundle in tension or compression shall be that for the
individual bar, increased 20 percent for a three-bar bun-
dle, and 33 percent for a four-bar bundle.
8.28.2 Modification Factors
For detennining the appropriate factors in Article 8.25,
a unit of bundled bars shall be treated as a single bar of
a diameter derived from the equivalent total area.
Articles 8.29 through 8.32 not modified.
8.33 DEVELOPMENT OF REINFORCEMENT IN
COMPRESSION MEMBERS CONFINED BY SPIRALS OR
CIRCULAR HOOPS
152 8DS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete
COMMENTARY
C8.28 DEVELOPMENT OF BUNDLED BARS
C8.28.1 Development Length
An increased development length for individual bars is
required when three or four bars are bundled together.
The extra extension is needed because the grouping
makes it more difficult to mobilize bond resistance from
the "core" between the bars.
The designer should also note Article 8.21.5 relating
to the cutoff points of individual bars within a bundle
and Article 8.32.1.2 relating to splices of bundled bars.
The increases in development length specified in Article
8.28 do apply when computing splice lengths ofbundled
bars in accordance with Article 8.32.1.2. The develop-
ment of bundled bars by a standard hook of the bundle
is not covered by the provisions ofArticle 8.29.
C8.28.2 Modification Factors
Although splice and development lengths of bundled
bars are based on the diameter of individual bars
increased by 20 percent or 33 percent as appropriate, it is
necessary to use an equivalent diameter of the entire
bundle derived from the equivalent total area ofbars
when determining factors in Article 8.25, which consid-
ers cover and clear spacing and represents the tendency
of concrete to split.
C8.33 DEVELOPMENT OF REINFORCEMENT IN
COMPRESSION MEMBERS CONFINED BY SPIRALS OR
CIRCULAR HOOPS
This new section has been added to the BDS in recogni-
tion that special conditions for longitudinal bar develop-
ment exist for columns in which the bars and enclosed
core concrete are confined by spirals or circular hoops.
ATC-32
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
8.33.1 Anchorage of Column Reinforcement
8.33.1.1 Development Length
Column longitudinal reinforcement should be
anchored in footings and cap beams as close as possible
to the opposite face of the footing or cap beam and with
a distance from the critical column section, measured
parallel to the column axis, of not less than
R8-24
The requirements of this Article also apply to column
longitudinal reinforcement anchored by hooks or spe-
cial end plates.
8.33.1.2 Confinement
Except where confined by prestress, or solid adjacent
members, the column reinforcement within the anchor-
age zone shall be confined by transverse hoops or spi-
rals with volumetric ratio not less than
R8-25
8.33.1.3 Anchorage of Bundled Bars
The development length of individual column bars
within a bundle into a cap beam or footing, anchored by
straight bar extensions, shall be increased above that
required by Article 8.33.1.1 by 20 percent for a two-bar
bundle, 50 percent for a three-bar bundle, and 75 per-
cent for a four-bar bundle.
8.33.2 Splices of Column Reinforcement
8.33.2.1 Splice Location
Splices oflongitudinal reinforcement shall not be per-
mitted within the length £0 defined in Article 8.18.2.2.5,
plus a distance D adjacent to that length.
ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete
COMMENTARY
C8.33.1 Anchorage of Column Reinforcement
C8.33.1.1 Development Length
Codified equations in ACI318-89 (revised 1992)(ACI,
1992) would require large development lengths for
development of column longitudinal bars in footings or
cap beams. Theoretical considerations (Priestley, Seible,
and Calvi, 1996) and experiments (Sritharan and Priest-
ley, 1994a and 1994b; Seible et aI., 1994) have shown
that satisfactory performance can be assured with
shorter lengths, due to the confining action oftransverse
reinforcement in the anchorage region. This condition is
reflected in the required anchorage length of Equation
R8-24. However, it must be recognized that it is essential
that the longitudinal column reinforcement be termi-
nated as close as possible to the opposite face of the sup-
porting member (ie., top of cap beam, or bottom of
footings) to ensure that force transfer through the con-
nection is effected. Without proper force transfer, the
bars may be adequately anchored against slipping, but
the joint may fail in shear.
C8.33.1.2 Confinement
The amount of confinement required by Equation R8-25
to clamp the anchorage region in the joint particularly
relates to knee joints where the cap beam does not
extend significantly past the outer face of the column.
For a more thorough discussion of the role of confine-
ment in developing longitudinal column steel refer to
Priestley, Seible, and Calvi (1996).
C8.33.2 Splices of Column Reinforcement
Splices in column longitudinal reinforcement should
never be placed within the plastic end region. Note that
this provision may affect details in ductile pile shafts. In
the past, it has not been uncommon for longitudinal
reinforcement in ductile pile shafts to be spliced at a
ground-level construction joint, where moments may
exceed the 80 percent requirement of Article 8.18.2.2.5.
The additional length D required by Article 8.33.2.1
allows for uncertainties in reinforcement tension
153
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

demands, including possible tension shift effects arising

from diagonal tension cracking.

8.33.2.2 Type of Splices C8.33.2.2 Type of Splices

In regions where splicing is not prohibited by Article
8.33.2.1, longitudinal reinforcement may be spliced by
lap splicing, welding, or approved mechanical coupling
systems. Lap splicing of #14 and #18 bars should be
avoided.
8.33.2.3 Splice Length
No more than 50 percent of column bars shall be lap-
spliced at any section, and the splice length shall not be
less than that determined by the following expression:
O.04db £ is
fs = Jlc R8-26
Outside the no-splice region, splicing may be effected by
welding, approved mechanical couplers, or by lap splic-
ing. Although experiments involving columns with lap
spliced #14 and #18 bars have not revealed any concep-
tual difference in response from columns with smaller
diameter bars (Priestley et al., 1992), their use is not
encouraged at this time due to current ACI require-
ments. Note that Equation R8-26 requires a lap length of
approximate 40 dbR for is = 60 ks~ and normal concrete
strength.

The stress is in Equation R8-26 shall be taken as /y

unless it is established by analysis that under the worst
feasible combination of actions corresponding to devel-
opment of plastic moment at critical sections, including
the effects of tension-shift resulting from inclined flex-
ure-shear cracking, a lesser stress is assured.

8.33.2.4 Confinement

Lap splices complying with Article 8.33.2.3 shall be con-

fined by hoop or spiral reinforcement of volumetric
ratio not less than
6A b £
Ps = Df s R8-27

8.33.2.5 Welded Splices

Welded splices for longitudinal bars shall be full-pene-

tration butt welds.

8.33.2.6 Mechanical Splices

Mechanical splices for longitudinal bars shall be capable

of transferring a tension force corresponding to a bar
stress of at least 1.3/y.

8.33.3 Flexural Bond Requirements for Columns C8.33.3 Flexural Bond Requirements for Columns

8.33.3.1 Maximum Bar Diameter C8.33.3.1 Maximum Bar Diameter

The nominal diameter oflongitudinal reinforcement in

columns shall not exceed In short columns subjected to reversed bending, the
local bond-stress resulting from the moment gradient in
the column can be excessively high. Article 8.33.3 limits
R8-28 the longitudinal bar diameter to a value equal to that
implied by Article 8.33.2.3. A tension-shift length of

154 BDS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

where O.5D is included in Article 8.33.3. This is conservative

within plastic end regions, where most of the shear is
carried by transverse reinforcement.

8.33.3.2 Bundled Bars

Where longitudinal bars in columns are bundled, Equa-

tion R8-28 shall apply to the nominal effective diameter
d bb of the bundle, taken as 1.2 db! for a two-bar bundle,
1.5 db! for a three-bar bundle, and 1.75 db! for a four-bar
bundle.

8.34 MOMENT-RESISTING CONNECTIONS BETWEEN

MEMBERS (COLUMN/BEAM JOINTS AND
COLUMN/FOOTING JOINTS)

8.34.1 Design Forces

Moment-resisting connections between members shall

be designed to transmit the maximum forces applied by
the connected members. For Group VII loads, connec-
tion forces shall be based on the assumption of maxi-
mum plastic moment, as defined by Article 8.16.4.4,
developing in potential plastic hinges.

8.34.2 Force Resisting Mechanisms

Forces acting on the boundaries of connections shall be

considered to be transmitted by mechanisms involving
appropriate contributions by concrete and reinforce-
ment actions. Mechanisms shall be based on an analysis
of force transfer within the connection, and shall be
supported by relevant test results.

8.34.3 Principal Stresses in Connections C8.34.3 Principal Stresses in Connections

8.34.3.1 Applied Stresses C8.34.3.1 Applied Stresses

Principal stresses in any vertical plane within a connec- The stresses fh andfvin Equations R8-29 and R8-30 are
tion shall be calculated in accordance with Equations nominal compression stresses in the horizontal and ver-
R8-29 and R8-30. tical directions, respectively. In a typical joint, fv is pro-
vided by the column axial force Peo An average stress at
Principal tension stress is given by: midheight of the cap beam, or mid-depth of the footing
should be used, assuming a 45-degree spread away from
Pt -
_(fh +2 Iv) - J(fh-2-
-Iv)2 + 2 Vhv R8-29 the boundaries of the column in all directions. The hori-
zontal axial stress fh is based on the mean axial force at
the center of the joint, including effects of cap beam pre-
stress, if present.
Principal compression stress is given by:
The joint shear stress vhv can be estimated with ade-

Pc -
_(fh +2 Iv) + J(fh -2 Iv)2 + 2
v hv R8-30
quate accuracy from the expression

RC8-7
where fh and Iv are the average axial stresses in the hori-
zontal and vertical directions within the plane of the

ATC-32 80S Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete 155

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

connection under consideration (compression stress
positive) and Vhv is the average shear stress within that
plane.
where M p is the maximum plastic moment as defined by
Article 8.16.4.4, hb is the cap beam or footing depth, he is
the column lateral dimension in the direction considered
(ie., he = D for a circular column) and bje is the effective
joint width, found using a 45-degree spread from the
column boundaries. Figure RC8-3 (Priestley, Seible, and

Bridge Axis

Web

Cap Beam

I
I - - bje =J2D --.f

(a) Circular Column

Bridge Axis

Web

.b =b
je b

I I
I-- b je =
he + be --l
(b) Rectangular Column

Figure RC8-3 Effective joint width for shear stress cal-

culations.

156 BDS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
8.34.3.2 Minimum Required Horizontal
Reinforcement
When the principal tension stress is less than
Pt = 3.5.flc psi, the minimum amount of horizontal
joint shear reinforcement to be provided shall be capa-
ble of transferring 50 percent of the cracking stress
resolved to the horizontal direction. For circular col-
umns, or columns with intersecting spirals, the volu-
metric ratio of transverse reinforcement in the form of
spirals or circular hoops to be continued into the cap or
footing as required by Article 8.18.2.1.4 shall not be less
than
3.5 .flc
p =-- R8-31
S f yh
8.34.3.3 Maximum Allowable Compression Stresses
Principal compression stress in a connection, calculated
in accordance with Equation R8-30 shall not exceed
Pc = O.25fc .
8.34.4 Reinforcement for Joint Force Transfer6
8.34.4.1 Acceptable Reinforcement Details
Where the magnitude of principal tension stress values,
calculated in accordance with Equation R8-29, exceed
Pt = 3.5.flc psi, vertical and horizontal joint rein-
forcement, placed in accordance with Articles 8.34.4.2,
8.34.4.3, and 8.34.4.4, shall be deemed to satisfy Articles
8.34.1 and 8.34.2.
8.34.4.2 Vertical Reinforcement
8.34.4.2.1 On each side of the column or pier wall, the
superstructure or footing that is subject to bending
6. These joint reinforcement requirements are based on recent
research at the University of California at San Diego and have not
undergone a complete peer review process typical ofACI code provi-
sions. They are nevertheless included in these Bridge Design Specifica-
tions because ofthe lack of any other joint reinforcement requirements
in the current design specifications.
ATC-32 8DS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete
COMMENTARY
Calvi, 1996) clarifies the quantities to be used in this cal-
culation.
C8.34.3.2 Minimum Required Horizontal
Reinforcement
The need to include spiral reinforcement to aid in joint
force transfer has become obvious as a result of the poor
performance of moment-resisting connections in recent
earthquakes and in large-scale tests. Theoretical consid-
eration (Priestley, Seible, and Calvi, 1996), and experi-
mental observation (Sritharan and Priestley, 1994a;
Sritharan and Priestley, 1994b; Priestley et aI., 1992),
indicate that unless the nominal principal tension stress
in the connection (joint region) exceeds 3.5.flc psi,
diagonal cracking in the connection will be minimal.
Equation R8-31 requires placement of sufficient hoop
reinforcement to carry 50 percent of the tensile force at
3.5.flc nominal tensile stress, resolved into the hori-
zontal plane. This is a minimum level of reinforcement.
C8.34.3.3 Maximum Allowable Compression Stresses
Article 8.34.3.3 limits principal compression stress in a
connection to O.25fc. In effect, this limits the shear
stress to less than O.25fc . It is felt that the level of
nominal principal compression stress is a better indica-
tor of propensity for joint crushing than is the joint shear
stress.
(8.34.4 Reinforcement for Joint Force Transfer
C8.34.4.1 Acceptable Reinforcement Details
Article 8.34 requires a "rational" design for joint rein-
forcement when principal tension stress levels exceed
3.5.flc psi A "means of compliance" is provided in
Article 8.34.4. The amounts of reinforcement required
are based on the mechanism shown in Figure RC8-4,
which primarily uses external reinforcement for joint
resistance to reduce joint congestion.
C8.34.4.2 Vertical Reinforcement
The intent ofArticle 8.34.4.2 is clarified in Figure RC8-S.
A ST is the total area of column reinforcement anchored
in the joint.
Reinforcement Ajv is required to provide the tie
force Ts resisting the vertical component of strut D2 in
Figure RC8-4. This reinforcement should be placed close
to the column cage for maximum efficiency. In addition,
it will be recognized that the cap beam top reinforce-
ment or footing bottom reinforcement may have severe
157
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
forces shall have vertical stirrups, with a total area
A jv=0.16 A ST located within a distance O.5D or O.Sh
from the column or pier wall face. These vertical stir-
rups shall be distributed over a width not exceeding 2D.
8.34.4.2.2 Longitudinal reinforcement contributing to
cap beam or footing flexural strength (ie., superstruc-
ture top reinforcement, cap top reinforcement, footing
bottom reinforcement) shall be clamped into the joint
by vertical bars providing a total area ofO.08AST' These
bars shall be hooked around the restrained longitudinal
reinforcement and extend into the joint a distance not
less than two-thirds of the joint depth. If more than 50
158 BDS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete
COMMENTARY
Diagonal Strut D3
/
/ "-
~ I ~r f-
l~~~ Ts
~
V
:'
/ , "
, D1 ~l
~
1/"
~~ ~ ~~ T
tttt
"
Figure RC8-4 External vertical joint reinforcement for
joint force transfer.
bond demands, since stress levels may change from close
to tensile yield on one side of the joint to significant lev-
els of compression stress on the other side. The required
0.08A sT vertical ties inside the joint are intended to help
provide this bond transfer by clamping the cap-beam
rebar across possible splitting cracks. Similar restraint
may be required for superstructure top longitudinal
rebar.
When the cap beam and/or superstructures is pre-
stressed, the bond demands will be much less severe, and
the clamping requirement can be relaxed. It can also be
shown theoretically (Priestley, Seible, and Calvi, 1996)
that the volumetric ratio of hoop reinforcement can be
proportionately reduced to zero as the prestress force
approaches 0.251;.
Figure RC8-S shows each of the areas within which
the reinforcement required by Article 8.34.4.2.1 must be
placed. For an internal column of a multi-column bent,
there will be four such areas, overlapping, as shown in
Figure RC8-Sa. For an exterior column of a multi-col-
umn bent, there will be three such areas (Figure RC8-
Sb). For a single-column bent with monolithic col-
umn/cap beam connection, there will be two such areas,
corresponding to longitudinal response (Figure RC8-
Sc). Where these areas overlap, vertical joint reinforce-
ment within the overlapping areas may be considered
effective for both directions of response. Where shear
reinforcement exists within a given area and is not fully
utilized for shear resistance in the direction of response
considered, that portion not needed for shear resistance
may be considered to be vertical joint reinforcement.
Since cap beam shear reinforcement is normally dictated
by conditions causing cap beam negative moment (grav-
ATC-32
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

percent of the superstructure moment capacity and/or

cap-beam moment capacity is provided by prestress,
this reinforcement may be omitted, unless needed for
O.5A J within core
v
t
Bridge Axis
ateel in overl~ counts
for ® and @)
the orthogonal direction of response.

AJ., in adl of I~ II
CD ® ® @ Hi/2-1
(a) Internal Column: Kulticolumn Bent

t
Brid,e Axis

O.5A J., within core

Edge

(b) Exterior Column: Kulticolumn Bent

t
Bridge Axill

O.5A Jv withln core

1------102DI------\
(c) Single Column Bent

Figure RC8-5 Locations for vertical joint

reinforcement.

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete 159

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

ity and seismic shear are additive) while the external

joint reinforcement discussed in this section applies to
cap beam positive moment (when gravity and seismic
shear are in opposition), it is normal to find that a con-
siderable portion of existing cap beam shear reinforce-
ment adjacent to the joint can be utilized.

8.34.4.3 Horizontal Reinforcement C8.34.4.3 Horizontal Reinforcement

Additional longitudinal reinforcement in the cap beam,
superstructure, and footing of total amount 0.08 A ST
over and above that required for flexural strength, shall
be placed in the face adjacent to the column (ie., bot-
tom of cap beam or superstructure; top of footing),
extending through the joint and for a sufficient distance
to develop its yield strength at a distance of O.5D from
the column face, as shown in Figure R8-1.
Additional cap-beam bottom reinforcement of area
0.08A sT is required to provide the horizontal resistance
of the strut D2 in Figure RC8-4.
Special care is needed for knee joints as represented
by Figure RC8-Sb. For moment tending to close the
joint, force transfer must be provided between the top
cap beam reinforcement and the column outer rein-
forcement. When the cap beam does not extend signifi-
cantly past the column, this is best effected by making
the cap beam top and bottom reinforcement into a con-

:...
I
Ajv,,"-

>0/2+ld f--
.- ! I-
--
c ~ within 0/2
(See Figure RC8-5) 7

>0/2+ ld i
L
' - Additional beam steel
required both trensve rsely
and longitudinally
= O.08A,;t
Note: I(j = development length
--
Figure R8-1 Additional cap beam bottom reinforce-
ment for joint force transfer.
tinuous loop outside the column cage, as shown in Fig-
ureRC8-4.
If a cap-beam cantilever is provided, with cap-beam
reinforcement passing beyond the joint, additional verti-
cal shear reinforcement outside the joint, as for Figure
RC8-S, will be required.
Moment-resisting connections designed according
to these requirements have performed well in experi-
ments (Seible et al., 1994; Sritharan and Priestley, 1994aj
Sritharan and Priestley, 1994b).
This reinforcement may be omitted in prestressed
or partially prestressed cap beams if the prestressed
design force is increased by the amount needed to pro-
vide an equivalent increase in cap-beam moment capac-
ity to that provided by this reinforcement.

8.34.4.4 Hoop or Spiral Reinforcement Figure RC8-1C8.34.4.4 Hoop or Spiral Reinforcement

The volumetric ration of column joint hoop or spiral The hoop or spiral reinforcement of Equation 8-33 is
reinforcement to be carried into the cap or footing as required to provide adequate confinement of the joint,
required by Article 8.18.2.1.4 shall not be less than and to resist the net outward thrust of struts D 1 and D2
in Figure RC8-4.

R8-32

8.35 FOOTING STRENGTH (8.35 FOOTING STRENGTH

8.35.1 Flexural Strength for Group VII Loads (8.35.1 Flexural Strength for Group VII Loads

In determining the flexural strength of footings resist-
ing Group VII loads, with monolithic column/footing
connections, the effective width of the footing shall not
be taken to be greater than the width of the column plus
Under Group VII loads, it is common for the footing to
be subjected to positive moments on one side of the col-
umn and negative moments on the other. In this case,
shear lag considerations show that it is unrealistic to
expect footing reinforcement at lateral distances greater

160 BDS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
a tributory footing width, equal to the effective depth of
the footing, on either side of the column.
8.35.2 Shear Strength for Group VII Loads
8.35.2.1 Effective Width
The effective width for determining the shear strength
of footings for Group VII loads shall be as for flexural
strength, as given in Article 8.35.1.
8.35.2.2 Shear Reinforcement
When the nominal shear strength in footings under
Group VII loads exceeds that permitted by Article
8.16.6.2, vertical stirrups or ties shall be provided to
carry the deficit in shear strength. These stirrups shall
be placed within the effective width as defined by Article
8.35.2.1.
8.35.2.3 Minimum Vertical Reinforcement
In all parts of the footing, a minimum amount of trans-
verse reinforcement in the form ofvertical stirrups or
ties shall be placed, satisfying the expression
50
Pv =f - R8-33
yv
where fyv is the yield stress of the stirrup or tie.
8.36 EFFECTIVE SUPERSTRUCTURE WIDTH FOR
LONGITUDINAL SEISMIC RESISTANCE
The effective superstructure width on either side of a
column for resisting longitudinal seismic moments
induced by column actions shall not be taken as larger
than the superstructure depth hs•
ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete
COMMENTARY
than the footing effective depth to effectively participate
in footing flexural strength. Tests on footings (Xiao et al;
1994) have shown that a footing effective width comply-
ing with Article 8.35.1 will produce a good prediction of
maximum footing reinforcement stress. If a larger effec-
tive width is adopted in design, shear lag effects will
result in large inelastic strains developing in the footing
reinforcement adjacent to the column. This may reduce
the shear strength of the footing and jeopardize the foot-
ing joint force transfer mechanisms. Since the reinforce-
ment outside the effective width is considered ineffective
for flexural resistance, it is permissible to reduce the
reinforcement ratio in such regions to 50 percent of that
within the effective width unless more reinforcement is
required to transfer pile reactions to the effective
sections.
C8.35.2 Shear Strength for Group VII Loads
C8.35.2.1 Effective Width
Arguments similar to those for moment apply to the
effective width for shear strength estimation.
C8.35.2.3 Minimum Vertical Reinforcement
The minimum vertical steel requirement of Article
8.35.2.3 will provide a truss mechanism shear resistance
of at least 50 psi, and is equivalent to current Caltrans
requirements for footing design.
C8.36 EFFECTIVE SUPERSTRUCTURE WIDTH FOR
LONGITUDINAL SEISMIC RESISTANCE
The intent of Article 8.36 is clarified in Figure RC8-6.
The effective width defined in this article applies imme-
diately adjacent to the bridge bent. As the distance from
161
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

the bent increases, the effective superstructure width

rapidly increases to the full-section width.

__----D+28, "I

I
I
I
I

LH-l\
.
o
\ /LH.-l
I
I
I
I
l
j'
\
\ ( ~ flared column

Figure RC8-6 Effective superstructure width resisting

longitudinal seismic moments.

162 BDS Recommendations, Section 8: Reinforced Concrete ATC-32

Section 10
Structural Steel

BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

Part A: General Requirements And Materials

10.1 APPLICATION 1

The provisions of this section for seismic design are

intended to apply to structural steel concentrically
braced frames, hollow box columns, girder superstruc-
tures, and bearings.

10.1.1 Notations Cl0.l.l Notations

a = lateral stiffener spacing (Article 10.63.3.2, These notations should be added to those in the current
10.63.3.3) BDS Section 10.
A = area of cross section (Articles 10.60.3.3)
A e = effective net area (Article 10.62.3)
Ag = gross area (Article 10.61.3, 10.61.4, and 10.62.3)
AI = cross sectional area of longitudinal box stiffener
(Article 10.63.3.2)
As = shear area (Article 10.63.3.3)
b = width of box flange (Article 10.63.3.2)
bf = width of flange (Articles 10.62.2, and 10.62.3)
bbf = width of beam flange (Article 10.19.3.2)
db = beam depth (Article 10.19.3.2, and 10.61.4)
de = column depth (Article 10.19.3.2)
dl = longitudinal box stiffener area ratio (Article
10.63.3.2, and 10.63.3.3)
dz = panel zone depth between beam flanges (Article
10.19.3.2)
D = section depth (Article 10.63.3.3)
Db = beam depth (Article 10.63.2)
De = column depth (Article 10.63.2)
E = modulus of elasticity of steel, psi (Articles
10.60.3.3)

1. These provisions for the seismic design of steel bridges are entirely
new to the Bridge Design Specifications. It should be noted that no
trial designs have been performed and the impact of these design
requirements is not totally clear. A trial application period is recom-
mended before they are adopted for widespread use.

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 10: Structural Steel 163

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

F u = specified minimum tensile strength (Table

RIO-I)
Fy = specified minimum yield point of steel (Table
RI0-l and RI0-2, Articles 10.19.3.2, 10.21.9,
10.61.3,10.62.2,10.63.2, 10.63.3.2, and
10.63.3.3)
Fyb =specified minimum yield stress of the beam
(Articles 10.61.4, 10.62.3)
Fye = specified minimum yield stress of the column
(Article 10.61.4)
Fyw = specified minimum yield stress of the web
(Article 10.62.2)
G = shear modulus of steel (Article 10.63.3.3)
he = assumed web depth for stability (Article 10.62.3)
H y = yield lateral force (Article 10.63.3.3)
I = moment of inertia, in. 4 (Article 10.63.3.3)
II = longitudinal box stiffener moment of inertia
(Article 10.63.3.2)
It = moment of inertia of transverse stiffeners
(Article 10.63.3.2)
L = length of box column in inches (Article
10.63.3.3)
L = distance from center of connection to plastic
hinge (Article 10.63.2)
L = actual unbraced length (Article 10.62.2)
M n = nominal flexural strength for columns (Article
10.19.3.1)
M p = full plastic moment of the section (Article
10.19.3.1 and 10.19.3.2)
M u = maximum bending strength (Article 10.19.3.1)
My = yield moment (Article 10.63.3.3)
np = number of panel spaces (Article 10.63.3.2 &
10.63.3.3)
N = axial load on box column (Article 10.63.3.3)
aSF = overstrength factor for box column (Article
10.63.3.3)
aSF.= effective overstrength factor for box column
(Article 10.63.3.3)
Pn = nominal axial strength of a column (Article
10.62.2)
Pn = nominal tensile strength of bracing member
(Article 10.62.3)
Pu = maximum axial compression capacity (Articles
10.61.3 and 10.62.2)
Pue = required axial strength of the column based on
the appropriate loads factored for a seismic
event (Article 10.61.4)
Pu " = required strength of brace (Article 10.62.3)
Py = nominal axial yield strength of member =FyAg
(Article 10.61.3)
Q. = effective load resistance due to box column
ductility (Article 10.63.3.3)
r = radius of gyration, in. (Article 10.62.2)

164 8DS Recommendations, Section 10: Structural Steel ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

TY = radius of gyration with respect to the Y-Y axis

(Article 10.21.9)
t = flange thickness, in. (Article 10.63.3.2)
=
tbf thickness ofbeam flange (Article 10.19.3.2 and
10.62.3)
tf = thickness of the flange (Article 10.62.2)
to = minimum plate thickness (Article 10.63.3.2)
tp = total thickness of panel zone, including doubler
plates (Article 10.19.3.2)
tw = web thickness, in. (Articles 10.62.2, 10.63.2, and
10.63.3.3)
V n = nominal shear strength of panel zone (Articles
10.19.3.1, 10.19.3.2, and 10.61.4)
V u = maximum shear force (Articles 10.19.3.1, and
10.19.3.2)
Vy = shear strength of unstiffened box comer
connection (Article 10.63.2)
W z = panel zone width between continuity plates
(Article 10.19.3.2)
Z =' seismic force reduction factor (Articles 10.19.3,
10.19.3.1, 10.63.3, and 10.63.3.3)
Zb = plastic section modulus of beam (Article 10.61.4)
Z, = plastic section modulus of column (Articles
10.61.4 & 10.63.3.3)
Ze = effective seismic resistance factor for box
columns (Article 10.63.3.3)
a = fraction of the member force that is transferred
across a particular net section (Article 10.62.3)
a = aspect ratio of box plate (Articles 10.63.3.2, and
10.63.3.3)
a o = limiting aspect ratio of box plate (Article
10.63.3.2, and 10.63.3.3)
1/ = box wall buckling factor (Articles 10.63.3.2, and
10.63.3.3)
1/* = benchmark box wall buckling factor (Article
10.63.3.3)
<>u = ultimate displacement (Article 10.63.3.3)
<> = yield displacement (Article 10.63.3.3)
~ critical deformation factor (Article 10.63.3.3)
=
8 j = plastic hinge rotation (Article 10.63.3.3)
K = constant related to box wall buckling factor ratio
(Article 10.63.3.3)
Ap = limiting width-thickness ratio (Table RIO-3,
Article 10.61.3)
fl = box column ductility factor (Article 10.63.3.3)
fle = effective ductility factor (Article 10.63.3.3)
4>b = flexural strength reduction factor (Articles
10.19.3.2, and 10.61.3)
4>, = compression strength reduction factor (Article
10.62.2)
4>t = tensile strength reduction factor (Article 10.62.3)
4>v = shear strength reduction factor (Article
10.19.3.1, and 10.19.3.2)

ATC-32 80S Recommendations, Section 10: Structural Steel 165

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

10.2 MATERIALS

10.2.1 General

These specifications recognize steels listed in the follow-

ing subparagraphs. Other steels may be used; however,
the properties, strength, allowable stress, and workabil-
ity of any alternate steel materials must be established
and specified.

10.2.2 Structural Steels C10.2.2 Structural Steels

Structural steels shall conform to the material designated
in Table RIO-I. The modulus of elasticity of all grades of
structural steel shall be assumed to be 29,000,000 psi and
the coefficient of linear expansion to be 0.0000065 per
degree Fahrenheit.
Except as specified herein, members subject to cyclic
inelasticity under seismic loading shall be constructed of
materials conforming to the material properties for
AASHTO M183, M222 or M223 steel, as specified in
Table RIO-I. Structural steel not conforming to these
material standards may be considered for use, provided
that it exhibits similar stress-strain properties to those
that have been approved for this application and pro-
vided that the cyclic ductility of the steel has been veri-
fied through testing.
AASHTO M244 steel shall not be used in members
that are expected to resist significant seismic loads.
Review of experimental studies and the American
Institue of Steel Construction Load and Resistance Fac-
tor Design seismic design provisions indicates that it
may be necessary to restrict seismic design provisions to
structures having a minimum yield strength of not
much greater than 50,000 psi. The reason for this restric-
tion is that some of the provisions for permissible shear
in a stiffened panel have been developed based on an
assumed relationship between the yield point and the
tensile strength of the material. It is assumed that the
panel zone will reach strain hardening and that this phe-
nomenon permits shear capacity greater than what
would be indicated by applying the VonMises criteria to
the yield strength. A material such as AASHTO M244
steel, which has a relatively small difference between ten-
sile and yield strength, will not necessarily produce the
desired effect.

10.2.3 Steels for Pins, Rollers, and Expansion

Rockers

Steel for pins, rollers, and expansion rockers may con-

form to one of the designations listed below and in
Tables RIO-I and RIO-2.

• Steel Bars, Carbon Cold Finished Standard Quality,

AASHTO MI69 (ASTM AI08)

• Steel Forgings, Carbon and Alloy, for General Indus-

trial Use, AASHTO MI02 (ASTM A668)

Articles 10.2.4 through 10.19.2 not modified.

10.19.3 Seismic Resistance of Moment-Resisting

Beam-to-Column Connections

These provisions apply to joints that are part of the seis-

mic force-resisting system in which the intersecting
flange forces are transmitted into the web by stiffeners.

166 8DS Recommendations, Section 10: Structural Steel ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

Table RI0-l Minimum Material Properties for Structural Steel

High Yield Strength, Quenched and

Type Structural Steel High-Strength Low Alloy Steel Tempered Alloy Steel

AASHTO Designa- M183 M222 M224/- M224/-

tion Equivalent
ASTM
Designationa A36 A572 A588 A514b/A517b A514b/A517b
Thickness of plates Up to 8 in. incl. Up to 4 in. incl. Up to 4 in. incl. Up to 2 in. incl. Over 2 in. to 4 in.
incl.
Shapes' All groups All groups All groups Not applicable Not applicable
Minimum Tensile 58,000 65,000 70,000 110,000 100,000
Strength, Fu (psi)
Minimum Yield Point 36,000 50,000 50,000 100,000 90,000
or Minimum Yield
Strength, Fy (psi)
a. Except for the mandatory notch toughness and weldability requirements, the ASTM designations are similar to the
AASHTO designations. Steels meeting the AASHTO requirements are prequalified for use in welded bridges.
b. Quenched and tempered alloy steel structural shapes and seamless mechanical tubing meeting all mechanical and
chemical requirements ofASTM A514, except that the specified maximum tensile strength may be 140,000 psi for
structural shapes and 145,000 psi for seamless mechanical tubing, shall be considered as ASTM A514 steel.
c. Groups 1 and 2 include all shapes, except those in Groups 3, 4 and 5. Group 3 includes L-shapes over Linch in thick-
ness. HP-shapes over 102 pounds/foot, and the followingW-shapes:
Designation:
W36 x 230 to 300 incl.
W33 x 200 to 240 incl.
W14 x 142 to 211 incl.
W12 x 120 to 190 incl.
Group 4 includes the following W-shapes: W14 x 219 to 550 incl.
Group 5 includes the following W-shapes: W14 x 605 to 730 incl.
For breakdown of Groups 1 and 2, see ASTM A6.
Limited to 4-inch thickness for structural members other than bearing assembly components.
The 1987 Interim Material Specifications will modify M223 to conform with A572 regarding thickness.

Table RI0-2 Minimum Material Properties for Pins, Rollers,a and Rockers
AASHTO Designation with MI02 to 20 in. in diameter MI02 to 20 in. in diameter M102 b to 20 in. in diameter
Size Limitation
ASTM Designation A668 A668 A668
Grade or Class Class D Class F Class G
Minimum Yield Point, ps~ Fy 37,500 50,000 50,000
a. Expansion rollers shall not be less than four inches in diameter
b. May substitute rolled material of the same properties.

ATC-32 8DS Recommendations, Section 10: Structural Steel 167

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

Members need not intersect at a right angle. Curved

flanges are not covered herein.
In lieu of more refined data supported by test
results, the seismic force reduction factor, Z, for I-shaped
members satisfying the requirements ofArticle 10.61.3
shall be taken as specified in Article 3.21.11 for reinforced
concrete columns. The seismic force reduction factor, Z,
for stiffened box shapes shall be taken as specified in Arti-
cle 10.63.3. Force-reduction factors for shapes not cov-
ered herein shall be experimentally verified.

10.19.3.1 Required Resistance C10.19.3.1 Required Resistance.

The required flexural strength, Mu, of each beam-to- At this writing, the use ofsome welded beam-to-column
column joint shall be the lesser of either the plastic joint details have been called into question as a result of
bending moment, M p' of the column or the moment experience during the Northridge earthquake. It is antic-
resulting from the panel zone nominal shear strength, ipated that future research will resolve this issue result-
Vn , as determined using the seismic load combination ing in approved details. At the current time, details that
and the seismic reduction factor, Z, taken as unity. have plates continuing past the plastic hinge into the
Where capacity design is used, the beam column joint and a welded or mechanically fastened beam-to-
joint shall be designed for the lesser of 125% of the plas- column connection of such size as to remain elastic
tic bending moment, M p ' of the column or 125% of the while being protected by the hinge may serve as a start-
panel zone nominal shear strength, Vu ' ing point for such details.
The required shear strength V u ofbeam-to-column
joints shall be taken as the lesser of that determined
using the load combination 1.2 times the permanent
load plus the shear resulting from M u at the end of the
column or the shear resulting from the governing seis-
mic load combination.
The design strength of a beam-to-column joint may
be considered adequate to develop the required flexural
strength, M u' of the column designed under the weak
column-strong beam philosophy, if the column flanges
are made continuous or are welded to the beam flange
using approved welded or mechanical joints.
The column web joint shall have a design shear
strength, iflvVn ' greater than the required shear
strength, v,;, where iflv is taken as 0.90. Where the nom-
inal flexural strength of the column, M n, considering
only the flanges, is greater than 70 percent of the nomi-
nal flexural strength of the entire beam section, the web
joint may be made by means of welding or slip-critical,
high-strength bolting.
Joint configurations using welds or high-strength
bolts, but not conforming to the requirement above,
may be permitted if proven to be adequate by test or
calculation. Where conformance is shown by calcula-
tion, the design strength ofthe joint shall be 125 percent
of the design strength of the connecting elements.

168 BDS Recommendations, Section 10: Structural Steel ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

10.19.3.2 Panel Zone of Beam-to-Column Connection

(Beam Web Parallel to Column Web)

The required shear strength, Vu ' of the panel zone shall

be based on bending moments determined from applica-
ble non-seismic load combinations. Vu need not exceed
that determined from the sum ofthe plastic moments of
the members deforming plastically at the connection.
The design shear strength «PvVn of the panel zone
shall be determined by the following equation:

3bbl~fJ
¢vVn --0.6¢vFydbtp ( 1 + - - RI0-1
dbdet p

where:

Fy = specified minimum yield stress of the steel (ksi)

de = overall column section depth (in)
tp = total thickness of the panel zone including
doubler plates (in)
bbf = width of the beam flange (in)
tbf = thickness of the beam flange (in)
db = overall beam depth (in)
0 v = 0.75 for this application

The panel zone thickness, tp' shall conform to the

following:
dz+w z
t p? 90 RI0-2

where:

dz = the panel zone depth between beam flanges (in)

Wz = the panel zone width between continuity plates
(in)

For this purpose, tp shall not include any doubler

plate thickness unless the doubler plate is connected to
the web with sufficient bolts or plug welds to prevent
buckling of the plate.
Doubler plates provided to increase the design
strength of the panel zone or to reduce the web depth-
to-thickness ratio shall be placed close to the column
web and welded across the plate width, top and bottom,
with a minimum fillet weld as per the Specification. The
doubler plates shall be fastened to the column flanges
using either butt-welded or fillet-welded joints to
develop the design shear strength of the doubler plate.

10.19.3.3 Continuity Plates

Continuity plates shall be provided in panel zone

regions and shall be fastened by welds to both flanges
and webs or doubler plates of the beam.

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 10: Structural Steel 169

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

10.20 DIAPHRAGMS AND CROSS FRAMES

10.20.1 General

Rolled beams and plate girder spans shall be provided

with cross frames or diaphragms at each end and inter-
mediate cross frames or diaphragms spaced at intervals
not to exceed 25 feet. End cross frames or diaphragms
shall be proportioned to adequately transmit all the lat-
eral forces to the bearings. Cross frames and dia-
phragms shall be attached to full-depth stiffeners. The
distance between cross frame diaphragm attachments
and the flanges shall be held to a minimum, taking into
consideration possible construction as well as design
loadings. Diaphragms shall be at least l!2 of the web
depth for rolled beams and at least 1/2, and preferably
3"4, of the web depth for plate girders. Special consider-
ation shall be given to the design of cross frames used
on horizontally curved steel girder bridges. These cross
frames shall be designed as main members with ade-
quate provisions for the transfer of lateral forces from
the girder flanges. Cross frames and diaphragms shall
be designed for horizontal wind forces as described in
Article 10.21.2, and for seismic loading, as specified in
Article 10.20.4.

Articles 10.20.2 through 10.20.3 not modified.

10.20.4 Seismic Provisions for Diaphragms, Cross-

Frames, and Lateral Bracing

10.20.4.1 General

These provisions shall be applied in addition to all other

applicable code requirements.

10.20.4.2 Applicability

These provisions shall apply to diaphragms, cross-

frames, and lateral bracing, which are part ofthe seismic
force-resisting system in common slab-on-steel girder
bridges. Curved bridges are not covered by this article.

10.20.4.3 Design Criteria C10.20.4.3 Design Criteria

The Engineer shall demonstrate that a clear, straight-
forward load path to the substructure exits and that all
components and connections are capable of resisting
the imposed load effects consistent with the chosen load
path.
Diaphragms, cross-frames, lateral bracing, bearings, and
substructure elements are part ofa load-resisting system,
in which the seismic loading and performance of each
element is affected by the strength and stiffness charac-
teristics of the other elements. Past earthquakes have
shown that when one of these elements responded in a

170 8DS Recommendations, Section 10: Structural Steel ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

The flow of forces in the assumed load path must ductile manner or allowed some movement, damage
be accommodated through all affected components and was limited. In the strategy taken herein, it is assumed
details including, but not limited to, flanges and webs of that ductile plastic hinging in the substructure is the pri-
main beams or girders, cross-frames, steel-to-steel con- mary source of energy dissipation. Alternative design
nections, slab-to-steel interfaces, and all components of strategies are permitted under Article 10.29.8.2 for bear-
the bearing assembly from bottom flange interface ing design.
through the confinement of anchor bolts or similar
devices in the substructure. The substructure shall also
be designed to transmit the imposed force effects into
the ground.
The design of end diaphragms and cross-frames
shall include analysis cases with horizontal supports at
an appropriate number of bearings, consistent with
Article 10.29.8.5. Slenderness and connection require-
ments of bracing members that are part of the seismic
force-resisting system shall follow those specified for
main member design.
Diaphragms and cross frames and their connec-
tions that are identified by the designer as part of the
load path carrying seismic forces from the superstruc-
ture to the bearings shall be designed and detailed to
remain elastic under all design earthquakes, regardless
of the type of bearings used. The applicable provisions
for the design of main members shall apply.

10.20.4.4 Load Distribution Cl0.20.4.4 Load Distribution

A viable load path shall be established to transmit the
inertial loads to the foundation based on the stiffness
characteristics of the deck, diaphragms, cross-frames,
and lateral bracing. Unless a more refined analysis is
made, an approximate load path shall be assumed as
follows:
The following requirements apply to bridges with
either:
A continuous path is necessary for the transmission of
the superstructure inertial forces to the foundation.
Concrete decks have significant rigidity in their horizon-
tal plane, and in short-to-medium slab-on-girder spans,
their response approaches a rigid body motion. There-
fore, the seismic loading of the intermediate diaphragms
and cross frames is minimal.

• a concrete deck that can provide horizontal dia-

phragm action or

• a horizontal bracing system in the plane of the top

flange.

The seismic loads in the deck shall be assumed to be

transmitted directly to the bearings through end dia-
phragms or cross-frames. The development and analy-
sis of the load path through the deck or through the top
lateral bracing, if present, shall utilize assumed struc-
tural actions analogous to those used for the analysis of
wind loadings. Since the end diaphragm shall be
designed to remain elastic, as it is part of the identified
load path, no stressing of intermediate cross frames
need be considered.

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 10: Structural Steel 171

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

The following requirements apply to bridges with

either:

• decks that cannot provide horizontal diaphragm

action or

• no lateral bracing in the plane of the top flange.

The seismic loads on the deck shall be distributed

through the intermediate diaphragms and cross frames
to the bottom lateral bracing, and then to the bearings,
and through the end diaphragms and cross-frames to
the bearings. The relative load carried by the two load
paths to the bearings shall be in proportion to their rela-
tive rigidity and the respective tributary mass of the
deck.

If a bottom lateral bracing system is not present, the

first procedure shall be used, and the deck shall be
designed and detailed to provide the necessary horizon-
tal diaphragm action.

10.20.4.5 Design and Detail Requirements Cl0.20.4.5 Design and Detail Requirements

For bridges with significant skew, as defined in Section
3, the load distribution shall be based on the analysis
requirements ofSection 3.
Bearings do not usually resist load simultaneously, and
damage to only some of the bearings at one end of a
span is not uncommon. When this occurs, high load
concentrations can result at the location of the other
bearings, which needs to be taken into account in the
design of the end cross frames. Also, a significant change
in the load distribution among the end cross frame
members may occur. The number ofbearings engaged
should be consistent with Article 10.29.8.5. While studies
of the cyclic load behavior of bracing systems (Astaneh-
AsI, Goel, and Hanson, 1985; Astaneh-Asl and Goel,
1984; Goel and EI-Tayem, 1986; and Harown and Shep-
erd, 1986) have shown that with adequate details, brac-
ing systems can allow for ductile behavior; these design
provisions require elastic behavior in end diaphragms.

10.21 LATERAL BRACING

10.21.1 General

The need for lateral bracing shall be investigated.

Flanges attached to concrete decks or other decks of
comparable rigidity will not require lateral bracing. Lat-
eral bracing may be used for seismic load transfer, as
described in Article 10.20.4.

10.21.2 Wind Force

A horizontal wind force of 50 pounds per square foot

shall be applied to the area of the superstructure

172 80S Recommendations, Section 10: Structural Steel ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

exposed in elevation. Half of this force shall be applied

to the plane of each flange. The stress induced shall be
computed in accordance with Article 10.20.2.1. The
allowable stress shall be factored in accordance with
Article 3.22. When designed for seismic loading, the
provisions of Article 10.20.4 shall apply.

Articles 10.21.3 through 10.21.8 not modified.

10.21.9 Lateral Support of Compression Flanges in

Plastic Hinge Regions

In potential plastic hinge regions, the unbraced length

of the compression flange of a flexural member shall
not exceed 2500 r/Fy ,where ry is the weak-axis radius of
gyration and Fy is the steel yield strength in ksi In addi-
tion, lateral support shall be provided at locations of
concentrated loads.

Articles 10.22 through 10.23.7 not modified.

10.24 FASTENERS (RIVETS AND BOLTS)

Articles 10.24.1 through 10.24.7 not modified.

10.24.8 Slip-Critical Connections Subject to C10.24.8 Slip-Critical Connections Subject to

Seismic Loading Seismic Loading

Special consideration shall be given to slip-critical
bolted connections that may be subjected to cyclic
loads. Such consideration shall include an investigation
of the potential loss of clamping action on faying sur-
faces due to the Poisson effect.
On the basis of oral discussions with researchers, there
appears to be reasonable concern about the state of a
slip-critical bolted connection after it undergoes several
cycles of inelastic response. The issue here is not the abil-
ity of well-detailed joints to respond inelastically, but
rather the possible reduction in live load fatigue strength
after the seismic event. If the material inside the joint
undergoes enough inelastic strain that the Poisson effect
causes the plate to have a significant reduction in thick-
ness, there will be a loss of clamping action on the faying
surface. This clamping action, necessary for adequate
fatigue resistance under live load, can be restored only
by retightening the bolts and/or replacing them. The
prospect of retightening bolts in even a medium-span
steel structure seems relatively impractical. Several
options do seem feasible:

ATC-32 BOS Recommendations, Section 10: Structural Steel 173

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

• A member that would be adequate for the anticipated

service life ofthe structure if considered as a Category
C detail for finite life, and a Category D detail for infi-
nite life, could probably be regarded as unaffected by
the loss of clamping action. This is especially true if
the member is acceptable for both classes offatigue as
a Category D detail. Acceptable and unacceptable
members could be marked on the contract docu-
ments for reference after an earthquake.

• The process outlined above could be used in post-

event screening, based on the antiCipated remaining
life and the age of the structure at the time the event
occurred.

• Bolted details could be placed in areas away from

those expected to undergo significant cyclic inelastic-
ity. As an extension of this method, a structural fuse
could be used to protect the bolted detail.

• A distinction between the two levels of earthquake

could be made regarding bolted joints. Design to pre-
vent slip, based on the current AASHTO overload
provisions for the functional-evaluation earthquake,
and design to allow bearing under the safety-evalua-
tion earthquake seems a feasible approach.

10.25 LINKS AND HANGERS

Articles 10.25.1 through 10.25.5 not modified.

10.25.6 Seismic Restrictions

Links and hanger assemblies shall only be used when

unavoidable. When used, adequate linkage for horizon-
tal seismic load transfer shall be provided.

Articles 10.26 through 10.28 not modified.

10.29 FIXED AND EXPANSION BEARINGS

Articles 10.29.1 through 10.29.7 not modified.

174 8DS Recommendations, Section 10: StructuraL SteeL ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

10.29.8 Seismic Provisions for Fixed and

Expansion Bearings

10.29.8.1 Scope

This article shall apply to the analysis, design, and

detailing ofbearings, for the functional-evaluation and
safety-evaluation earthquakes.

10.29.8.2 ApplicabilityZ

The provisions shall apply to pin bearings, roller bear-

ings, rocker bearings, bronze or copper-alloy sliding
bearings, elastomeric bearings, spherical bearings, and
pot and disc bearings in common slab-on-steel girder
bridges. Curved bridges, seismic isolation-type bearings,
and structural fuse bearings are not covered by this arti-
cle.
The strategy taken herein assumes that inelastic
action is confined to properly detailed hinge areas in the
substructure. Alternative concepts that utilize move-
ment at the bearings to dissipate seismic forces may also
be considered, provided that all ramifications of the
increased movements and the predictability of the asso-
ciated forces and transfer of forces are addressed in the
design and details.

10.29.8.3 General

These provisions shall be applied in addition to all other

applicable code requirements. The bearing type selec-
tion shall consider the seismic criteria described in Arti-
cle 10.29.8.4 in the early stages of design.

10.29.8.4 Design Criteria C10.29.8.4 Design Criteria

The selection and seismic design of bearings shall be
related to the strength and stiffness characteristics of
both the superstructure and the substructure.
Bearing design shall be consistent with the intended
seismic response of the whole bridge system.
Rigid-type bearings are assumed not to move in
restrained directions, and therefore the seismic forces
from the superstructure shall be assumed to be trans-
mitted through diaphragms or cross frames and their
2. When selecting a fixed or expansion bearing for a bridge, the use
of certain bearing types that have performed poorly in past earth-
quakes should be avoided. Some members of the PEP were also
uncomfortable with the current Caltrans practice of using transverse
abutment shear keys as fuses which are intended to fail during a strong
earthquake. The unpredictable sequence of shear key failure may
result in undesirable seismic behavior particularly for some bridge con-
figurations prone to torsional response in the horizontal plane (e.g.
highly skewed supports, unbalanced spans).
Bearings have a significant effect on the overall seismic
response of a bridge. They provide the link that transfers
seismic load between a stiff and massive superstructure
and a stiff and massive substructure. As a result, very
high (and difficult to predict) load concentrations can
occur in the bearing components. The primary functions
of the bearings are to resist the vertical loads due to dead
load and live load and to allow for superstructure move-
ments due to live load and temperature changes. Allow-
ance for translation is made by means of rollers, rockers,
shear deformation of an elastomer, or through the pro-
vision of a sliding surface of bronze, copper alloy, or
PTFE. Allowance for rotation is made by hinges, con-
fined or unconfined elastomers, or spherical sliding sur-
faces. Resistance to translation is provided by bearing
components or additional restraining elements.
Historically, bearings have been very susceptible to
seismic loads. Unequal loading during seismic events

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 10: Structural Steel 175

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
connections to the bearings, and then to the substruc-
ture without reduction due to local inelastic action
along that load path.
Deformable-type bearings having less than full
rigidity in the restrained directions, but not designed
explicitly as base isolators or fuses have demonstrated a
reduction in force transmission to the substructure, and
may be used under any circumstance. If used, they shall
be designed to accommodate imposed seismic loads.
176 8DS Recommendations, Section 10: Structural Steel
COMMENTARY
and much higher loads than anticipated have caused var-
ious types and levels of bearing damage. Because of the
requirement for allowing movement, bearings often
contain elements vulnerable to high loads and impacts.
The performance of bearings during past earth-
quakes needs to be evaluated in context with the overall
performance of the bridge and the performance of the
superstructure and substructure elements connected to
the bearings. Rigid bearings have been associated with
damage to the end cross-frames and the supporting pier
or abutment concrete. In some cases, bearing damage
and slippage has prevented more extensive damage.
The criteria for seismic design ofbearings should
consider the strength and stiffness characteristics of the
superstructure and substructure. To minimize damage,
the seismic load-resisting system made of the end cross-
frame, bearings, and substructure should allow a certain
degree of energy dissipation, movement, or plastic defor-
mation, even if those effects are not quantified as they
would be for base isolation bearings or structural fuses.
Based on their horizontal stiffness, bearings may be
divided into four categories:
• rigid bearings that transmit seismic loads without any
movement or deformation,
• deformable bearings that transmit seismic loads lim-
ited by plastic deformations or restricted slippage of
bearing components,
• seismic isolation-type bearings that transmit reduced
seismic loads, limited by energy dissipation, and
• structural fuses that are designed to fail at a pre-
scribed load.
For the deformable-type bearing, limited and
repairable bearing damage and displacement may be
allowed for the safety-evaluation earthquake.
When both the superstructure and the substructure
components adjacent to the bearing are very stiff, a
deformable-type bearing should be considered.
Seismic isolation-type bearings are not within the
scope of these provisions, but they should also be con-
sidered.
Bearings may also be designed to act as "structural
fuses" that will fail at a predetermined load, changing
the articulation of the structure, possibly changing its
period and hence seismic response, and probably result-
ing in increased movements. This strategy is permitted
as an alternative to these provisions under Article
10.29.8.2. Such an alternative would require full consid-
ATC-32
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
10.29.8.5 Load Distribution
The loading ofbearings at the ends of spans shall be
based on the provisions of Section 3.
The Engineer shall determine the number of bear-
ings needed to resist the loads specified in Section 3,
with consideration of the potential for unequal partici-
pation due to tolerances, unintended misalignments,
the capacity of the individual bearings, and the skew.
Consideration should be given to the use of field-
adjustable elements to provide near-simultaneous
engagement of the intended number of bearings.
10.29.8.6 Design and Detail Requirements
Roller bearings shall not be used in new bridge con-
stmction.
Rocker bearings shall be avoided wherever practi-
cal, and when used, their movements and tendency to
tip under seismic actions shall be considered in the
design and details.
Expansion bearings and their supports shall be
designed in such a manner that the stmcture can
undergo movements in the unrestrained direction not
less than the seismic displacements determined using
the provisions of Section 3 without collapse. Adequate
seat width shall also be provided for fixed bearings.
In their restrained directions, bearings shall be
designed and detailed to engage at essentially the same
movement.
Rigid-type bearings and their components shall be
designed to remain elastic during the safety-evaluation
earthquake. Deformable-type bearings and their com-
ponents shall be designed to remain elastic during the
functional-evaluation earthquake, but selected ductile
components may be allowed to yield during the safety-
evaluation earthquake.
The design and detailing of bearing components
resisting earthquake loads shall provide adequate
strength and ductility. Guide and keeper bars, keeper
rings or nuts at the ends of pins, and similar devices
shall either be designed to resist all imposed loads or an
alternative load path shall be provided that engages
before the relative movement of the substmcture and
superstmcture is excessive.
The frictional resistance of bearing sliding surfaces
shall be neglected where it contributes to resisting seis-
mic loads, and shall be conservatively estimated (ie.,
ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 10: Structural Steel
COMMENTARY
eration of forces and movements, and bearing
repair/replacement details.
Cl0.29.8.5 Load Distribution
Often, bearings do not resist load simultaneously, and
damage to only some of the bearings at one end of a
span is not uncommon. When this occurs, high load
concentrations can result at the location of the undam-
aged bearings, which should be taken into account. The
number ofbearings engaged should be based on type,
design, and detailing of the bearings used and the bridge
skew. Skew angles under 15 degrees are usually ignored.
Skew angles over 30 degrees are usually considered sig-
nificant and need to be considered in analysis. Skewed
bridges have a tendency to rotate under seismic loading,
and bearings should be designed and detailed to accom-
modate this effect.
Cl0.29.8.6 Design and Detail Requirements
Expansion bearings should allow sufficient movement in
their unrestrained direction to prevent premature failure
due to seismic displacements.
Past earthquakes have shown that guide and keeper
bars, keeper rings or nuts at the ends of pins, and other
guiding devices have failed, even under moderate seismic
loads. In an experimental investigation of the strength
and deformation characteristics of rocker bearings
(Mander, Kim, and Chen, 1993), it was found that ade-
quately sized pintles are sometimes capable of providing
the necessary resistance to seismic loads.
Bronze or copper-alloy sliding expansion bearings
should be evaluated for stability. The sliding plates inset
into the metal of the pedestals or sole plates may lift dur-
ing high horizontal loading. Guidelines for bearing sta-
bility evaluations may be found in Gilstad (1990). The
shear capacity and stability may be increased by adding
anchor bolts inserted through a wider sole plate and set
in concrete.
During seismic loading, the vertical reaction at the
bearings may be significantly reduced. As a result, the
magnitude of the friction forces is uncertain, and the
performance of high-load multi-rotational bearings is
limited.
The seismic demands on elastomeric bearings
exceed their design limits. Therefore, positive connec-
tion between the girder and the substructure concrete is
needed when these bearings are used.
Spherical bearings can provide a certain degree of
horizontal load resistance by limiting the radius of the
spherical surface. However, the ability to resist horizon-
tal loads is a function of the vertical reaction on the bear-
ing, which could drop during earthquakes. Bearing
177
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
overestimated) where friction results in the application
of force effects to structural components as a result of
seismic movements.
Bronze or copper-alloy sliding expansion bearings
shall be evaluated for shear capacity and stability.
Sole plate and base plate connections shall be ade-
quate to resist the seismic loads determined as per Arti-
cle 10.29.8.5. Sole plates shall be extended to allow for
anchor bolt inserts, when required.
Elastomeric expansion bearings shall be provided
with adequate seismically resistant anchorage to resist
horizontal forces in excess of those accommodated by
shear in the pad. The sole plate and base plate shall be
made wider to accommodate the anchor bolts. Inserts
through the elastomer shall not be allowed. The anchor
bolts shall be designed for the combined effect of bend-
ing and shear for seismic loads determined as per Arti-
cle 10.29.8.5. Elastomeric fixed bearings shall be
provided with horizontal restraint adequate for the full
horizontal load.
Spherical bearings shall be evaluated for compo-
nent and connection strength and bearing stability.
Pot and disc bearings shall not be used for seismic
applications where significant vertical acceleration
must be considered and, where their use is unavoidable,
they shall be provided with independent seismically
resistant anchorage systems.
10.29.8.7 Bearing Anchorage
Anchor bolts used to resist seismic loads shall be upset,
as per Article 10.26, and designed for ductile behavior.
Sufficient reinforcement shall be provided around
the anchor bolts to develop the horizontal forces and
anchor them into the mass of the substructure unit.
Potential concrete crack surfaces next to the bearing
anchorage shall have sufficient shear friction capacity to
prevent failure.
Article 10.30 not modified.
178 BDS Recommendations, Section 10: Structural Steel
COMMENTARY
stability may be evaluated based on Gilstad (1990),
among others. In general, spherical bearings are not rec-
ommended for horizontal-to-verticalload ratios of over
0.40.
Pot bearings are not adequate to resist high hori-
zontalloads. Disc bearings are equipped with a shear
restriction mechanism that needs to be evaluated for
seismic loading, but are quite susceptible to damage with
even low vertical loads.
Cl0.29.8.7 Bearing Anchorage
Anchor bolts are very susceptible to brittle failure during
earthquakes. To increase ductility, Astaneh-Asl et al.
(1994) have recommended the use of upset anchor bolts
placed inside hollow sleeve pipes and oversized holes in
the masonry plate. Thus, deformable bearing types may
use the anchor bolts as the ductile element (see also
Cook and Klinger, 1992).
Bearings designed for rigid load transfer should not
be seated on grout pads or other bedding materials that
can create a sliding surface and reduce the horizontal
resistance.
Seismic loading of the anchor bolts has often
resulted in concrete damage, especially when they were
too close to the edge of the bearing seat. Guidelines for
evaluating edge distance effects and concrete strength
requirements may be found in Veda et al. (1990) and
other publications.
ATC-32
 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

Part C: Service-Load Design Method. Allowable

Stress Design

10.31 SCOPE

Allowable stress design is the alternate design method

for all structure types. It is a method for proportioning
structural members using design loads and forces,
allowable stresses, and design limitations for the appro-
priate material under service conditions.
In addition to the provisions herein, members that
act as part of the seismic load-resisting system shall sat-
isfy the requirements of Articles 10.20.4, 10.29.8, and
10.61.

Articles 10.32 through 10.61 not modified

10.61 POTENTIAL PLASTIC HINGE REGIONS UNDER C10.61 POTENTIAL PLASTIC HINGE REGIONS UNDER
SEISMIC LOADING SEISMIC LOADING

10.61.1 General Structures that may have components or regions of

components subjected to cyclic inelasticity include sub-
The provisions of this article apply to steel components structure units, towers, and lateral load-resisting com-
expected to undergo cyclic inelasticity during earth- ponents of superstructures. Generally, girders in multi-
quakes. Steel components not expected to undergo girder bridges will not meet the criteria requiring inves-
cyclic inelasticity shall satisfy other appropriate provi- tigation under these provisions.
sions in these specifications.
Unless otherwise permitted, steel frames and
frameworks shall be detailed such that plastic hinges
form in the columns. Other design philosophies may be
used if they are based on thoroughly documented anal-
ysis, supported by research, and approved by Caltrans.

10.61.2 Section Transitions

Abrupt changes in beam and column flange or web

areas shall not occur in regions of potential plastic
hinge formation.

10.61.3 Limiting Width-to-Thickness Ratios for

Compression Elements and Hollow-Tube Bracing
Members

Compression elements of beams and columns in poten-

tial plastic hinge regions and hollow tubes used as brac-
ing members shall comply with the limiting slenderness
parameter, Itp ,as specified in Table R10-3 where:

Fy = specified minimum yield point of steel (psi)

p u = axial load factored for seismic loads
Py = nominal axial yield strength of member (= F~g)
0b = resistance factor for flexure = 0.90

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 10: Structural Steel 179

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

Table RIO-3 Limiting Width-to-Thickness Ratios

Description of element Width-to-thickness ratio Limiting width-to-thickness ratio Ap

Flangesa ofI-shaped non-hybrid sec- b' 1640

tions and channels in flexure t ,/Fy
Flangesa ofI-shaped hybrid beams in
flexure
Webs in combined flexural and axial
compression

Hollow tubes
Circular tubes d
d t

t
Unstiffened rectangular tubes b 3480
b t
~

a. h' taken as the width of projecting flange element, not the entire flange width.

180 8DS Recommendations, Section 10: Structural Steel ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

10.61.4 Column-Beam Moment Ratios

Members framing into a beam-to-column connection

shall be proportioned such that the plastic hinging is
confined to the coluInn. At any beam-to-column con-
nection, the following relationships shall be satisfied:

2,.ZF
'" Z (F b
k.. e ye
~bPue)
A
> 1.0
RlO-3

where Puc (in compression) :2: 0.0 and

Ze = the plastic section of modulus of the coluInn

(in 3)
Fye = the specified minimum yield stress of the
coluInn (ksi)
Pue = the required axial strength of the coluInn based
on the appropriate loads factored for seismic
event (kips)
Ag = the gross area (in2 )
Zb = the plastic section modulus of the beam (in 3 )
Fyb = the specified minimum yield stress of the beam
(ksi)
V n = the nominal strength of the panel zone as
determined from Equation R10-1
db = the average overall depth of the beams framing
into the connection

10.62 SEISMIC PROVISIONS FOR CONCENTRIC

BRACING

10.62.1 General

The provisions of this section apply to all bracing mem-

bers, other than diaphragms and cross frames in slab-
on-steel girder bridges, for which the working lines of
members essentially meet at a common point.
The provisions of Article 10.20.4 shall apply to
cross frames and diaphragms in slab-on-steel girder
bridges.

10.62.2 Bracing Members C10.62.2 Bracing Members

The design strength of a bracing member in axial com-
pression should be taken as 0.8¢ePn ,where ¢cis taken as
0.85 and Pn is the nominal axial strength of a column
(kips).
Bracing members may be either compact or non-
compact and shall satisfy:
Bracing members are apt to buckle inelastically during
the compressive part of a load cycle and not totally
recover their undeformed shape after the compression is
removed or even during the tensile part of a load cycle.
When the cycle becomes compressive again, they deform
even more because of their own P-Ll moment and they
do not provide their undeformed capacity for later
cycles of seismic load.

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 10: StructuraL SteeL 181

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

• Flanges of rolled I shapes:

!.L< 4460
RlO-4
2tf - ~Fy-lO,OOO

• Flanges of welded flexural members:

hf < 3350
RlO-5
2tf - ~ Fyw -16,500

• Webs in flexural and axial compression:

RlO-6

• Member slenderness ratio:

RlO-7

where Fy is the yield strength of the steel in psi

For a bracing member in which stitches can be sub-

jected to post-buckling shear, the spacing of stitches
shall be such that the slenderness ratio, LJ T, of individ-
ual elements between the stitches does not exceed 0.4
times the governing slenderness ratio of the built-up
member. The total shear strength of the stitches shall be
at least equal to the nominal tensile strength of each ele-
ment. The spacing of the stitches shall be uniform and
not fewer than two stitches should be used.
For bracing members that can buckle without caus-
ing shear in the stitches, the spacing of the stitches shall
be such that the slenderness ratio LJ T of the individual
elements between the stitches does not exceed 0.75
times the governing slenderness ratio of the built-up
member.
Bracing members shall be arranged in opposing
directions so that in either direction of loading along
the line at least 30 percent of the seismic force distrib-
uted to that line is resisted by braces in tension. Where
the nominal strength, P n' of all braces in compression is
larger than the required strength Pu' such opposing
bracing is not required.

10.62.3 Bracing Connections

The required strength of bracing joints (including

beam-to-column joints if part of the bracing system)
shall be the least of the following:

182 8DS Recommendations, Section 10: Structural Steel ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

• The design axial tensile strength of the bracing mem-

ber

• The axial force, end moments, and shear force in the

brace resulting from the applicable load combina-
tions

• The maximum force that can be transferred to the

brace by the system

In bolted brace joints, the minimum ratio of effec-

tive net section area to gross section area shall be limited
by:

RI0-8

where:

A e = effective net area (in2)

A g = gross area (in 2)
a = fraction ofthe member force that is transferred
across a particular net section
Pt = required strength of the brace (as defined by the
three provisions above) (kip),
<1>t = tensile strength resistance factor = 0.75
P n = nominal tensile strength (kip)

For bracing members that can buckle in the plane of the

gusset plate, the gusset and other parts of the connec-
tion shall have a design strength equal to or greater than
the nominal in-plane bending strength of the brace.
For bracing members that can buckle out-of-plane,
the brace shall terminate on the gusset a minimum of
two times the gusset thickness from a line about which
the gusset plate can bend unrestrained by the column or
beam joints. The gusset plate shall be designed to carry
the compressive design strength of the bracing member
without local buckling ofthe gusset plate. For bracing
members designed for axial load only, the bolts or welds
shall be designed to transmit the brace forces along the
centroids of the brace elements.
The design strength ofV-brace members shall be at
least 1.5 times the required strength. The top and bot-
tom flanges of the beam at the point of intersection of
V-braces shall be designed to support a lateral force
equal to 1.5 times the nominal beam flange strength
(Fybb!bj)·

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 10: Structural Steel 183

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

10.63 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR BOX

SECTIONS

10.63.1 General C10.63.1 General

In the absence of more refined information, unstiffened
box sections shall comply with Articles 10.61.3 and
10.63.2. Stiffened box sections shall comply with the
provisions of Article 10.63.3.
No fully developed specification for this type of con-
struction has been identified. Some design guidance can
be deduced based on tests of columns and knee joints
conducted primarily in Japan (Fukumoto & Lee, 1992;
Kawashima, et. al., 1992). These tests did not include a
wide range of bit values, so the results should not be
extended far from the range tested.

10.63.2 Unstiffened Box Knee Joints C10.63.2 Unstiffened Box Knee Joints

The shear strength of an unstiffened box corner connec- Nishimura, Hwang, and Fukumoto (1992) have pub-
tion shall be taken as: lished experimental studies dealing with a corner con-
nection of the steel pier, as shown in Figure RC1O-1.
2.29F/ w DiPc
V = ~_!'-c'c'---='---7 RlO-9
y L(I- D b2:D c J
where:

Fy = steel yield strength (psi)

tw = web thickness (in)
Db = beam depth (in)
Dc = column depth (in)
L = distance from the intersection of the beam and
column longitudinal centerlines (meeting at the
box joint) to the plastic hinge location (in)

Figure RC10-1 Knee geometry.

The maximum yield point of the steel used to fabri-

cate test specimens was approximately 55 ksi. The rate of
loss of strength is shown in Figure RCI0-2. Specimen
BL-Cll had a bit ratio for the flange of 30. Specimen
BL-CI2 had a bltratio for the flanges of 40. BLR was the
same as BL-Cll, but with a curved corner having a
radius of approximately two inches. The improvement
caused by maintaining a bl t of no more than 30 is
evident.
The provisions of Article 10.61.3 relating to unstiff-
ened box sections may be used.
All of the specimens failed by local buckling in the
corner containing the exterior right angle. The welding
details for test specimens were not provided. The web
plate within the joint was observed to buckle diagonally
across the joint, as would be expected.

184 80S Recommendations, Section 10: Structural Steel ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

:-:.-.r-: . .
..~.Tt:~.-:-='. -,. - . - . - - - - - - -....
. ...
1.0r----:
t
.. ~

..
~0.9 i- • ",
., , , ........
....
.......
....
:(

z
.
gO.S ....
'. .... ..... -....
a:
o ,, •
i<
uI •

~O.7 ...
."
:<

% .:Bl-11C

..
~0.6 i- ..... : BlR-50
e:Bl-12C

0.5 I I , , I I
o 10 ~u 30 40
NUMBER O~ REVERSAts

cal compression

1.0r---;;o:;;a~' oll":••
D
r :'.-.::v;;.::-.----------,
a
....
• 0

.. .....
• 0
O· • • 0 0
• 0
~O.9- 0 "'....... DaDa
'- ... Goo
:(
z· 0
0 0
.... . . . . . .,

. D DO

. .
gO.B~
0:
o
a:
...
o
0. 0
o
. o
o
~0.7"i o
:<
Iiz D:BL-l1C
..
.
~0.6- • T: BlR- 50
0; BL - 12 C
0.5O»........ '_J.-'~Iin-_...l.-
' ---t:;- '_~ ' -..J'L--l
10 NUMBER O?~eveRS-'lS 30 40

(bl tension

Figure RC10-2 Strength deterioration of knee joint.

10.63.3 Seismic Ductility of Stiffened Box C10.63.3 Seismic Ductility of Stiffened Box
Columns Columns

10.63.3.1 General MacRae and Kawashima (1992) have published reports

Stiffened box columns that are subject to plastic hinge
formation under cyclic loading shall conform to the
provisions herein.
and articles dealing with a series of tests on 22 box-
shaped columns in which all four plates had longitudinal
stiffeners. The b/tratio of the flange plates between the
stiffeners range from approximately 12 to approximately
15 in the 22 specimens. By comparison, the b/tvalues in
Table RI0-3 would yield 8.9 for the SS41 steels (Fy = 35.5
ksi, Fu = 58.3 ksi) and about 7.7 for the Grade SM50 steel
(Fy = 46.9 ksi, Fu = 71.1 ksi) . The stiffener projections
from both sides of the box are approximately 15% of the
outside dimensions. A typical response to cyclic loading
is shown in Figure RClO-3 and typical failure modes are
shown in Figure RClO-4. Some of the specimens were
tested under a lateral load, some were tested on a shak-
ingtable.
The most important conclusion from this set of
experiments was that, for the dimensions used, the duc-
tility capacities ranged from 3.7 to 4.3 for the specimens
tested between three and ten cycles ofloading at each

ATC-32 BDS Recommendations, Section 10: Structural Steel 185

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

\ UNIT C5 I
4:[ P=0.50 Py=1323KN
lJ.p= 2.70mm
Hmax=220KN
Hu= 241KN Hmin =-218KN
200 Hp=149KN

100

3 -IOOt_.-€::s~~~~~~~
-200 -"- FIRST CYCLE
--- SECOND CYQE
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
DISPLACEMENT (mm)

Figure RC10-3 Typical response to cyclic loading.

(a) Overall Wall Buckling (b) Local Panel Buckling

Figure RC10-4 Failure modes of box-shaped columns.

displacement step, and ranged from 5.1 to 12.9 for the

specimens subjected to one cycle of load at each dis-
placement step. The test specimens filled to one-third of
their height with concrete showed increased strength
and decreased deformation. The ductility capacity of
specimens tested by a lateral load rather than the shak-
ing table ranged from 3.0 to 5.0. Generally speaking,
greater slenderness of the section results in a lower duc-
tility capacity.
Based on this series of tests, Kawashima, MacRae,
and Hasegawa (1992) published the following suggested
design procedure (Note: units are in kips and inches):
A pier is selected based upon an assumed value of
the seismic resistance factor Z. A good starting point
would be to assume a value of 3.0 to 3.5. Stiffener sizes
and positions are chosen based on experience. The sec-
tion properties are calculated and the critical ratios and
strengths of the pier are calculated using the specified
material properties.

186 8DS Recommendations, Section 10: Structural Steel ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

10.63.3.2 Critical Slenderness Ratios. C10.63.3.2 Critical Slenderness Ratios

The minimum plate thickness for full load-carrying Values of panel slenderness; i.e.,
capacity shall be taken as:

for AASHTO MI83 Steel:

b
t =-- RIO-IO
o 28n p

for M222 & M223 Steel: of no more than 3160 have been recommended based on
b an original set of tests in which panel slenderness did not
t =-- RIO-II exceed this value. The value of 3160 is less than that per-
o 24n p
mitted by the Japan Roadway Association code (the lim-
The slenderness of the plate shall be limited by the iting value may change to 39S0, based on more recent
following parameters: test results).
If the critical slenderness ratios are not satisfied, or
--LL > 1.0 RIO-12 the strength of the pier, stiffness of the pier, the bl t ratio
YI,req. for the buckling of a panel, or the dd d1,req ratio are not
satisfied, or if the minimum transverse stiffener and
~>1.0 RIO-13 aspect ratio requirements are not met, the geometry of
dl,req.
the column must be adjusted.

bji'; ::;;3160 RIO-I4

npt
for which:

1 lll
Y/=- RIO-IS
bt 3
If the panel aspect ratio and transverse stiffeners
satisfy the following conditions:

< o an dI t >(bt3J(1+npYI,reqJ
a_a - RIO-I6
Il 4a 3

if t< to
2 (a 2 +1)2
Yl,req=4a np(l+npdl )- n RIO-I8
p
Otherwise,
if t~ to

r"req~ :pl{2n,'('; )'(I+npd,l-Ir-}10-19

if t< to

ATC-32 8DS Recommendations, Section 10: Structural Steel 187

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

h"" =:, [{2n; (1+ n,d,)-I r-I] RlO-20

d = Al
I bt RIO-21
a
a=-
b RlO-22

RIO-23

RlO-24

where:

Fy = steel yield stress (psi)

II =longitudinal stiffener moment of inertia, taken
about an axis located at the inside face of the
flange plate (in4 )
It = transverse stiffener moment of inertia, taken
about an axis located at the inside face of the
flange plate (in4 )
np = number of panel spaces in the plate (number of
longitudinal stiffeners + 1)
Al = cross sectional area of the longitudinal stiffener
(in2 )
a = lateral stiffener spacing (in)
b = clear distance between the webs of the box
column (in)

10.63.3.3 Effective Seismic Resistance.

The effective resistance, Ze' shall not be less than the

assumed load modification factor, Z, used to determine
the reduced seismic forces to be applied to the column.
Based on the equal energy method, Ze may be calcu-
lated by:
Z e =OSFeQ e ~ Z RIO-25

for which:

asp = OSF+l RIO-26

e 2

Q e =~2Ile-l RIO-27

RlO-28

188 8DS Recommendations, Section 10: Structural Steel ATC-32

 BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS COMMENTARY

R10-29

K=l

otherwise,

R10-30

R10-31

3
HyL HyL
3y = 3EI + GA R10-32
s

Hy = ~ = ~(Fy-~Zc R10-33

As = 2Dt w R10-34
The overstrength factor, asp, shall be taken as
M/My,req' In the absence of better information, asp
may be taken as lAO and the critical deformation factor
1; may be taken as 0.006.

ATC-32 80S Recommendations, Section 10: Structural Steel 189


AASHTO, 1983, Interim SpecifICations - Bridges, Ameri-
can Association of State Highway Transportation Offi-
cials, Washington D.C.
AASHTO, 1992, Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges, Fifteenth Edition, Washington, D.C.
AASHTO, 1994, LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, First
Edition, American Association of State Highway Trans-
portation Officials, Washington, D. C.
Abcarius, 1991, "Lateral Load Test on Driven Pile Foot-
ings," Proceedings, Third Bridge Engineering Confer-
ence, March 10-13, 1991, Denver, Colorado,
Transportation Research Record No. 1290, Volume 2,
Bridges and Structures.
ACI 318-89 (revised 1992), "Building Code & Commen-
tary," American Concrete Institute.
ACI 318-95, "Building Code & Commentary," American
Concrete Institute.
AI} LSD, 1990, Standard for Limit State Design ofSteel
Structures (draft), Architectural Institute ofJapan,
Tokyo.
AISC, 1992, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Build-
ings, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago,
Illinois.
ASCE - ACI, 1973, ASCE-ACI Joint Task Committee
426, "Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Members,"
Journal ofStructural Engineering, ASCE, vol. 99, no.6: pp.
1091-1187.
Astaneh-AsI, A., .and S.c. Goel, 1984, "Cyclic In-Plane
Buckling of Double Angle Bracing," Journal ofStructural
Engineering, vol. 110, no. 9: pp. 2036-2055.
Astaneh-AsI, A., S.c. Goel,. and RD. Hanson, 1985,
"Cyclic Out-of-Plane Buckling of Double Angle Brac-
ing," Journal ofStructural Engineering, vol. 111, no. 5:
pp.1135-1153.
Astaneh-Asl, A., B. Bolt, K.M. McMullin, R. Donikian,
D. Modjtahed~ and S. Cho., 1994, "Seismic Performance
of Steel Bridges during the 1994 Northridge Earth-
quake," Report to the California Department of Trans-
ATC-32
References
portation, UCB/CE-STEEL-94/01, University of
California at Berkely.
ATC, 1996, ATC-32-1, Improved Seismic Design Criteria
for California Bridges: Resource Document. Applied Tech-
nology Council, Report ATC-32-1, Redwood City, Cali-
fornia.
Bartlett, S.F. and T.L Youd, 1992, Empirical Analysis of
Horizontal Ground Displacement Generated by Liquefac-
tion-Induced Lateral Spreads, Technical Report NCEER-
92-0021, August 17,1992.
Bertero, V.V., J.C. Anderson, H. Krawinkler, and E.
Miranda, 1991, "Design Guidelines for Ductility and
Drift Limits: Review of State-of-the-Practice and State-
of-the-Art in Ductility and Drift-Based Earthquake-
Resistant Design of Tall Buildings," UCB/EERC 91115,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California at Berkeley.
Bielak, J., and M. Romo, 1989, "Working Group Con-
clusions on Geotechnical Engineering and Foundations,"
Lessons Learned from the 1985 Mexico Earthquake, EERI,
Bertero, and Vitelmo (editors), December, 1989.
Biggs, J.M., 1964, Introduction to Structural Dynamics,
McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York.
Bogard, D.B. and H. M. Matlock, 1983, "Procedures for
Analysis of Laterally Loaded Pile Groups in Soft Clay,"
Proceedings, Geotechnical Practice in Offshore Engineering,
Austin, Texas, pp. 499-535.
BSSC, 1994, NEHRP Provisions, 1994 edition, Building
Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C.
Budek, A,. 1994, "In-Ground Plastic Hinges in Col-
umn/Pile Shaft Design," Proceedings, The Third Annual
Seismic Workshop, Caltrans, Sacramento, California.
Budek, A., G. Benzon~ and M.J.N. Priestley, 1995,"In-
ground Plastic Hinges in Column/Pile Shaft Design,"
Proceedings 3rd Annual Seismic Research Workshop, Cal-
trans, Sacramento, California.
Caltrans, 1986, Bridge Design SpecifICation Manual, Cali-
fornia Department of Transportation, Sacramento, Cali-
fornia.
References 191
CDMG, 1992, "Peak Acceleration from Maximum Cred-
ible Earthquakes in California," DMG Open File Report
92-1, California Division of Mines and Geology, Sacra-
mento, California.
CEC, 1988, Eurocode No.8 Structures in Seismic Regions,
Commission of the European Community, Brussels,
Belgium.
Clough, G.W., and J.M. Duncan, 1991, "Earth Pres-
sures," Foundation Engineering Handbook, Second Edi-
tion, Fang and Hsai-Yang (eds.), Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
Clough, RW. and J. Penzien, 1993, Dynamics ofStruc-
tures, second edition, McGraw Hill, Inc., New York.
Cook, A.R., and RE. Klingner, 1992, "Ductile Multiple-
Anchor Steel-to-Concrete Connections," Journal of
Structural Engineering, vol. 118, no. 6: pp. 1645-1665.
FHWNCNSD-88/02, 1990, Field Tests ofLarge Diame-
ter Drilled Shafts, Part I - Lateral Loads, March, 1990.
Franklin, A.G. and F.K. Chang, 1977, Earthquake Resis-
tance ofEarth and Rockfill Dams, Report 5, Permanent
Displacement ofEarth Embankments by Newmark Sliding
Block Analysis, Miscellaneous Paper S-71-17, Soils and
Pavement Laboratory, U.S. Army Waterway Experimen-
tal Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Fukomoto, Y. and George Lee (editors), 1992, Stability
and Ductility ofSteel Structures Under Cyclic Loading,
CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Gilstad, D. E., 1990, "Bridge Bearings and Stability,"
Journal ofStructural Engineering, vol. 116, no. 5: pp.
1269-1277.
Goel, S.c., and A.A. El-Tayem, 1986, "Cyclic Load
Behavior ofAngle X-Bracing," Journal ofStructural Engi-
neering, vol. 112, no. 11: pp. 2528-2539.
Hamada, M. and T. O'Rourke, 1992, Case Studies ofLiq-
uefaction and Lifeline Performance During Earthquakes,
Vol. 1: Japanese Case Studies and Vol. 2: U.S. Case Stud-
ies, Technical Report NCEER-92-0001 and 0002,
NCEER, Buffalo, New York.
Haroun, N.M., and R. Sheperd, 1986, "Inelastic Behav-
ior of X-Bracing in Plane Frames," Journal ofStructural
Engineering, vol. 112, no. 4: pp. 764-780.
Housner, G.W, et al., 1990, "Competing Against Time,"
A Report to Governor George Deukmejian from the Gover-
nor's Board ofInquiry on the 1989 Loma Prieta Earth-
quake, State of California, Sacramento, California.
192
Imbsen and Associates, Inc., 1984, "Draft Report on the
Seismic Retrofit Study of the South Connector Viaduct
of the Route 24/580/980 Interchange."
Ishihara K., 1985, "Stability of Natural Deposits During
Earthquakes," Proceedings, 11th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, A. A.
Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Kawashima, K., G. MacRae, and K. Hasegawa,1992,
"The Strength and Ductility of Steel Bridge Piers Based
on Loading Tests," Journal ofResearch, vol. 29, Public
Works Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan.
Kawashima, K., G. MacRae, K. Hasegawa, T. Ikeuchi
and O. Kazuya, 1992, "Ductility of Steel Bridge Piers
from Dynamic Loading Tests," in Stability and Ductility
ofSteel Structures Under Cyclic Loading, Y. Fukomoto
and George Lee, eds., CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Lam, J.P., 1994, "Seismic Vulnerability of Existing High-
way Construction, Task 106-E-4.1 & 4.2 (A&B) Year-1
Report," FHWA ContractDTFH61-92-C-00106, Report
to NCEER, July 11, 1994.
Lam, J.P, G.R. Martin, and R Imbsen,1991, "Modeling
Bridge Foundations for Seismic Design and Retrofit-
ting," Proceedings, Third Bridge Engineering Conference,
March 10-13, 1991, Denver, Colorado, Transportation
Research Record No. 1290, Volume 2, Bridges and
Structures.
Lam, J.P. and G.R Martin, 1984, "Seismic Design for
Highway Bridge Foundations," Proceedings, Lifeline
Earthquake Engineering: Performance Design and Con-
struction, ASCE Convention, San Francisco, California.
Lam, J.P. andG.R Martin, 1986, Seismic Design ofHigh-
way Bridge Foundations, FHWA Report Nos.
FHWNRD-86/l01 through 103, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C.
Lam, J.P. and G.R. Martin, 1995, "Foundation Design,"
in ATC-32-1, Recommended Revision ofCaltrans Seismic
Design Procedures for Bridges: Resource Document,
Applied Technology Council, Report ATC-32-1, Red-
wood City, California.
MacRae, G. and K. Kawashima, 1992, "Estimation of the
Deformation Capacity of Steel Bridge Piers," in Stability
and Ductility ofSteel Structures Under Cyclic Loading, Y.
Fukomoto and George Lee, eds., CRC Press, Boca
Raton, Florida.
Mahin, S. and R. Boroschek, 1991, "Influence ofGeo-
metric Non-linearities on the Seismic Response and
Design of Bridge Structures," Report to the California
References ATC-32
Department of Transportation, Division of Structures,
University of California at Berkeley.
Mander, J.B, J.H. Kim, and S.S. Chen, 1993, "Experi-
mental Performance and Modeling Study of a 30-Year-
Old Bridge with Steel Bearings," in Transportation
Research Record 1393, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C.
Mander, J.B., M.J.N. Priestley, and R. Park, 1988a, "The-
oretical Stress-Strain Model for Confined Concrete,"
Journal ofStructural Engineering, ASCE, vol. 114, no. 8:
pp. 1804-1826.
Mander, J.B., M.J.N. Priestley, and R Park, 1988b,
"Observed Stress-Strain Behavior of Confined Con-
crete," Journal ofStructural Engineering, ASCE, vol. 114,
no. 8: pp. 1827-1849.
Maroney, B., B. Kutter, K. Romstad, Y.H. Chai, and E.
Vanderbilt, 1994, "Interpretation of Large Scale Bridge
Abutment Test Results," Proceedings, Third Annual Seis-
mic Workshop, Caltrans, Sacramento, California June
27-29.
Martin, G. R , W.D. Finn, Liam,. and H.B. Seed, 1975,
"Fundamentals of Liquefaction Under Cyclic Loading,"
Journal ofthe Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
vol. 101 (GTS): 325-438.
Martin, G.R and R. Dobry, 1994, Earthquake Site
Response and Seismic Code Provisions," NCEER Bulle-
tin, vol. 8, no. 4, National Center for Earthquake Engi-
neering Research, Buffalo, New York.
Matlock and Hudson, 1970, "Correlations for Design of
Laterally Loaded Piles in Soft Clay," Proceedings, Off-
shore Technology Conference, Paper No. OTC 1204.
Mayes, R., 1995, Personal communication of studies car-
ried out in support of the ATC-32 project.
Mazzoni, S., J.P. Moehle, and S.A. Mahin, 1995, "Seismic
Response of Beam-Column Joints in Reinforced Con-
crete Double-Deck Bridge Structures," Proceedings,
National Seismic Conference on Bridges and Highways,
San Diego, California, December 10-13.
Miranda, E., 1991, Seismic Evaluation and Upgrading of
Existing Buildings, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of California at Berkeley.
Moulton, L.K., H.V.S. GangaRao, and G.T. Halvorsen,
1985, Tolerable Movement Criteria for Highway Bridges,
Report No. FHWA/RD-85/107, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C.
ATC-32 References
NAVFAC, 1986, "Foundations & Earth Structures,"
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Design Manual
7.02.
NCHRP, 1991, Cooperative Highway Research Program
Report 343, Manuals for the Design ofBridge Founda-
tions.
NCHRP, 1992, Proposed LRFD Bridge Design Code, 3rd
draft NCHRP Project 12-33, Washington, D.C.
Nishimura, N., W. Hwang, and Y. Fukumoto, 1992,
"Experimental Investigation on Hysteretic Behavior of
Thin-Walled Box Beam-to-Column Connections," in
Stability and Ductility ofSteel Structures Under Cyclic
Loading, Y. Fukomoto and George Lee, edd., CRC Press,
Boca Raton, Florida.
OMT, 1983, Ontario Bridge Design Code, Highway Engi-
neering Division, Ministry of Transportation and Com-
munications, Toronto.
Pender, M.J., 1990, "Cyclic Load Behaviour of Bridge
Pile Foundations," RRU Bridge Design and Research
Seminar, November 1990, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Priestley, M.J.N., F. Seible, Y.H. Chai, and R Wong,
1992, "Santa Monica Viaduct Retrofit - Full-Scale Test
on Column Lap Splice with #11 [35 mm] Reinforce-
ment," SSRP 94114, Structural Systems Research, Uni-
versity of California, San Diego.
Priestley, M.J.N., G. A. MacRae, and J. Tao, 1993, "P-
Delta Design in Seismic Regions," SSRP-93105, Univer-
sity of California, San Diego.
Priestley, M.J.N., F. Seible, and G. Benzoni, 1994, "Seis-
mic Response of Columns with Low Longitudinal Steel
Ratios," SSRP 94108, Structural Systems Research, Uni-
versity of California, San Diego.
Priestley M.J.N., F. Seible., and G.M. Calvi, 1996, Seismic
Design and Retrofit ofBridges, John Wiley & Sons, New
York.
Priestley, M.J.N., R. Verma, and Y. Xiao, 1994, "Seismic
Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Columns," Jour-
nal ofStructural Engineering, ASCE, vol. 120, no. 8: pp.
2310-2329.
Pyke, R, H.B. Seed, and c.K. Chan, 1975, "Settlement of
Sands Under Multidirectional Shaking," Journal ofGeo-
technical Engineering Division, ASCE, vol. 101 (GT4):
379-398.
193
Reese, L.c., W.R Cox, and F.D. Koop, 1974, "Analysis
of Laterally Loaded Piles in Sand," Proceedings, Sixth
Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Vol. 2, Paper
No. 2080, Houston, Texas.
Rinne, E.E., 1994, "Development of New Site Coefficient
ofBuilding Codes," Proceedings ofthe Fifth U.S. National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. III, pp. 69-
78, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland,
California.
Seed, H.B., and 1.M. Idriss, 1982, Ground Motions and
Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Monograph Series,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley,
California.
Seed, H.B., 1.M. Idriss, and 1. Arango, 1983, "Evaluation
of Liquefaction Potential Using Field Performance
Data," ASCE Geotechnical Engineering Journal, vol. 109,
no. 3.
Seed, H.B., RT. Wong, 1.M. Idriss, and K. Tokimatsu,
1984, "Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Anal-
ysis of Cohesionless Soils," UCB/EERC-84/14, Earth-
quake Engineering Research Center, University of
California at Berkeley.
Seed, H. B., K. Tokimatsu, L.F. Harder, and RM.
Chung, 1985, "Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liq-
uefaction Resistance Evaluations," Journal ofGeotechni-
cal Engineering, ASCE, vol. 101, no. 12: pp. 1425-1445.
Seible, F., M.J.N. Priestley, C.T. Latham, and P. Silva,
1994, "Full-Scale Bridge Column/Superstructure Con-
nection Tests Under Simulated Longitudinal Seismic
Loads," SSRP 94/14, Structural Systems Research, Uni-
versity of California, San Diego.
Singh, J.P, 1981, The Influence ofSeismic Source Directiv-
ity on Strong Ground Motions, Ph.D. Thesis, University
of California at Berkeley.
Singh, J.P., 1985, "Earthquake Ground Motions: Impli-
cations for Designing Structures and Reconciling Struc-
tural Damage," Earthquake Spectra, vol 1: pp. 239-270.
Somerville, P.G., N.F. Smith, R.W. Graves, and N.A.
Abrahamson, 1995, "Representation of Near-Fault Rup-
ture Directivity Effects in Design Ground Motions, and
Applications to Caltrans Bridges," Presented at the
National Seismic Conference on Bridges and Highways,
194 References
December 10-13, 1995, San Diego, CA. Sponsored by
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Sritharan, S., and M.J.N. Priestley, 1994a, "Performance
of aT-Joint (IC1) Under Cyclic Loading," Preliminary
Report to Caltrans, University of California, San Diego.
Sritharan, S., and M.J.N. Priestley, 1994b, "Behavior of a
Partially Prestressed Cap Beam/Column Interior Joint
(Unit IC2) Under Cyclic Loading," Preliminary Report
to Caltrans, University of California, San Diego.
Stevens, J.B. and J.M.E. Audibert, 1979, "Re-Examina-
tion of p-y Curve Formulations," Proceedings, 11 th Off-
shore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, Paper No.
3402, pp 397-403.
Terzaghi, K., 1955, "Evaluation of Coefficients of Sub-
grade Reaction," Geotechnique, vol. 5, no. 4: pp. 297-
326.
Tinsley, J.e., T.L. Youd, D.M. Perkins, and A.T. Chen,
1985, "Evaluating Liquefaction Potential; Evaluating Liq-
uefaction Hazards in the Los Angeles Region," U.S. Geo-
logical Survey, Professional Paper No. 1360, pp. 263-
316.
Tokimatsu, K. and H.B. Seed, 1987, "Evaluation of Set-
tlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking," Journal
ofGeotechnical Engineering, vol. 113, no. 8: pp. 861-878.
Tsai, N. e. and S. D. Werner, 1993, Evaluation ofModel-
ing Procedures for Skewed Short Bridge Overcrossing
Structures, Report to Caltrans, Dames & Moore, San
Francisco, California.
Ueda, T., S. Kitipornchai, and K. Ling, 1990, "Experi-
mental Investigation ofAnchor Bolts under Shear,"
Journal ofStructural Engineering vol. 116, no. 4: pp. 910-
924.
Xiao, Y., M.J.N. Priestley, F. Seible, and N. Hamada,
1994, "Seismic Assessment and Retrofit of Bridge Foot-
ings," SSRP-94/11, Structural Systems Research, Univer-
sity of California, San Diego.
Youd, T.L. and Gummow, G.A., 1995, "Screening Guide
for Rapid Assessment of Liqufaction Hazard at Bridge
Sites," Proceedings, National Seismic Conference on
Bridges and Highways, San Diego, California, December
10-13.
ATC-32
Appendix A
Guide to Bridge Design
Specification Modifications
3.11.4 Loading for Maximum Stress
LEGEND: 3.11.4.1
3.11.4.2
Plain text == Current BDS Articles 3.11.4.3 Loading for Load Factor Design
Bold text == Modified Articles 3.12 Reduction in Load Intensity
Bold underline text == New Articles 3.13 Electric Railway Loads
Plain Strikethru == Deleted Articles 3.14 Sidewalk, Curb, and Railing Loading
3.14.1 Sidewalk Loading
3.14.2 Curb Loading
3.14.3 Railing Loading
Section 1 - General Provisions 3.15 Wind Loads
3.15.1 Superstructure Design
Section 2 - General Features of Design 3.15.1.1 Group II and Group V Loadings
3.15.1.2 Group III and Group VI Loadings
Section 3 - Loads 3.15.2 Substructure Design
3.15.2.1 Forces from Superstructure
Part A - Types of Loads 3.15.2.2 Forces Applied Directly tothe
Substructure
3.1 Notations 3.15.3 Overturning Forces
3.2 General 3.16 Thermal Forces
3.3 Dead Load 3.17 Uplift
3.4 Live Load 3.18 Force from Stream Current, Floating Ice And
3.5 Overload Provisions Drift
3.6 Traffic Lanes 3.18.1 Force of Stream Current on Piers
3.7 Highway Loads 3.18.2 Force ofIce on Piers
3.7.1 Standard Truck and Lane Loads 3.19 Buoyancy
3.7.2 Classes of Loading 3.20 Earth Pressure
3.7.3 Designation ofLoadings 3.21 Seismic Effects
3.7.4 Minimum Loading
3.7.5 H Loading Part B - Combinations of Loads
3.7.6 HS Loading
3.7.7 P Loading 3.22 Combinations of Loads
3.8 Impact
3.8.1 Application Part C - Distribution of Loads
3.8.1.1 Group A
3.8.1.2 Group B 3.23 Distribution of Loads to Stringers, Longitudinal
3.8.2 Impact Formula Beams and Floor Beams
3.9 Longitudinal Forces 3.23.1 Position of Loads for Shear
3.10 Centrifugal Forces 3.23.2 Bending Moments in Stringers and
3.11 Application of Live Load Longitudinal Beams
3.11.2 Number and Position of Traffic Lane Units 3.23.2.1 General
3.11.3 Lane Loads on Continuous Spans 3.23.2.2 Interior Stringers and Beams

ATC-32 Appendix A: Guide to Bridge Design Specification Modifications 195

 3.23.2.3 Outside Roadway Stringers and Beams 3.28 Distribution of Loads for Bending Moment in
3.23.2.3.1 Steel-Timber-Concrete T-Beams Spread Box Girders
3.23.2.3.2 Concrete Box Girders 3.28.1 Interior Beams
3.23.2.3.3 Total Capacity of Stringers and 3.28.2 Exterior Beams
Beams 3.29 Moments, Shears, and Reactions
3.23.3 Bending Moments in Floor Beams 3.30 Tire Contact Area
(Transverse)
3.34.4 Precast Concrete Beams Used in Multi- Section 4 . Foundations
Beam Decks
3.24 Distribution of Loads and Design of Concrete 4.0 Application
Slabs 4.1 Notations
3.24.1 Span Lengths 4.2 Bearing Capacity of Foundation Soils
3.24.2 Edge Distance ofWheel Loads 4.2.1 Theoretical Estimation
3.24.3 Bending Moment 4.2.2 Load Tests
3.24.3.1 Case A - Main Reinforcement 4.2.3 Approximate Values
Perpendicular to Traffic (Spans 2 to 24 4.3 Piles
Feet Inclusive) 4.3.1 General
3.24.3.2 Case B - Main Reinforcement Parallel 4.3.2 Limitations on the Use of Untreated Timber
to Traffic Piles
3.24.4 Shear 4.3.2.1 Untreated and Treated Timber Piles
3.24.5 Cantilever Slabs 4.3.3 Design Loads
3.24.5.1 Truck Loads 4.3.4 Load Capacity of Piles
2.24.5.1.1 Case A - Reinforcement Perpendic- 4.3.4.1 General
ular to Traffic 4.3.4.1.1
2.24.5.1.2 Case B - Reinforcement Parallel to 4.3.4.1.2
Traffic 4.3.4.2 Case A - Capacity as a Structural
3.24.5.2 Railing Loads Member
3.24.6 Slabs Supported on Four Sides 4.3.4.3 Case B - Capacity of the Pile to Transfer
3.24.7 Median Slabs Load to the Ground
3.24.8 Longitudinal Edge Beams 4.3.4.3.1 Point-Bearing Piles
3.24.9 Unsupported Transverse Edges 4.3.4.3.2 Friction Piles
3.24.10 Distribution Reinforcement 4.3.4.4 Case C - Capacity of the Ground to
3.25 Distribution ofWheel Loads on Timber Flooring Support the Load Delivered by the Pile
3.25.1 Transverse Flooring 4.3.4.4.2.1 Point-Bearing Piles
3.25.2 Plank and Nail Laminated Longitudinal 4.3.4.4.2.2 Friction Piles
Flooring 4.3.4.5 Maximum Design Loads for Piles
3.25.3 Longitudinal Glued Laminated Timber 4.3.4.6 Uplift
Decks 4.3.4.7 Group Pile Loading
3.25.3.1 Bending Moment 4.3.4.8 Lateral Resistance
3.25.3.2 Shear 4.3.5 Required Subsurface Investigations
3.25.3.3 Deflections 4.3.5.1 Point-Bearing Piles
3.25.3.4 Stiffener Arrangement 4.3.5.2 Friction Piles
3.25.4 Continuous Flooring 4.3.5.3 Combination Point-Bearing and
3.26 Distribution ofWheel Loads and Design of Friction Piles
Composite Wood Concrete Members 4.3.5.4 Scour
3.26.1 Distribution of Concentrated Loads for 4.3.6 Spacing, Clearances, and Embedment
Bending Moment and Shear 4.3.6.1 Footings
3.26.2 Distribution of Bending Moments in 4.3.6.2 Bent Caps
Continuous Spans 4.3.7 Batter Piles
3.26.3 Design 4.3.8 Buoyancy
3.27 Distribution of Wheel Loads on Steel Grid Floors 4.3.9 Precast Concrete Piles
3.27.1 General 4.3.10 Cast-in-Place Concrete Piles
3.27.2 Floors Filled with Concrete 4.3.11 Steel H-Piles
3.27.3 Open Floors 4.3.11.1 Thickness of Metal
4.3.11.2 Splices

196 Appendix A: Guide to Bridge Design Specification Modifications ATC-32

 4.3.11.3 Caps 8.10 Compression Flange Width
4.3.11.4 Scour 8.10.1 T-Girder
4.3.11.5 Lugs, Scabs, and Core-Stoppers 8.10.2 Box Girders
4.3.12 Unfilled Tubular Steel Piles 8.11 Slab and Web Thickness
4.3.12.1 Thickness of Metal 8.12 Diaphragms
4.3.12.2 Splices 8.13 Computation of Deflections
4.3.12.3 Driving
4.3.12.4 Column Action Part C- Design
4.3.13 Protection Against Corrosion and Abrasion
4.3.14 Prestressed Concrete Piles 8.14 General
4.4 Footings 8.14.1 Design Methods
4.4.1 General 8.14.2 Composite Flexural Members
4.4.2 Depth 8.14.3 Concrete Arches
4.4.2.1 Minimum Embedment and Bench 8.15 Service Load Design Method (Allowable Stress
Depth Design)
4.4.2.2 Scour Protection 8.15.1 General Requirements
4.4.2.3 Footing Excavation 8.15.2 Allowable Stresses
4.4.2.4 Piping 8.15.2.1 Concrete
4.4.3 Anchorage 8.15.2.1.1 Flexure
4.4.4 Distribution of Pressure 8.15.2.1.2 Shear
4.4.5 Loads and Reactions 8.15.2.1.3 Bearing Stress
4.4.6 Moment in Footings 8.15.2.2 Reinforcement
4.4.7 Shear in Footings 8.15.3 Flexure
4.4.8 Development of Reinforcement 8.15.4 Compression Members
4.4.9 Transfer of Force at Base of Column 8.15.5 Shear
4.4.10 Plain Concrete Footings 8.15.5.1 Shear Stress
4.5 Seismic Design Requirements 8.15.5.2 Shear Stress Carried by Concrete
8.15.5.2.1 Shear in Beams and One-Way Slabs
Section 5 - Retaining Walls and Footings
8.15.5.2.2 Shear in Compression Members
Section 6 - Culverts 8.15.5.2.3 Shear in Tension Members
8.15.5.2.4 Shear in Lightweight Concrete
Section 7 - Substructures 8.15.5.3 Shear Stress Carried by Shear
Reinforcement
Section 8 . Reinforced Concrete 8.15.5.4 Shear Friction
8.15.5.4.3 Shear-friction design method
Part A - General Requirements and Materials 8.15.5.5 Horizontal Shear Design for Composite
Concrete Flexural Members
8.1 Application 8.15.5.5.5 Ties for Horizontal Shear
8.1.1 General 8.15.5.6 Special Provisions for Slabs and
8.1.2 Notations Footings
8.2 Concrete 8.15.5.7 Special Provisions for Slabs of Box
8.3 Reinforcement Culverts
8.15.5.8 Special Provisions for Brackets and
Part B - Analysis Corbels
8.16 Strength Design Method (Load Factor Design)
8.4 General 8.16.1 Strength Requirements
8.5 Expansion and Contraction 8.16.1.1 Required Strength
8.6 Stiffness 8.16.1.2 Design Strength
8.7 Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson's Ratio 8.16.2 Design Assumptions
8.8 Span Length 8.16.3 Flexure
8.9 Control of Deflections 8.16.3.1 Maximum Reinforcement of Flexural
8.9.1 General Members
8.9.2 Superstructure Depth Limitations 8.16.3.2 Rectangular Sections with Tension
8.9.3 Superstructure Deflection Limitations Reinforcement Only

ATC-32 Appendix A: Guide to Bridge Design Specification Modifications 197

 8.16.3.3 Flanged Sections with Tension
Reinforcement Only
8.16.3.4 Rectangular Sections with Compression
Reinforcement
8.16.3.5 Flanged Sections with Compression
Reinforcement
8.16.3.6 Other Cross Sections
8.16.4 Compression Members
8.16.4.1 General Requirements
8.16.4.2 Compression Member Strengths
8.16.4.2.1 Pure Compression
8.16.4.2.2 Pure Flexure
8.16.4.2.3 Balanced Strain Conditions
8.16.4.2.4 Combined Flexure and Axial Load
8.16.4.3 Biaxial Loading
8.16.4.4 Maximum Plastic Moment
8.16.4.5 Special Provisions for Column and Pier
Wall Hinges
8.16.5 Slenderness Effects in Compression
Members
8.16.5.1 General Requirements
8.16.5.2 Approximate Evaluation ofSlenderness
Effects
8.16.6 Shear
8.16.6.1 Shear Strength
8.16.6.2 Shear Strength Provided by Concrete
8.16.6.2.1
8.16.6.2.2
8.16.6.2.3
8.16.6.3 Shear Strength Provided by Transverse
Reinforcement
8.16.6.4 Shear Friction
8.16.6.5 Horizontal Shear Strength for
Composite Concrete Flexural Members
8.16.6.5.5 Ties for Horizontal Shear
8.16.6.6 Special Provisions for Slabs and
Footings
8.16.6.7 Special Provisions for Slabs of Box
Culverts
8.16.6.8 Special Provisions for Brackets and
Corbels
g.16.6.9 Special Pro'lisioRs for Piers
g.16.6.10 CompressioR Member CORRectioR to
Gaps
8.16.6.11 Special Provisions for Group VII
Loading
8.16.7 Bearing Strength
8.16.8 Serviceability Requirements
8.16.8.1 Application
8.16.8.2 Service Load Stresses
8.16.8.3 Fatigue Stress Limits
8.16.8.4 Distribution of Flexural Reinforcement
198 Appendix A: Guide to Bridge Design Specification Modifications
Part D-Reinforcement
8.17 Reinforcement of Flexural Members
8.17.1 Minimum Reinforcement
8.17.2 Distribution of Reinforcement
8.17.2.1 Flexural Tension Reinforcement in
Zones of Maximum Tension
8.17.2.2 Transverse Deck Slab Reinforcement in
T-Girders and Box Girders
8.17.2.3 Bottom Slab Reinforcement for Box
Girders
8.17.3 Lateral Reinforcement of Flexural Members
8.18 Reinforcement of Compression Members
8.18.1 Maximum and Minimum Longitudinal
Reinforcement
8.18.2 Lateral Reinforcement
8.18.2.1 General
8.18.2.2 Spirals or Circular Hoops
8.18.2.3 Ties
8.18.2.4 Spirals and Hoops Designed by Plastic
Analysis
8.19 Limits for Shear Reinforcement
8.19.1 Minimum Shear Reinforcement
8.19.2 Types of Shear Reinforcement
8.19.3 Spacing of Shear Reinforcement
8.20 Shrinkage and Temperature Reinforcement
8.21 Spacing Limits For Reinforcement
8.22 Protection Against Corrosion
8.23 Hooks and Bends
8.23.1 Standard Hooks
8.23.2 Minimum Bend Diameters
8.24 Development of Flexural Reinforcement
8.24.1 General
8.24.2 Positive Moment Reinforcement
8.24.3 Negative Moment Reinforcement
8.25 Development of Deformed Bars and Deformed
Wire in Tension
8.26 Development of Deformed Bars in Compression
8.27 Development of Shear Reinforcement
8.28 Development of Bundled Bars
8.29 Development of Standard Hooks in Tension
8.30 Development of Welded Wire Fabric in Tension
8.30.1 Deformed Wire Fabric
8.30.2 Smooth Wire Fabric
8.31 Mechanical Anchorage
8.32 Splices of Reinforcement
8.32.1 Lap Splices
8.32.2 Welded Splices and Mechanical
Connections
8.32.3 Splices of Deformed Bars and Deformed
Wire in Tension
8.32.4 Splices of Bars in Compression
8.32.4.1 Lap Splices in Compression
8.32.5 Splices of Welded Deformed Wire Fabric in
Tension
ATC-32
 8.32.6 Splices of Welded Smooth Wire Fabric in 10.15 Heat-Curved Rolled Beams and Welded Plate
Tension Girders
8.33 Development of Reinforcement in Compression 10.15.1 Scope
Members Confined by Spirals or Circular Hoops 10.15.2 Minimum Radius of Curvature
8.34 Moment-Resisting Connections between 10.15.3 Camber
Members 10.16 Trusses
8.35 Footing Strength 10.16.1 General
8.36 Effective Superstructure Width for Longitudinal 10.16.2 Truss Members
Seismic Resistance 10.16.3 Secondary Stresses
10.16.4 Diaphragms
Section 9 - Prestressed Concrete 10.16.5 Camber
10.16.6 Working Lines and Gravity Axes
Section 10 - Structural Steel 10.16.7 Portal and Sway Bracing
10.16.8 Perforated Cover Plates
Part A - General Requirements and Materials 10.16.9 Stay Plates
10.16.10 Lacing Bars
10.1 Application 10.16.11 Gusset Plates
10.1.1 Notations 10.16.12 Half-Through Truss Spans
10.2 Materials 10.16.13 Fastener Pitch in Ends of Compression
10.2.1 General Members
10.2.2 Structural Steels 10.16.14 Net Section of Riveted or High-Strength
10.2.3 Steels for Pins, Rollers, and Expansion Bolted Tension Members
Rockers 10.17 Bents and Towers
10.2.4 Fasteners - Rivets and Bolts 10.17.1 General
10.2.5 Weld Metal 10.17.2 Single Bent
10.2.6 Cast Steel, Ductile Iron Castings, Malleable 10.17.3 Batter
Castings, Cast Iron, and Bronze or Copper 10.17.4 Bracing
Alloy 10.17.5 Bottom Struts
10.2.6.1 Cast Steel and Ductile Iron 10.18 Splices
10.2.6.2 Malleable Castings 10.18.1 General
10.2.6.3 Cast Iron 10.18.2 Beams and Girders
10.2.6.4 Bronze or Copper-Alloy 10.18.3 Columns
10.18.4 Tension Members
Part B - Design Details 10.185 Welding
10.18.6 Fillers
10.3 Repetitive Loading and Toughness 10.19 Strength of Connections
Considerations 10.19.1 General
10.3.1 Allowable Fatigue Stress 10.19.2 End Connections of Floor Beams and
10.3.2 Load Cycles Stringers
10.3.3 CharpyV-Notch Impact Requirements 10.19.3 Seismic Resistance of Moment Resisting
10.3.4 Loading Beam-to-Column Connections
10.4 Effective Length of Span 10.20 Diaphragms and Cross Frames
10.5 Depth Ratios 10.20.1 General
10.6 Deflection 10.20.2 Stresses Due to Wind Loading When Top
10.7 Limiting Lengths of Members Flanges Are Continuously Supported
10.8 Minimum Thickness of Metal 10.20.2.1 Flanges
10.9 Effective Area ofAngles and Tee Sections in 10.20.2.2 Diaphragms and Cross Frames
Tension 10.20.3 Stresses Due to Wind Load When Top
10.10 Outstanding Legs of Angles Flanges Are Not Continuously Supported
10.11 Expansion and Contraction 10.20.4 Seismic Provisions for Diaphrams, Cross
10.12 Flexural Members Frames and Lateral Bracing
10.13 Cover Plates 10.21 Lateral Bracing
10.14 Camber 10.22 Closed Sections and Pockets
10.23 Welding

ATC-32 Appendix A: Guide to Bridge Design Specification Modifications 199

 10.23.1 General Part C - Service Load Design Method - Allowable
10.23.2 Effective Size of Fillet Welds Stress Design
10.23.2.1 Maximum Size of Fillet Welds
10.23.2.2 Minimum Size of Fillet Welds 10.31 Scope
10.23.3 Minimum Effective Length of Fillet Welds 10.32 Allowable Stresses
10.23.4 Fillet Weld End Returns 10.32.1 Steel
10.23.5 Seal Welds 10.32.2 Weld Metal
10.24 Fasteners (Rivets and Bolts) 10.32.3 Fasteners (Rivets and Bolts)
10.24.1 General 10.32.3.1 General
10.24.2 Hole Types 10.32.3.3 Applied Tension, Combined Tension,
10.24.3 Washer Requirements and Shear
10.24.4 Size of Fasteners (Rivets or High-Strength 10.32.3.4 Fatigue
Bolts) 10.32.4 Pins, Rollers, and Expansion Rockers
10.24.5 Spacing ofFasteners 10.32.5 Cast Steel, Ductile Iron Castings, Malleable
10.24.6 Maximum Pitch of Sealing and Stitch Castings, and Cast Iron
Fasteners 10.32.5.1 Cast Steel and Ductile Iron
10.24.6.1 Sealing Fasteners 10.32.5.2 Malleable Castings
10.24.6.2 Stitch Fasteners 10.32.5.3 Cast Iron
10.24.7 Edge Distance of Fasteners 10.32.5.4 Bronze or Copper-Alloy
10.24.7.1 General 10.32.5.6 Bearing on Masonry
10.24.8 Slip Critical Connections Subject to Seismic 10.33 Rolled Beams
Loading 10.33.1 General
10.25 Links and Hangers 10.33.2 Bearing Stiffness
10.25.1 Net Section 10.34 Plate Girders
10.25.2 Location of Pins 10.34.1 General
10.25.3 Size of Pins 10.34.2 Flanges
10.25.4 Pin Plates 10.34.2.1 Welded Girders
10.25.5 Pins and Pin Nuts 10.34.2.2 Riveted or Bolted Girders
10.25.6 Seismic Restrictions 10.34.3 Thickness of Web Plates
10.26 Upset Ends 10.34.3.1 Girders Not Stiffened Longitudinally
10.27 Eyebars 10.34.3.2 Girders Stiffened Longitudinally
10.27.1 Thickness and Net Section 10.34.4 Transverse Intermediate Stiffeners
10.27.2 Packing of Eyebars 10.34.5 Longitudinal Stiffeners
10.28 Forked Ends 10.34.6 Bearing Stiffeners
10.29 Fixed and Expansion Bearings 10.34.6.1 Welded Girders
10.29.1 General 10.34.6.2 Riveted or Bolted Girders
10.29.2 Bronze or Copper-Alloy Sliding Expansion 10.35 Trusses
Bearings 10.35.1 Perforated Cover Plates and Lacing Bars
10.29.3 Rollers 10.35.2 Compression Members - Thickness of Metal
10.29.4 Sole Plates and Masonry Plates 10.36 Combined Stresses
10.29.5 Masonry Bearings 10.37 Solid Rib Arches
10.29.6 Anchor Bolts 10.37.1 Moment amplification and Allowable Stress
10.29.7 Pedestals and Shoes 10.37.2 Web Plates
10.29.8 Seismic Provisions for Fixed and EJq>ansion 10.37.3 Flange Plates
Bearings 10.38 Composite Girders
10.30 Floor System 10.38.1 General
10.30.1 Stringers 10.38.2 Shear Connectors
10.30.2 Floor Beams 10.38.3 Effective Flange Width
10.30.3 Cross Frames 10.38.4 Stresses
10.30.4 Expansion Joints 10.38.5 Shear
10.30.5 End Floor Beams 10.38.5.1 Horizontal Shear
10.30.6 End Panel of Skewed Bridges 10.38.5.1.1 Fatigue
10.30.7 Sidewalk Brackets 10.38.5.1.2 Ultimate Strength
10.38.5.1.3 Additional Connectors to Develop
Slab Stresses

200 Appendix A: Guide to Bridge Design Specification Modifications ATC-32

 10.38.5.2 Vertical Shear
10.38.6 Deflection
10.39 Composite Box Girders
10.39.1 General
10.39.2 Lateral Distribution ofLoads for Bending
Moment
10.39.3 Design ofWeb Plates
10.39.3.1 Vertical Shear
10.39.3.2 Secondary Bending Stresses
10.39.4 Design ofBottom Flange Plates
10.39.4.1 Tension Ranges
10.39.4.2 Compression Flanges Unstiffened
10.39.4.3 Compression Flanges Stiffened
Longitudinally
10.39.4.4 Compression Flanges Stiffened
Longitudinally and Transversely
10.39.4.5 Compression Range Stiffeners, General
10.39.5 Design of Flange to Web Welds
10.39.6 Diaphragms
10.39.7 Lateral Bracing
10.39.8 Access and Drainage
10.40 Hybrid Girders
10.40.1 General
10.40.2 Allowable Stresses
10.40.2.1 Bending
10.40.2.2 Shear
10.40.2.3 Fatigue
10.40.3 Plate Thickness Requirements
10.40.4 Bearing Stiffener Requirements
10.41 Orthotropic-Deck Superstructures
10.41.1 General
10.41.2 Wheel Load Contact Area
10.41.3 Effective Width of Deck Plate
10.41.3.1 Ribs and Beams
10.41.3.2 Girders
10.41.4 Allowable Stresses
10.41.4.1 Local Bending Stresses in Deck Plate
10.41.4.2 Bending Stresses in Longitudinal Ribs
10.41.4.3 Bending Stresses in Transverse Beams
10.41.4.4 Intersections of Ribs, Beams, and
Girders
10.41.4.5 Thickness of Plate Elements
10.41.4.5.1 Longitudinal Ribs and Deck Plate
10.41.4.5.2 Girders and Transverse Beams
10.41.4.6 Maximum Slenderness of Longitudinal
Ribs
10.41.4.7 Diaphragms
10.41.4.8 Stiffness Requirements
10.41.4.8.1 Deflections
10.41.4.8.2 Vibrations
10.41.4.9 Wearing Surface
10.41.4.10 Closed Ribs
ATC-32 Appendix A: Guide to Bridge Design Specification Modifications
Part D - Strength Design Method - Load Factor Design
10.42 Scope
10.43 Loads
10.44 Design Theory
10.45 Assumptions
10.46 Design Stress for Structural Steel
10.47 Maximum Design Loads
10.48 Symmetrical Beams and Girders
10.48.1 Compact Sections
10.48.2 Braced Non-Compact Sections
10.48.3 Transitions
10.48.4 Unbraced Sections
10.48.5 Transversely Stiffened Girders
10.48.6 Longitudinally Stiffened Girders
10.48.7 Bearing Stiffeners
10.48.8 Shear
10.49 Unsymmetrical Beams and Girders
10.49.1 General
10.49.2 Unsymmetrical Sections with Transverse
Stiffeners
10.49.3 Longitudinally Stiffened Unsymmetrical
Sections
10.49.4 Unsymmetrical Braced Non-Compact
Sections
10.49.5 Unbraced Unsymmetrical Sections
10.50 Composite Beams and Girders
10.50.1 Positive Moment Sections of Composite
Beams and Girders
10.50.1.1 Compact Sections
10.50.1.2 Non-Compact Sections
10.50.2 Negative Moment Sections of Composite
Beams and Girders
10.50.2.1 Compact Sections
10.50.2.2 Non-Compact Sections
10.51 Composite Box Girders
10.51.1 Maximum Strength
10.51.2 Lateral Distribution
10.51.3 Web Plates
10.51.4 Tension Flanges
10.51.5 Compression Flanges
10.51.6 Diaphragms
10.52 Shear Connectors
10.52.1 General
10.52.2 Design of Connectors
10.52.3 Maximum Spacing
10.53 Hybrid Girders
10.53.1 Non-composite Hybrid Girders
10.53.1.1 Compact Sections
10.53.1.2 Braced Non-Compact Sections
10.53.1.3 Unbraced Non-Compact Sections
10.53.1.4 Transversely Stiffened Girders
10.53.2 Composite Hybrid Girders
10.54 Compression Members
10.54.1 Axial Loading
201
 10.54.1.1 Maximum Capacity 10.58.2.2Shear Connectors
10.54.1.2 Effective Length 10.58.3 Hybrid Beams and Girders
10.54.2 Combined Axial Load and Bending 10.59 Deflection
10.54.2.1 Maximum Capacity 10.60 Orthotropic Superstructures
10.54.2.2 Equivalent Moment Factor C 10.61 Potential Plastic Hinge Regions under Seismic
10.55 Solid Rib Arches Loading
10.55.1 Moment Amplification and Allowable 10.62 Seismic Provisions for Concentric Bracing
Stresses 10.63 Seismic Considerations for Box Sections
10.55.2 Web Plates
10.55.3 Flange Plates Section 11 - Aluminum Design
10.56 Splices, Connections, and Details
10.56.1 Connectors Section 12 - Soil Corrugated Metal Structure Interaction
10.56.1.1 General System
10.56.1.2 Welds
10.56.1.3 Bolts and Rivets Section 13 - Timber Structures
10.56.1.4 Slip-Critical Joints
10.56.2 Bolts Subjected to Prying Action by Section 14 - Elastomeric Bearings
Connected Parts
10.56.3 Rigid Connections Section 15 - TFE Bearing Surfaces
10.57 Overload
10.57.1 Non-composite Beams Section 16 - Steel Tunnel Liner Plates
10.57.2 Composite Beams
10.57.3 Slip-Critical Joints Section 17 - Soil-Reinforced Concrete Structure Interac-
10.58 Fatigue tion System
10.58.1 General
10.58.2 Composite Construction Section 18 - Soil-Thermoplastic Pipe Interaction System
10.58.2.1 Slab Reinforcement

202 Appendix A: Guide to Bridge Design Specification Modifications ATC-32

 Project Participants
APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL
Mr. Christopher Rojahn (Executive Director) Mr. Richard Nutt (Principal Investigator)
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 550 9048 Hazel Oak Court
Redwood City, CA 94065 Orangevale, CA 95662

CALTRANS
Mr. Mohsen Sultan
Division of Structures
P.O. Box 942874
Sacramento, CA 94274

PROJECT ENGINEERING PANEL

Dr. Ian Buckle (Chair) Dr. James O. Jirsa
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research University of Texas, Ferguson Structural
State University of New York, Red Jacket Quad Engineering Lab
Buffalo, NY 14261 10100 Burnet Road
Austin, TX 78759
Mr. Robert Cassano
4017 Fuller Way Mr. James Libby
Sacramento, CA 95821 James R. Libby and Associates
4452 Glacier Avenue
Mr. Allen Ely San Diego, CA 92120
Moffatt and Nichol, Engineers
P.O. Box 7707 Mr. Joseph P. Nicoletti
Long Beach, CA 90807 URS Consultants
100 California Street, 5th Floor
Mr. Nicholas Forell San Francisco, CA 95616
Forell/Elsessor Engineers
160 Pine Street Dr. Joseph Penzien
San Francisco, CA 94111 International Civil Engineering Consultants
1995 University Avenue, Suite 119
Mr. James H. Gates Berkeley, CA 94704
Caltrans, Division of Structures
P.O. Box 942874 Mr. Maurice S. Power
Sacramento, CA 94274 Geomatrix Consultants
100 Pine Street, Suite 1000
Dr. LM. Idriss San Francisco, CA 94111
Civil Engineering Department
University of California Mr. James Roberts
Davis, CA 95616 Caltrans, Division of Structures
P.O. Box 942874
Dr. Roy A. Imbsen Sacramento, CA 94274
Imbsen and Associates
9833 Horn Road, Suite C
Sacramento, CA 95827

ATC-32 Project Participants 203

 SUBCONTRACTORS
Mr. AI Kercheval Dr. M.J. Nigel Priestley
Dr. Kosal Krishnan University of California, San Diego
Kercheval Engineers Department ofAMES, R-Oll
4740 Murphy Canyon Rd., Suite 310 La Jolla, CA 92093
San Diego, CA 92123
Mr. John Quincy
Dr. John M. Kulicki Quincy Engineering, Inc.
Modjeski and Masters, Inc. 10301 Placer Lane, Suite 100
P.O. Box 2345 Sacramento, CA 95827
Harrisburg, PA 17105
Ms. Nancy Sauer
Dr. Ignatius Po Lam Mr. Rodney Sauer
Earth Mechanics, Inc. RDD Consultants, Inc.
17660 Newhope Street, #E 1163 Franklin Avenue
Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Louisville, CO 80027

Dr. JackP. Moehle Dr. J.P. Singh

Earhquake Engineering Research Center Kleinfelder, Inc.
University of California at Berkeley 7133 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 100
1301 South 46th Street Pleasanton, CA 94566
Richmond, CA 94804

204 Project Participants ATC-32

ATC Projects and Report Information
One of the primary purposes of Applied Technol-
ogy Council is to develop resource documents that
translate and summarize useful information to
practicing engineers. This includes the develop-
ment of guidelines and manuals, as well as the
development of research recommendations for spe-
cific areas determined by the profession. ATC is
not a code development organization, although
several of the ATC project reports serve as resource
documents for the development of codes, stan-
dards and specifications.
Applied Technology Council conducts projects that
meet the following criteria:
1. The primary audience or benefactor is the
design practitioner in structural engineering.
2. A cross section or consensus of engineering
opinion is required to be obtained and pre-
sented by a neutral source.
3. The project fosters the advancement of struc-
tural engineering practice.
A brief description of several major completed
projects and reports is given in the following sec-
tion. Funding for projects is obtained from govern-
ment agencies and tax-deductible contributions
from the private sector.
ATC-I: This project resulted in five papers that
were published as part of Building Practices for
Disaster Mitigation, Building Science Series 46, pro-
ceedings of a workshop sponsored by the National
Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Bureau
of Standards (NBS). Available through the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS),
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22151, as
ATC-32 ATC Projects and Report Information
NTIS report No. COM-73-50188.
ATC-2: The report, An Evaluation ofa Response
Spectrum Approach to Seismic Design ofBuildings,
was funded by NSF and NBS and was conducted as
part of the Cooperative Federal Program in Build-
ing Practices for Disaster Mitigation. Available
through the ATC office. (Published 1974,270
Pages)
Abstract: This study evaluated the applicability
and cost of the response spectrum approach to
seismic analysis and design that was proposed
by various segments of the engineering profes-
sion. Specific building designs, design proce-
dures and parameter values were evaluated for
future application. Eleven existing buildings of
varying dimensions were redesigned according
to the procedures.
ATC-3: The report, Tentative Provisions for the
Development ofSeismic Regulations for Buildings
(ATC-3-06), was funded by NSF and NBS. The
second printing of this report, which includes pro-
posed amendments, is available through the ATC
office. (Published 1978, amended 1982,505 pages
plus proposed amendments)
Abstract: The tentative provisions in this docu-
ment represent the results of a concerted effort
by a multi-disciplinary team of 85 nationally
recognized experts in earthquake engineering.
The provisions serve as the basis for the seismic
provisions of the 1988 Uniform Building Code
and the 1988 and subsequent issues of the
NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the Devel-
opment ofSeismic Regulation for New Build-
ings. The second printing of this document
contains proposed amendments prepared by a
205
 joint committee of the Building Seismic Safety
Council (BSSC) and the NBS.
ATC-3-2: The project, Comparative Test Designs
of Buildings Using ATC-3-06 Tentative Provisions,
was funded by NSF. The project consisted of a
study to develop and plan a program for making
comparative test designs of the ATC-3-06 Tentative
Provisions. The project report was written to be
used by the Building Seismic Safety Council in its
refmement of the ATC-3-06 Tentative Provisions.
ATC-3-4: The report, Redesign ofThree Multistory
Buildings: A Comparison Using A TC-3-06 and 1982
Uniform Building Code Design Provisions, was pub-
lished under a grant from NSF. Available through
the ATC office. (Published 1984, 112 pages)
Abstract: This report evaluates the cost and
technical impact of using the 1978 ATC-3-06
report, Tentative Provisions for the Develop-
ment of Seismic Regulations for Buildings, as
amended by a joint committee of the Building
Seismic Safety Council and the National
Bureau of Standards in 1982. The evaluations
are based on studies of three existing California
buildings redesigned in accordance with the
ATC-3-06 Tentative Provisions and the 1982
Uniform Building Code. Included in the
report are recommendations to code imple-
menting bodies.
ATC-3-5: This project, Assistance for First Phase of
ATC-3-06 Trial Design Program Being Conducted
by the Building Seismic Safety Council, was funded
by the Buildings Seismic Safety Council and pro-
vided the services of the ATC Senior Consultant
and other ATC personnel to assist the BSSC in the
conduct of the ftrst phase of its Trial Design Pro-
gram. The fIrst phase provided for trial designs
conducted for buildings in Los Angeles, Seattle,
Phoenix, and Memphis.
ATC-3-6: This project, Assistance for Second
Phase of ATC-3-06 Trial Design Program Being
Conducted by the Building Seismic Safety Council,
was funded by the Building Seismic Safety Council
and provided the services of the ATC Senior Con-
sultant and other ATC personnel to assist the BSSC
in the conduct of the second phase of its Trial
Design Program. The second phase provided for
trial designs conducted for buildings in New York,
Chicago, St. Louis, Charleston, and Fort Worth.
ATC-4: The report, A Methodology for Seismic
206 ATC Projects and Report Information
Design and Construction ofSingle-Family Dwellings,
was published under a contract with the Depart-
ment ofHousing and Urban Development (HUD).
Available through theATC office. (Published 1976,
576 pages)
Abstract: This report presents the results of an
in-depth effort to develop design and construc-
tion details for single-family residences that
minimize the potential economic loss and life-
loss risk associated with earthquakes. The
report: (1) discusses the ways structures
behave when subjected to seismic forces, (2)
sets forth suggested design criteria for conven-
tionallayouts of dwellings constructed with
conventional materials, (3) presents construc-
tion details that do not require the designer to
perform analytical calculations, (4) suggests
procedures for efficient plan-checking, and (5)
presents recommendations including details
and schedules for use in the field by construc-
tion personnel and building inspectors.
ATC-4-1: The report, The Home Builders Guide for
Earthquake Design, was published under a contract
with HUD. Available through the ATC office.
(Published 1980,57 pages)
Abstract: This report is a 57-page abridged ver-
sion of the ATC-4 report. The concise, easily
understood text of the Guide is supplemented
with illustrations and 46 construction details.
The details are provided to ensure that houses
contain structural features that are properly
positioned, dimensioned and constructed to
resist earthquake forces. A brief description is
included on how earthquake forces impact on
houses and some precautionary constraints are
given with respect to site selection and architec-
tural designs.
ATC-5: The report, Guidelines for Seismic Design
and Construction ofSingle-Story Masonry Dwellings
in Seismic Zone 2, was developed under a contract
with HUD. Available through the ATC office.
(Published 1986,38 pages)
Abstract: The report offers a concise method-
ology for the earthquake design and construc-
tion of single-story masonry dwellings in
Seismic Zone 2 of the United States, as defined
by the 1973 Uniform Building Code. The
guidelines are based in part on shaking table
tests of masonry construction conducted at the
ATC-32
 University of California at Berkeley Earthquake
Engineering Research Center. The report is
written in simple language and includes basic
house plans, wall evaluations, detail drawings,
and material specifications.
ATC-6: The report, Seismic Design Guidelines for
Highway Bridges, was published under a contract
with the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). Available through the ATC office. (Pub-
lished 1981, 210 pages)
Abstract: The Guidelines are the recommenda-
tions of a team of sixteen nationally recognized
experts that included consulting engineers, aca-
demics, state and federal agency representatives
from throughout the United States. The
Guidelines embody several new concepts that
were significant departures from then existing
design provisions. Included in the Guidelines
are an extensive commentary, an example
demonstrating the use of the Guidelines, and
summary redesign reports on 21 bridges rede-
signed in accordance with the Guidelines. The
guidelines have been adopted by the American
Association of Highway and Transportation
Officials as a guide specification.
ATC-6-1: The report, Proceedings ofa Workshop on
Earthquake Resistance ofHighway Bridges, was pub-
lished under a grant from NSF. Available through
the ATC office. (Published 1979,625 pages)
Abstract: The report includes 23 state-of-the-
art and state-of-practice papers on earthquake
resistance of highway bridges. Seven of the
twenty-three papers were authored by partici-
pants from Japan, New Zealand and Portugal.
The Proceedings also contain recommenda-
tions for future research that were developed
by the 45 workshop participants.
ATC-6-2: The report, Seismic Retrofitting Guide-
lines for Highway Bridges, was published under a
contract with FHWA. Available through the ATC
office. (Published 1983,220 pages)
Abstract: The Guidelines are the recommenda-
tions of a team of thirteen nationally recog-
nized experts that included consulting
engineers, academics, state highway engineers,
and federal agency representatives. The Guide-
lines, applicable for use in all parts of the U.S.,
include a preliminary screening procedure,
methods for evaluating an existing bridge in
ATC-32 ATC Projects and Report Information
detail, and potential retrofitting measures for
the most common seismic deficiencies. Also
included are special design requirements for
various retrofitting measures.
ATC-7: The report, Guidelines for the Design of
Horizontal Wood Diaphragms, was published under
a grant from NSF. Available through the ATC
office. (Published 1981, 190 pages)
Abstract: Guidelines are presented for design-
ing roof and floor systems so these can function
as horizontal diaphragms in a lateral force
resisting system. Analytical procedures, con-
nection details and design examples are
included in the Guidelines.
ATC-7-1: The report, Proceedings ofa Workshop of
Design ofHorizontal Wood Diaphragms, was pub-
lished under a grant from NSF. Available through
the ATC office. (Published 1980, 302 pages)
Abstract: The report includes seven papers on
state-of-the-practice and two papers on recent
research. Also included are recommendations
for future research that were developed by the
35 participants.
ATC-8: This report, Proceedings ofa Workshop on
the Design ofPrefabricated Concrete Buildings for
Earthquake Loads, was funded by NSF. Available
through the ATC office. (Published 1981,400
pages)
Abstract: The report includes eighteen state-
of-the-art papers and six summary papers.
Also included are recommendations for future
research that were developed by the 43 work-
shop participants.
ATC-9: The report, An Evaluation ofthe Imperial
County Services Building Earthquake Response and
Associated Damage, was published under a grant
from NSF. Available through the ATC office.
(Published 1984, 231 pages)
Abstract: The report presents the results of an
in-depth evaluation of the Imperial County
Services Building, a 6-story reinforced concrete
frame and shear wall building severely dam-
aged by the October IS, 1979 Imperial Valley,
California, earthquake. The report contains a
review and evaluation ofearthquake damage to
the building; a review and evaluation of the
seismic design; a comparison of the require-
207
 ments of various building codes as they relate
to the building; and conclusions and recom-
mendations pertaining to future building code
provisions and future research needs.
ATC-IO: This report, An Investigation ofthe Corre-
lation Between Earthquake Ground Motion and
Building Performance, was funded by the U.s. Geo-
logical Survey (USGS). Available through the ATC
office. (Published 1982, 114 pages)
Abstract: The report contains an in-depth ana-
lytical evaluation of the ultimate or limit capac-
ity of selected representative building framing
types, a discussion of the factors affecting the
seismic performance of buildings, and a sum-
mary and comparison of seismic design and
seismic risk parameters currently in widespread
use.
ATC-IO-I: This report, Critical Aspects ofEarth-
quake Ground Motion and Building Damage Poten-
tial, was co-funded by the USGS and the NSF.
Available through the ATC office. (Published 1984,
259 pages)
Abstract: This document contains 19 state-of-
the-art papers on ground motion, structural
response, and structural design issues pre-
sented by prominent engineers and earth scien-
tists in an ATC seminar. The main theme of
the papers is to identify the critical aspects of
ground motion and building performance that
currently are not being considered in building
design. The report also contains conclusions
and recommendations of working groups con-
vened after the Seminar.
ATC-II: The report, Seismic Resistance ofRein-
forced Concrete Shear Walls and Frame Joints:
Implications ofRecent Research for Design Engineers,
was published under a grant from NSF. Available
through the ATC office. (Published 1983,184
pages)
Abstract: This document presents the results
of an in-depth review and synthesis of research
reports pertaining to cyclic loading of rein-
forced concrete shear walls and cyclic loading
of joint reinforced concrete frames. More than
125 research reports published since 1971 are
reviewed and evaluated in this report. The
preparation of the report included a consensus
process involving numerous experienced
design professionals from throughout the
208 ATC Projects and Report Information
United States. The report contains reviews of
current and past design practices, summaries of
research developments, and in-depth discus-
sions of design implications of recent research
results.
ATC-I2: This report, Comparison of United States
and New Zealand Seismic Design Practices for High-
way Bridges, was published under a grant from
NSF. Available through the ATC office. (Published
1982,270 pages)
Abstract: The report contains summaries of all
aspects and innovative design procedures used
in New Zealand as well as comparison of
United States and New Zealand design practice.
Also included are research recommendations
developed at a 3-day workshop in New Zealand
attended by 16 U.S. and 35 New Zealand bridge
design engineers and researchers.
ATC-12-I: This report, Proceedings ofSecond Joint
U.S.-New Zealand Workshop on Seismic Resistance
ofHighway Bridges, was published under a grant
from NSF. Available through the ATC office.
(Published 1986,272 pages)
Abstract: This report contains written versions
of the papers presented at this 1985 Workshop
as well as a list and prioritization of workshop
recommendations. Included are summaries of
research projects being conducted in both
countries as well as state-of-the-practice papers
on various aspects of design practice. Topics
discussed include bridge design philosophy and
loadings; design of columns, footings, piles,
abutments and retaining structures; geotechni-
cal aspects of foundation design; seismic analy-
sis techniques; seismic retrofitting; case studies
using base isolation; strong-motion data acqui-
sition and interpretation; and testing of bridge
components and bridge systems.
ATC-I3: The report, Earthquake Damage Evalua-
tion Data for California, was developed under a
contract with the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). Available through the ATC
office. (Published 1985,492 pages)
Abstract: This report presents expert-opinion
earthquake damage and loss estimates for
industrial, commercial, residential, utility and
transportation facilities in California. Included
are damage probability matrices for 78 classes
of structures and estimates of time required to
ATC-32
 restore damaged facilities to pre-earthquake
usability. The report also describes the inven-
tory information essential for estimating eco-
nomic losses and the methodology used to
develop loss estimates on a regional basis.
ATC-14: The report, Evaluating the Seismic Resis-
tance ofExisting Buildings, was developed under a
grant from the NSF. Available through the ATC
office. (Published 1987, 370 pages)
Abstract: This report, written for practicing
structural engineers, describes a methodology
for performing preliminary and detailed build-
ing seismic evaluations. The report contains a
state-of-practice review; seismic loading crite-
ria; data collection procedures; a detailed
description of the building classification sys-
tem; preliminary and detailed analysis proce-
dures; and example case studies, including
non-structural considerations.
ATC-15: This report, Comparison ofSeismic Design
Practices in the United States and Japan, was pub-
lished under a grant from NSF. Available through
the ATC office. (Published 1984,317 pages)
Abstract: The report contains detailed techni-
cal papers describing design practices in the
United States and Japan as well as recommen-
dations emanating from a joint U.S.-Japan
workshop held in Hawaii in March, 1984.
Included are detailed descriptions of new seis-
mic design methods for buildings in Japan and
case studies of the design of specific buildings
(in both countries). The report also contains
an overview of the history and objectives of the
Japan Structural Consultants Association.
ATC-15-1: The report, Proceedings ofSecond U.S.-
Japan Workshop on Improvement ofBuilding Seismic
Design and Construction Practices, was published
under a grant from NSF. Available through the
ATC office. (Published 1987, 412 pages)
Abstract: This report contains 23 technical
papers presented at this San Francisco work-
shop in August, 1986, by practitioners and
researchers from the U.S. and Japan. Included
are state-of-the-practice papers and case stud-
ies of actual building designs and information
on regulatory, contractual, and licensing issues.
ATC-15-2: The report, Proceedings ofThird U.S.-
Japan Workshop on Improvement ofBuilding Struc-
ATC-32 ATC Projects and Report Information
tural Design and Construction Practices, was pub-
lished joindy by ATC and the Japan Structural
Consultants Association. Available through the
ATC office. (Published 1989,358 pages)
Abstract: This report contains 21 technical
papers presented at this Tokyo, Japan, work-
shop in July, 1988, by practitioners and
researchers from the U.S., Japan, China, and
New Zealand. Included are state-of-the-prac-
tice papers on various topics, including braced
steel frame buildings, beam-column joints in
reinforced concrete buildings, summaries of
comparative U. S. and Japanese design, and
base isolation and passive energy dissipation
devices.
ATC-15-3: The report, Proceedings ofFourth U.S.-
Japan Workshop on Improvement ofBuilding Struc-
tural Design and Construction Practices, was pub-
lished joindy by ATC and the Japan Structural
Consultants Association. Available through the
ATC office. (Published 1992,484 pages)
Abstract: This report contains 22 technical
papers presented at this Kailua-Kona, Hawaii,
workshop in August, 1990 by practitioners and
researchers from the United States, Japan, and
Peru. Included are papers on postearthquake
building damage assessment; acceptable earth-
quake damage; repair and retrofit of earth-
quake damaged buildings; base-isolated build-
ings, including Architectural Institute of Japan
recommendations for design; active damping
systems; wind-resistant design; and summaries
of working group conclusions and recommen-
dations.
ATC-15-4: The report, Proceedings ofFifth U.S.-
Japan Workshop on Improvement ofBuilding Struc-
tural Design and Construction Practices, was pub-
lished joindy by ATC and the Japan Structural
Consultants Association. Available through the
ATC office. (Published 1994, 360 pages)
Abstract: This report contains 20 technical
papers presented at this San Diego, California
workshop in September, 1992. Included are
papers on performance goals/acceptable dam-
age in seismic design; seismic design proce-
dures and case studies; construction influences
on design; seismic isolation and passive energy
dissipation; design of irregular structures; seis-
mic evaluation, repair and upgrading; quality
209
 control for design and construction; and sum- mic isolation systems, passive energy
maries of working group discussions and rec- dissipation systems, active control systems and
ommendations hybrid systems.
ATC-I6: This project, Development of a 5-Year ATC-I9: The report, Structural Response ModifICa-
Plan for Reducing the Earthquake Hazards Posed tion Factors was developed under a grant from NSF
by Existing Nonfederal Buildings, was funded by and NCEER. Available through the ATC office.
FEMA and was conducted by a joint venture of (Published 1995, 70 pages)
ATC, the Building Seismic Safety Council and the
Abstract: This report addressees structural
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. The
response modification factors (R factors),
project involved a workshop in Phoenix, Arizona,
which are used to reduce the seismic forces
where approximately 50 earthquake specialists met
associated with elastic response to obtain
to identify the major tasks and goals for reducing
design forces. The report documents the basis
the earthquake hazards posed by existing nonfed-
for current R values, how R factors are used for
eral buildings nationwide. The plan was developed
seismic design in other countries, a rational
on the basis of nine issue papers presented at the
means for decomposing R into key compo-
workshop and workshop working group discus-
nents, a framework (and methods) for evaluat-
sions. The Workshop Proceedings and Five-Year
ing the key components of R, and the research
Plan are available through the Federal Emergency
necessary to improve the reliability of engi-
Management Agency, 500 "c" Street, S.W., Wash-
neered construction designed using R factors.
ington, DC 20472.
ATC-20: The report, Procedures for Postearthquake
ATC-I?: This report, Proceedings ofa Seminar and
Workshop on Base Isolation and Passive Energy Dis- Safety Evaluation ofBuildings, was developed under
a contract from the California Office of Emergency
sipation, was published under a grant from NSF.
Services (OES), California Office of Statewide
Available through the ATC office. (Published 1986,
Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) and
478 pages)
FEMA. Available through the ATC office (Pub-
Abstract: The report contains 42 papers lished 1989, 152 pages)
describing the state-of-the-art and state-of-the-
Abstract: This report provides procedures and
practice in base-isolation and passive energy-
guidelines for making on-the-spot evaluations
dissipation technology. Included are papers
and decisions regarding continued use and
describing case studies in the United States,
occupancy of earthquake damaged buildings.
applications and developments worldwide,
Written specifically for volunteer structural
recent innovations in technology development,
engineers and building inspectors, the report
and structural and ground motion issues. Also
includes rapid and detailed evaluation proce-
included is a proposed 5-year research agenda
dures for inspecting buildings and posting
that addresses the following specific issues: (1)
them as "inspected" (apparently safe), "limited
strong ground motion; (2) design criteria; (3)
entry" or "unsafe". Also included are special
materials, quality control, and long-term reli-
procedures for evaluation of essential buildings
ability; (4) life cycle cost methodology; and (5)
(e.g., hospitals), and evaluation procedures for
system response.
nonstructural elements, and geotechnical haz-
ATC-I?-1: This report, Proceedings ofa Seminar on ards.
Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy Dissipation and
ATC-20-1: The report, Field Manual:
Active Control, was published under a grant from
Postearthquake Safety Evaluation ofBuildings, was
NSF. Available through the ATC office. (Published
developed under a contract from OES and OSHPD.
1993,841 pages)
Available through the ATC office (Published 1989,
Abstract: The 2-volume report documents 70 114 pages)
technical papers presented during a two-day
Abstract: This report, a companion Field Man-
seminar in San Francisco in early 1993.
ual for the ATC-20 report, summarizes the
Included are invited theme papers and compet-
postearthquake safety evaluation procedures
itively selected papers on issues related to seis-
in brief concise format designed for ease of use

210 ATC Projects and Report Information ATC-32

 in the field.
ATC-20-2: The report, Addendum to the ATC-20
Postearthquake Building Safety Procedures was pub-
lished under a grant from the National Science
Foundation and funded by the USGS. Available
through the ATC office. (Published 1995,94 pages)
Abstract: This report provides updated assess-
ment forms, placards, and procedures that are
based on an in-depth review and evaluation of
the widespread application of the ATC-20 pro-
cedures following five earthquakes occurring
since the initial release ofthe ATC-20 report in
1989.
ATC-20-T: The report, Postearthquake Safety Eval-
uation ofBuildings Training Manual was developed
under a contract with FEMA. Available through
the ATC office. (Published 1993, 177 pages; 160
slides)
Abstract: This training manual is intended to
facilitate the presentation of the contents of the
ATC-20 and ATC-20-1. The training materials
consist of 160 slides of photographs, schematic
drawings and textual information and a com-
panion training presentation narrative coordi-
nated with the slides. Topics covered include:
posting system; evaluation procedures; struc-
tural basics; wood frame, masonry, concrete,
and steel frame structures; nonstructural ele-
ments; geotechnical hazards; hazardous mate-
rials; and field safety.
ATC-21: The report, Rapid Visual Screening of
Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Hand-
book, was developed under a contract from FEMA.
Available through the ATC office. (Published 1988,
185 pages)
Abstract: This report describes a rapid visual
screening procedure for identifying those
buildings that might pose serious risk ofloss of
life and injury, or of severe curtailment of com-
munity services, in case of a damaging earth-
quake. The screening procedure utilizes a
methodology based on a "sidewalk survey"
approach that involves identification of the pri-
mary structural load resisting system and
building materials, and assignment of a basic
structural hazards score and performance
modification factors based on observed build-
ing characteristics. Application of the method-
ology identifies those buildings that are
ATC-32 ATC Projects and Report Information
potentially hazardous and should be analyzed
in more detail by a professional engineer expe-
rienced in seismic design.
ATC-21-1: The report, Rapid Visual Screening of
Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: Supporting
Documentation, was developed under a contract
from FEMA. Available through the ATC office.
(Published 1988, 137 pages)
Abstract: Included in this report are (1) a
review and evaluation of existing procedures;
(2) a listing of attributes considered ideal for a
rapid visual screening procedures; and (3) a
technical discussion of the recommended rapid
visual screening procedure that is documented
in the ATC-21 report.
ATC-21-2: The report, Earthquake Damaged
Buildings: An Overview ofHeavy Debris and Victim
Extrication, was developed under a contract from
FEMA. (Published 1988,95 pages)
Abstract: Included in this report, a companion
volume to the ATC-21 and ATC-21-1 reports,
is state-of-the-art information on (1) the iden-
tification of those buildings that might collapse
and trap victims in debris or generate debris of
such a size that its handling would require spe-
cial or heavy lifting equipment; (2) guidance in
identifying these types ofbuildings, on the basis
of their major exterior features, and (3) the
types and life capacities of equipment required
to remove the heavy portion of the debris that
might result from the collapse of such build-
ings.
ATC-21-T: The report, Rapid Visual Screening of
Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards Training
Manual was developed under a contract with
FEMA. Available through the ATC office. (Pub-
lished 1996, 135 pages, 120 slides)
Abstract: This training manual is intended to
facilitate the presentation of the contents of the
ATC-21 report. The training materials consist
of 120 slides and a companion training presen-
tation narrative coordinated with the slides.
Topics covered include: description of proce-
dure, building behavior, building types, build-
ing scores, occupancy and falling hazards, and
implementation.
ATC-22: The report, A Handbook for Seismic Eval-
uation ofExisting Buildings (Preliminary), was
211
developed under a contract from FEMA. Available
through the ATC office. (Originally published in
1989; revised by BSSC and published as the
NEHRP Handbook for Seismic Evaluation of Exist-
ing Buildings in 1992,211 pages)
Abstract: This handbook provides a methodol-
ogy for seismic evaluation of existing buildings
of different types and occupancies in areas of
different seismicity throughout the United
States. The methodology, which has been field
tested in several programs nationwide, utilizes
the information and procedures developed for
and documented in the ATC-14 report. The
handbook includes checklists, diagrams, and
sketches designed to assist the user.
ATC-22-1: The report, Seismic Evaluation ofExist-
ing Buildings: Supporting Documentation, was
developed under a contract from FEMA. Available
through the ATC office. (Published 1989, 160
pages)
Abstract: Included in this report, a companion
volume to the ATC-22 report, are (1) a review
and evaluation of existing buildings seismic
evaluation methodologies; (2) results from field
tests of the ATC-14 methodology; and (3)
summaries of evaluations of ATC-14 con-
ducted by the National Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research (State University of New
York at Buffalo) and the City of San Francisco.
ATC-23A: The report, General Acute Care Hospital
Earthquake Survivability Inventory for California,
Part A: Survey Description, Summary ofResults,
Data Analysis and Interpretation, was developed
under a contract from the Office of Statewide
Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), State
of California. Available through the ATC office.
(Published 1991, 58 pages)
Abstract: This report, completed in 1991, sum-
marizes results from a seismic survey of 490
California acute care hospitals. Included are a
description of the survey procedures and data
collected, a summary of the data, and an illus-
trative discussion of data analysis and interpre-
tation that has been provided to demonstrate
potential applications of the ATC-23 database.
ATC-23B: The report, General Acute Care Hospital
Earthquake Survivability Inventory for California,
Part B: Raw Data, is a companion document to the
ATC-23A Report and was developed under the
212 ATC Projects and Report Information
same contract from OSHPD. Available through
the ATC office. (Published 1991,377 pages)
Abstract: Included in this report, completed in
1991, are tabulations of raw general site and
building data for 490 acute care California hos-
pitals in California.
ATC-24: The report, Guidelines for Seismic Testing
ofComponents ofSteel Structures, was jointly
funded by the American Iron and Steel Institute
(AISI), American Institute of Steel Construction
~AISC), National Center for Earthquake Engineer-
mg Research (NCEER), and NSF. Available
through the ATC office. (Published 1992,57 pages)
Abstract: This report, completed in 1992, pro-
vides guidance for most cyclic experiments on
components of steel structures for the purpose
of consistency in experimental procedures. The
report contains recommendations and com-
panion commentary pertaining to loading his-
tories, presentation of test results, and other
aspects of experimentation. The recommenda-
tions are written specifically for experiments
with slow cyclic load application.
ATC-25: The report, Seismic Vulnerability and
Impact ofDisruption ofLifelines in the Conterminous
United States, was developed under a contract from
FEMA. Available through the ATC office. (Pub-
lished 1991,440 pages)
Abstract: Documented in this report is a
national overview oflifeline seismic vulnerabil-
ity and impact of disruption. Lifelines consid-
ered include electric systems, water systems,
transportation systems, gas and liquid fuel sup-
ply systems, and emergency service facilities
(hospitals, fire and police stations). Vulnerabil-
ity estimates and impacts developed are pre-
sented in terms of estimated first
approximation direct damage losses and indi-
rect economic losses.
ATC-25-1: The report, A Model Methodology for
Assessment ofSeismic Vulnerability and Impact of
Disruption of Water Supply Systems, was developed
under a contract from FEMA. Available through
the ATC office. (Published 1992, 147 pages)
Abstract: This report contains a practical meth-
odology for the detailed assessment of seismic
vulnerability and impact of disruption of water
supply systems. The methodology has been
ATC-32
 designed for use by water system operators.
Application of the methodology enables the
user to develop estimates of direct damage to
system components and the time required to
restore damaged facilities to pre-earthquake
usability. Suggested measures for mitigation of
seismic hazards are also provided.
ATC-28: The report, Development ofRecommended
Guidelines for Seismic Strengthening ofExisting
Buildings, Phase I: Issues Identification and Resolu-
tion, was developed under a contract with FEMA.
Available through the ATC office. (Published 1992,
150 pages)
Abstract: This report identifies and provides
resolutions for issues that will affect the devel-
opment of guidelines for the seismic strength-
ening of existing buildings. Issues addressed
include: implementation and format, coordi-
nation with other efforts, legal and political,
social, economic, historic buildings, research
and technology, seismicity and mapping, engi-
neering philosophy and goals, issues related to
the development of specific provisions, and
nonstructural element issues.
ATC-29: The report, Proceedings ofSeminar and
Workshop on Seismic Design and Performance of
Equipment and Nonstructural Elements in Buildings
and Industrial Structures, was developed under a
grant from NCEER and NSF. Available through
the ATC office. (Published 1992,470 pages)
Abstract: These Proceedings contain 35 papers
describing state-of-the-art technical informa-
tion pertaining to the seismic design and per-
formance of equipment and nonstructural
elements in buildings and industrial structures.
The papers were presented at a Seminar in Irv-
ine, California in 1990. Included are papers
describing current practice, codes and regula-
tions; earthquake performance; analytical and
experimental investigations; development of
new seismic qualification methods; and
research, practice, and code development needs
for specific elements and systems. The report
also includes a summary of a proposed 5-year
research agenda for NCEER.
ATC-30: The report, Proceedings ofWorkshop for
Utilization ofResearch on Engineering and Socioeco-
nomic Aspects of 1985 Chile and Mexico Earth-
quakes, was developed under a grant from NSF.
Available through the ATe office. (Published 1991,
ATC-32 ATC Projects and Report Information
113 pages)
Abstract: This report documents the findings of
a 1990 technology transfer workshop in San
Diego, California, co-sponsored by ATC and
the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Included in the report are invited papers and
working group recommendations on geotech-
nical issues, structural response issues, archi-
tectural and urban design considerations,
emergency response planning, search and res-
cue, and reconstruction policy issues.
ATC-31: The report, Evaluation ofthe Performance
ofSeismically Retrofitted Buildings, was developed
under a contract from the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST, formerly NBS)
and funded by the U. S. Geological Survey. Avail-
able through the ATC office. (Published 1992, 75
pages)
Abstract: This report summarizes the results
from an investigation of the effectiveness of229
seismically retrofitted buildings, primarily
unreinforced masonry and concrete tilt-up
buildings. All buildings were located in the
areas affected by the 1987 Whittier Narrows,
California, and 1989 Loma Prieta, California,
earthquakes.
ATC-35: The report, Enhancing the Transfer of
U. S. Geological Survey Research Results into Engi-
neering Practice was developed under a contract
with the USGS. (Submitted to USGS in 1994,
released by ATC in 1996, 120 pages)
Abstract: This report provides a program of
recommended "technology transfer" activities
for the USGS; included are recommendations
pertaining to management actions, communi-
cations with practicing engineers, and research
activities to enhance development and transfer
of information that is vital to engineering prac-
tice.
ATC-35-1: The report, Proceedings ofSeminar on
New Developments in Earthquake Ground Motion
Estimation and Implications for Engineering Design
Practice, was developed under a cooperative agree-
ment with USGS. Available through the ATC
office. (Published 1994,478 pages)
Abstract: These Proceedings contain 22 techni-
cal papers describing state-of-the-art informa-
tion on regional earthquake risk {focused on
five specific regions--California, Pacific North-
213
 west, Central United States, and northeastern
North America); new techniques for estimating
strong ground motions as a function of earth-
quake source, travel path, and site parameters;
and new developments specifically applicable
to geotechnical engineering and the seismic
design of buildings and bridges.
ATC-R-l: The report, Cyclic Testing ofNarrow Ply-
wood Shear Walls, was developed with funding
from the Henry J. Degenkolb Endowment Fund of
the Applied Technology Council. Available
through the ATC office (Published 1995, 64 pages)
214 ATC Projects and Report Information
Abstract: This report documents ATe's first self-
directed research program: a series of static and
dynamic tests of narrow plywood wall panels
having the standard 3.5-to-l height-to-width
ratio and anchored to the sill plate using typical
bolted, 9-inch, 5000-lb. capacity hold-down
devices. The report provides a description of
the testing program and a summary of results,
including comparisons of drift ratios found
during testing with those specified in the seis-
mic provisions of the 1991 Uniform Building
Code.
ATC-32
 ATC BOARD OF DIRECTORS
(1973-Present)

Milton A. Abel (1979-85) John A. Martin (1978-82)

James C. Anderson (1978-81) John F. Meehan* (1973-78)
Thomas G. Atkinson* (1988-94) Andrew T. Merovich (1996-99)
Albert J. Blaylock (1976-77) David 1. Messinger (1980-83)
Robert K. Burkett (1984-88) Stephen McReavy (1973)
H. Patrick Campbell (1989-90) Bijan Mohraz (1991-97)
Arthur N.1. Chiu (1996-99) William W. Moore (1973-76)
Anil Chopra (1973-74) Gary Morrison (1973)
Richard Christopherson (1976-80) Robert Morrison (1981-84)
Lee H. Cliff (1973) Ronald F. Nelson (1994-95)
John M. Coil* (1986-87, 1991-97) Joseph P. Nicoletti* (1975-79)
Eugene E. Cole (1985-86) Bruce C. Olsen* (1978-82)
Edwin T. Dean (1996-99) Gerard Pardoen (1987-93)
Robert G. Dean (1996-97) Norman D. Perkins (1973-76)
Edward F. Diekmann (1978-81) Maryann T. Phipps (1995-96)
Burke A. Draheim (1973-74) Sherrill Pitkin (1984-87)
John E. Droeger (1973) Edward V. Podlack (1973)
Nicholas F. Forell* (1989-95) Chris D. Poland (1984-87)
Douglas A. Foutch (1993-97) Egor P. Popov (1976-79)
Paul Fratessa (1991-92) Robert F. Preece* (1987-93)
Sigmund A. Freeman (1986-89) Lawrence D. Reaveley* (1985-91)
Barry J. Goodno (1986-89) Philip J. Richter* (1986-89)
Mark R Gorman (1984-87) John M. Roberts (1973)
Gerald H. Haines (1981-82,1984-85) Arthur E. Ross* (1985-92, 1993-94)
William J. Hall (1985-86) C. Mark Saunders (1993-97)
Garyc. Hart (1975-78) Walter D. Saunders* (1974-79)
Lyman Henry (1973) Lawrence G. Selna (1981-84)
James A. Hill (1992-95) Wilbur C. Schoeller (1990-91)
Ernest C. Hillman, Jr. (1973-74) Samuel Schultz* (1980-84)
Ephraim G. Hirsch (1983-84) Daniel Shapiro* (1977-81)
William T. Holmes* (1983-87) Jonathan G. Shipp (1996-99)
Warner Howe (1977-80) Howard Simpson* (1980-84)
Edwin T. Huston* (1990-97) Mete Sozen (1990-93)
Paul C. Jennings (1973-75) Donald R Strand (1982-83)
Carl B. Johnson (1974-76) James 1. Stratta (1975-79)
Edwin H. Johnson (1988-89) Edward J. Teal (1976-79)
Stephen E. Johnston* (1973-75, 1979-80) W. Martin Tellegen (1973)
Joseph Kallaby* (1973-75) John C. Theiss* (1991-98)
Donald R. Kay (1989-92) Charles H. Thornton (1992-99)
T. Robert Kealey* (1973-75, 1984-88) James 1. Tipton (1973)
H. S. (Pete) Kellam (1975-76) Ivan Viest (1975-77)
Helmut Krawinkler (1979-82) Ajit S. Virdee* (1977-80, 1981-85)
James S. Lai (1982-85) J. John Walsh (1987-90)
Gerald D. Lehmer (1973-74) Robert S. White (1990-91)
James R. Libby (1992-93, 1994-98) James A. Willis* (1980-81, 1982-86)
Charles Lindbergh (1989-92) Thomas D. Wosser (1974-77)
R Bruce Lindermann (1983-86) Loring A. Wyllie (1987-88)
1. W.Lu (1987-90) Edwin G. Zacher (1981-84)
Walter B. Lum (1975-78) Theodore C. Zsutty (1982-85)
Kenneth A. Luttrell (1991-98) * President
Melvyn H. Mark (1979-82)

ATC EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS

(1973-Present)
Ronald Mayes (1979-81)
Christopher Rojahn (1981-present)
Roland 1. Sharpe (1973-79)

ATC-32 ATC Projects and Report Information 215

 Reproduced by NTIS
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, VA 22161

This report was printed specifically for your

order from our collection of more than 2 million
technical reports.

For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast
collection of technical reports. Rather, most documents are printed for
each order. Your copy is the best possible reproduction available from
our master archive. If you have any questions concerning this document
or any order you placed with NTIS, please call our Customer Services
Department at (703)487-4660.

Always think of NTIS when you want:

• Access to the technical, scientific, and engineering results generated
by the ongoing multibillion dollar R&D program of the U.S. Government.
• R&D results from Japan, West Germany, Great Britain, and some 20
other countries, most of it reported in English.

NTIS also operates two centers that can provide you with valuable
information:
• The Federal Computer Products Center - offers software and
datafiles produced by Federal agencies.
• The Center for the Utilization of Federal Technology - gives you
access to the best of Federal technologies and laboratory resources.

For more information about NTIS, send for our FREE NTIS Products
and Services Catalog which describes how you can access this U.S. and
foreign Government technology. Call (703)487-4650 or send this
sheet to NTIS, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 221 61.
Ask for catalog, PR-827.
Name _
Address _

Telephone _

- Your Source to U.S. and Foreign Government

Research and Technology.
 (~i~
· 1Ar ·
\~I
~~~
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Technology Administration
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22161 (703) 487-4650