ARTICLE

SEISMIC DESIGN OF BRIDGES

SEISMIC
DESIGN Javier Jordan, M.Sc. Civil Eng., P.E., P.Eng., ICCP
Nelson Betancour, M.Sc. Civil Eng.
Rafael Cabral, M.Sc. Civil Eng.

OF BRIDGES
 SEISMIC DESIGN OF BRIDGES

Seismic isolation is recognized can either reduce the seismic dynamic response, typically PAGE 44
View of the
as one of the most efficient demand by isolating the bridge by increasing the oscillation Gazapa balanced
design strategies to reduce or design the structure to period, leading to a substantial cantilever bridge.
seismic demand and potential behave in a ductile way under reduction of seismic forces.
THIS PAGE
damage on bridge structures. large seismic events without This is achieved by means of Figure 1. Typical
Three seismic bridge case seismic isolators. Both design devices with very low stiffness cross section.
studies are presented and approaches are accepted by called seismic isolators, which Table 1. Examples
compared herein. A different bridge design codes, but have are usually placed between of bridges
designed by
seismic structural design a different cost in construction, the superstructure and the Pedelta where
approach has been adopted maintenance and repair substructure [2]. elastomeric
for each case. In the first case after an earthquake. When bearings have
been used as
study, lead core elastomeric seismic isolators are used, no Table 1 summarizes the seismic isolators.
bearings (LCEB) are used damages are expected in the seismic force reduction
to isolate the structure and structure under the seismic achieved in five concrete
provide additional damping to design event. bridges located in Colombia
reduce seismic forces. In the using different types of seismic
second case study, a balanced Example 1. Lead core isolators.
cantilever bridge with a elastomeric bearings (LCEB)
monolithic connection between In this first example, a short
the superstructure and the span bridge is isolated by
substructure is analyzed by using lead core elastomeric
using a displacement-based bearings. Lead core
design and considering elastomeric bearings are
a cracked section for the seismic isolators with a high
piers. The third case study energy dissipation capacity.
depicts the seismic design The LCEB consists of a steel
of a cable-stayed bridge reinforced elastomeric bearing
with a 330 m main span and with a central lead core that
towers reaching up to 142 m in deforms plastically under
height, in which fluid viscous shear forces, dissipating the
dampers have been designed seismic energy. In addition, Figure 1
as main elements to transmit due to the elasticity of the
and minimize the impact from elastomer, the structure gets
seismic forces. back to the initial position after
the seismic event.
Introduction
The three case studies Road 44 bridge is located in
Seismic force Seismic force
presented represent three Colombia, close to the Pacific Bridge name
Isolator type reduction due to reduction due to
and year
different bridges designed Ocean shoreline, within the bearing flexibility hysteretic cycle (%)
by Pedelta in Colombia and Pacific and Nazca subduction
recently completed. Colombia area. This is an area of high Portachuelo Bridge
Elastomeric 60% –
(2009)
has high seismic hazard zones seismicity, with a ground
located mainly on the Pacific seismic acceleration of
Redoma San Mateo
and Andina regions of the 0.25 g, for a return period of (2007)
Elastomeric 45% –
country where more than two- 475 years that is equivalent
thirds of the national population to an exceedance probability PR-13 Bridges Elastomeric,
44% 34%
(2015) lead core
live. Therefore, the main of 10% in 50 years. The bridge
urban areas of the country is 120 m in length with a main Elastomeric,
El Rosal Bridge
and the highway network are span of 35 m. The deck is high dumping 30% 40%
(2012)
rubber
in permanently exposed to a post-tensioned concrete
potentially severe earthquakes. voided slab 1.6 m deep and Road 44 Bridges Elastomeric,
25% 34%
This hazardous natural 12.4 m wide constructed (2011) lead core
condition makes seismic span-by-span (Figure 1).
isolation a viable alternative to Table 1
be considered in the design Seismic isolation reduces
of structures and specifically the earthquake demand
bridges [1]. Bridge designers by modifying the structural
 SEISMIC DESIGN OF BRIDGES

THIS PAGE Figure 2 shows the

Figure 2.
Comparison Colombian seismic design
between design code, CCDSP-95, seismic
accelerations Microzonation and seismic
spectrum for
465 years return local hazard assessment
period and 5% acceleration response
damping. Local
seismic hazard spectrum. The seismic local
assessment hazard assessment approach
values are higer
and are shown as
is adopted, which accurately
round points. Figure 2 models and reflects the actual
bridge behavior during a
Figure 3.
Comparison seismic event. In contrast,
between design the other two examples do
periods and
accelerations
not consider the soft ground
for no-isolated amplification effects properly
configuration and nor the bridge response for
use of LCEB.
periods larger than 1 second.
Figure 4. View
of the bridge
elevation.
By using LCEB, vibration
periods were modified from
Figure 5. 0.5 seconds to roughly 2.0
Comparison
between piers seconds. The seismic force
reinforcement
Figure 3
is reduced 60% compared
ratios obtained
with the to a non-isolated bridge.
forces and Even though this reduction
displacements
can also be achieved by
design methods.
means of plastic hinges,
PAGE 47 the use of seismic isolators
Figure 6. View
of the bridge prevents structural damage
elevation. to the bridge during a large
Figure 7. Cable-
earthquake. Therefore,
stayed bridge a reduction of the pier
deck cross reinforcement quantity is
section.
achieved. Both advantages
lead to a cost-effective bridge,
Figure 4
which is expected to be in
service after an earthquake.

Figure 3 shows a comparison

between design periods and
accelerations for a non-
isolated configuration and for
using LCEB. The calculation
process is well known and
considers the actual pier
stiffness including concrete
cracking [3]. Since the
structural behavior is non-
linear, the design process
Figure 5
is iterative [2].

Example 2. Ductile substructure

with a monolithic connection
between superstructure and
substructure
This example illustrates the
seismic design approach of a
 SEISMIC DESIGN OF BRIDGES

cast-in-place concrete bridge A comparison between a hollow piers, but it is well

built in balance cantilever. force-based (AASHTO LRFD established for other
Figure 4 shows a general view Bridge Design Specifications typical sections including solid
of this bridge, which has three [6]) and displacement-based circular and rectangular piers.
spans 61.75 m + 125 m + (AASHTO Guide Specifications Further study is needed [3].
61.75 m with an overall length for LRFD Seismic Design [4])
of 250 m. The superstructure seismic analysis has been Example 3. Cable-stayed
is a concrete box 10.3 m wide performed. In the force-based bridge with seismic dampers
and variable in depth. The analysis, the substructure Hisgaura bridge referred
concrete piers, founded with cracked stiffness is considered, to earlier in this publication
caissons, are g resistance of approximate 50% of gross is a cable-stayed bridge in
the piers. Two design methods stiffness. The adopted force the province of Santander,
have been considered – design reduction factor is 2, Colombia.
force-based design and so elastic response forces
displacement-based design. are also reduced to 50%. Figure 6 shows the bridge
In the displacement-based elevation which is a 653 m long
Seismic codes are now shifting analysis, a multi-modal continuous bridge with 5 spans
from the force-based design analysis has been conducted in total (36.5 m + 36.5 m +125 m
to displacement design for the and the demand displacement + 330 m +125 m, including two
following reasons: lower than the response approach spans). The main
i) Actual structural behavior displacement condition. A span of 330 m crosses the
or bridge working point. pushover analysis has been Hisgaura Creek at a height of
The working point is carried out with different more than 70 m above ground.
the intersection of the reinforcement. Cost savings The highest tower is 148 m tall.
displacement demand and in the pier reinforcement
response demand, which quantities have been achieved Figure 7 shows the cable-
are equal in the acceleration with the displacement-based stayed superstructure cross
spectrum vs. displacement design compared to the section, which consists of two
diagram, force-based design (Figure 1.4 m deep post-tensioned
ii) Force-based design does 5). The plastic hinges length concrete edge girders and
not consider the actual pier has a significant influence 250 mm reinforced concrete
reinforcement nor the lack of in the response movements slab over transverse beams
simultaneity between hinges in evaluation. This length is not spaced 5 m. The approach
different piers. well known for rectangular

Some examples of codes

considering displacement-
based design approaches are
AASHTO Guide Specifications
for LRFD Seismic Bridge
Design [4] and AASHTO Guide
Specifications for Seismic
Isolation Design [5], even
though AASHTO Seismic
Bridge Design limits the use
of this method to ordinary
bridges. Complex bridges Figure 6
must be evaluated by means
of a time-history analysis. The
analysis approach for the
displacement-based design
is using a multi-modal linear
analysis for bridges in seismic
hazard zones A, B, and C,
and a pushover analysis for
bridges located in seismic
hazard zones D. Figure 7
 SEISMIC DESIGN OF BRIDGES

THIS PAGE spans have a multi-cell post-

Figure 8. Viscous
damper: force- tensioned cross-section, which
velocity relation has the same outer shape as
for different α
the cable-stayed span cross-
parameter.
section.
Figure 9.
Viscous damper
hysteretic force- At the towers, the deck is
displacement free to move vertically and
diagram
under seismic
longitudinally, being restrained
accelerogram Figure 8 only in transverse direction.
(α = 0.1). In the longitudinal direction,
Figure 10. the deck is fixed at one of the
Longitudinal piers (pier 2), which serves
seismic
displacement
also as an anchorage point for
without viscous the retaining stay cables. Pier
damper reaching 2 becomes a critical point of
up to 853 mm.
the structure, so it is able to
Figure 11. resist a high structural demand
Long. seismic
displacement and be flexible enough to
with viscous accommodate the deck’s
damper reaching longitudinal movements.
up to 387 mm.
Figure 9 This pier is vertically post-
Table 2. tensioned. Many studies
Comparison
between deck can be found in technical
displacements literature to assess the impact
and bending
moments at pier 2
of the analysis type and the
and pylons using structural configuration in the
fixed connection seismic response of a cable-
and using viscous
dampers. stayed bridge [7,8], but the
site-specific conditions and
geometry are the most relevant
Figure 10 parameters and a specific
analysis is always required.

The south abutment also

allocates four 2,500 kN
capacity fluid viscous
damper units (with a design
stroke of +/-500 mm)
connecting the deck and the
abutment. These devices
Figure 11
allow free displacements
in the longitudinal direction
to slow movements, while
Type of Deck Max. bending providing damping to dissipate
Max. bending Max. bending
connection longitudinal
moment Pier moment Pylon
moment earthquake energy and
between deck displcmt. Pylon 2
2 (kN*m) 1 (kN*m) displacement control under fast
and pylons (mm) (kN*m)
movement (i.e. seismic event).
Deck fixed at
690 69,500 330,000 390,000
pylons
The Hisgaura bridge is located
Viscous in a high seismic region and
damper at 400 40.000 100,000 70,000 close to an active seismic
abutment 2
fault. The seismic design uses
Reduction by
using viscous 42% 42% 70% 82%
a site-specific acceleration
dampers response spectrum and a
series of time histories ground
Table 2 motions. To reduce the seismic
 SEISMIC DESIGN OF BRIDGES

demand in the longitudinal Viscous dampers provide a indicate that when high
direction, the bridge is high dissipation of energy. damping is used as a seismic
seismically protected with fluid These devices consist of two isolation of the structure, a
viscous dampers that dissipate chambers and a silicone fluid response spectrum analysis
over 30% of the energy that is forced through an orifice with an effective stiffness and
induced by a seismic event due to a pressure difference modified response spectrum The authors would like to
and control the longitudinal between the chambers. may not properly represent thank the technical team of
deck displacement under a During this action, the seismic the effect of isolation on the Sacyr and VSL Spain, for
their collaboration in the
predefined target value. In the energy is transformed into response of the structure. design of the Hisgaura cable
transverse direction, the deck heat and dissipated into the Therefore, once the design of stayed bridge.
is laterally restrained at the atmosphere. The equation the structure was completed, a References:
supports with shear keys. To characterizing the behavior non-linear seismic time-history [1] Féderation Internationale
du Béton (fib), Seismic
ensure a fully functional bridge of these devices is F=Cva, analysis was performed as
bridge design and retrofit
and to enable opening the where “v” is the velocity, “C” a verification. The design of – structural solutions,
bridge immediately following is the damping constant that the structure was carried out Lausanne, 2007.
[2] F. Naeim, J.M. Kelly,
an earthquake, towers, piers characterizes the output with a response spectrum Design of Seismic Isolated
and foundations are designed force, and “a” is the velocity analysis by using a modified Structures: From Theory to
Practice, John Wiley and
to remain elastic. exponent that characterizes spectrum and an equivalent Sons, New York, 1999.
the non-linear behavior of the stiffness of the damper device. [3] M.J.N. Priestley, F. Seible,
The seismic demand was device. For a =1.0 the output The use of viscous dampers G.M. Calvi, Seismic design
and retrofit of bridges, John
determined with two different force increases linearly with has shown to be an effective Wiley and Sons, New York,
methods: the velocity, and for a small a way of reducing the forces 1996.
[4] American Association
i) an iterative analysis by using (e.g. a =0.02) the output force induced by the deck on the of State Highway and
a multimodal linear spectral is approximately constant. substructure during a seismic Transportation Officials,
analysis with a modified design event. The results obtained AASHTO Guide
Specifications for LRFD
response spectrum to account Figure 8 shows different with the non-linear time-history Seismic Bridge Design, 2nd
for the additional damping types of behavior of viscous analysis were found similar Edition, Washington D.C.,
2011.
provided by isolators, and dampers for different values to the ones obtained with [5] American Association
ii) a non- linear time-history of coefficient a. For slow the adapted linear response of State Highway and
analysis by using site-specific loads (including wind), the spectrum analysis. Transportation Officials, Guide
Specifications for Seismic
acceleration inputs. damper behaves passively Isolation Design, 3th Edition,
and no force is transmitted Conclusions Washington D.C., 2010.
[6] American Association
The bridge is classified as on the abutment. The force- Three case studies of of State Highway and
“essential”. Due to its proximity displacement hysteretic different seismic bridge design Transportation Officials,
AASHTO LRFD Bridge
to an active seismic fault a behavior of the dampers strategies have been shown in
Design Specification, 7th
local response study was from the seismic time-history this article, which includes the Edition, Washington D.C.,
required. This provides a analysis of the Hisgaura Bridge use of LCEB, the substructure 2014.
[7] A. Camara, M.A. Astiz,
design response spectrum is shown in Figure 9. design using displacement- Typological study of the
based on actual seismic based approach, and the elastic seismic behaviour
of cable-stayed bridges:
event data for the region. Figures 10 and 11 respectively use of fluid viscous dampers. 8th European Conference
Several configurations were show the demands of the Each strategy has its own on Structural Dynamics
studied in a first iteration. The configuration fixed at pylons advantages. Depending on (EURODYN 2011), Leuven,
Belgium, 2011.
first configuration consisted without a damper and free at the overall bridge length, pier [8] G. Valdebenito, Passive
of fixing the deck at the pylons with damper. Table 2 height, main span length, seismic protection of cable-
stayed bridges applying
pylons, which resulted in high summarizes the reduction in and other constraints and fluid viscous dampers under
demands on the foundations longitudinal displacement and conditions, the designer strong motion, Barcelona,
during the seismic event that the bending demand at piers should assess the most 2009.
[9] European Committee for
made this option not feasible. during the seismic event using appropriate design approach. Standardization, EUROCODE
Another studied configuration the viscous dampers. Site seismic analysis and the 8: Design of structures for
Earthquake resistance – Part
incorporated elastomeric use of advanced analysis 1: General rules, seismic
bearings as seismic isolators, With the viscous dampers, an methods like time-history actions and rules for
buildings, EN 1998-1:2004/
which allows a small damping, effective damping of 50% was or pushover analyses are
AC:2009, Brussels, 2009.
but it leads to excessive deck achieved. Several codes such strongly recommended to [10] European Committee for
longitudinal displacements and as the Eurocode 8 [9,10] and optimize and to better estimate Standardization, EUROCODE
8: Design of structures for
demands on the pier 2. The the AASHTO Guide the actual structural response Earthquake resistance – Part
selected design configuration Specifications LRFD for to seismic events 2: Bridges. EN 1998-1:2005/
AC:2009/AC:2010, Brussels,
uses viscous dampers. Seismic Bridge Design [4] 2010.