Skip to Contents U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration FHWA Home Feedback
   Bridge Technology
  
FHWA > Infrastructure > Bridge > Seismic
Slide 1

MAE Center research Success with DOTs

Past and Future

Neil M. Hawkins - Professor Emeritus
University of Illinois
MAE Center Annual Meeting - 2002

PowerPoint Version (5 mb)
PowerPoint files can be viewed with the PowerPoint Viewer

With sincere appreciation of the contributions of Professors DeRoches and French (Georgia Tech), Aschheim, LaFave and Long (Illinois), Hwang (Memphis), and personnel from GaDOT, IDOT and TDOT and Caltrans

Slide 2

ORGANIZATION OF PRESENTATION

Slide 3

THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AS A LIFELINE

Slide 4

FINANCIAL IMPACTS

Slide 5

THE HIGHWAY SYSTEM LIFELINE

Slide 6

HIGHWAY LIFELINE SYSTEM DESIGN

Slide 7
Figure 2-4: Integration of Transportation Officials Stakeholder Thrust Area Research with Core Research. Click for long description.
Figure 2-4: Integration of Transportation Officials Stakeholder Thrust Area Research with Core Research
Slide 8

HIGHWAY INVENTORY

NEW MADRID SEISMIC ZONE

This figure is a road map for States in the new Madrid seismic zone, i.e., Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Missouri.
Slide 9

HIGHWAY INVENTORY
ILLINOIS SOUTH OF I-70

Transverse elevation of bridge pier and cross-section of bridge superstructure show longitudinal elevation of three-span bridge -This typical bridge has rocker bearings that allow for rotation but are inherently seismically vulnerable. Expansion bearings at B1, B2, and B4 with a fixed bearing B3 only at pier 2 means that all seismic forces must be taken by pier 2, this again is a seismically unsafe situation.
Elevation of Typical Bridge

Slide 10

VULNERABILITY-FUNCTIONALITY RELATIONSHIPS

Illustrates the general order or sequence of steps: 1) Beginning with information from the Highway Bridge Inventory, the lateral load resisting elements are defined, and a structural model developed. 2) Lateral Load resisting characteristics are determined (i.e., natural frequencies of vibration, soil structure interaction). 3) Then Synthetic Ground Motion is developed and the nonlinear pushover analysis done to establish the sequence of deterioration. 4) Then the damage assessment can be made.
Slide 11

DAMAGE TYPES

The "brittle" problems occur at relatively low loads and small deformations and can result in rapid loss of strength and stability.
Lateral Load Performance
(Brittle Deficiencies)

BRITTLE

The "ductile" behavior tends to reduce the magnitude of the seismic forces, and absorbs the remaining forces as the structure deforms. The structure continues to resist substantial load even in a deformed configuration after yield.
Lateral Load Performance
(Ductile Deficiencies & Displacement)

DUCTILE

Slide 12

RETROFIT STRATEGIES

Methodology- Flow Diagram for Retrofitted Piers
The vulnerability and loss of functionality was determined in steps 1 through 4 on slide 10. Slide 12 shows how an actual seismic retrofit can then be undertaken. At step 5, based on the Damage Assessment, a seismic Retrofit Strategy is selected. At step 6 the structural model is changed, the Synthetic Ground Motion revisited, and the Lateral Load Performance determined for the new structural configuration. At step 8 there is a Damage Re-Assessment. Step 9 is the Loss Reduction Evaluation.
Slide 13

RESTRAINER CABLES

Restrainer cables attached to steel beams and concrete substructure. Model is in laboratory and instrumented for testing.

Restrainer Cables are used to ensure that bridge beams movements relative to the bearings are restricted and beams cannot displace off bearings longitudinally or transversally.

Slide 14

RESTRAINER CABLES

FXB: Fixed Steel Bearing. EXB: Expansion Steel Bearing
The longitudinal elevation of the bridge shows a three span bridge with simple spans. The superstructure is not continuous. The pier columns, caps, bearings and superstructure are shown in the deformed position with dashed lines. The fixed bearings are to the left and the expansion bearings to the right of each span. The hinge openings are shown in the open and closed positions. The lines identified as "Current - pier" and "Current - girder" are for when no restrainer is provided.
Slide 15

RESTRAINER CABLES - TEST RESULTS

Cable Restrainer Load - Displacement
Graph of load displacement behavior of four restrainer systems shown in the following pictures. The restrainer cable appears to be the same in all three cases as is the attachment to the pier. The brackets apparently have a different stiffness. The lines identified as "Current - pier" and "Current - girder" are for when no restrainer is provided. All three connections developed the yield strength of the cable.
A bracket and cable Bracket 1 is a "bent plate"
Bracket 2 is a "stiffened plate" Bracket 3 is a "bearing or shear plate" because the load is in the plane of the plate

Over 100 Restrainer Retrofits Modified by TN DOT

Slide 16

ELASTOMERIC BEARINGS

The Type I elastomeric bearing resists lateral load by deforming in the direction the load is applied. The Type II sliding bearing begins sliding after the frictional resistance is exceeded. The deformation across the elastomer is recovered once the load is removed. The Type III bearing has a shear pin to limit the deformation of the elastomer.
Slide 17

ELASTOMERIC BEARINGS

Span lengths in sequence are: Abutment 1 to Pier 2 = 15.24m, Pier 2 to Pier 3 = 19.81m, Pier 3 to Pier 4 = 19.81m and Pier 4 to Abutment 5 = 15.24m
Bridge Elevation
Slide 18

ELASTOMERIC BEARINGS

Bar-graphs showing peak relative displacement in mm at abutment1, Pier 2, and Pier 3 for four different bearing configurations. The total displacement and the parts due to the slides, elastomeric, and pier are given. Follow link for data and analysis.

Bar-graphs showing peak relative displacement in mm at abutment1, Pier 2, and Pier 3 for four different bearing configurations. The total displacement and the parts due to the slides, elastomeric, and pier are given. Follow link for data and analysis.

Bar-graphs showing peak relative displacement in mm at abutment1, Pier 2, and Pier 3 for four different bearing configurations. The total displacement and the parts due to the slides, elastomeric, and pier are given. Follow link for data and analysis.

Bar-graphs showing peak relative displacement in mm at abutment1, Pier 2, and Pier 3 for four different bearing configurations. The total displacement and the parts due to the slides, elastomeric, and pier are given. Follow link for data and analysis.
Slide 19

COLUMN AND BEAM WRAPPING

Image shows steel hoops used to restrain lateral buckling of the vertical reinforcement near the bottom of the column where a plastic hinge would be expected to form.
Image shows encasement of the plastic hinge regions at the top and bottom of the columns with a rap that confines crushing of the concrete and restrains lateral movement of the reinforcement.
Image shows the bottom of pier columns that have four or five bands equally spaced in the plastic hinge region. The bands function similarly to the hoops and wraps.
Slide 20

COLUMN CAPACITY DESIGN RETROFIT

In the As-built condition, the bearing will fail because the column is too stiff.
As-built		 The retrofitted column will behave more ductilely (i.e., the modified and wrapped columns will yield while continuing to resist 220 kips). The energy of the earthquake will be dissipated without other elements of the system ever being overloaded.
Retrofitted

Base shear capacity in terms of pier elements

Slide 21

COLUMN AND BEAM WRAPPING

Effect of As-Built versus Retrofit

Follow link for more information.
Slide 22

FOUNDATION IMPROVEMENT WITH MICROPILES

Diagram showing six steps in placement of a micropile. The auger drilling through the soft layer into the bearing stratum (step 1 & 2). The auger is pulled and a grouting tube inserted (step 3 & 4). As the tube is pulled additional grout is pumped enlarging the pile within the bearing stratum (step 5). The pile within the compressible stratum is reinforced and dowels provided in the footing (step 6).
Image of dowels and reinforcement cages for retrofit of pier footing.
Slide 23

FOUNDATION IMPROVEMENT USING MICROPILES

Case Study Foundations

Existing footing is 2.7 meters square with nine piles in a 0.9 m grid. The eight retrofit piles are spaced at 1.8 m. The final pile cap is 4.5 meters square.

3x3 Retrofitted
Pile Group


Existing footing is 2.7 m by 9 m with 30 piles in three rows of ten, all in a 0.9 m grid. The 16 retrofit piles are spaced at 1.8 m except for the first interior pile in the long rows which are 1.35 m from the end rows. The final pile cap is 4.5 m by 10.8 m.

3x10 Retrofitted
Pile Group

Slide 24

FOUNDATION IMPROVEMENT USING MICROPLIES

Image showing the piles have load frames and strut rods in place so they can be laterally loaded against each other. There are provisions for measuring lateral movement from established reference points.
Image showing field test to measure micropile lateral stiffness.
Slide 25

VULNERABILITY- FUNCTIONALITY FOR MID-AMERICA BRIDGES

The spans of 42.5, 75, 75, and 42.5 feet are typical for an overpass structure.
The elevation and section identify the "standard bridge" type structure that the fragility curves represent, i.e., superstructure - precast concrete beams with poured-in-place slab and diaphragms, integral abutments with no provisions for expansion; substructure - pile supported piers and abutments with battered piles.
This graph demonstrates that smooth curves can be developed from the data. The curves can be used for design decisions. Follow the link for the data this graph is based on.
Slide 26

VISION FOR FUTURE


FHWA Home | Infrastructure Home | Bridge Home | Feedback
FHWA
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration - Infrastructure