DOCSLIB.ORG

Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Structures: Part 1 – Bridges

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Structures: Part 1 – Bridges Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Structures: Part 1 – Bridges PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-HRT-06-032 JANUARY 2006 Research, Development, and Technology Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center 6300 Georgetown Pike McLean, VA 22101-2296 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-HRT-06-032 N/A N/A 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date SEISMIC RETROFITTING MANUAL FOR HIGHWAY January 2006 STRUCTURES: PART 1 – BRIDGES 6. Performing Organization Code N/A 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Ian Buckle, Ian Friedland, John Mander, Geoffrey Martin, Richard Nutt and Maurice Power 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research N/A University at Buffalo, State University of New York 11. Contract or Grant No. Red Jacket Quadrangle DTFH61-92-C-00106 Buffalo, NY 14261 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Office of Infrastructure Research and Development Final Report Federal Highway Administration 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 6300 Georgetown Pike McLean, VA 22101-2296 15. Supplementary Notes: Contracting Officer’s Technical Representatives: James Cooper, P.E., HRDI-03, Wen-huei (Phillip) Yen, Ph.D., P.E., HRDI-07, John D. O’Fallon, P.E., HRDI-07 16. Abstract This report is the first of a two-part publication entitled: Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Structures: Part 1: Bridges Part 2: Retaining Structures, Slopes, Tunnels, Culverts and Roadways. Part 1 of this manual is based on previous Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) publications on this subject including Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Bridges, published in 1995 as report FHWA-RD-94-052. Revisions have been made to include current advances in earthquake engineering, field experience with retrofitting highway bridges, and the performance of bridges in recent earthquakes. It is the result of several years of research with contributions from a multidisciplinary team of researchers and practitioners. In particular, a performance-based retrofit philosophy is introduced similar to that used for the performance-based design of new buildings and bridges. Performance criteria are given for two earthquake ground motions with different return periods, 100 and 1000 years. A higher level of performance is required for the event with the shorter return period (the lower level earthquake ground motion) than for the longer return period (the upper level earthquake ground motion). Criteria are recommended according to bridge importance and anticipated service life, with more rigorous performance being required for important, relatively new bridges, and a lesser level for standard bridges nearing the end of their useful life. Minimum recommendations are made for screening, evaluation and retrofitting according to an assigned Seismic Retrofit Category. Bridges in Category A need not be retrofitted whereas those in Categories B, C and D require successively more rigorous consideration and retrofitting as required. Various retrofit strategies are described and a range of related retrofit measures explained in detail, including restrainers, seat extensions, column jackets, footing overlays, and soil remediation. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Bridges, earthquakes, performance-based retrofitting, No restrictions. This document is available to the public through seismic retrofit categories, screening, prioritization, the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA evaluation, retrofit strategies, measures, guidelines 22161. 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 656 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed pages authorized PREFACE This report is a major revision of the Federal Highway Administration publication Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Bridges, which was published in 1995 as report FHWA-RD- 94-052. This edition expands the coverage of the previous publication by including procedures for evaluating and retrofitting retaining structures, slopes, tunnels, culverts, and pavements, in addition to bridges. It is published in two parts as follows: Part 1: Bridges Part 2: Retaining Structures, Slopes, Tunnels, Culverts, and Pavements Whereas Part 1 maintains the basic format of the retrofitting process described in the 1995 report, major changes have been made in this revision to include current advances in earthquake engineering, field experience with retrofitting highway bridges, and the performance of bridges in recent earthquakes in California and elsewhere. It is the result of several years of research with contributions from a multidisciplinary team of researchers and practitioners. In particular, a performance-based retrofit philosophy is introduced similar to that used for the performance-based design of new buildings and bridges. Performance criteria are given for two earthquake ground motions with different return periods, 100 and 1000 years. A higher level of performance is required for the event with the shorter return period (the lower level earthquake ground motion) than for the longer return period (the upper level earthquake ground motion). Criteria are recommended according to bridge importance and anticipated service life, with more rigorous performance being required for important, relatively new bridges, and a lesser level for standard bridges nearing the end of their useful life. Minimum recommendations are made for screening, evaluation, and retrofitting according to an assigned Seismic Retrofit Category. Bridges in Category A need not be retrofitted, whereas those in Category B may be assessed without a detailed evaluation, provided certain requirements are satisfied. Bridges in Categories C and D require more rigorous evaluation and retrofitting, as required. Various retrofit strategies are described and a range of related retrofit measures explained in detail, including restrainers, seat extensions, column jackets, footing overlays, and soil remediation. This manual comprises 11 chapters and six appendices as follows: Chapter 1 gives a complete overview of the retrofitting process including the philosophy of performance-based retrofitting, the characterization of the seismic and geotechnical hazards, the assignment of the Seismic Retrofit Category, and summaries of recommended screening methods, evaluation tools, and retrofit strategies. Topics in this chapter are described in greater detail in the following 10 chapters. Chapters 2 and 3 describe the characterization of the seismic and geotechnical hazards. ii Chapter 4 presents two screening and prioritization methods, with examples of each method. Chapters 5, 6, and 7 describe six evaluation methods, of increasing rigor, for the detailed assessment of demand and capacity, using either a component-by-component approach or a system approach for a complete bridge. Chapters 8, 9, 10, and 11 describe retrofitting measures for bearings, seats, columns, piers, cap beams, column-to-cap joints, abutments, and foundations. Remedial techniques for hazardous sites are also addressed. Appendices A through D provide supplementary material on conducting site-specific geotechnical investigations, the evaluation of geotechnical hazards, fragility curve theory, and the calculation of capacity/demand ratios for bridge components. Appendices E and F present two examples illustrating the application of the component capacity/demand method (Method C) to multi-span concrete and steel highway bridges, respectively. A glossary and lists of abbreviations, symbols, and references are also included. It is noted that this manual was developed while the U.S. Department of Transportation was transitioning to metric units. As a consequence, example problems are presented in SI units. Future editions may however use Customary U.S. units to reflect the current movement in many State DOTs back to customary units. iii SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards 0.914 meters m mi miles 1.61 kilometers km AREA in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2 ac acres 0.405 hectares ha mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL gal gallons 3.785 liters L ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3 MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t") TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) oF Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius oC or (F-32)/1.8 ILLUMINATION fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2 FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol LENGTH mm millimeters 0.039 inches in m meters 3.28 feet ft m meters 1.09 yards yd km kilometers 0.621 miles mi AREA mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 ha hectares 2.47 acres ac km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 VOLUME mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz L liters 0.264 gallons gal m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3 m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3 MASS g grams 0.035 ounces oz kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) oC Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit oF ILLUMINATION lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2 *SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. (Revised March 2003) iv TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE CHAPTER 1: SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES ...........................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Using Opensees for Analyzing a 9- Story Steel Building Under Post- Earthquake Fires
    Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering July 21-25, 2014 10NCEE Anchorage, Alaska USING OPENSEES FOR ANALYZING A 9- STORY STEEL BUILDING UNDER POST- EARTHQUAKE FIRES N. Elhami Khorasani1 and M. E. M. Garlock2 ABSTRACT Post-earthquake fires are major hazards with possible intense consequences. Civil engineering design is moving towards the concept of resilient cities, which requires buildings with structural systems to perform adequately after extreme hazards and ensure human safety. Current codes and standards in fire engineering are mainly based on design at the component level and deterministic approaches, where uncertainties in variables are not directly incorporated in the design process. Reliability-based approaches offer better means of evaluating resilience in the face of extreme hazards. But to measure resilience in an earthquake-fire multi-hazard scenario, uncertainties in the system must be captured, and nonlinear analyses must seamlessly transfer from seismic to fire analysis. This paper discusses the successes and challenges of this seamless analysis using the open source software OpenSees. A 9-story steel building with moment resisting frames is subject to fire following earthquake while being modeled in OpenSees. With the newly added fire module in OpenSees, the software has the capacity to perform structural analysis for both seismic and thermal loads. This way, system-level analysis is performed in one software and interaction of members with each other, under both seismic and fire events, is then considered together. The current constitutive material model for steel at elevated temperature does not properly capture behavior in fire following earthquake scenario.
    [Show full text]
  • 20-4 Seismic Retrofit Guidelines for Bridges in California (PDF)
    MEMO TO DESIGNERS 20-4 • JUNE 2016 LRFD 20-4 SEISMIC RETROFIT GUIDELINES FOR BRIDGES IN CALIFORNIA Introduction Caltrans Memo to Designers (MTD) 20-4 describes policies and procedures for the seismic retroft of California’s bridges.1 Caltrans, Bridge Design Aids (BDA) 14-5 and Bridge Standard XS Detail Sheets Section 7 include common retrofts that can be used by designers. The Federal Highway Administration has published a bridge retroftting manual (Buckle, 2006), with examples of common retrofts. This manual is a useful reference, however the specifcations and details are not approved by Caltrans. While MTD 20-4 is intended to provide guidelines for retroftting existing structures, it is not possible to anticipate every situation that may be encountered. It is the designer’s responsibility to accurately assess the performance of the existing structure, to show a collapse mechanism if it exists, and to develop retroft strategies that ensure the structure meets the no collapse performance standard. Expected Performance The primary performance standard for retroftting bridges is to prevent the structure from reaching the collapse limit state2 for the Design Earthquake3 . The goal of this “No Collapse” performance standard is to protect human life and there are no serviceability expectations for retroftted bridges. An acceptable determination of collapse is captured through an analysis of the bridge model subject to the Design Earthquake. However, determining collapse is different than simply determining that demand exceeds capacity. First of all, capacity is more conservatively 1. This memo is intended to apply to Ordinary Standard state and local bridges. In cases where this memo does not apply, the designer is referred to MTD 20-1 and 20-11.
    [Show full text]
  • Geo-Information for Snow Avalanche Hazard
    Volume 5, Number 1, June 2007 This issue of Panel Update Volume 3 Number 1 marks the beginning of our fifth year of circulating our bimonthly eNewsletter to share Panel activities with its members. Our June issues highlight the Panel’s recently conducted technical site visits. These site visits followed the Panel’s three day Technical Meetings of 14-16 May 2007 in Tsukuba. Proceedings of the Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects will be published in the fall and circulated to all Panel members and manuscript authors. HIGHLIGHTS - TECHNICAL SITE VISITS 39TH MEETING OF THE US-JAPAN PANEL ON WIND AND SEISMIC EFFECTS 17-19 MAY 2007 1. Tokyo Metropolitan Expressway Route The Metropolitan Expressway Company Limited, a privatized organization in 2005, is responsible for design, construction and management of Tokyo’s Metropolitan Expressway. The delegation was briefed on investigation and techniques used to repair fatigue cracks in expressway steel bridge piers and orthotropic steel decks. Fatigue cracks are detected by magnetic particle testing procedure. Of 2011 piers tested, 566 had fatigue cracks. As temporary measure, holes are drilled at each end of the crack to prevent propagation of cracks that allowed traffic flow until permanent repairs. Monitoring is performed following a five year inspection plan. When visual inspection identifies serious cracks, annual inspections are performed for those selected fatigue cracks. Modern Tokyo transportation relies on multiple highways that overlay the extinct canals and waterway systems of near the end of the Edo period (1603 – 1868). The delegation visited the Ohashi Junction of the Central Circular Shinjuku Route under construction designed to allow vehicles to pass through the central part of Tokyo by avoiding surface traffic congestion.
    [Show full text]
  • Scale and Complexity in the Seismic Retrofit of California Bridges Benjamin Sims Introduction Infr
    Seismic Shifts and Retrofits: Scale and Complexity in the Seismic Retrofit of California Bridges Benjamin Sims Introduction Infrastructure systems play a crucial role in the relationship between humans and the natural world, in part because they are the only human technological systems built on a large enough scale to have geophysical relevance (Edwards 2003). Many of the chapters in this book focus on infrastructure retrofit as a means to reduce human impact on the environment. This chapter instead focuses on retrofit to protect human beings from their environment: specifically, seismic retrofit of bridges to prevent them from collapsing in earthquakes. Although the impetus for retrofit may differ, the program discussed here raises many issues that are likely to be relevant for any kind of large-scale retrofit program that impacts urban settings. In particular, it provides examples of the complexities that arise in implementing a systemic retrofit program (May et al. 2013). This kind of systemic effort can be particularly complex because of the tension between global and local aspects of retrofit. At a global level, such a program must attend to the factors that sustain a systemic effort, such as engineering standards, funding sources, and political support. At a local level, each individual retrofit project has the potential to become entangled in localized contingencies of communities and the built environment. This paper examines the characteristics of infrastructure that play into this global-local tension, the processes by which changes in sociotechnical systems become mobilized as worrisome problems, and the resulting practices of infrastructure repair, of which retrofit is one variety.
    [Show full text]
  • Seismic Retrofit of Soft-Story Woodframe Buildings Using Cross Laminated Timber John W
    New Developments in Structural Engineering and Construction Yazdani, S. and Singh, A. (Eds.) ISEC-7, Honolulu, June 18 –23, 2013 SEISMIC RETROFIT OF SOFT-STORY WOODFRAME BUILDINGS USING CROSS LAMINATED TIMBER JOHN W. VAN DE LINDT1, POURIA BAHMANI1, MIKHAIL GERSHFELD2, GIRAJ KUMAR KANDUKURI3, DOUG RAMMER4, and SHILING PEI5 1Civil and Env. Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA 2Civil and Env. Engineering, Cal Poly-Pomona, Pomona, California, USA 3Civil, Construct., and Env. Eng., University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA 4U.S. Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin, USA 5Civil and Env. Engineering, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota, USA As early as 1970, the structural engineering and building safety community recognized that a large number of two-, three- and four-story woodframe buildings designed with the first floor used either for parking or commercial space were built with readily identifiable structural system deficiencies, referred to as a “soft story”. Thus, many multi-story woodframe buildings are susceptible to collapse at the first story during earthquakes. The majority of these older multi-story woodframe buildings have large openings and few partition walls at the ground level. This open space condition results in the earthquake resistance of the first story being significantly lower than the upper stories. As part of the five-university multi-industry, U.S. National Science Foundation – funded NEES-Soft project, a performance-based retrofit method has been developed for these types of buildings. This paper presents the first generation of this method and resulting retrofit design using an engineered wood technology that is just being introduced in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • SEISMIC DESIGN RESPONSE by an ALTERNATIVE SRSS RULE By
    SEISMIC DESIGN RESPONSE BY AN ALTERNATIVE SRSS RULE by Mahendra Pw Singh and K. B. Mehta A Technical Report of the Research Supported by The National Science Foundation Under Grant No. PFR-8023978 Department of Engineering Science &Mechanics Virginia Polytechnic Institute &State University Blacksburg, VA 24061 March 1983 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA 11. Report No. ' SHEET VPI-E-83~12 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Da'te'" v ~iJ 0 SEISMIC DESIGN RESPONSE BY AN ALTERNATIVE SRSS RULE March 1983 6. 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Rept. M. P. Singh and K. B. Mehta No. 9. Performinl! Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. Dept. of Engineering Science &Mechanics Virginia Polytechnic Institute &State Univ. 11. Contract/Grant No. 225 Norri s Hall Blacksburg, VA 24061 PFR-8023978 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report & Period Covered National Science Foundation Washington, D.C. 20550 14. 15. Supplementary r-.;otes 16. Abstracts The Square Root of the Sum of the Squares (SRSS) procedures are often used to obtain seismic design response. The design inputs for such procedures are usually defined in terms of psuedo velocity or acceleration response spectra. Erroneous results have been obtained with these existing SRSS procedures, especially in the calculation of response where high frequency effects dominate. Here an alternative SRSS pro­ cedure is developed using the so-called mode acceleration approach of structural dynamics. The design input in this procedure is defined in terms of, though, pri­ marily relative acceleration spectra but also relative velocity spectra. The rela­ tive spectra can be related to psuedo spectra.
    [Show full text]
  • Seismic Analysis of Industrial Structure Using Bracings and Dampers
    International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE) ISSN: 2277-3878, Volume-7, Issue-6C2, April 2019 Seismic Analysis of Industrial Structure Using Bracings and Dampers B. Ravali, P. Poluraju Abstract: Resistance of structures against earthquake plays an shear, lateral displacement). Dampers are more economical extensive role in construction industry. A structure should consist than bracings [1]. Aspect ratio plays a vital role in of strength, stability and ductility to accommodate both performance of structure. As aspect ratio increases, there horizontal and vertical loadings. Horizontal loading leads to the will be reduction in base shear carrying capacity and roof production of sway and further results in vibration and storey drift. Strength and stiffness are two major keys for any structure displacement of steel frame with aspect ratio 1 [2]. Arranged to resist gravity and lateral loads. Provision of bracings or bracings to the structure should be of buckling resistant. dampers to any structure contributes to lateral stability. After Buckling restrained frames with special concentric bracings assigning dampers or bracings, the general system changes to have effective performance than moment resisting and lateral load resisting system (LLRS). However, this involves high conventional frames [3]. economy, it is only suitable for high rise, important buildings Based on the arrangement of bracing, there are concentric which are suspected to be affected by lateral load and structures damaged by lateral load. The present work involves in proposing and eccentric bracings. Concentric bracing system is the suitability of type of damper or bracing for controlling the effective in reducing storey displacement, storey drift, and seismic activity on industrial structures in respective seismic base shear than without bracing system [4].
    [Show full text]
  • All Hazards Mitigation Plan Update
    All Hazards Mitigation Plan Update Anchorage, Alaska Prepared for: Municipality of Anchorage Project Management & Engineering PO Box 196650 Anchorage, AK 99519-6650 Prepared by: HDR Alaska 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, AK 99503 June 2011 Anchorage All-Hazards Mitigation Plan Update June 2011 E XECUTIVE SUMMARY The Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) is vulnerable to a wide range of natural, technological, and human/societal hazards including earthquakes, avalanches, and hazardous material accidents. These hazards can affect the safety of residents, damage or destroy public and private property, disrupt the local economy, and negatively impact the quality of life. Typically, we cannot eliminate these hazards altogether but we can lessen their impact by undertaking hazard mitigation activities. Hazard mitigation activities are those that reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to property and human life from hazards. Examples of hazard mitigation activities include elevating a structure out of a floodplain, bolting a structure to its foundation and developing a hazard mitigation plan. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) requires that local governments have a local mitigation plan approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as a condition for receiving future FEMA mitigation funds. This hazard mitigation plan was developed to fulfill federal and state hazard mitigation planning requirements. Development and implementation of this plan has been directed by the Anchorage Hazard Mitigation Planning Team consisting of representatives from a variety of municipal departments including the Office of Emergency Management, Project Management & Engineering, Maintenance & Operations, Anchorage School District, Anchorage Water & Wastewater Utility, Anchorage Police Department and Anchorage Fire Department.
    [Show full text]
  • Seismic and Energy Renovation Measures for Sustainable Cities: a Critical Analysis of the Italian Scenario
    sustainability Article Seismic and Energy Renovation Measures for Sustainable Cities: A Critical Analysis of the Italian Scenario Paolo La Greca and Giuseppe Margani * ID Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia 64, 95123 Catania, Italy; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-095-738-2509 Received: 13 December 2017; Accepted: 15 January 2018; Published: 19 January 2018 Abstract: One of the main challenges of the twenty-first century is to increase the sustainability level of our cities. However, a town, to be considered sustainable, must, above all, be safe, particularly against natural hazards, which in Europe are mostly related to climate changes (e.g., hurricanes, floods, storms, and landslides) and seismic events (earthquakes). Unfortunately, sustainability is still not a prerogative of most European cities, especially those placed in seismic countries such as Italy, where at least 50% of the residential stock is earthquake-prone, while over 80% of the same stock is highly energy-consuming and carbon dioxide-emitting, thus contributing to trigger hazards related to climate changes. In this context, renovation actions, which combine both energy and seismic issues are strongly needed. Nevertheless, several technical, organizational and financial barriers considerably limit the real possibility to extensively undertake this kind of renovation. This study analyzes such barriers, with particular reference to the Italian scenario, suggesting and discussing possible solutions and underlining the advantages of increasing energy and seismic performances at the same time. The proposed solutions may be effectively extended to many other countries with similar socio-economic scenarios. Keywords: seismic retrofit; energy retrofit; sustainability; safety; policy measures; apartment blocks 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Approaches for the Seismic Retrofit of Braced Steel Bridge Piers and Proof-Of-Concept Testing of an Eccentrically Braced Frame with Tubular Link
    ISSN 1520-295X Approaches for the Seismic Retrofit of Braced Steel Bridge Piers and Proof-of-Concept Testing of an Eccentrically Braced Frame with Tubular Link by Jeffrey W. Berman and Michel Bruneau University at Buffalo, State University of New York Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering Ketter Hall Buffalo, New York 14260 Technical Report MCEER-05-0004 April 21, 2005 This research was conducted at the University at Buffalo, State University of New York and was supported by the Federal Highway Administration under contract number DTFH61-98-C-00094. NOTICE This report was prepared by the University at Buffalo, State University of New York as a result of research sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Center for Earth- quake Engineering Research (MCEER) through a contract from the Federal High- way Administration. Neither MCEER, associates of MCEER, its sponsors, the Uni- versity at Buffalo, State University of New York, nor any person acting on their behalf: a. makes any warranty, express or implied, with respect to the use of any infor- mation, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report or that such use may not infringe upon privately owned rights; or b. assumes any liabilities of whatsoever kind with respect to the use of, or the damage resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of MCEER or the Federal Highway Administration. Approaches for the Seismic Retrofit of Braced Steel Bridge Piers and Proof-of-Concept Testing of an Eccentrically Braced Frame with Tubular Link by Jeffrey W.
    [Show full text]
  • The Race to Seismic Safety Protecting California’S Transportation System
    THE RACE TO SEISMIC SAFETY PROTECTING CALIFORNIA’S TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Submitted to the Director, California Department of Transportation by the Caltrans Seismic Advisory Board Joseph Penzien, Chairman December 2003 The Board of Inquiry has identified three essential challenges that must be addressed by the citizens of California, if they expect a future adequately safe from earthquakes: 1. Ensure that earthquake risks posed by new construction are acceptable. 2. Identify and correct unacceptable seismic safety conditions in existing structures. 3. Develop and implement actions that foster the rapid, effective, and economic response to and recovery from damaging earthquakes. Competing Against Time Governor’s Board of Inquiry on the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake It is the policy of the State of California that seismic safety shall be given priority consideration in the allo- cation of resources for transportation construction projects, and in the design and construction of all state structures, including transportation structures and public buildings. Governor George Deukmejian Executive Order D-86-90, June 2, 1990 The safety of every Californian, as well as the economy of our state, dictates that our highway system be seismically sound. That is why I have assigned top priority to seismic retrofit projects ahead of all other highway spending. Governor Pete Wilson Remarks on opening of the repaired Santa Monica Freeway damaged in the 1994 Northridge earthquake, April 11, 1994 The Seismic Advisory Board believes that the issues of seismic safety and performance of the state’s bridges require Legislative direction that is not subject to administrative change. The risk is not in doubt. Engineering, common sense, and knowledge from prior earthquakes tells us that the consequences of the 1989 and 1994 earthquakes, as devastating as they were, were small when compared to what is likely when a large earthquake strikes directly under an urban area, not at its periphery.
    [Show full text]
  • Structural, Geotechnical and Earthquake Engineering - Sashi Kunnath
    STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING AND GEOMECHANICS - Vol. I - Structural, Geotechnical and Earthquake Engineering - Sashi Kunnath STRUCTURAL, GEOTECHNICAL AND EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING Sashi Kunnath University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA Keywords: structural analysis; structural design; earthquake engineering; geotechnical engineering; seismic protection; structural engineering Contents 1. Introduction 2. Structural Engineering 2.1. Brief Historical Perspective of Structural Analysis and Engineering 2.2. Linear and Nonlinear Analysis of Structures 2.3 Structural Design 2.4 Emerging Developments in Structural Engineering 3. Geotechnical Engineering 3.1. Foundation Design 3.2. Modeling and Analysis 4. Earthquake Engineering 4.1. Seismic Resistant Design 4.2. Recent Advances in Earthquake Engineering 5. Concluding Remarks Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketch Summary An overview of essential topics in structural and geotechnical engineering with particular focus on those related to earthquake engineering is presented. One of the objectives of this introductory chapter is to eventually provide readers with insights into seismic analysis and design. Beginning with a brief history of structural engineering, topics in structural analysis and design are reviewed. This is followed by a brief overview of geotechnical engineering with emphasis on foundation design and modeling for geotechnical applications. The final section focuses on earthquake engineering covering both structures and foundations and highlighting both traditional seismic design and innovative seismic protection. 1. Introduction The subject areas that encompass structural, geotechnical and earthquake engineering can all be regarded as topics within the broad field of civil engineering. While structural engineering focuses on the design of the visible part of a finished structure, geotechnical engineering is concerned with the design of the structural foundation below the soil surface.
    [Show full text]