Increased Seismic Protection for Bridges using the Triple Pendulum Bearings and the AASHTO Guide Specifications

Technical Presentation for Nor th Caro lina Depar tment of T ransport ati on Raleigh, N. Carolina

October 28, 2009

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 1 Protection Systems, Inc. 2

AASHTO Adopted 2007 Guide Specifications Pendulum

Seismic Isolation

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. California, U.S.A.

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 3 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 4

1 Increased Seismic Protection using the Triple Pendulum Bearing ♦Seismic Performance of Bridge in Past San Fernando ♦Lessons Learned in Past Earthquakes Earthquake Route 210/5 Interchange ♦Seismic Isolation a Global Design Strategy in the New AASHTO Guide Specification ♦Applications for Retrofit and New Construction ♦Triple Pendulum Bearing Concept ♦Bearing Evaluation and Prototype Testing

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 5 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 6

Northridge Earthquake Eureka Earthquake Gavin Canyon Undercrossing – Collapsed Spans Fields Landing Spans 1 and 2 Collapsed

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 7 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 8

2 Damage to the Showa-Ohashi Bridge Guatemala Earthquakes Rio Agua Caliente Bridge

Niigata Earthquake (Japan), June 16, 1964 (Magnitude 7.5 on Richter Scale) Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 9 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 10

Bolu, Turkey Earthquake Bolu, Turkey Earthquake

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 11 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 12

3 Kocaeli, Turkey Earthquake Overpass at Arifiye Junction

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 13 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 14

♦

Highway Collapse, Kobe Japan 1995 Highway Collapse, China 2008

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 15 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 16

4 AASHTO Guide Specifications Global Design Lessons Learned in Recent Strategy Type 3 Earthquakes ♦Bridge substructures are vulnerable – Inadequate ductility – Inadequate deformability EQ ♦Lack of adequate in substructure Seismic components and their connections Isolation ♦BidBridge supers truct ures h ave i nad equat e support widths to accommodate displacement demands of the substructures

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 17 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 18

Primary Ingredients to a Successful Use of an Isolation Strategy for Bridges

♦ A Candidate Bridge ♦ Desired Seismic Performance ♦ Supportive Owner ♦ Informed Designer ♦ Design Specification/Guidelines ♦ Global Model and Analytical Support ♦ Product Evaluation and Testing ♦ Quality Control During Construction

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 19 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 20

5 Idealized Displacement Idealized Force Response Curve Response Curve Acceleration Displacement Period Shift Period Shift

PidPeriod PidPeriod

ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRUM DISPLACEMENT RESPONSE SPECTRUM

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 21 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 22

Response Curves for Increasing Damping Increased Seismic Protection using

Acceleration Displacement the Triple Pendulum Bearing ♦Seismic Performance of Bridge in Past Increasing Damping Earthquakes Increasing Damping ♦Lessons Learned in Past Earthquakes ♦Seismic Isolation a Global Design Strategy in the New AASHTO Guide Specification Period Period ♦Applications for Retrofit and New Construction ACCELERATION RESPONSE DISPLACEMENT RESPONSE SPECTRUM SPECTRUM ♦Triple Pendulum Bearing Concept ♦Bearing Evaluation and Prototype Testing

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 23 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 24

6 Benicia-Martinez, CA Bridge Truss Span- Bearings

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 25 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 26

Benicia-Martinez Bridge I-40 Mississippi River Bridge, Memphis TN

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 27 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 28

7 Steel Tied Arch

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 29 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 30

I-40 Modular Joint Installation (70° L&T)

Viaduct 1, Bolu, Turkey, Trans-European Motorway

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 31 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 32

8 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 33 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 34

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 35 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 36

9 Antioch Bridge, CA Dumbarton Bridge, CA

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 37 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 38

George Washington Bridge, Seattle, WA FINAL DRAFT REPORT

SEISMIC EVALUATION FOR THE CASTLETON -ON-HUDSON BRIDGE

B.I.N. 5006599

Prepared for: NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY

Prepared by: Wilbur Smith Associates 11 Avis Drive Latham, NY 12110 Imbsen Consulting Engineer P, P C.C. 1430 Broadway 10th Floor New York, NY 10018

February 2003

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 39 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 40

10 Kodiak-Near Island Bridge, Kodiak, AK Kodiak-Near Island Bridge Bearing Installation

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 41 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 42

Viaduct La Estampilla, Colombia Viaduct La Estampilla, Colombia

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 43 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 44

11 Viaduct El Helicoidal, Colombia American River Bridge, Folsom, CA

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 45 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 46

11th Avenue Viaduct over Amtrak

New York City Department of Transportation Division of Roadway Bridges

March 2002

Bearing Installation, LNG Tank, Greece Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 47 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 48

12 Black Sea Bridge, Turkey Black Sea Bridge Bearing Location

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 49 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 50

I-90 Interchange King County, WA I-90 Interchange Bearing Location

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 51 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 52

13 Mississippi River Crossing, Ontario, Canada Mississippi River Crossing Bearing Location

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 53 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 54

West Span, San Francisco Bay Bridge West Span Bay Bridge Bearing Location

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 55 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 56

14 West Span Bay Bridge Bearing Location JFK AirTrain Light Rail Structure

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 57 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 58

San Francisco Airport International Terminal The World’s Most Important Seismically Isolated Struct tSttures useuse Friction Pendulum Bearings byy Earthquake Protection Systems World’s Second Largest Isolated Building

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 59 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 60

15 Ataturk Airport International Terminal SAKHALIN II PLATFORM Istanbul, Turkey

World’s Largest Isolated Building Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 61 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 62

Triple Pendulum Bearing Triple Pendulum Bearing

how_bearing_works_291007 (1).mpg

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 63 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 64

16 Triple Pendulum Bearing How Does It Work?

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 65 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 66

Friction Pendulum Concept Application Specific Design, Manufacture, Testing and Supply of BearingsBearings

byy Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. California, U.S.A.

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 67 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 68

17 Friction Pendulum Roadway Movement Friction Pendulum Roadway Movement Control Control

♦Provides a structural displacement pattern such that there i s fu ll serv icea bility o f a ll the br idge e lement s and joints following a severe earthquake. ♦Provisions for temperature (and other service loads) movements that are completely uncoupled from seismic movements ♦Operational with full serviceability after a sever earthquake

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 69 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 70

Friction Pendulum Roadway Movement Control Friction Pendulum Roadway Movement Control Triple Pendulum Bearings are located at the tops of all piers. They Full roadway function is maintained after a severe seismic event. reduce the seismic forces transmitted to the piers. They allow Piers, railway structure, and expansion joints are all protected from thermal expansion movements. They allow live load rotations of the damage. roadway. Construction costs of the piers and foundations are signifi can tly re duce d. An R factor of one is used in the design. Dynamic analyses and seismic designs become an order of magnitude more accurate and Cylindrical Friction Pendulum Bearings are located at the abutments. reliable. They permit longitudinal pendulum motions of the entire roadway. They permit full roadway structure articulation about two horizontal and one vertical axis to accommodate live load and seismic There are no relative transverse seismic movements between movements. railwayyy sections. Costly multi-directional exppjansion joints are not required at any expansion joints. Slotted Hinge Joints tie the roadway structure sections together, acting as one continuous structure for seismic movements. Beams Total construction costs are reduced as compared to conventional can not fall off of their supports. seismic designs.

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 71 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 72

18 Friction Pendulum Roadway Movement Triple Pendulum Bearing (Pier Bearing) Control

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 73 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 74

Abutment Guided Cylindrical Bearing

Abutment Guided Cylindrical Bearing Guided cylindrical Friction Pendulum Bearing allows longitudinal seismic displacements to have pendulum motions. Transverse displacements are locked. Transverse roadway shears are transferred directly to the abutments. Expansion joints are protected from transverse displacement movements. Ordinaryypj, unidirectional expansion joints are used, with sufficient displacement capacity for seismic and thermal movements.

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 75 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 76

19 Friction Pendulum Roadway Movement Control Friction Pendulum Roadway Movement Control Slotted hinge joint: • Connects roadway structures sections together to move as one interconnected structure for seismic movements. • Acts like a longitudinal gap element, to permit longitudinal thermal expansion • Locks up to protect the expansion joint from longitudinal seismic Lateral Force Vs. Displacement displacements. Response ofSf Slotted Hinge Joint •Yields in compression or tension to protect the connections to the roadway structure from excessive seismic forces.

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 77 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 78

Friction Pendulum Roadway Movement Control Friction Pendulum Roadway Movement Control Advantages

Avoids Seismic Damage after the Most Severe Seismic Events. Structures Remain Fully Elastic .

Maintains Operational and Function to Allow Emergency Response and Post-Earthquake Reconstruction.

Seismic Analysis and Design Become much more, Simple, Reliable and Accurate.

Construction Costs are Reduced

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 79 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 80

20 22 Years of Comprehensive University Laboratory Seismic Testing and Performance Evaluations of EPS Friction Pendulum Friction Pendulum Roadway Movement Control Bearings Applicability Displacement Control Seismic Design Method University of California Berkeley, Research Center

1. Railways State University Of New York, National Center for 2. Bridges Earthquake Engineering Research 3EltdHih3. Elevated Highways University of California San Diego, CALTRANS Seismic . Response Modification Devise Testing Facility

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 81 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 82

Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Experimental Specimen (Berkeley) University of California at Berkeley, California Reduced-Scale Triple Pendulum Bearing ♦ Bi-directional testing for Bridge Structures ♦ Torsional Response ♦ Full Scale One Story Masonry Structure Shake Table Tests ♦ Experimental & Analytical Prediction of Response with FP Bearings ♦ Studies on Temperature and simulated Aging ♦ Compression-Shear Testing ♦ One & Two Story Building Structures

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 83 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 84

21 Isolation System Hysteresis Isolation System Hysteresis 0.4

0.3

0.2 W) //

0.1

0

-0.1

ormalized Isolator Shear (V -0.2 NN

-0.3

-0.4 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 Isolator Displacement (in.)

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 85 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 86

National Center for Earthquake Engineering Component Research, State University of New York at Testing Of Buffalo, New York Triple Pendulum Bearing At ♦ Multistory Building & Bridge Structures ♦ Experimental & Analytical Prediction of Response MCEER,,y Suny with FP Bearings Buffalo ♦ Friction Modeling, Temperature, Wear and Aging Studies ♦ Compression-Shear Testing of Model FP Bearings ♦ Shake Table Testing of 1/4th Scale Building Frame Model on FP Bearings ♦ Shake Table Testing & AnAnalyticalalytical Prediction with Tension FP & Double Concave FP Bearings ♦ Response of Secondary Systems in Structures Isolated with FP Bearings

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 87 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 88

22 Triple Pendulum Hysteresis Advantages Of Triple Pendulum Bearing

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 89 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 90

Advantages Of Triple Pendulum Bearing University of California at San Diego, San Diego, California ♦ Multi-Stage Adaptive Seismic Isolation Bearing. High-Speed Testing of Full-Scale FPB’s for: ♦ Improved Structural Performance at Lower Bearing Cost

♦ Three Seismic isolators Incorporated in a single Triple Pendulum ♦Benicia-Martinez Bridge Retrofit Project Bearing ♦I-40 Bridge Over Mississippi River Project ♦ Lowers in-Structural Accelerations and Shears and reduces Bearing Displacement. ♦West-Span Bay Bridge Retrofit Project

♦ Single Triple Pendulum Bearing accommodates optimal Structural ♦Trans-European Motorway Bridge Retrofit Performance at Service, Design, and Maximum Credible Earthquakes. Project

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 91 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 92

23 Friction Pendulum Bearing Friction Pendulum Bearing

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 93 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 94

EPS Friction Pendulum Bearing AASHTO Adopted 2007 Guide Testing Specifications

♦ Performance ♦ Unscragged and scragged ♦ Quality assurance properties w/ l at eral l oad s ♦ Tension capacity ♦ Temperature effects (rated o o ♦ Compression strength at -320 F to +400 F) ♦ Torsion properties ♦ Material longevity & aging ♦ Compression stiffness ♦ Fire resistance (rating to 600o F)

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 95 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 96

24 Technical Review Team Current Seismic Design ♦ Mark Mahan, CA DOT (Team Leader, 2007) Provisions for Bridges ♦ Lee Marsh, BERGER/ABAM Engineers (Team Leader, 2008) ♦ Roy A. Imbsen, Imbsen Consulting ♦ AASHTO Standard Specifications, Division 1-A. American ♦ Elmer Marx , AK DOT Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ♦ Jay Quiogue, CA DOT (AASHTO). Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, ♦ Chris Unanwa, CA DOT Division 1-A, 17th Edition, 2002, with Interim Revisions through ♦ Fadel Alameddine, CA DOT 2008. ♦ Chyuan-Shen Lee, WSDOT ♦ AASHTO LRFD Design Specifications. American Association ♦ Stephanie Brandenberger, MT DOT ♦ Daniel Tobias, IL DOT of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). ♦ Derrell Manceaux, FHWA LRFD Bridge Design Specifications , Fourth Edition, 2007, with ♦ Tony Allen, WSDOT Interim Revisions through 2008. ♦ Don Anderson, CH2M Hill ♦ AASHTO LRFD Guide Specifications for Seismic Bridge Design, Adopted 2007.

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 97 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 98

LRFD Guide Specifications Highlights Seismic Guide Specification Table of Contents ♦Performance Based Design Criteria - No Collapse ♦ 1. Introduction ♦New Hazard - 1000 Year Return Period ♦ 2. Symbols and Definitions ♦ 3. General Requirements ♦Calibration of Hazard and Performance ♦ 4. Analysis and Design Requirements ♦Four Seismic Design Categories (SDC) A to D ♦ 5. Analytical Models and Procedures ♦Application – Design Procedure Flow Charts ♦ 6. and Abutment Design Requirements ♦ 7. Structural Steel Components ♦Strategy and Selection of “Key” Component ♦ 8. Reinforced Concrete Components ♦Displacement Demand and Capacity Analysis ♦ Appendix A – Rocking Foundation Rocking Analysis ♦Design/Capacity Protection

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 99 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 100

25 Highlights Seismic Guide Specification New Hazard ♦Performance Based Design Criteria - No Collapse ♦New Hazard - 1000 Year Return Period ♦AASHTO /USGS Uniform Hazard Acceleration for ♦Calibration of Hazard and Performance 1000 year R e turn P er io d (7% P o f E in 75 Years ) ♦Four Seismic Design Categories (SDC) A to D ♦Contour Maps for: PGA, 0.2 sec. and 1.0 sec. Define the Design Spectral Shape ♦Application – Design Procedure Flow Charts ♦NEHRP Factors ♦Strategy and Selection of “Key” Component ♦New P roce dures for D e term in ing Li quef ac tion ♦Displacement Demand and Capacity Analysis Potential ♦Design/Capacity Protection

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 101 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 102

AASHTO/ USGS Maps

Figure 3.4.1-2 thru 3.4.1-22 Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration for the Conterminous United States (Western) With 7 Percent Probability of Exceedance in 75 Years (Approx. 1000 Year Return Period) for: • PGA • 0.2 SEC. • 1.0 SEC

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 103 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 104

26 Design Spectrum using a 3 Point Method Site Coefficients for Fpga and Fa

Table 3.4.2.3-1 Values of Fpga and Fa as a Function of Site Class and Mapped Peak Ground Spectral Acceleration or Short-Period Spectral Acceleration Coefficient. Acceleration,

Sa (g) Mapped or Spectral Response Acceleration SS: Sa @ 0.2 sec Coefficient at Short Periods PGA≤ 0100.10 PGA =020= 0.20 PGA =030= 0.30 PGA =040= 0.40 PGA ≥ 0500.50

Site Class Ss ≤ 0.25 Ss = 0.50 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.00 Ss ≥ 1.25 A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Decays as 1/T B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 A = PGA S1: Sa @ 1.0 sec D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9 F aaaaa

Table notes: Use straight line interpolation for intermediate values of PGA and S , where PGA is the peak ground Spectral Period, T (Sec) s 0.2 1.0 acceleration and Ss is the spectral acceleration coefficient at 0.2 sec. obtained from the ground motion maps. a: Site-specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response analyses shall be performed (Article 3.4.3).

0.2 (TS) TS = S1 / SS

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 105 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 106

Design Spectra - General Procedure (3.4.1)

♦ Response spectrum acceltilerations ♦ Site factors

s = pga PGAFA

SDS = Fa Ss

1 = vD SFS 1

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 107 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 108

27 Adoption of the New Hazard

♦ 2007 - MCEER/FHWA Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Structures ♦ 2007 - AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design Completed ♦ 2007 – AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Modified to Include 2007; 1,000 Year ♦ 2008 – NCHRP Seismic Analysis and Design of retaining Walls, Buried Structures Slopes and Embankments; NCHRP Report 20-7

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 109 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 110

Highlights Seismic Guide Specification Primary System Specified Hazard and Performance

i ♦Performance Based Design Criteria - No Collapse h g ♦New Hazard - 1000 Year Return Period f e d ♦Calibration of Hazard and Performance c Relative b cost ♦Four Seismic Design Categories (SDC) A to D a Collapse ♦Application – Design Procedure Flow Charts Prevention Limited Damage ♦Strategy and Selection of “Key” Component 2500 Years Essentially 1000 Years Elastic ♦Displacement Demand and Capacity Analysis 500 Years Increasing Increasing earthquake ♦Design/Capacity Protection performance severity Calibration Objectives

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 111 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 112

28 LRFD Guidelines-Background Task 2-Sources of Conservatism

Source of Conservatism of Conservatism Safety Factor

Computational vs. Experimental Displacement1.3 Capacity of Components

Effective Damping 1.2 to 1.5

Dynamic Effect (i.e., strain rate effect) 1.2

Pushover Techniques Governed by First Plastic1.2 to 1.5 Hinge to Reach Ultimate Capacity

Out of Phase Displacement at Hinge Seat Addressed in Task 3

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 113 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 114

Idealized Load – Deflection Curve Minimum Support Length Requirements SDC A, B, C & D

Considered in Design

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 115 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 116

29 Minimum Support Length Requirements Estimated Hazard and Performance Primary System SDC A, B, C & D i h g 2 f N ++= HL + S )000125.01)(08.002.08( 1)-(4.12.2 e d c Relative b cost a Collapse Prevention

Limited Damage 2500 Years Essentially 1000 Years Elastic 500 Years Increasing Increasing earthquake performance severity Calibration Objectives

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 117 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 118

Highlights Seismic Guide Specification Seismic Design Category (SDC) ♦Performance Based Design Criteria - No Collapse ♦New Hazard - 1000 Year Return Period ♦Calibration of Hazard and Performance ♦Four Seismic Design Categories (SDC) A to D ♦Application – Design Procedure Flow Charts ♦Strategy and Selection of “Key” Component ♦Displacement Demand and Capacity Analysis ♦Design/Capacity Protection

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 119 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 120

30 Design Spectra - General Procedure (3.4.1) Seismic Design Categories (SDC) Requirements ABCD Global Strategy ------Recommended Required Required Identification ERS ------Recommended Required Required ♦ Response spectrum Support Connections Required Required Required Required acceltilerations Support Length Required Required Required Required ♦ Site factors Demand Analysis ------Required Required Required Implicit Capacity ------Required Required ------Push Over Capacity ------Required s = pga PGAFA Detailing - Ductility ------SDC B SDC C SDC D Capacity Protection ------Recommended Required Required SDS = Fa Ss P-Δ Effect ------Required Required Minimum Lateral = SFS ------Required Required Required 1 vD 1 Strength Liquefaction ------Recommended Required Required

. . Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc 121 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc 14-122 122

Highlights Seismic Guide Specification

♦Performance Based Design Criteria - No Collapse LRFD ♦New Hazard - 1000 Year Return Period Flow Chart ♦Calibration of Hazard and Performance Fig 1.3-1A ♦Four Seismic Design Categories (SDC) A to D ♦Application – Design Procedure Flow Charts ♦Strategy and Selection of “Key” Component ♦Displacement Demand and Capacity Analysis ♦Design/Capacity Protection

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 123 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 124

31 LRFD Flow Chart Fig13Fig 1.3-1B

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 125 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 126

Highlights Seismic Guide Specification Strategy and Selection of “Key” ♦Performance Based Design Criteria - No Collapse Components ♦New Hazard - 1000 Year Return Period ♦Global Design Strategies ♦Calibration of Hazard and Performance ♦Earthquake Resisting Systems (ERS) ♦Four Seismic Design Categories (SDC) A to D ♦Earth quake Resisting Elements (ERE) ♦Application – Design Procedure Flow Charts ♦Strategy and Selection of “Key” Component ♦Displacement Demand and Capacity Analysis ♦Design/Capacity Protection

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 127 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 128

32 Guidelines-General Seismic Load Path and Global Design Strategies Affected Components Type 1 Design EQ

Plastic Hinge

Type 1 - Design a ductile substructure with an essentially elastic superstructure (i.e., yielding columns) - 1 concrete substructure - 1* steel substructure - 1** concrete filled steel pipe substructure

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 129 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 130

Global Design Strategies Global Design Strategies Type 2 Design Type 3 Design

EQ Ductile Superstructure

EQ Seismic Isolation Type 3 - Design an elastic Type 2 - Design an essentially elastic substructure with superstructure and substructure a ductile superstructure (i.e., steel girder bridge with with a fusing (e.g., isolation) buckling diagonal members in the end diaphragms. mechanism at the interface.

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 131 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 132

33 Guidelines Performance Criteria Primary System Seismic Isolation

i ♦ Type 1 – Design a ductile substructure with an h g essentially elastic superstructure (i.e., yielding columns) f e – 1 concrete substructure Isolation d Applied Relative – 1* steel substructure cost – 1** concrete filled steel pipe substructure Collapse Prevention ♦ Type 2 – Design an essentially elastic substructure with a Limited ductile superstructure (i.e., steel girder bridge with Damage 2500 Years buckling diagonal members in the end diaphragms. Increasing Essentially 1000 Years performance Elastic ♦ Type 3 – Desiliign an elastic superstructure and Increasing earthquake substructure with a fusing (e.g., isolation) mechanism at severity the interface. Calibration Objectives

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 133 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 134

ERS ERS

Permissible Peessbermissible Earthquake Earthquake Resisting Resisting Systems Elements (ERS)

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 135 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 136

34 Highlights Seismic Guide Specification Displacement Demand ♦Performance Based Design Criteria - No Collapse ♦New Hazard - 1000 Year Return Period ♦Modeling Recommendations ♦Calibration of Hazard and Performance – Structure ♦Four Seismic Design Categories (SDC) A to D – Foundation ♦Application – Design Procedure Flow Charts ♦Analysis Procedures – 1. Equivalent Static Analysis ♦Strategy and Selection of “Key” Component – 2. Elastic Dynamic Analysis ♦Displacement Demand and Capacity Analysis – 3.Nonlinear Time History Analysis ♦Design /Capacity Protection

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 137 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 138

Foundation Modeling Method I and II

Balanced Stiffness Recommendation

♦ Foundation Modeling Method I is required as a minimum for SDC B & C provided foundation is located in Site Class A , B, C, or D. Otherwise, Foundation Modeling Method II is required. ♦ Foundation Modeling Method II is required for SDC D.

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 139 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 140

35 Abutment Longitudinal Response Abutment Longitudinal Response for SDC D for SDC D ♦ Case 2: Earthquake Resisting System (ERS) with Abutment ♦ For SDC D, passive pressure resistance in behind integral Contribution. abutment walls and back walls for seat abutments will usually be – Whe ther presump tive or compu te d pass ive pressures are used f or d esi gn mobilized due to the large longitudinal superstructure as stated in Article 5.2.3.3, backfill in this zone should be controlled by displacements associated with the inertial loads. specifications, unless the passive pressure considered is less than 70% of presumptive passive pressures ♦ Case 1: Earthquake Resisting System (ERS) without Abutment Contribution – Abutments may contribute to limiting the displacement and providing additional capacity and better performance that are not directly accounted for in the analytical model – A check of the abutment displacement demand and overturning potential should be made.

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 141 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 142

Ductile Response Elastic Response F F

FE

E Forced Based Method

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 143 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 144

36 Elastic Response Elastic Response F F F F

FE FE Plastic Hinge R Displacement Capacity Plastic Hinge Capacity RD Rd Determined using Section FD FSER Analysis with Limiting D Steel and Concrete Strains

pd E E pc pd Ductile Design Response Performance Based Design

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 145 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 146

Design Approaches Displacement Capacity -Force- -Displacement-

♦ Division 1A and Current ♦ New 2007 Adopted Guide ♦Implicit Formulas for SDC B and C LRFD Specification Specification ♦ Complete design w/ service ♦ Complete design w/ service ♦Inelastic Quasi-static Pushover Analysis SDC D load requirements load requirements ♦ Elastic demand forces w/ ♦ Displacements demands w/ applied prescribed ductility displacement capacity factors “R” for anticipated evaluation for deformability as Replacement for the ”R” Factor in the deformability designed for service loads Force Based Approach ♦ Ductile response is assumed ♦ Ductile response is assured tbto be a dequa te w /o with li mi tati ons prescrib ed f or verification each SDC ♦ Capacity protection assumed ♦ Capacity protection assured

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 147 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 148

37 Displacement Capacity SDC B & C Displacement Capacity SDC B & C

Ho = Height of column measured from top of footing to top of column (ft. )

Bo = Column diameter or width measured parallel to the direction of the displacement under consideration (ft.) Λ = factor representing column end restraint condition = 1.0 for fixed-free column boundary conditions = 2.0 for fixed -fixed column boundary conditions For partial restraint at the column ends, interpolation is permitted.

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 149 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 150

Moment-Curvature Diagram Material Properties

Reinforcing Steel ε φ = Stress-Strain y

Mander’s Concrete Model

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 151 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 152

38 Elastic-Plastic Displacement of a Column Plastic Moment Capacity for Ductile Concrete Members for SDC B, C, and D Pushover Analysis for SDC D

Equal Areas

Figure 8.5-1 Moment-Curvature Model

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 153 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 154

Analytical Plastic Hinge Length LRFD - Member Ductility Framing into a Footing or a Cap Requirement for SDC D Δ pd (4.9-5) μD =1+ Δ yi Where:

Δ pd = plastic displacement demand (in.)

= idealized yield displacement corresponding Δ yi to the idealized yield curvature, φ yi , shown in figure 8.5-1 (in.) Pile shafts should be treated similar to columns.

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 155 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 156

39 Highlights Seismic Guide Specification LRFD – Over-strength Capacity Design Concepts for SDC C & D Trans. ♦Performance Based Design Criteria - No Collapse ♦New Hazard - 1000 Year Return Period ♦Calibration of Hazard and Performance ♦Four Seismic Design Categories (SDC) A to D ♦Application – Design Procedure Flow Charts ♦Strategy and Selection of “Key” Component ♦Displacement Demand and Capacity Analysis ♦Design /Capacity Protection

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 157 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 158

Concluding Remarks Concluding Remarks (continued) ♦ Single Level Hazard for 1000 year return ♦Partition of Seismic Design Category (SDC) into period applicable to all regions of the US four groups (A,B,C & D) with increasing levels of ♦ Single Performance Criteria for “No design requirements Collapse” ♦Identification of Global Design Strategy and an ♦ Uniform Hazard Design Spectra using Earthquake Resistant System Three Point Method with the new ♦Using an Isolation Global Design Strategy a No- AASHTO/USGS Maps for the PGA, 0.2 Collapse Performance level can be increased to sec, and 1. 0 sec EtillEltiPfEssentially Elastic Performance (i (id.e. no damage ♦ NEHRP Site Class Spectral level) at a reduced overall construction cost Acceleration Coefficient

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 159 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 160

40 Concluding Remarks (continued) ♦ Displacement Based Approach with design factors calibrated to prevent collapse ♦ Use of closed form equations for implicit displacement capacity for SDC B and C ♦ Pushover Analysis for Displacement Capacity of SDC D ♦ New Seat width equation for SDC D Capacity ♦ Protection of column shear, superstructure and substructure EPS Manufacturing Facility, Vallejo, ♦ Steel Superstructure Design Option based on CA Force Reduction Factors including the use of ductile end-diaphragms

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 161 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 162

Bearing Sub-Assemblies Ready To Ship

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 163 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 164

41 FULL-SCALE HIGH-SPEED TEST TESTING OF TRIPLE PENDULUM BEARING MACHINE

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 165 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 166

TEST MACHINE EPS Advantages

♦Expert Seismic Engineering ♦Lowest Seismic Shears ♦Reliable Bearing Properties ♦Real-time Tests ♦Fastest Bearing Deliverables ♦Lowest Construction Costs

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 167 Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 168

42 Thank You Earthquake Protection Systems

Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. 169

43