Anda di halaman 1dari 9

Bridge layout Design concept

The bridge is a 3-span overpass, with spans 23.50 + 35.50 + 23.5 m and total length of 82.5 m. The deck is
a post tensioned cast in situ concrete voided slab. The piers consist of single cylindrical columns with
diameter D=1.2 m, monolithic with the deck. The pier heights are 8 m for M1 and 8.5 m for M2. The
bridge is simply supported on the abutments through a pair of bearings allowing free sliding and rotation in
every horizontal direction. The piers and the abutments are supported on piles. The concrete grade is
C30/37. The configuration of the bridge and cross sections of the deck and the piers are shown in Figs 7.1
to 7.3.

M2

M1

A1

A2

Fig. 7.1 Longitudinal section of bridge with ductile piers

A1

M2

M1

Fig. 7.2 Plan view of bridge with ductile piers

(a)

(b)
Fig.7.3 Cross sections of (a) the piers and (b) the deck

A2

Quasi-permanent actions for the seismic design situation


The loads applied on the bridge deck Error! Reference source not found.in the seismic design situation
are:
Self weight (G):
The area of the voided section is 6.89 m2, the area of the solid section is 9.97 m2, the total length of the
voided section is 73.5 m and the total length of the solid section is 9.0 m.
qG = (6.89m2 x 73.5m + 9.97m2 x 9.0m) x 25kN/m3 = 14903 kN
Additional dead load (G2):
The area of the sidewalks is 0.50 m2, the weight of the safety barriers is 0.70 kN/m and the width and
thickness of the pavement are 7.5 m and 0.1 m respectively.
qG2 = 2 x 25kN/m3 x 0.50m2 (sidewalks) + 2 x 0.70kN/m (safety barriers) + 7.5m x 23kN/m3 x 0.10m (road
pavement) = 43.65 kN/m
Quasi-permanent value of traffic load (LE).
The quasi-permanent value of the traffic load is taken as 20% of the uniformly distributed traffic load
(UDL) of Load Model 1 (LM1), qUDL = 45.2 kN/m:
qQP= 0.20.qL = 0.2 x 45.2 kN/m = 9.04 kN/m
Thermal actions (T).
The thermal actions consist of:
-

a uniform temperature difference, TN,ext = +52.5oC of the maximum uniform bridge temperature
component, Te,max, from the initial temperature T0 = 10 oC at the time the deck is erected;

a uniform temperature difference TN,con = -45oC of the minimum uniform bridge temperature
component, Te,min, from the initial temperature, T0, at the time of deck is erection.

No vertical temperature difference component, TM, between the decks top and bottom surfaces is
considered.
Creep and Shrinkage (CS):
A total strain of -32.0 x 10-5 is considered. It is of relevance only for the bearings displacements.
The total load applied on the bridge deck in the seismic design situation is then:
WE = 14903 kN + (43.65+9.04) kN/m x 82.5m = 19250 kN

Axial force at the pier base from the quasi-permanent actions for the seismic design situation
From the analysis of the bridge as a 3-span continuous beam under the total load of 19250 kN applied as a
uniform load on the bridge deck of 19250/82.5= 233.33 kN/m, and adding the weight of the taller pier as
25kN/m3 x 1.13m2 x 8.5m = 240 kN, the axial force at its base comes out equal to NEd = 7600 kN.
Then k = NEd/Ac.fck = 7600/(1.13 x 30) = 0.22 < 0.3.

The earthquake-resisting system


Structural system and ductility
The main elements resisting seismic forces are the piers. A ductile seismic behaviour is selected for them.
As k = 0.22 < 0.3, the value of the behaviour factor q depends on the shear span ratio Ls/h of the piers:

For the longitudinal direction (taken as horizontal direction X), assuming the piers to be fully fixed
to the foundation and to the deck and for the shortest pier M1: Ls = 8.0/2 = 4.0 m and Ls/h = 4.0/1.2
= 3.33 > 3.0; therefore: qX = 3.50.

For the transverse direction (taken as horizontal direction Y), assuming the piers to be fully fixed to
the foundation and free to move and rotate to the deck and for the shortest pier M1: Ls = 8.0 m and
Ls/h = 8.0/1.2 = 6.67 > 3.0, allowing qY = 3.50.

Stiffness of elements
Piers
The value of the effective stiffness of the piers for the seismic analysis is estimated initially and checked
after dimensioning the vertical reinforcement of the piers. For both piers the stiffness is assumed to be 40%
of the uncracked gross section flexural stiffness.
Deck
The full uncracked flexural stiffness of the gross section.of the prestressed concrete deck is taken. Taking
the voided section as closed, the torsional stiffness is 50% that of the uncracked gross section.

Design seismic action


The response spectrum of Type 1 applies for the design seismic action. The ground type is C, with the
recommended values of the soil factor S = 1.15 and the corner periods TB = 0.2 s, TC = 0.6 s in Table 3.3,
whereas the corner periods TD is taken longer: TD = 2.5 s. The bridge is located at a seismic zone with a
reference peak ground acceleration agR = 0.16g. The importance factor is I = 1.0 and the design peak
ground acceleration in the horizontal directions is: ag = .agR = 1.0 x 0.16g = 0.16g, Sag = 1.15 x 0.16g =
0.184g
The lower bound factor for design spectral accelerations is = 0.2. For the behaviour factors qX = 3.5 in
the longitudinal direction and qY = 3.5 in the transverse, the design response spectrum (normalised to the
design peak ground acceleration, ag) from Eqs. (5.3) in Section 5.3 is shown in Fig. 7.4.
0.900

0.821

Regions corresponding to constant:

0.800

0.767
0.700

Sd(T) / ag

velocity

acceleration

displacement

0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300

0.200
0.100
0.000
0.00

TB

TC
0.50

TD
1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

Period, T (s)
Fig. 7.4 Design response spectrum (normalised to the design peak ground acceleration, ag).

Fundamental mode analysis in the longitudinal direction


The fundamental mode period is estimated based on a simplified SDoF model of the bridge. The mode
corresponds to the oscillation of the bridge along its longitudinal axis, assuming both ends of the piers as
fixed.
For cylindrical columns of diameter 1.2 m the uncracked moment of inertia is: Iun = 1.24/64 = 0.1018 m4.
The assumed effective moment of inertia of piers is Ieff/Iun = 0.40 (to be checked later). Assuming both
ends of the piers fixed, for concrete grade C30/37 with Ecm = 33 GPa, the stiffness of each pier in the
longitudinal direction is:
K1 = 12EIeff/H3=12 x 33000MPa x (0.40 x 0.1018m4) / (8.0m)3 = 31.5 MN/m
K2 = 12EJeff/H3=12 x 33000MPa x (0.40 x 0.1018m4) / (8.5m)3 = 26.3 MN/m
The total longitudinal stiffness is: K = 31.5 + 26.3 = 57.8 MN/m
The total seismic weight is: WE= 19250 kN, so the fundamental period is:

T 2

M
19250/9.81
2
1.16s
K
57800

The spectral acceleration in the longitudinal direction is:


Se = agS(2.5/q)(TC/T) = 0.16g x 1.15 x (2.5/3.5) x (0.60/1.16) = 0.068g
The total seismic shear force in the piers is: VE = SeWE/g = 0.068g x 19250 kN/g = 1309 kN
The shear force is distributed to piers M1 and M2 in proportion to their stiffness:
V1 = (31.5 / 57.8) x 1309 kN = 713 kN
V2 = 1309 713 = 596 kN
The seismic moments My (assuming full fixity of pier columns at top and bottom) are:
My1 V1.H1/2 = 713kN x 8.0m / 2 = 2852 kNm
My2 V2.H2/2 = 596kN x 8.5m / 2 = 2533 kNm
The spectral displacement in the longitudinal direction is:
Sd = qSa(T/2)2 = 3.5 x 0.068 x 9.81 x (1.16/2) 2 = 0.08 m

Fundamental mode analysis in the transverse direction


The fundamental mode period is estimated based on a simplified SDoF cantilever model of the bridge. The
mode corresponds to the oscillation of the bridge in the transverse direction, assuming the bottom of the
piers as fixed.
For cylindrical columns of diameter 1.2 m the uncracked moment of inertia is: Iun = 1.24/64 = 0.1018 m4.
The assumed effective moment of inertia of piers is Ieff/Iun = 0.40 (to be checked later). Assuming the
bottom of the piers fixed, for concrete grade C30/37 with Ecm = 33 GPa, the stiffness of each pier in the
transverse direction is:
K1 = 3EIeff/H3 =3x33000MPa x (0.40 x 0.1018m4) / (8.0m)3 = 7.85 MN/m
K2 = 3EJeff/H3 =3x33000MPa x (0.40 x 0.1018m4) / (8.5m)3 = 6.55 MN/m
The total longitudinal stiffness is: K = 7.85 + 6.55 = 14.4 MN/m
The total seismic weight is: WE= 19250 kN, so the fundamental period is:

T 2

M
19250/9.81
2
2.32s
K
14400

The spectral acceleration in the transverse direction is:


Se = agS(2.5/q)(TC/T) = 0.16g x 1.15 x (2.5/3.5) x (0.60/2.32) = 0.034g > ag =0.032g
The total seismic shear force in the piers is: VE = SeWE/g = 0.034g x 19250 kN/g = 654.5 kN
The shear force is distributed to piers M1 and M2 in proportion to their stiffness:
V1 = (31.5 / 57.8) x 654.5 kN = 356.5 kN
V2 = 654.5 356.5 = 298 kN
The seismic moments My (assuming full fixity of the pier columns at the bottom) are:
My1 V1.H1 = 356.5x8.0m = 2852 kNm
My2 V2.H2 = 298x8.5m = 2533 kNm
The spectral displacement in the transverse direction is:
Sd = qSa(T/2)2 = 3.5 x 0.034 x 9.81 x (2.32/2) 2 = 0.16 m
Table 7.2 Comparison of analyses
Pier

Longitudinal direction

Transverse direction

1.16 s

2.32 s

M1

713 kN

356.5 kN

M2

596 kN

298 kN

M1

2852kNm/ 2852kNm

0/2852 kNm

M2

2533kNm/ 2533kNm

0/2533 kNm

Fundamental period T1
Seismic shear, Vz
Seismic moment, My (top/bottom)

Table 7.3 Design action effects and required reinforcement at the bottom section of pier M1
Combination

N (kN)

My (kNm)

Mz (kNm)

SRSS My -Mz

As (mm2)

EX+0.3EY

-7245

2852

856

2978

19870

EY+0.3EX

-7245

856

2852

2978

19870

Design action effects and verifications


Design action effects for flexure and axial force verification of plastic hinges
The combination of the components of the seismic action is carried out according as EX+0.3EY and
EY+0.3EX (where direction X is the longitudinal, L, and Y is the transverse, T), Table 7.3 gives the design
action effects (bending moment and axial force) at the bottom section of pier M1, together with the
required reinforcement.
The pier is of circular section with diameter D = 1.2 m, of concrete C30/37 with Class C steel of S500
grade. The nominal cover is c = 50 mm and the estimated distance of the bar centre from the surface 82
mm. The required reinforcement at the bottom section of Pier M1, which is critical, is 19870 mm2. The
reinforcement selected is 2532 (20100 mm2), shown in Fig. 7.7. Table 7.4 shows the design action
effects of bending moment and axial force at the bottom section of pier M2 together with the required
reinforcement, for each design combination.

Fig. 7.7 Pier M1 cross section with reinforcement

Table 7.4 Design action effects and required reinforcement at the bottom section of pier M2
Combination

N (kN)

My (kNm)

Mz (kNm)

SRSS My -Mz

As (mm2)

EX+0.3EY

-7328

2533

760

2645

16800

EY+0.3EX

-7328

760

2533

2645

16800

The required reinforcement at the bottom section of Pier M2, which is critical, is 16800 mm2. The
reinforcement selected is 2132 (16880 mm2) as shown in Fig. 7.9. Fig. 7.10 shows the Moment Axial
force interaction diagram for the bottom section of Pier M2 for all design combinations.

Fig. 7.9 Pier M2 cross section with reinforcement

The piers in shear


Overstrength moments
The overstrength moment is Mo = oMRd, where o is the over strength factor and MRd the design value of
moment resistance (see Sect. 6.4.1, Eqs. (6.6)). The normalised axial force is:
k = NEd/Ac.fck = 7600/(1.13 x 30) = 0.22
Since k = 0.22 > 0.1, the minimum value o = 1.35 is multiplied by: 1+2(k-0.1)2 = 1+2(0.22-0.1)2 = 1.029.
So, o = 1.35 x 1.029 = 1.39 and the overstrength moments for the piers are:

Mo1 = 1.39 x 4779 = 6643 kNm and

Mo2 = 1.39 x 4366 = 6069 kNm

Pier capacity design shears


In the longitudinal direction the shear forces from the analysis in piers M1 and M2 are V1 = 713 kN, V2 =
596 kN, while the capacity shears can be calculated directly from the overstrength moments:

VC1 = 2Mo1/H1 = 2x6643/8.0 = 1661 kN and

VC2 = 2Mo2/H2 = 2x6069/8.5 = 1428 kN

In the transverse direction, the shear in each pier is calculated applying:


VCi = (Mo/MEi)VEi
The seismic moments and shear forces are:

ME1 = 2852kNm and VE1 = 356.5kN

ME2 = 2533kNm and VE2 = 298kN

So, the capacity design shear forces are:

Vc1 = (6643/2582)x356.5 = 917kN

Vc2 = (6069/2533)x298 = 714kN

Bearings and roadway joints


Bearings
The design displacement of the bearing, dEd, is given by:
dEd = dE+dG+2dT
where:
dE

is the design seismic displacement;

dG

is the long term displacement due to the permanent actions (including prestressing after losses,
shrinkage and creep);

dT

is the displacement due to the design thermal actions and 2 = 0.5 the combination factor of thermal
actions in the seismic design situation.

dG (creep and shrinkage) = -32.0 x 10-5 x 82.5/2 = -0.013 m.


dT = +52.5 x 10-5 x 82.5/2 = 0.022 m, or -45 x 10-5 x 82.5/2 = -0.019 m.
In the longitudinal direction:

dEd,L = -0.013 - 0.5 x 0.019 - 0.080 = -0.102 m

In the transverse direction:

dEd,T = 0.16 m

The bridge is simply supported on the abutments through a pair of bearings allowing free sliding and
rotation for both horizontal axes. Plan and side views of a bearing are depicted in Fig. 7.20.

Fig. 7.20 Plan and side views of sliding bearings

Fig. 7.21 Minimum reaction forces in the bearings in the seismic design situation (kN)

Fig. 7.22 Maximum reaction forces in the bearings in the seismic design situation (kN)
Uplifting of the bearings is checked. The minimum vertical reaction forces in the bearings are shown in
Fig. 7.21, with a minimum resultant value of 17.8 kN (compressive, there is no uplifting). The maximum
vertical reactions are shown in Fig. 7.22, with a maximum value 2447 kN.

Overlapping length
The minimum overlapping (seating) length at moveable joints is given by:
min lov lm + dEd

the support length is in the present case equal to lm = 0.4m;

In the longitudinal direction:

dEd,L = 0.102 m

In the transverse direction:

dEd,T = 0.16 m

Therefore:

In the longitudinal direction:

min lov,L = 0.4 + 0.102 = 0.50 m

In the transverse direction:

min lov,T = 0.4 + 0.16 = 0.56 m

Roadway joints
The clearance between the deck structure and the abutment or its back-wall should accommodate the
longitudinal displacement dE+dG+2dT.
The width of a roadway joint between the top deck slab and the top of the abutments back-wall should be

designed to accommodate the displacement 0.4dE+dG+2dT


Table 7.7 gives the displacements for the roadway joint and those for the clearance of the structure. Due to
the differences between the two clearances, Part 2 of Eurocode 8 requires detailing of the back-wall to
cater for predictable (controlled) damage. An example of such a detail is shown in Fig. 7.23, where impact
along the roadway joint is foreseen to occur on the approach slab. Fig. 7.24 displays the selected roadway
joint type and the displacement capacities for each direction.
Table 7.7 Displacement for roadway joint and clearance at joint region
Displacement (mm)
Longitudinal

dG

dT

dE

dEd,J (joint)

dEd (structure)

opening

13

8.5

80

53.5

101.5

closure

-11

-80

-43

-91

160

64.0

160

Transverse

Clearance of
roadway joint
Approach slab
Structure
clearance

Fig. 7.23 Clearances and detailing of the roadway joint region

Roadway joint type: T120


Capacity in longitudinal direction: 60mm
Capacity in transverse direction: 50mm

Fig. 7.24 Selected roadway joint type