Plastic Hinging Considerations for Single-Column Piers Supporting Highly Curved Ramp Bridges Western Bridge Engineers Seminar Reno, NV Greg Griffin, P.E., S.E. - Senior Bridge Engineer e Griffin, P.E., SE. September 10, 2015 Senior Bridge Engineer
Overview Typical Straight Ramp Bridge Hinging Locations Possible Curved Ramp Bridge Hinging Locations Any Need for Concern? Fixed Bridge Response Drilled Shaft Foundations Pile Foundations Other Design Considerations Page 2
Typical Straight Bridge Hinging Locations Typically modelled as a "flag pole" in transverse direction Bottom of column hinge location typical Assume superstructure has negligible torsional rigidity Page 3
Possible Curved Bridge Hinging Locations Torsional rigidity in addition to longitudinal coupling of superstructure stiffness increases top of column rigidity Can create reverse curvature Hinging possible at top and bottom of column Page 4
Any Need for Concern? The answer is YES! if no hinging is expected from longitudinal EQ Due to hinging the top of the column, the shear force will approximately double as compared to a column in single curvature. Confinement details may not be provided at top of column. Column vertical reinforcement may not have proper development into crossbeam. CONCLUSION: The above items could lead to unintended column performance although the structure met current seismic design requirements. Page 5
Example Bridge CIP Box Girder Variations Considered Curve Radii: 1000ft, 800ft, 600ft Foundation Types: Fixed, Drilled Shaft, Piles Page 6
Example Bridge Typical Sections Typical Section f' c = 4 ksi (all concrete) Typical Column Section 5ft 6in Diameter 64-#10 bars (2.4%) #6 spiral @ 3 ½ in pitch Page 7
Example Bridge Response Spectrum Acceleration (g) 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 Period (sec) Peak bedrock ground acceleration, 0.4g 0.2 Sec Acceleration, 0.89g: 1.0 Sec Acceleration, 0.30g Seattle area, Site Class "C" Page 8
Moment Curvature Plot 14,000 12,000 10,000 Moment (Kip-ft) 8,000 6,000 Theoretical M-C Idealized M-C 4,000 2,000 0 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 Curvature (1/ft) Axial Load = 1,300 kip Used expected material properties Page 9
Fixed Based Model Page 10
First Mode: T = 0.49 sec Mode Participation Factor = 0.7080 Page 11
Second Mode: T =0.42 sec Mode Participation Factor = 0.1301 Page 12
Seventh Mode: T = 0.13 sec Mode Participation Factor = 0.1618 Page 13
Fixed Based Response Pier 1 1600 1400 1200 Column Shear Force (kip) 1000 800 600 400 Straight R=1000ft R=800ft R=600ft Single Column Reverse Curvature Design EQ Disp. 200 0 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Column Displacement (ft) Page 14
Fixed Based Response Pier 2 1600 1400 1200 Column Shear Force (kip) 1000 800 600 400 Straight R=1000ft R=800ft R=600ft Single Column Reverse Curvature Design EQ Disp. 200 0 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Column Displacement (ft) Page 15
Drilled Shaft Model Depth to fixity assumed to be 3 shaft diameters Page 16
First Mode: T = 0.68 sec Mode Participation Factor = 0.0639 Page 17
Second Mode: T = 0.67 sec Mode Participation Factor = 0.7357 Page 18
Seventh Mode: T = 0.16 sec Mode Participation Factor = 0.2034 Page 19
Drilled Shaft Response Pier 1 1400 1200 Column Shear Force (kip) 1000 800 600 400 Straight R=1000ft R=800ft R=600ft Design EQ Disp. Shear Reverse Curvature Shear Single Curvature 200 0 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Column Displacement (ft) Page 20
Drilled Shaft Response Pier 2 1400 1200 Column Shear Force (kip) 1000 800 600 400 Straight R=1000ft R=800ft R=600ft Design EQ Disp. Shear Reverse Curvature Shear Single Curvature 200 0 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Column Displacement (ft) Page 21
Pile Foundation Model Lateral pile stiffness estimated to be 27 kip/in Group effects not considered Page 22
First Mode: T = 0.82 sec Mode Participation Factor = 0.0791 Page 23
Second Mode: T = 0.76 sec Mode Participation Factor = 0.7293 Page 24
Ninth Mode: T = 0.21 sec Mode Participation Factor = 0.1916 Page 25
Pile Foundation Response Pier 1 1400 1200 Column Shear Force (kip) 1000 800 600 400 Straight R=1000ft R=800ft R=600ft Design EQ Disp. Shear Reverse Curvature Shear Single Curvature 200 0 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Column Displacement (ft) Page 26
Pile Foundation Response Pier 2 1400 1200 Column Shear Force (kip) 1000 800 600 400 Straight R=1000ft R=800ft R=600ft Design EQ Disp. Shear Reverse Curvature Shear Single Curvature 200 0 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Column Displacement (ft) Page 27
Pier Cap Free Body Diagram Use S&T model or Conventional Design Procedure Over-strength factor = 1.0 Page 28
Pier Cap - Revised Design Over-strength factor = 1.2 Strength reduction factor = 1.0 Page 29
Superstructure Design Checks Mp = 11,850 k-ft+934k*3ft=14,652k-ft Check web shear due to plastic hinging induced torsion Check bearing designs at abutments Page 30
Conclusions Hinging is possible at the top of column in the transverse direction due to a combination of superstructure curvature and foundation stiffness. Axial load increased up to 10% due to curvature. Recommend conducting complete bridge pushover analysis. Distribution of displacements should be based on mode shapes. If moment continuity is not provided in the longitudinal direction in a curved bridge, provide appropriate confinement, anchorage details at top of columns. Verify column shear capacity! Pier cap and superstructure needs to designed for additional shear due to plastic hinging forces. If in doubt, capacity protect. Page 31
Thank You greg.griffin@aecom.com September 10, 2015