Earthquake-Resisting System Optimization and Pushover

Analysis in Seismic Design of Approach Spans of

New South Park Bridge
Guoqing Huang
1
; Xinzhong Chen
2
; and Joan Zhong Brisbois
3
Abstract: This paper addresses the optimization of an earthquake-resisting system (ERS) and pushover analysis in design of the approach
spans of the new South Park Bridge in Seattle, Washington. An appropriate ERS is desired in bridge design, and it involves the application
of both pinned column hinges and plastic hinges in seismic analysis to properly allocate the internal forces among bridge substructure compo-
nents. The approach to derive the ERS is discussed. Conventionally, the column hinge is often modeled as a pinned hinge in pushover analysis,
corresponding to the modeling in seismic elastic and plastic hinging analyses. In this design, the column hinge was also modeled as a plastic
hinge with limited moment capacity. This novel modeling not only improves the performance-based design but also leads to new insights into
pushover analysis. Finally, the design of intermediate piers is presented. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000161. 2013 American
Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Earthquake resistant structures; Columns; Plastic hinges; Ductility; Bridges; Seismic design;
Optimization.
Author keywords: Earthquake-resisting system; Column hinge; Plastic hinge; Pushover analysis; Bridge; Ductility.
Introduction
The existing South Park Bridge is a Scherzer rolling-lift double-leaf
bascule bridge that crosses the Duwamish Waterway approximately
four miles south of downtown Seattle, Washington. The bridge is
already in poor condition because of its 75-year age, and it was further
damaged by the Nisqually earthquake in 2001. The purposes of the
replacement are to provide a safe facility for public trafc and to
improve the existing channel for waterway transportation. The re-
placement is a four-lane bridge composed of a southern approach
span [46:2 146:2 m (151:50 1151:50 ft)], a bascule span [193.6 m
(307.00 ft)], and a northern approach span [46:6 146:4 m
(152:83 1152:33 ft)] (HNTB 2010). The new bridge will provide
a main connection for the South Park business area.
Compared with a return period of 475 years used to determine the
designaccelerationresponse spectruminprevious designspecications
(AASHTO 2004), a return period of 975 years was adopted for de-
velopment of the design spectrum in the latest seismic design speci-
cations (AASHTO 2007, 2009). This revision will lead to more
challenges in bridge seismic design. The design acceleration response
spectrumof a 975-year returnperiodunder a 5%dampingratiois shown
in Fig. 1. It is noted that the vertical response spectrum was developed
from the horizontal spectrum multiplied by the vertical-to-horizontal
(V=H) spectral ratio (Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 2006). In addition, the
use of a heavy superstructure composed of prestressed concrete I-
girders, which are shown in Fig. 2 and are widely employed in
Washington State, may further increase the difculty of seismic design.
To overcome these challenges encountered in seismic design, the
structural system should be selected appropriately by assigning
column hinges and using plastic hinges. The application of a column
hinge, which is usually modeled as a pinned hinge in analysis, may
help to appropriately allocate the internal force, especially seismic
force, among the bridge substructure components. On the other
hand, the use of a plastic hinge will limit the acceptable damage on
a column and provide protection for other components, such as the
superstructure, crossbeam, and shaft, by capping the elastic forces.
Clearly, this design procedure will be iterative and may involve
a series of elastic and plastic hinging analyses.
Although elastic analysis provides an overview of the expected
dynamic response of a bridge, it is clear that it cannot predict the
failure mechanisms or the redistribution of forces that follows plastic-
hinge development and the potential progressive collapse of the struc-
ture. On the other hand, nonlinear static pushover analysis is a widely
usedassessment tool that allows for evaluationof the structural behavior
in the inelastic range and identication of the failure mechanisms. Also,
it highlights the critical points of structural weakness. Furthermore, the
replacement bridge is located in Seismic Design Category (SDC) D,
where the pushover analysis must be performed in accordance with
performance-based design (AASHTO 2009) to guarantee that the dis-
placement capacity of the bridge is higher than the corresponding
displacement demand. Seismic Design Category D was selected based
on 1-s period design spectral acceleration for the life-safety design
earthquake (AASHTO 2009). At the current bridge site with soil-site
Class E, the design acceleration at 1 s is 0:925g, which is higher than
0:5g; thus the site was categorized as SDC D according to seismic
specications (AASHTO 2009).
1
Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong Univ.,
Chengdu, 610031, China; formerly, Project Engineer, ABKJ Consulting
Civil and Structural Engineers, 800 Fifth Ave., Suite 2500, Seattle, WA
98104 (corresponding author). E-mail: ghuang1001@gmail.com
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Texas Tech Univ., Lubbock, TX 79409. E-mail: xinzhong.chen@ttu.edu
3
Lead Engineer, Parsons Brinckerhoff, 999 3rd Ave. 2200, Seattle, WA
98104. E-mail: Zhong@pbworld.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 27, 2012; approved on
January 2, 2013; published online on January 4, 2013. Discussion period
open until April 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Practice Periodical on Structural
Design and Construction, Vol. 18, No. 4, November 1, 2013. ASCE,
ISSN 1084-0680/2013/4-238246/$25.00.
238 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2013.18:238-246.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

T
e
x
a
s

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

1
1
/
0
4
/
1
3
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
In traditional pushover analysis, the column hinge is regarded as
a pinned hinge, corresponding to the treatment used in seismic
elastic and plastic hinging analyses. Clearly, this modeling may not
be true in a progressive collapse caused by quasi-static seismic
forces. Actually, this hinge can be modeled as a plastic hinge with
a limited moment capacity. This novel modeling not only results in
more accurate estimation of the internal force and displacement but
also reveals some newinsights into pushover analysis that may have
been neglected previously.
In this paper, the selection of an appropriate earthquake-resisting
system (ERS) involving the application of pinned column hinges
and plastic hinges is discussed rst. Then pushover analyses based
on different models of the column hinges are addressed, and unique
results are highlighted. Finally, the major design of intermediate
piers is presented.
Earthquake-Resisting System Optimization
The conguration of the southern approach span, including general
elevation and deck and pier layout, is shown in Fig. 2. In the ap-
proach span design, the differences in soil conditions and the column
height of the intermediate pier between the two spans made a similar
design impossible. The soil conditions for southern approach are
much worse than those for the northern approach. The column height
in the southern approach is 5.3 m (17.4 ft), whereas that in northern
approach is 7.6 m (24.8 ft), as shown in Fig. 3. Hence each span
should be designed separately.
Seismic Analysis
A spine model of the each approach span was created for the seismic
analysis. Two cases were considered: an active case, where the bridge
moved away from the abutment; and a passive case, where the bridge
moved against the abutment backll. Because of insignicant in-
uence on design of the passive case, only the active case is discussed.
The multiple-mode response spectrum method was used in the
seismic elastic analysis, where ground-motion excitations in longi-
tudinal, transverse, and vertical directions were included. Both liq-
ueed and nonliqueed soil conditions were considered in design.
The structural elastic analysis was performed using the nite-
element software GT STRUDL 30.0.
The interaction between the foundation and the soil during
a seismic event was modeled as the soil spring, which was obtained
from the geotechnical software LPILE 4.0 using p-y curves. The
drilled shafts at the intermediate piers were modeled by a coupled
6 36 springmatrix, whereas the shafts at the abutments were modeled
as uncoupled soil springs, which were obtained from the static
condensation. The design of the intermediate bends involving elastic
and plastic analyses was the major focus of the project; thus, more
accurate modeling in terms of a coupled 6 36 spring matrix was
adopted. On the other hand, the abutment design was only based on
elastic analysis. Modeling shafts in abutments using uncoupled soil
springs could save some calculation time and simplify the data
preparation and still provide satisfactory estimation. The boundary
conditions on the bascule piers were expressed as the spring stiffness
in longitudinal and transverse directions. The modeling of boundary
conditions for the southern approach span can be seen in Fig. 4. The
nal foundation stiffness could be achieved through several iterations
until the differences in boundary displacements or forces between
GT STRUDL and LPILE were less than 10% (WSDOT 2008).
In the approach span design, the global seismic strategy for ERS
was taken as Type 1, that is, to design a ductile substructure with an
essentially elastic superstructure (AASHTO 2009). Three types of
the connections for columns of intermediate piers had been in-
vestigated: xed top 1 xed bottom (F=F), xed top 1 pinned
bottom (F=P), and pinned top 1 xed bottom (P=F). Fig. 4 shows
these different ERSs for the southern approach, where two types of
joints, a rigid joint and a hinge, were used to connect the super-
structure and the intermediate bend, crossbeam and column, or
column and shaft. For instance, the superstructure is rigidly con-
nected to the bends, whereas it is connected to the abutment through
a hinge. For the hinge, the release of the moments or forces depends
Fig. 1. Design acceleration response spectra (5% damping)
Fig. 2. Bridge congurations of southern approach span: (a) general
elevation; (b) section of deck at Pier 2
PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 239
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2013.18:238-246.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

T
e
x
a
s

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

1
1
/
0
4
/
1
3
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
on the connection between the two components. With the hinge on
the abutment as an example, the moment is released in x, y, and z
directions as shown in Fig. 4. It should be noted that because of the
existence of an end diaphragm, which is used to distribute the large
internal force to the abutment, the force in the longitudinal direction
is not released.
Furthermore, rigid link elements also were used to connect bridge
components such as the superstructure and the intermediate bend.
The section properties of the rigid link are dened based on the
section size of the element along the element. For the link connecting
the superstructure and substructure, determination of the section
properties is relatively difcult. In the design, they were estimated
roughly based on the section size of the element. By exchanging the
positions of the abutment and bascule pier, ERSs for the northern
approach can be derived fromthose shown in Fig. 4. Corresponding
to these ERSs, the permissible earthquake-resisting elements (EREs)
used in this design, including Types 1, 2, and 6, are shown in Fig. 5.
To reduce signicant elastic forces, plastic hinging analysis was
conducted along with elastic analysis in accordance with bridge
design specications (AASHTO 2007). The moment capacity of the
pinned column hinge was regarded as zero. Inthis analysis, the initial
axial load was obtained through Extreme Event I load combination
with EQ50; i.e., P51:25DC11:5DW, where EQ 5 earthquake
load; DC 5 dead load of structural components and nonstructural
attachments; and DW 5dead load of wearing surfaces and utilities
(AASHTO 2007).
Southern Approach Span
The seismic analysis results for the southern approach span are
summarizedinTable 1, fromwhich some conclusions can be drawn:
1. System F=F is stiffest with a smallest fundamental period,
whereas system P=F is most exible with the largest funda-
mental period.
2. With elastic seismic shear force, the column cannot be designed
because of its large magnitude in three systems [about 4,670 kN
(1,050 kips) for each shaft with a diameter of 2.44 m(8 ft)]. The
design force will be 5,780 kN (1,300 kips) under an Extreme
Event I load combination.
3. Aplastic hinge is necessary to reduce the design shear force for
columns in the three systems.
4. Comparedwiththe other twosystems, systemF=Fcannot be used
because it still results in large shear force under a plastic-hinge
Fig. 3. Detailing of columns
Fig. 4. Possible ERSs for southern approach span
240 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2013.18:238-246.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

T
e
x
a
s

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

1
1
/
0
4
/
1
3
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
mechanism. In addition, the moment diagram of the column of
this system cannot possess the double curvature in the column
under elastic analysis because of the shorter column and worse
soil conditions.
5. In system F=P, a larger elastic or plastic force forms in the
crossbeam, which makes design of the crossbeam difcult,
whereas in system P=F, a smaller and more designable force
forms in the crossbeambecause of the hinge on the column top.
6. By comparison, system P=F is optimal.
Northern Approach Span
The seismic analysis results for the northern approach span are
demonstrated in Table 2. Similar to the southern approach span, the
some conclusions for the northern approach span are summarized as
1. System F=F is the stiffest with the smallest fundamental
period, whereas system F=P is the most exible with the
largest fundamental period.
2. With elastic seismic shear force, the column cannot be
designed because of its large magnitude in three systems
[about 4,450 kN (1,000 kips) for each shaft with a diameter
2.44 m (8 ft)]. The design force will be 5,340 kN (1,200 kips)
under an Extreme Event I load combination.
3. Same as the southern approach. The only difference is that the
moment diagram of the column of system F=F can have
a double curvature in the column because of the taller column
and better soil conditions.
4. Between systems P=F and F=P, there is no signicant differ-
ence. However, system P=F will result in a larger amount of
reinforcement, especially on the shaft of the intermediate pier.
5. By comparison, system F=P is optimal.
It is obvious that the different bridges have different optimal
structural systems. This system should be studied on a case-by-case
basis. However, the procedure and analysis presented for the two
approach spans should be universal for most bridges.
Pushover Analysis
Pushover analysis was performed using SAP2000 11.08, including
the P-D effect. For intermediate piers, Piers 2 and 5, in both
directions, the displacement demands were calculated from elastic
Fig. 5. Earthquake-resisting elements used for approach spans (AASHTO 2009): (a) Type 1; (b) Type 2; (c) Type 6
Table 1. Comparison of Earthquake-Resisting Systems for Southern Approach Span
Fundamental mode
Earthquake-resisting system
F=F F=P P=F
Longitudinal Period (s) 0.66 0.67 0.69
Transverse Period (s) 0.38 0.38 0.38
Vertical Period (s) 0.53 0.53 0.59
Elastic seismic analysis Longitudinal direction Abut one shaft (each) Shear (kips) 665 656 748
Moment (kip-ft) 7,307 7,214 8,240
Pier 2 shaft (each) Shear (kips) 951 903 960
Moment (kip-ft) 4,030 90 10,703
Pier 3 (total) Shear (kips) 1,743 1,719 1,967
Transverse direction Abut one shaft (each) Shear (kips) 445 453 552
Moment (kip-ft) 113 56 140
Pier 2 shaft (each) Shear (kips) 1,044 1,025 756
Moment (kip-ft) 3,215 102 8,357
Pier 3 (total) Shear (kips) 2,473 2,503 2,913
Plastic hinging analysis Longitudinal direction Pier 2 shaft (each) Shear (kips) 1,037 692 696
Moment (kip-ft) 9,306 0 9,306
Transverse direction Pier 2 shaft (each) Shear (kips) 1,152 688 692
Moment (kip-ft) 9,263 0 9,263
Use Not use Not use Use
Note: Advantages/disadvantages: F=F: larger plastic shear force (almost 50% higher than Systems 2 and 3) for column and difcult for column design; F=P:
larger moment for crossbeamdesign; P=F: relatively smaller plastic shear force for column and relatively smaller moment for crossbeamdesign (1 kip 54:448 kN;
1 kip-ft 51:356 kN m).
PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 241
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2013.18:238-246.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

T
e
x
a
s

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

1
1
/
0
4
/
1
3
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
analysis based on a global model, whereas the displacement capacities
were generated through pushover analysis based on a local model
(AASHTO 2009). The local model was a bend. In addition, this
pushover analysis also provided design forces for substructure design,
especially the base shear force for the design of the column.
Analysis Model
For each column of Pier 2, a plastic hinge of 1.52 m (5 ft) diameter
was applied on the lower column segment, and a column hinge of
1.22 m (4 ft) diameter was assigned to the column top. For each
column of Pier 5, a plastic hinge was applied on the upper column
segment, whose equivalent section of 2.10 m (6.9 ft) diameter was
used in sectional analysis, and a column hinge of 1.22 m (4 ft) di-
ameter was assigned to the column bottom. The analytic length for
all plastic hinges was calculated as 0.71 m (28 in.) based on seismic
specications (AASHTO 2009).
Based on the different mechanical models of the 1.22-m-diameter
(4-ft) hinge, two types of analyses were considered: lower bound and
upper bound. The lower and upper bounds were dened by the
magnitude of shear forces in the columns.
Lower-Bound Case
In this case, the moment capacity of the 1.22-m-diameter (4-ft)
column hinge was regarded as zero, and the column hinge was
idealized as a pinned hinge. This would lead to a lower bound of
shear force in the column.
Upper-Bound Case
In this case, the moment capacity of the 1.22-m-diameter (4-ft)
column hinge was included in analysis. This would lead to an upper
bound of shear force in the column. The hinge length was de-
termined as 0.089 m(3.5 in.) based on the fact that the gap could not
be closed under the rotation of the hinge at the limit state and en-
gineering practice. That is, ultimate rotation will be smaller than the
maximum rotation capacity of the column hinge. Hence, although
this hinge is very short, it can still undertake the limited amount of
rotation, as shown in Fig. 3.
For both cases, the single bend was used for analysis. The
boundary conditions are summarized in Table 3, where the re-
striction direction is valid in the (SAP2000) global coordinate system
(longitudinal 5 UX; transverse 5 UY; and vertical 5 UZ). The
cracked section properties for the seismic analysis were applied on
the columns, that is, J
eff
50:2J
g
and I
eff
50:51I
g
, where J
g
and I
g
are the torsional moment of inertia and moment of inertia, re-
spectively. This is consistent with the elastic seismic analysis. Two
models of Pier 2 in the longitudinal direction are shown in Fig. 6. It
should be noted that the longitudinal model with restrictions in UY
and RY is close to the real situation because of the signicant
stiffness of the superstructure. As a result of the xity on the column
ends, the relative displacement from the elastic analysis should be
used to make a reasonable comparison with the displacement ca-
pacity obtained from the local model. The relative displacement is
dened as the difference between the displacements at the column
top and bottom.
Hinge Sectional Analysis
Unconned and conned concrete is dened by Manders models,
and steel is dened by bilinear steel with parabolic strain-hardening
Table 2. Comparison of Earthquake-Resisting Systems for Northern Approach Span
Fundamental mode
Earthquake-resisting system
F=F F=P P=F
Longitudinal Period (s) 0.66 0.70 0.68
Transverse Period (s) 0.34 0.38 0.38
Vertical Period (s) 0.38 0.44 0.48
Elastic seismic analysis Longitudinal direction Pier 4 (total) Shear (kips) 1,844 2,116 2,158
Pier 5 shaft (each) Shear (kips) 982 768 1018
Moment (kip-ft) 12,865 76 21,466
Abut six shafts (each) Shear (kips) 608 698 709
Moment (kip-ft) 6,611 7,626 7,732
Transverse direction Pier 4 (total) Shear (kips) 2,310 2,382 2,828
Pier 5 shaft (each) Shear (kips) 932 881 597
Moment (kip-ft) 4,618 88 12,079
Abut six shafts (each) Shear (kips) 705 720 820
Moment (kip-ft) 128 131 149
Plastic hinging analysis Longitudinal direction Pier 5 shaft (each) Shear (kips) 1,146 936 953
Moment (kip-ft) 6,834 0 6,834
Transverse direction Pier 5 shaft (each) Shear (kips) 1,152 942 943
Moment (kip-ft) 6,541 0 6,541
Use Not use Use Not use
Note: Advantages/disadvantages: F=F: larger plastic shear force (almost 25% higher than System 2) for column and difcult for column design; F=P: relatively
smaller plastic shear force for column and relatively smaller moment for shaft design; P=F: relatively larger moment for shaft design (1 kip 54:448 kN;
1 kip-ft 51:356 kN m).
Table 3. Boundary Conditions of Pushover Analysis Model
Lower-bound case Upper-bound case
Pier Direction
Column
bottom
Middle and
end points of
crossbeam
Column
bottom
Middle and
end points of
crossbeam
2 Longitudinal Fixed Restricted in UY
and RY
Fixed Restricted in UY
and RY
Transverse Fixed No restrictions Fixed No restrictions
5 Longitudinal Hinged Restricted in
UY and RY
Fixed Restricted in UY
and RY
Transverse Hinged No restrictions Fixed No restrictions
242 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2013.18:238-246.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

T
e
x
a
s

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

1
1
/
0
4
/
1
3
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
model (Mander et al. 1988; Priestley et al. 1996). The material
properties of concrete and steel were obtained from AASHTO
(2009). Some parameters are as follows:

Unconned and conned concrete: f

c
9
527:6 MPa 4 ksi, f
ce
9
535:9 MPa 5:2 ksi; and

Steel: ASTM A706 (AASHTO 2009), f

y
5468:8 MPa 68 ksi,
f
u
5655:0 MPa 95 ksi.
Cross-sectional analysis software (XTRACT 3.0.5) was used to
generate axial load-moment (PM) and moment-curvature (MC)
curves for all plastic hinges. The points, including maximumP(pure
compression), maximum M, P50, and minimum P (pure tension),
were used to generate the MC curves.
Ininitial analysis, it was foundthat a three-dimensional (P-M2 -M3)
hinge may result in hardening and lead to an unreasonable moment
(23 times larger than the moment capacity). Thus two-dimensional
(P-M2 or P-M3) hinges were selected for pushover analysis. These
plastic hinges were applied to either top or bottompoints of the column,
that is, relative length 0 or 1 in SAP2000. As an example, the as-
signedplastic hinges for Pier 2inthe longitudinal directionare shownin
Fig. 6.
Equivalent Static Loads
The initial condition was dened as the nonlinear static analysis
under the superstructure loading and self-weight of the bend. This
initial condition was thenapplied inthe subsequent pushover analysis.
Essentially, three types of equivalent static loads are available for
the pushover analysis, namely, (1) load, (2) acceleration, and (3)
mode. A brief description of each type follows:
1. Load: this can be a set of loads or load combinations;
2. Acceleration: under this load type, the program automatically
computes acceleration loads based on DAlemberts principal;
and
3. Mode: a modal load is a specialized type of loading used for
pushover analysis. It is a pattern of forces on the joints that is
proportional to the product of a specied mode shape times its
circular frequency squared times the mass tributary to the joint.
Fig. 6. Local models for Pier 2 in the longitudinal direction: (a) lower-bound case; (b) upper-bound case
Fig. 7. Comparison of different static earthquake load models (1 kip
54:448 kN; 1 in: 52:54 cm)
PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 243
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2013.18:238-246.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

T
e
x
a
s

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

1
1
/
0
4
/
1
3
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
For the comparison of the preceding three approaches, the
pushover curves for the upper-bound case of Pier 2 in the longitu-
dinal direction are shown in Fig. 7. It is seen that no signicant
difference exists among these approaches for the local model of this
bridge. The reason for this is attributed to the fact that most of the
mass is lumped on the crossbeam. Hence most of the inertia load will
act on the crossbeam. Clearly, this conclusion may be not valid for
other, more complicated models with different mass distributions.
In pushover analysis, load-type equivalent static load was used,
and the equivalent static seismic force was modeled as ever-increasing
concentrated forces that were applied on the middle and end points of
the crossbeam until the structure collapsed. The displacement at the
column top was used to monitor the deformation of the structure.
Analysis Results
Two-Stage Process
Fig. 8 shows the pushover curves for Pier 2 in both directions. Based
on the observation of pushover curves, it is seen that the base shear in
the upper-bound case plummets after it reaches a peak value, about
11,120 kN (2,500 kips) for the three columns at the displacement of
0.01270.0152 m(0.50.6 in.), and then the two curves of the lower-
and upper-bound cases are close together after the peak. The reason
for this is attributed to tha fact that the top hinge enters the plastic
hinging state and becomes the column hinge without moment ca-
pacity before the bottom hinge does. Actually, the top hinge still
retains its shear capacity and becomes the pinned hinge. This can be
seen in Fig. 9, where the sequence of plastic hinge appearance is
illustrated for Pier 2. Thus the pushover curve of the upper-bound
case enters a second stage, where the model is composed of a pinned
top hinge and a plastic bottom hinge. This stage is the same as the
lower-bound case after the elastic stage. Hence the whole pushover
process of the real bend can be regarded as a combination of the rst
stage (i.e., upper-bound case before the peak) and second stages
(i.e., lower-bound case after elastic deformation). It should be noted
that the top hinge enters the plastic hinging state ahead of bottom
hinge because of the weaker section of the top hinge.
For the upper-bound cases of Pier 2, it should be noted that it is
necessary to assign a restraint to the joint where the 1.22-m-diameter
(4-ft) plastic hinge is applied to obtain the pushover curve containing
all plastic hinge failure. The reason is that the 1.22-m-diameter (4-ft)
plastic hinge will fail rst and may move/rotate in some direction,
and the system may become unstable if there is no restraint. The
restraints assigned are RX and UX for the longitudinal and trans-
verse directions, respectively.
Similar pushover analysis results can be obtained for Pier 5, as
shown in Fig. 10. Compared with Pier 2, the major difference is that
the bottom hinge enters the plastic state and fails ahead of the top
hinge. Restraint to the joint, where the 1.22-m-diameter (4-ft) plastic
hinge was applied, was not required because this plastic hinge was
on the xed boundary.
Fromthe comparison of pushover curves basedon different models
of two intermediate piers, it is shown that the traditional model may
underestimate the displacement and internal force by 1525%. The
reason for this is attributed to that fact that the hinge with the 1.22-m
(4-ft) diameter is treated as the pinned hinge in traditional modeling
instead of a plastic hinge with limited moment capacity. With this
novel modeling, the plastic hinge with limited moment capacity can
contribute more displacement andinternal force tothe structure. Hence
the proposed modeling would greatly increase the estimation accuracy
of the responses.
Comparison of Ductility Requirements
As mentioned earlier, the ductility demands were calculated from
the elastic seismic model and are summarized in Table 4. m
D
is
dened as the ratio of displacement demand D
D
to idealized yield
displacement D
yi
. The idealized yield displacement D
yi
is found in
the pushover curve (AASHTO2009) and is tabulated in Table 4. m
D
should be not greater than six for multiple-column bends in SDC D
(AASHTO 2009). It is seen that the structure shows good perfor-
mance in terms of displacement capacity.
Design of Intermediate Piers
Because of the existence of plastic hinges, the design of the com-
ponents in intermediate piers will be more complicated than that of
conventional structural components, such as abutment design in this
bridge. The design forces under Extreme Event I were determined
from the smaller values of the combined elastic and plastic forces of
the column bends (AASHTO 2007). The plastic forces were taken
from larger values of plastic hinging and pushover analyses. The
elastic seismic force was obtained from the response-modication
factors dened in AASHTO (2007). These factors are listed as
follows:
Fig. 8. Pushover curves for Pier 2 (1 kip 54.448 kN; 1 in. 52.54 cm):
(a) longitudinal direction; (b) transverse direction
244 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2013.18:238-246.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

T
e
x
a
s

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

1
1
/
0
4
/
1
3
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

Columns with R53:5 for exural moments and R51:0 for axial
forces and shears;
Shafts and crossbeam with R51:0; and
Pinned hinge with R51:0.
The structural design of the column should be noted because of
its uniqueness. The 1.22-m-diameter (4-ft) hinge (column top of Pier
2 and column bottom of Pier 5) was designed as a rigid column
in exural moment to resist all bending-moment demands for the
strength and service load combinations (WSDOT 2008). The hinge
was only idealized and designed as a pinned hinge for seismic
loading under Extreme Event I, where the shear design was based on
shear friction theory (WSDOT2008). The concrete shear capacity of
plastic hinges (column bottom of Pier 2 and column top of Pier 5)
under Extreme Event I was designed based on seismic specications
(AASHTO 2009) because the shear provisions in the bridge design
specications (AASHTO 2007) were not applicable to sections that
were expected to accommodate a signicant amount of plastic
deformation. In addition, the P-Dcapacity of the plastic hinge should
be evaluated to determine whether the P-D effect can be neglected
(AASHTO2009). The design details of the major reinforcements for
the columns of both intermediate piers are shown in Fig. 3.
Concluding Remarks
This paper discussed the strategies applied in seismic design of the
two approach spans of the South Park Bridge Replacement in Seattle,
Washington. The optimization of an ERS, pushover analysis, and
seismic structural design presented in this paper provided not only
a good example for engineering practice but also new insights for the
research on performance-based design.
An optimal ERS was obtained from three different possible sys-
tems through a series of elastic and plastic hinging analyses, where the
ingenious applications of pinned and plastic hinges on the columns of
intermediate piers were presented. This system appropriately allo-
cated the internal force among bridge substructure components, pre-
vented crossbeams and shafts from yielding, and limited damage to
columns by providing ductility measures.
Fig. 9. Sequence of plastic hinge appearance for Pier 2: (a) longitudinal direction; (b) transverse direction
Fig. 10. Pushover curves for Pier 5 (1 kip 54:448 kN; 1 in: 52:54 cm):
(a) longitudinal direction; (b) transverse direction
PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 245
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2013.18:238-246.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

T
e
x
a
s

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

1
1
/
0
4
/
1
3
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
The column hinge, usually regarded as a pinned hinge in conven-
tional pushover analysis, was modeled as a plastic hinge with limited
moment capacity in this design. Based on the different models of the
column hinge, a pinned or plastic hinge, lower- and upper-bound
models were built up. Based on these two models, the structural-
response envelops, including those of displacement and shear force,
could be obtained and could be used for ductility evaluation and
structural design.
From the pushover curves of these two models, it was observed
that the real pushover process could be regarded as a two-stage pro-
cess. The rst stage was the upper-bound model before the column
hinge lost its moment capacity and became a pinned hinge. The se-
cond stage was the lower-bound model after elastic deformation. This
unique modeling provided more accurate results for estimation of the
displacement and internal force, with an increase in accuracy of 15
25%. The comparison of displacement capacity and demand also
showed that each approach span was achieved good performance.
Finally, the structural design of intermediated piers, including
column hinges and plastic hinges, was pointed out. This was dif-
ferent from the conventional elastic design and should be empha-
sized in the seismic design of the bridge.
Acknowledgments
The comments fromDr. Yuan-an (Luke) Su, the rst authors former
colleague at ABKJ Consulting Civil and Structural Engineers, and
Mr. Sanliang (Sammy) Tu at Arup (San Francisco ofce) are greatly
appreciated.
References
AASHTO. (2004). LRFD bridge design specications, 3rd Ed., Wash-
ington, DC.
AASHTO. (2007). LRFDbridge design specications, 4th Ed., Washington,
DC.
AASHTO. (2009). AASHTO guide specications for LRFD seismic bridge
design, 1st Ed., Washington, DC.
GT STRUDL 30.0 [Computer software]. Atlanta, GA, Computer Aided Struc-
tural Engineering (CASE) Center, Georgia Institute of Technology.
HNTB Corporation. (2010). South Park Bridge replacement, Kansas City,
MO.
LPILE PLUS 4.0 [Computer software]. Austin, TX, Ensoft, Inc.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. J. T. (1988). Theoretical
stress-strain model for conned concrete. J. Struct. Eng., 114(8), 1804
1826.
Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., and Calvi, G. M. (1996). Seismic design and
retrot of bridges, Wiley, New York.
SAP2000 11.08 [Computer software]. Berkeley, CA, Computer & Structures,
Inc.
Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (2006). 975-Year and 108-year horizontal and
vertical response spectra (site class E), Seattle, WA.
WashingtonState DOT(WSDOT). (2008). Bridge design manual, Olympia,
WA.
XTRACT 3.0.5 [Computer software]. Sacramento, CA, Imbsen Software
Systems.
Table 4. Ductility at Middle Column
Pier Direction
Displacement
demand
D
D
(in.)
Idealized yield
displacement D
yi
(in.)
Ductility
m
D
2 Longitudinal 3.02 0.51 5.92
Transverse 2.27 0.46 4.94
5 Longitudinal 4.56 0.95 4.80
Transverse 1.84 0.73 2.52
Note: 1 in. 5 2.54 cm.
246 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2013.18:238-246.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

T
e
x
a
s

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
n

1
1
/
0
4
/
1
3
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.