Santos

PICE 43rd National Convention
Development of
Seismic Design Specifications
for Philippine Bridges
JOVITO C. SANTOS
EDWIN C. MATANGUIHAN
GIL R. VILLANUEVA
November 28-30, 2017
Manila, Philippines
Session Contents
1. Introduction
2. Seismic Vulnerability of Philippine Bridges
2.1 1990 North Luzon EQ
2.2 2012 Negros Oriental EQ
2.3 2013 Bohol EQ
3. Evolution of Seismic Design of Philippine Bridges
4. Development of DPWH Bridge Seismic Design
Specifications (BSDS)
5. Concluding Remarks
PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

DEVELOPMENT OF SEISMIC DESIGN
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PHILIPPINE BRIDGES
1. Introduction
1. Introduction
 Large Magnitude of Earthquake as high as magnitude M7.9 have
been experienced in the Philippines either causing major damages or
resulting to collapse of bridges.
 The year 1990 became the major turning point in seismic design of
bridges in the Philippines after the North Luzon Earthquake in July
1990.
 Currently the DPWH is exerting much efforts to improve the seismic
performance of bridges under large-scale earthquakes and have
identified the need to improve both the design and construction
practices in order to meet the demands of larger earthquakes forces
and the challenges in the advancement of engineering technology.

1. Introduction
Earthquake Date M Remarks
Collapse: Sumulong Br.
Ragay Gulf EQ Mar 17, 1973 M7.0
Partial Collapse: 4 Br
Collapse: Quirino Br.
Moro Gulf EQ Aug 17, 1976 M7.9
Fatalities: 8,000
Differential settlement of
Laoag EQ Aug 17, 1983 M6.5
approach and abutments
Bohol EQ Feb 8, 1990 M6.8 Collapse: Jagna-Duero Br.
Collapse: 4 bridges
Panay EQ Jun 14, 1990 M7.1
Fatalities: 7
Collapse: Many bridges
North Luzon EQ Jul 16, 1990 M7.8
Fatalities: 1,621
Mindoro EQ Nov 15, 1994 M7.1 Damaged: 24 bridges
Collapse: Several bridges
Negros Oriental EQ Feb 6, 2012 M6.9
Fatalities: 41
Eastern Samar EQ Aug 31, 2012 M7.6 Fatalities: 1
Collapse: 3 bridges
Bohol EQ Oct 15, 2013 M7.2
Severely Damaged: 11 Br.

2. Seismic Vulnerability of
Philippine Bridges
EQ
WITH
Source:
M>4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Ring_of_Fire
PHILIPPINE
SEISMICITY
Source : PHIVOLCS

2.1 1990 North Luzon
Earthquake
Date July 16
Magnitude 7.8
Depth 28 km
Source: Phil. Earthquake Reconnaissance Report, J.E.E.R.I, Oct. 1991

132.30 m
7 X 18.90 m
VEGA GRANDE BRIDGE

 Leaning, falling and failure of six bridge piers; failure of concrete pier
sections due to insufficient load bearing capacity
 Collapse of the girder over seven spans
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
G13 G12 G11 G10 G9 G8 G7 G6 G5 G4 G3 G2 G1
CARMEN BRIDGE
 Leaning, falling and failure of seven bridge piers and damage of bearings
 Collapse of the truss girder for three spans
 Buckling, deformation and rupture of the fallen truss girders

LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7
MAGSAYSAY BRIDGE
 Decreased bearing capacity of foundation due to the ground liquefaction
 Leaning, falling and failure of six bridge piers
 Collapse of the girder over four spans
CALVO BRIDGE
 Ground liquefaction/ Large cracks were also observed in the ground.
 Leaning, falling and failure of bridge piers and their foundations
 Collapse of the truss girder over two spans
 Bearing failure on Pier 1
135.00 m
9 x 15.00 m
BATOLING BRIDGE
 Decreased bearing capacity of foundation due to the ground liquefaction
 Leaning, falling and failure of six bridge piers
 Collapse of the girder over three spans
Major Damage to Bridges Seismic Vulnerability
 Damages to and Failure of  Insufficient rigidity and strength of piles
Foundations  Insufficient embedment depth of piles
(Pile Bent Type Piers and  Insufficient bearing capacity of the foundation
Abutment Foundation)  Reduced bearing capacity by soil liquefaction (No design
 Settlement, Inclination and consideration to liquefaction)
Failure of Foundation and  Settlement and runoff of embankment soil at the back of
Piers Due to Liquefaction abutments
 Rupture of Wall Type Piers  Insufficient (or no) reinforcing bars
 Insufficient bearing support edge distance
 Damages to and Rupture of  Insufficient reinforcing bars in bearing seat concrete
Bearings  Insufficient number and strength of anchor bolt
 Many bridges were simply supported
 Insufficient seat length
 Unseating/Fall-down of
 No unseating prevention structure
Girders
 Many bridges were simply supported (no connection of girders)
2.2 2012 Negros

Oriental Earthquake
Date February 6
Magnitude 6.7
Depth 5-10 km

Pagaloan Bridge
• Unseating of girder
• Severe horizontal cracks on solid shaft of piers
• Tilting of Piers 1 and 2
• Inadequate support width of girders at Span 3. Girders
are already at edge of coping.
• Transverse movement of decks – spans 3 and 4 are
offset from centerline alignment.
• Large horizontal cracks at pier base
Tinayunan Bridge
• Substructure collapse due to shear and bending failure
of the entire row of pile bents
• Settlement of approach behind the abutment
Martilo Bridge
• 1-span totally collapsed
• Severe concrete cracking at piers
• Shear failure of pier column
• Tilting of Abutment B with end span settlement

Habag Bridge
• Substructure collapse due to shear and bending failure
of the entire row of pile bents
• Approach road settlement/ground rupture
Oyangan Bridge
• Horizontal displacement of superstructure – 140mm to
the right
• Shear cracks at exterior girder
• Cracks and spalling at end of leftmost RC girder due to
horizontal movement
• Displacement between abutment and slope protection
• 300mm pavement crack and settlement of approach
“B”
• Bearing failure and lack of shear block causes transverse
movement of deck by 140mm.
• Ground movement and fissures caused settlement of
approach road.

 Insufficient member rigidity and capacity causing shear and
bending failure, especially precast pile bents
 Damages to and Failure of
 Insufficient bearing capacity and embedment depth of pi le
Piers and Pile Foundations
foundation causes foundation instability
 Settlement, Inclination and  Insufficient lateral resistance of pile bents
Failure of Piers, Abutment  Additional foundation forces due to ground movement (No
and Foundation design consideration for ground movement/lateral spreading)
 Settlement/failure of embankment soil at the back of abutments
 Ground Lateral Movement
with damages to approach roads and pavements caused by
lateral movement of ground
 Insufficient gaps at expansion joints caused pounding and
 Structural Cracks on Girders
crushing of girders; lack of displacement limiting device
 Unseating/Fall-down and
 No unseating prevention structure or fall-down device
Displacement of Girders
 Bridges are simply supported (no girder connection)
2.3 2013 Bohol
Earthquake
Date Oct 15
Magnitude 7.2
Depth 12 km

Collapsed Bridges:
Abatan Bridge (Post 1970) and Moalong
Bridge (1982)
Damages to Bridges:
• Settlement/inclination of abutment
• Loss of span/unseated girder/collapsed span
• Pier inclination/twisting
• Pile shear and bending failure/large cracks
• Backwall failure/concrete cracks
• Settlement of approach section behind the
abutment
• Settlement of riprap protection

Severely Damaged Bridges:
Tagbuane Bridge (1945-1970), Tultugan Bridge (Post 1970),
Desamparados Bridge (Post 1970), Anislag Bridge (1996), Bateria Bridge
(1995), Mandaug Bridge (-), Bacani Bridge (1967), Damiao Bridge
(2000), Hunan Bridge (2000), Clarin Bridge (1980), Palo Bridge (Post
1970), Hinawanan Bridge (1969)
Damages to Bridges:
• Pounding of girder at abutments/crushed diaphragm; Girder cracks
• Lateral/longitudinal sliding of concrete girder and deck
• Buckling of truss members (lateral bracing, diagonal members,
stiffeners, etc.);
• Collision of truss bottom chord with pier coping
• Severe cracking/shear and bending failure of piles; Joint failure at pile
head and slab/severe cracks; Cracks/spalling of concrete piles
• Inclination/tilting of piers; Inclination/tilting of abutments
• Cracks at abutment walls; Cracks footing/pile cap; Large cracks at
footing connection
• Settlement of riprap protection; Settlement of approach behind the
abutment
 Damages and Failure of  Insufficient member rigidity and capacity causing shear and
Piers and Foundations bending failure of piers and precast piles
 Settlement, Inclination and  Insufficient bearing capacity and embedment depth of pi le
Failure of Piers, Abutments foundation
and Foundation  Insufficient lateral resistance of single row pile bents
 Additional foundation forces due to ground movement (No
 Ground Liquefaction and design consideration for liquefaction and lateral spreading)
Lateral Movement  Settlement/failure of embankment soil at the back of abutments
 Settlement of Approach and approach roads and pavements caused by lateral movement
Roads of ground
 Insufficient gaps at expansion joints caused pounding and
 Structural Cracks on Girders
crushing of girders; lack of displacement limiting device
 Unseating/Fall-down and
 No unseating prevention structure or fall-down device
Displacement of Girders
 Single row pile bents exhibit large displacements at pier supports
3-Span
Beam
Failure
Mechanism

Pier Failure
Mechanism

Abutment
Failure
Mechanism
3. Evolution of Seismic
Design of Philippine
Bridges
Major Earthquake Events and Seismic Specifications
Kanto Earthquake Seismic Design Specifications
Japan
 The first seismic design specifications
 Sept. 1, 1923
was established in 1925 (JRA)

 Allowable Stress Design
F = W x kH
kH: Seismic Coefficient
 Until the 1950’s elastic seismic design using

0.2-0.3 seismic coefficients used
Source: PWRI  Massive and rigid piers constructed

Niigata Earthquake Seismic Design Specifications

Japan
 Design Specifications was revised in 1971
 June 16, 1964, Niigata Region
 M=7.5  Modified seismic coefficient method
incorporating natural period, soil
Showa O-hashi Bridge condition and bridge importance
 Effect of ground liquefaction considered
 Unseating prevention device introduced
Unseating caused by Liquefaction Unseating device prevents girders from

Source: PWRI
falling down
San Fernando Earthquake Seismic Design Specifications
USA
New seismic design criteria for bridges
 Feb. 9, 1971, San Fernando California was introduced by California Department
 M=6.6 of Transportation (Caltrans) in 1973
 AASHTO adopted the Caltrans
provisions in the 1975 Interim
Specifications
EQ = CFW where C=ARS/Z
F = frame factor
W = dead load
A = peak ground
acceleration
R = response spectra
S = soil amplification factor
Z = force reduction factor
San Fernando Earthquake Seismic Design Specifications

USA  1981 Seismic Design Guide Specifications
 Feb. 9, 1971, San Fernando California was issued based Applied Technology
 M=6.6
Council (ATC-6)
 AASHTO Standard Specifications for
Highway Bridges incorporated Division I-A
Seismic Design was issued in 1991.
Provisions include:
 Utilizing response spectra based on four soil
profile types
 Inelastic hinging of columns is considered
using response modification factors
 Transverse confine details for columns
 Minimum support length introduced

Miyagi Earthquake Seismic Design Specifications
Japan
Design Specifications was revised in 1980
 June 12, 1978, Miyagi Region
 Concept of ductility design was introduced
 M=7.4
 Transverse reinforcement increased
Fall-down of gerber hinge span  Anchorage length of reinforcement increased
昭和５５年より前の指針昭和５５年道路橋示方書
鉛直力鉛直力
Before 1980 After 1980

水平力水平力
柱とフーチングの接合部
150 mm Pitch
や軸方向鉄筋量が大きく
変化する位置（段落とし部
around cut-
など）では15cm程度
（一般の位置における規定
・d+20φ（折り曲げる時）
・鉄筋の引張応力度が
off point
量の２倍程度）
Anchorage
　許容応力度の1/2以下
　となる断面（下限値はla）
「十分な定着長」 Length
　　（伸ばす時）
Anchorage
慣用的に重ね継ぎ手長la
計算上不要と
（軸方向鉄筋径φの30～35倍程度）
Length なる部材断面
30cm程度（一般部）
30cm程度（全高）
300 mm 300 mm Pitch
Pitch
150 mm Pitch
Damage occurred around the 有効高さd 有効高さd
cut-off point of reinforcement

Source: PWRI

Other Major Earthquake Seismic Design Specifications
USA, Philippines
• AASHTO LRFD Bridge
 Loma Prieta, USA – Oct. 17, 1989
Design Specifications
(M=7.1)
 North Luzon, Philippines – July 16,
 Force-based approach
using strength reduction
1990 (M=7.9)
factor (R-factor) to reduce
 North Ridge, USA – January 17,
elastic force demand
1994 (M=6.7)
• AASHTO LRFD Sesimic
Bridge Design
 Displacement-based
approach using displacement
as a measure of earthquake
demand and damage
Kobe Earthquake Seismic Design Specifications

Japan
Design Specifications was revised in 1996
 January 17, 1995, Kobe  Two-level design concept was introduced
 M=7.2  Design ground motion increased
 Detailing, etc…
Class I ground (Hard)
Ground Type II (Moderate)
Ground Type III (Soft)
Source: PWRI
3. Evolution of Seismic Design of Philippine Bridges
Negros
(2012)
2011 Great
San North Luzon North Ridge East Japan
Kanto Fernando (1990) (1994) Kobe
(1923) (1971) (1995)
Miyagi Bohol
Niigata Loma Prieta
(1978) (2013)
(1964) (1989)
1990
1960
1980
2000
2015
1970
2010
 No Specific  1982 DPWH  1992 DPWH  2005 NSCP  2013 DPWH
Provision DGCS D.O. 75 Reprint BSDS
 Follows AASHO
Min.Seismic  1987 NSCP  1997 NSCP  2015 DPWH
Provision 1st ED 1st ED DGCS
• JRA: • JRA: kh=0.1-0.3 • JRA: Coefficient • JRA: Ductility • JRA: Seismic

kh=0.2/kv=0.1 Unseating & Deformation Ground Motion Performance
Liquefaction • AASHTO: LFD • AASHTO: LRFD
• AASHTO: • AASHTO: ATC
• kh=0.02, 0.04, 0.06 • Caltrans: Seismic Seismic Provision Force-Based/LRFD Displacement-
Provision Based
Early
Early Design Stages
Stages until Until 1980s
1980s
Negros
(2012)
2011 Great
(1923) (1971) (1995)
Miyagi Bohol
Niigata Loma Prieta
(1978) (2013)
(1964) (1989)
1990
1960
1980
2000
2015
1970
2010
 Design of bridges in the Philippines prior to the publication of the
DPWH Design Guidelines (ca 1980) refer to the earlier editions of F
the AASHO/AASHTO and the Ministry Orders and Memorandums. F = W x kH
 There is no specific provision for seismic design in the early 1900s
 As such, bridges constructed in the early 1900s have no or minimal
seismic design considerations
 Equivalent static lateral force was applied in the late 1960s kH: 0.02, 0.04, 0.06
Period of 1980 - 1990
Negros
(2012)
2011 Great
(1923) (1971) (1995)
Miyagi Bohol
Niigata Loma Prieta
(1978) (2013)
(1964) (1989)
1990
1960
1980
2000
2015
1970
2010
 In 1982 the DPWH Design Guidelines was published which specifies F
equivalent static seismic design forces to be not less than: F = W x kH
10%(DL + ½ LL), or J.P. Hollings method

 In 1987, considering the development of the design codes in the
U.S.A., ASEP published the 1st Edition of NSCP referring to the
seismic provisions of the 1983 AASHTO Standard Specifications
• Use of Caltrans ARS Method EQ = CFW

Period of 1990 - 2000
Negros
(2012)
2011 Great
(1923) (1971) (1995)
Miyagi Bohol
Niigata Loma Prieta
(1978) (2013)
(1964) (1989)
1990
1960
1980
2000
2015
1970
2010
 In 1990, the North Luzon Earthquake caused major damages 3A3
Acceleration Resp onse Spe ctra(gal)

　　　Soil Type-Ⅰ S=1.0
1.2AS
　　　Soil Type-Ⅱ S=1.2
2.5A T(2/3) 　　　Soil Type-Ⅲ
to public infrastructure and collapsed of bridges due to soil 2A2

　　　Soil-Type-Ⅳ
S=1.5
S=2.0
liquefaction, insufficient seat and lack of capacity. 1A1
ｈ＝0.05
 Due to the urgency of the need to establish proper seismic 0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period T (sec)
design, the DPWH issued the D.O. 75 in 1992, requiring Elastic response spectrum analysis
with formation of plastic hinges in
design of bridges to conform with the latest AASHTO
the columns by applying a response
seismic design provisions. modification factor.
Period of 1990 - 2000
Negros
(2012)
2011 Great
(1923) (1971) (1995)
Miyagi Bohol
Niigata Loma Prieta
(1978) (2013)
(1964) (1989)
1990
1960
1980
2000
2015
1970
2010
 The basic seismic design philosophy is: 3A3
Acceleration Resp onse Spe ctra(gal)

1.2AS
• Elastic range of the structural components for small to

2.5A T(2/3) 　　　Soil Type-Ⅲ S=1.5
　　　Soil-Type-Ⅳ S=2.0
2A2
moderate earthquake, and 1A1
• May suffer damage but should not cause collapse under ｈ＝0.05
large earthquakes
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period T (sec)
 In 1997, ASEP published the 2nd Edition of NSCP (Reprint AASHTO Response Spectra
combined with 2-Zone Seismic
in 2005) utilizing 1992 AASHTO Div. I-A – Seismic Design. Hazard Map at 0.2 and 0.4 PGA

Period
Period of 2000-to
of 2000 Present
Present
Negros
(2012)
2011 Great
(1923) (1971) (1995)
Miyagi Bohol
Niigata Loma Prieta
(1978) (2013)
(1964) (1989)
1990
1960
1980
2000
2015
1970
2010
 The AASHTO Force-Based Method for bridge design is widely
applied with the 2-zone seismic PGA map
 The DPWH LRFD Bridge Seismic Design Specifications (BSDS)
was developed in 2013
 The DPWH LRFD Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards
(DGCS) was developed in 2015
 The DPWH D.O. 179 & 180 (2015) and D.O. 45 (2016) requires the
mandatory application of DGCS and BSDS
4. Development of DPWH
Bridge Seismic Design
(BSDS)
4. Development of DPWH Bridge Seismic Design (BSDS)
4.1 Issues on Seismic Design Prior to BSDS
(a) Localizing the Seismic Hazard
 The previous design requirements employ the 2-zone
PGA Map (0.2 and 0.4) covering the entire country.
 This was applied in the absence of a more thorough
analysis of the sources of seismic excitation with
corresponding return periods
 Consistency with the latest AASHTO LRFD and the
1,000-year return earthquake is indicated
 Need to update the Seismic Hazard Map to indicate

earthquake sources and required return period

(b) Design Acceleration Response Spectra and Site Effects

 The previous practice is to apply the AASHTO
acceleration response spectra with corresponding
AASHTO soil types 3A3
S p e c tra( g al)
1.2AS
 Current AASHTO LRFD utilizes a 3-point response 2.5A T(2/3) 　　　Soil Type-Ⅲ
　　　Soil-Type-Ⅳ
S=1.5
S=2.0
2A2
spectrum to establish the design spectra
Response
 Philippine rock and ground condition is similar to 1A1
A c c elera tio n
Japan ground condition and relates better than ｈ＝0.05
AASHTO soil types 0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period T (sec)
 Need to localize soil types and site effects in

establishing design response acceleration spectra

(c) Seismic Performance Requirements
 The current design requirement stipulates a ”no
collapse” response to major/large earthquake
 However, there is no specific requirement for
immediate restoration of bridge function and degree
of repairability
 Bridges expected to play a role in the disaster
recovery should remain functional in the event of the
design earthquake
 Need to establish a more definite seismic performance

requirements based on bridge function and
occupational classification

(d) Bridge Fall-Down Prevention System

 Experience from previous large earthquakes have
shown bridge spans falling down from bridge
supports caused by relatively large displacements
 Early design indicates insufficient seat length and
lack of efficiency of restrainers to function
collectively in the event of large earthquakes
 Need to provide a fall-down prevention system with

multiple mechanisms that can complement each
other efficiently during unexpectedly large
displacements

(e) Ground Liquefaction

 Performance of Philippine bridges in the 1990 North
Luzon EQ, 2012 Negros Oriental EQ and 2013 Bohol
EQ indicated vulnerability to the effects of
seismically unstable ground (including ground
liquefaction and lateral spreading)
 Many bridges collapsed due to ground liquefaction
and forces caused by lateral spreading of the ground
 Need to provide design specific provisions against

ground liquefaction and lateral spreading based on
established and tested design specifications

4.2 Major Provisions of the DPWH BSDS
The primary objective in the development of the Bridge

Seismic Design Specifications is to improve the
shortcomings of the previous design practice and
establish design provisions that will minimize
susceptibility to damage from earthquakes and
guarantee the seismic performance objective of the
bridge.

4.2 Major Provisions of the DPWH BSDS
Vol. 6 Public DPWH Bridge Design Specifications
DPWH Design Guidelines, Criteria and
Buildings
Vol. 5 Bridge Design
Vol. 4 Highway
Standards (DGCS), 2015
Design
Vol. 3 Water
Engineering
Project
Vol. 2
Engineering
Surveys
Vol. 1 Introduction
and Overview
 Covers design for  Covers mainly seismic

construction, alteration, design of bridges based on
repair and retrofitting LRFD seismic design
highway bridges and related method
highway structures  Use of localized seismic
 Earthquake effects shall be response acceleration
in accordance with BSDS contour map coefficients

Contents of Section 1: Introduction

BSDS Section 2: Definitions and Notations
Section 3: General Requirements
Section 4: Analysis Requirements
Section 5: Design Requirements
Section 6: Effects of Seismically Unstable Ground
Section 7: Unseating Prevention System
Section 8: Requirements for Seismically Isolated
Bridges

4.2 Major Provisions of the BSDS
DPWH Department Order 75 (1992)
Earthquake Importance
Serviceability Performance Safety Performance
Level Class
 Small to moderate earthquakes IC=I
Small/  No significant
should be resisted within the
Moderate damage to members Essential
elastic range Bridges
 Damage should be readily  May suffer damage
detectable and accessible for but should not cause IC=II
Large/ Major Other
inspection and repair. collapse of all or any
of its parts. Bridges
 Continuous bridge with monolithic multi-column bents are preferred
 Restrainers with sufficient seat width at all joints to be provided
 Transverse reinforcement/confinement in yielding zones are necessary
 Plastic hinging should be forced in column regions rather than foundations
 Consideration to global bridge stiffness – include soil-structure interaction for irregular structures
Occupational Classification (BSDS)
Operational Serviceability
Description
Classification (OC) Performance
• Must remain open to Important bridges that meet:
OC-I all traffic after the  Bridges without detours or alternative route (e.g.
(Critical Bridges) design earthquake connecting islands or without alternative route)
(1,000-year return).  Bridges on roads and highways considered to be
 As required by DPWH part of the regional disaster prevention route,
to be open to  Bridges with span ≥ 100m,
emergency vehicles  Non-conventional bridges or special bridge types
and vehicles for such as suspension, cable stayed, arch, etc.
security/defense  Other bridge forms such as double-deck bridges,
purposes immediately overcrossings or overbridges that could cause
after an earthquake secondary disaster when collapsed,
larger than the design  As specified by the DPWH or those having
earthquake. jurisdiction on the bridge.

Occupational Classification (BSDS)
Operational Serviceability
Description
Classification (OC) Performance
 As a minimum, be Bridges located along:
OC-II open to emergency  Pan-Philippine Highway,
(Essential Bridges) vehicles and for  Expressways (Urban and Inter-urban),
security/defense  Major/Primary national arterial highways (North-South
purposes within a Backbone, East-West Lateral, Other Roads of Strategic
short period after Importance),
the design  Provincial, City and Municipal roads in view of disaster
earthquake, i.e. prevention and traffic strategy.
1,000 year return Additionally, bridges that meet:
period event.  Bridges with detours greater than 25 kilometers
 As specified by the DPWH or those having jurisdiction on
the bridge
OC-III  All other than OC-I  All other bridges not classified as OC-I or OC-II
(Other) or OC-II

Philippine Road Network

Comparison of Seismic Performance Requirements
The seismic performance of bridges during an earthquake is the key issue in seismic
design in view of safety, serviceability and repairability.
Specification Seismic Performance Design EQ Ground Motion
3 Levels: 2 Levels:
JRA Sound Function, Limited Highly Probable, Plate Boundary
Damage, No Critical Damage and Inland Direct Strike
May suffer damage but not cause 2-Zone Map (Source and frequency
DPWH/NSCP
collapse is not clear) 500-yr return?
May suffer damage but with low 1,000-year return period
AASHTO LRFD
probability of collapse
Life safety with low probability of 1,000-year return period
AASHTO Seismic
collapse
Seismic Performance Requirements (BSDS)
Performance level of a bridge to ensure its normal sound

SPL-1 functions during an earthquake.
Performance level of a bridge to sustain limited damages

SPL-2 during an earthquake and capable of recovery immediately for
critical bridges and within a short period for essential bridges.
Performance level of a bridge to ensure safety against collapse

SPL-3 during an earthquake.

Seismic Performance Requirements (BSDS)
Earthquake Ground Bridge Operational Classification
Motion OC-I OC-II OC-III
(EGM) (Critical Bridges) (Essential Bridges) (Other Bridges)
Level 1 SPL-1 SPL-1 SPL-1
(Small to moderate (Keep the bridge sound (Keep the bridge sound (Keep the bridge sound
earthquakes, 100-yr function; resist seismic function; resist seismic function; resist seismic
return) forces within elastic limit) forces within elastic limit) forces within elastic limit)
Level 2 SPL-2 SPL-2 SPL-3

(Large earthquakes (Limited seismic damage (Limited seismic damage (May suffer damage but
with a 1,000-yr return and capable of and capable of should not cause collapse
period) immediately recovering recovering bridge of bridge or any of its
bridge functions without function with structural structural elements)
structural repair) repair within short
period)
Comparison of Seismic Performance Requirements
SPL-1 SPL-2 SPL-3 Seismic
Ductility Capacity Limit
Elastic Limit Repairable Limit Performance Level
Prevent Damage Limited Damage Prevent Critical
for Function Damage
Recovery
Level 1 Earthquake Ground
Level 2 Ground Motion Motion (EGM)
Ground Motion
OC-I, II & III OC-I & OC-II OC-III Bridge Operational
Linear
Classification
Nonlinear
(Elastic Range)
Lateral Force
Members behave Concrete cracks, Buckling of rebars, Member failure,

elastically reinforcement yields large deformation structure collapse
Lateral Displacement
Seismic Hazard and Design Response Spectra
100-year
Return Hazard
Map (BSDS)
(PGA & Response
Acceleration
Coefficient)
PGA 0.2 sec 1.0 sec
1,000-year
Return Hazard
Map (BSDS)
Previous 2- (PGA & Response
Zone Hazard Acceleration
Map Coefficient)
PGA 0.2 sec 1.0 sec
SDS = Fa SS
3A3
S p e c tra( g al)

1.2AS
Elastic Seismic Coefficient, C m

2.5A T(2/3) 　　　Soil Type-Ⅲ S=1.5 Csm = SD1/Tm
　　　Soil-Type-Ⅳ S=2.0
2A2
Response
SD1 = Fv S1
AS = Fpga PGA
1A1
A c c elera tio n
To = 0.2 TS
ｈ＝0.05 TS = SD1/SDS
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period T (sec) 0 0.2 1.0
Period, Tm (sec)
Previous DPWH Design Spectra BSDS Design Spectra

(AASHTO Normalized Spectra) (Using 3 Seismic Hazard Maps)
Geologic Similarities
Relative Philippines
PHILIPPINES Japan
JAPAN United
USStates AASHTO has
Ma Geologic Era stiffness of to cover a
Volcanic arc Volcanic arc
wide range of
Ground Types soils/rocks islands islands
Continental crust
rock types.
→High
Cenozoic
and Site Effects 2.6 Quaternary
66 Tertiary
Geology of
146 Cretaceous U.S. widely
Mesozoic
Jurassic ranging from
200
Precambrian
251 Triassic to Recent
299 Permian
359 Carboniferous
Paleozoic
416 Devonian
Philippines and Limited
444 Silurian
Japan: Mainly Late areas in
488 Ordovician Japan
Paleozoic-Recent
542 Cambrian
Ma: Million
4600 Precambrian years ago

GROUND TYPES (SITE CLASS)

Ground Characteristic Value of
Description
Type Ground, TG (s)
Type I TG < 0.2 Good diluvial ground and rock
Diluvial and alluvial ground not

Type II 0.2TG < 0.6
belonging to Type I and Type III
Type III 0.6TG Soft ground and alluvial ground
The characteristic value of Hi n Consider effects

TG  4 of unstable soil
ground, TG is defined by: i 1 Vsi
layer
PGA = 0.60 1.40
Elastic Seismic Coefficient, Csm

Soil Type
PGA 1.20 -I
(1,000yr) - II
1.00 - III
0.80
SS = 1.30
0.60
S0.20
(1,000yr) 0.40
0.20
S1 = 0.50
0.00
S1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
(1,000yr) Period, Tm (sec)
Unseating Prevention System
 In the event of an
extremely large Restrainer (Unseating Prevention Device)
and unpredictable
displacements, a Deck Slab
bridge fall-down
system with the Excessive
aim of a multiple Displacement
mechanism that Limiting Device Girder
(EDLD)
compliments each
other is proposed
Abutment
in the BSDS Settling Prevention
Seat Length Device (Limit Gaps
Bearing Support between Structures)
Mechanism of Unseating Prevention System
Failure of Functional at 0.75 SE
expansion joint (0.25SE remains when
restrainer activates)
Settlement
Displacement
Displacement
Type “A” Bearing

EDLD fails at Level 2 EGM Bearing and
functional at Type “B” Bearing Seat EDLD fail at EGM
Level 2 EGM functional at Level 2 EGM Length (SE) > Level 2
Performance under Design Performance under Unexpected
Earthquake (Level 2 EGM) Earthquake (EGM > Level 2)
Effects of Seismically Unstable Ground Condition
 Effects of the following unstable ground
to be taken into account to verify seismic
performance of the bridge:
 Extremely soft soil layer for seismic
design
 Sandy layer affecting bridge
performance due to lateral spreading
 Geotechnical parameters for seismic
design shall be reduced when ground is
seismically unstable
 However, to ensure seismic performance
of the bridge, verification shall be done
for stable and unstable ground conditions
Effects of Seismically Unstable Ground Condition
Assessment Geotechnical
Parameters Lateral Spreading
• Assessment of
Extremely Soft Soil • Reduction of
Layer • Design for
Geotechnical
• Assessment of Soil Liquefaction-
Parameters for
Liquefaction Induced Lateral
Analysis and Design
Spreading
• Saturated soil layer < 20 m
with ground water level >10 m • Geotechnical Parameters
(Shear Modulus , Strength,
• Fine content (FC) O35% or
Etc) shall be reduced
Plasticity index, IP, <15, even Non-lique fying HNL q NL
if FC >35%. • Reduction factor based on Cons ide r

laye r
lique fac tion-

liquefaction Resistance Factor Lique fying laye r HL qL
• Mean particle size (D50) <10 induc e d late ral
s pre ading e ffe c ts
(FL) and Dynamic Shear
mm , Particle size = 10% Lique fac tion-induc e d
Strength Ratio (R) Non-lique fying laye r
passing (D10) < 1 mm. late ral s pre ading
e ffe c ts not c ons ide re d

Structures to Reduce Seismic Effects
 Devices or structures to reduce the seismic effects on
bridges (forces and displacements) may include: seismic
isolation bearings, energy absorbing devices (dampers),
etc.
 Aim is to reduce the superstructure inertia forces through
lengthening of the natural period and improving damping Laminated Rubber Bearing
 Seismic isolation is not normally adopted to bridges with
Upper
very soft soil, flexible substructures with long Plate
Lead
Core
fundamental period, or those with uplift at bearing
supports (Negative Effects).
 Adopted devices shall be simple in mechanism with Rubber Inner
sufficient gaps to allow for the device to function properly Bearing Plate
without contact with other members. Lead Rubber Bearing
Bridges Maintained by the DPWH (2016) DGCS
2015
CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF BRIDGES
9000 BSDS
DGCS/BSDS 2013 8132
8000 DO 75 NSCP 7861
1990 2005 6914
7000
DO 75/AASHTO NSCP NSCP
6000 Force-Based 1987 1997 5504
Design
5000 DGCS
1982 4082
4000 DGCS 10% EQ
3000 Provision 2977
2000 Minimal Seismic

Provision 1039
1000
36 169
0
1930 1950 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 >2015
Source: DPWH 2016 Inventory
YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION
 As of 2016, the DPWH has more than 8,100 stock of bridges
throughout the Philippines
 Bridges built until the 1980s have minimal seismic design provisions,
using equivalent static lateral force of < 10%
 From the 1980s when the DGCS was published, the design earthquake
forces accounts to 10% of DL & LL. However, the damages caused by
the 1990 North Luzon Earthquake prompted the DPWH to establish a
more systematic seismic design invoking plastic hinges in the column
taking account of member ductility and thus reducing seismic forces in
the substructures.
 However, certain issues identified in the previous seismic design
practice led to the development of the BSDS, including localizing the
design requirements for earthquake sources and effects.

Acknowledgment
 The development of the DPWH LRFD Bridge Seismic Design

Specifications was undertaken during the JICA Study on “Improvement
of Bridges through Disaster Mitigating Measures for Large-Scale
Earthquakes in the Republic of the Philippines” in 2013.
 Acknowledgement is given to the Japan International Cooperation

Agency (JICA) for the support in the development of the BSDS.
 Acknowledge is likewise given to the DPWH BSDS Working Group

Members, the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology
(PHIVOLCS) and the Association of Structural Engineers of the
Philippines (ASEP) for their cooperation.

Thank you for your
kind attention

Santos

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Santos

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PICE 43rd National Convention

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

Source: Phil. Earthquake Reconnaissance Report, J.E.E.R.I, Oct. 1991

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

VEGA GRANDE BRIDGE

G13 G12 G11 G10 G9 G8 G7 G6 G5 G4 G3 G2 G1

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK

2.2 2012 Negros

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

 Until the 1950’s elastic seismic design using

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

Niigata Earthquake Seismic Design Specifications

Unseating caused by Liquefaction Unseating device prevents girders from

San Fernando Earthquake Seismic Design Specifications

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

Before 1980 After 1980

Damage occurred around the 有効高さd 有効高さd

cut-off point of reinforcement

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

Kobe Earthquake Seismic Design Specifications

• JRA: • JRA: kh=0.1-0.3 • JRA: Coefficient • JRA: Ductility • JRA: Seismic

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

Acceleration Resp onse Spe ctra(gal)

to public infrastructure and collapsed of bridges due to soil 2A2

liquefaction, insufficient seat and lack of capacity. 1A1

 Due to the urgency of the need to establish proper seismic 0

Acceleration Resp onse Spe ctra(gal)

• Elastic range of the structural components for small to

moderate earthquake, and 1A1

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

 Need to update the Seismic Hazard Map to indicate

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

(b) Design Acceleration Response Spectra and Site Effects

AASHTO soil types 0

 Need to localize soil types and site effects in

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

 Need to establish a more definite seismic performance

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

(d) Bridge Fall-Down Prevention System

 Need to provide a fall-down prevention system with

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

(e) Ground Liquefaction

 Need to provide design specific provisions against

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

4.2 Major Provisions of the DPWH BSDS

The primary objective in the development of the Bridge

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

 Covers design for  Covers mainly seismic

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

Contents of Section 1: Introduction

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

PICE 43rd National Convention (28-30 Nov. 2017) , Manila Philippines

Philippine Road Network

　　　Soil Type-Ⅰ S=1.0