Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
REGION 11
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DESIGN FOR REHABILITATION OF KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE OVER NEWTOWN CREEK
KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES PIN X729.77
SEISMIC ANALYSES REPORT
Prepared by lffland Kavanagh Waterbury, P. C./
Ewell W. Finley, P. C
April, 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Chapter 1 Introduction 1-1
1.1 Objectives 1.2 Tasks 1.3 Description of Structure
1.3.1 Superstructure 1.3.2 Substructure
Chapter 2 Seismic Criteria and Methodology 2-1
2.1 Importance Category 2.2 Seismic Hazard Level 2.3 Performance Criteria 2.4 Site Effect -
3.5 Soil-Structure Interaction 2.6 Seismic Analysis Approach
Chapter 3 Seismic Evaluation Procedure and Potential Failure Modes 3-1
3.1 Bearings 3-3 3.1.1 Expansion Bearing Seat Support Len,@h 3-3 3.1.2 Bearing Anchor Force 3-4
3.2 Pier Columns 3-4 3.2.1 Column Axial Force-Moment Interaction Failure 3-4 3.2.2 Column Shear Failure 3-9
3.3 Footings 3.3.1 Footing Moment 3.3.2 Footing Shear 3.3.3 Soil Bearing or Pile Bearing 3.3.4 Liquefaction Potential
3.4 Abutments 3-12
Chapter 4 Seismic Evaluation Results
4.1 Steel Truss Spans (Spans 79 to 100)
4.1.1 Bearings 4.1.1.1 Expansion Bearing Seat Support Length 4.1.1.2 Bearing Anchor Force
4.1.2 Pier Columns 4.1.2.1 Column Axial Force-Moment Interaction 4.1.2.2 Column Shear
4.1.3 Footings 4.1.3.1 Footing Moment 4.1.3.2 Footing Shear 4.1 -3.3 Soil Bearing or Pile Bearing 4.1.3.4 Liquefaction Potential
4.1.4 Steel Tower Piers - Main Span
4.1.5. Steel Trusses
4.2 Concrete Spans (Spans 1 to 78 & 101 to 103)
4.2.1 Bearings 4.2.1.1 Expansion Bearing Seat Support Length 4.2.1.2 Fixed Bearing Anchor Force
4.2.2 Pier Columns 4.2.2.1 Column Axial Force-Moment Interaction 4.2.2.2 Column Shear
4.2.3 Footings 4.2.3.1 Footing Moment 4.2.3.2 Footing Shear 4.2.3.3 Soil Bearing 4.2.3.4 Liquefaction Potential
4.2.4 Abutments
Chapter 5 Seismic Retrofit Measures
5.1 Steel Truss Spans (Spans 79 to 100)
5.1.1 Bearing Anchor Failure 5.1.1.1 Alternate1 5.1.1.2 Alternate 2
5.1.2 Pier Column Axial Force-Moment Lnteraction Failure 5.1.3 Footing Flexural Failure 5.1.4 Soil Bearing Failure
5.2 Concrete Spans
5.2.1 Bearing Anchor Failure 5.2.2 Column Retrofit 5.2.3 Footing Retrofit
Chapter 6 Cost Estimate
6.1 Steel Truss Spans
6.1.1 Cost Estimate for Retrofit of Bearing Anchor Failure 6.1.2 Cost Estimate for Retrofit of Column Axial Force-
Moment Interaction Failure 6.1.3 Cost Estimate for Retrofit of Footing Flexural Failure 6.1.4 Cost Estimate for Retrofit of Soil Bearing Failure 6.1.5 Cost Estimate for Retrofit of Liquefaction
6.2 Concrete Spans
6.2.1 Cost Estimate for Retrofit of Bearings - Alternate 1 6.2.2 Cost Estimate for Retrofit of Bearings, Columns and
Footings - Alternate 2 6.2.3 Cost Estimate for Retrofit of Bearings, Columns and
Footings - Alternate 3
6.3 Summary
Chapter 7 Conclusion and Recommendations
7.1 Steel Truss Spans (Spans 79 to 100)
7.1.1 Conclusions 7.1.2 Recommendations
7.2 Concrete Spans (Spans 1 to 78 & 101 to 103)
7.2.1 Conclusions and Recommendations
7.3 Prioritization
Appendix A Seismic Modeling
A.l Bridge Structure - Steel Truss Spans
A.2 Soil-Structure Interaction
A.2.1 Spread Footing A.2.2 Pile Group Foundation
A.3 Concrete Spans
Appendix B Seismic Soil Classification and Related Soil Parameters
Appendix C Dominant Mode Shape, Mass participation and Period For Each Bridge Structure
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Seismic analyses have been carried out for the Kosciuszko Bridge based upon the
seismic criteria and methodology specified by the July 2002 NYSDOT Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges. The criteria requires that a critical bridge be
analyzed for two earthquake levels: a lower level (functional) event with a return
period of 500 years and an upper level (safety) event with a return period of 2500
years.
The Multi-mode Spectral Analysis Method was utilized for the entire structure. Each
modal response was superimposed in accordance with the Complete Quadric
Combination (CQC) method. The analyses were performed for both the "as-is"
condition which includes the work performed under the Interim Rehabilitation
Contract and for the proposed rehabilitated condition which includes seismic retrofit
features as well as major features of the final rehabilitation contract.
There are four major areas where local failure may take place and where the seismic
evaluations were performed. These are:
1. Bearings. The typical failure modes are seating failure for expansion
bearings and anchor failure for both expansion and fixed bearings.
2. Pier Columns. The typical failure modes are column axial force-moment
interaction failure and column shear failure.
3. Footings. The typical failure modes are footing moment failure, footing
shear failure, soil bearing failure, pile overload and soil liquefaction.
4. Abutments. Two typical instability failures: sliding and overturning.
Steel Truss Spans (Spans 79 to 100)
Seismic Evaluation Results
When subjected to the upper level earthquake, the following failure modes were
found:
1. 75% of the bearings, a total of 66 bearings, were found to have an anchor
failure.
2. 43% of pier bent columns, a total of 10 pier bent columns, were found to have
longitudinal reinforcement pullout failure. 35% of pier bent columns, a total of
8 pier bent columns, were found to have inadequate transverse reinforcement
confinement.
3. 65% of footings, a total of 15 footings, were found to have flexural failure.
4. Soil bearing failure was found only at Pier Bent 78 (South Abutment).
When subjected to the lower level earthquake, the following failure modes were
found:
1. 5% of the bearings, a total of 4 bearings, were found to have an anchor failure.
2. 26% of pier bent columns, a total of 6 pier bent columns, were found to have
longitudinal reinforcement pullout failure.
3. 39% of footings, a total of 9 footings, were found to have flexural failure
Seismic Retrofit Measures
1. For bearing anchor failure, it is proposed either to replace all existing bearings
or to increase the anchor capacity by adding more anchor bolts and vertical
restraints.
2. For the columns with longitudinal reinforcement pullout failure, it is proposed
to increase the footing flexural capacity by adding footing depth with a top
reinforcement layer.
3. For the columns with inadequate transverse confinement, it is proposed to
apply reinforced concrete jacketing around the existing columns and to dowel
down to the existing footing.
4. For footing flexural failure, the proposed retrofit measure is the same as that
for the column longitudinal reinforcement pullout failure.
5. Based on the Geotechnical Report, it is recommended that the subsoils
surrounding Piers 92 and 93 be densified to limit the liquefaction potential.
Cost Estimate
The retrofit costs are estimated at $8.2 M and $4.4 M for an upper level earthquake
and a lower level earthquake, respectively. This is based upon adding anchor bolts
and vertical restraint rather than replacing the bearings. It should be noted that, if all
existing high rocker bearings are replaced, the retrofit costs would increase to $14.9
M and $1 1.3 M for an upper level earthquake and for a lower level earthquake,
respectively.
Concrete Spans (Spans 1 to 78 & 101 to 103)
Seismic Evaluation Results
When subjected to the upper level earthquake, the following failure modes were
found:
1. 50% of the bearings, a total of 29 bearings, were found to have an anchor
failure.
2. 68% of the pier bent columns, a total of 286 pier bent columns, were found to
have axial force-moment interaction failure.
3. 30% of the footings, a total of 126 footings, were found to have flexural and
shear failure.
4. Soil bearing failure was found at all footings referred in Item 3 above .
When subjected to the lower level earthquake, the following failure modes were
found:
1. All pier bent columns at Pier 102, a total of 6 pier columns, were found to have
axial force-moment interaction failure. However, the condition would be
reversed if the bearings of the supporting spans were changed to elastomeric
bearings.
Seismic Retrofit Measures
1. For bearing anchor failure, it is proposed to replace all existing high steel
bearings in Spans 102 and 103 with elastomeric bearings.
2. For the columns with axial force-moment interaction failure, it is proposed to
strengthen the columns with steel angles and steel straps or with concrete
jacketing.
3. For footing flexural and shear failure, the proposed retrofit measure is to
increase the size and thickness of the footings.
Cost Estimate
The retrofit cost is estimated at $540 K for a lower level earthquake. The retrofit cost
is estimated at $8.8 M including steel jacketing of the deficient columns, replacement
of bearings and retrofit of footings for an upper level earthquake. It should be noted
that the cost would be $12M if concrete jacketing of the deficient columns were used.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The Kosciuszko Bridge over Newtown Creek is a heavily traveled, 103-span, 1689.506 m
(5543') long high-level viaduct carrying the section of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway
(1-278) connecting the Boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens in New York City. Along the
length of viaduct are located two ramps, each of 25 spans, for a total number of 153
spans.
Seismic analyses for the viaduct was originally started based upon EI 92-46. Work was
suspended in 1999 in anticipation of the Department issuing new criteria and was then
resumed based upon a critical bridge in accordance with the July 2002 NYSDOT
Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. The new criteria requires that a critical
bridge be analyzed for two earthquake levels: a lower level (functional) event with a
return period of 500 years and an upper level (safety) event with a return period of 2500
years.
1.1 OBJECTIVES
The primary objectives of this study are to:
Assess seismic vulnerability of the existing structure
Evaluate alternatives for retrofit measures if required.
The Multi-mode Spectral Analysis Method was utilized for the entire structure. Each
modal response was superimposed in accordance with the Complete Quadric
Combination (CQC) method. The analyses were performed for both the "as-is" condition
which includes the work performed under the Interim Rehabilitation Contract and for the
proposed rehabilitated condition which includes seismic retrofit features as well as major
features of the final rehabilitation contract.
1.2 TASKS
To hlfill the objectives, the following tasks were performed:
a. Geotechnical seismic analyses were performed to evaluate the stability of the
bridge foundations under earthquake conditions and to provide
recommendations applicable to bridge rehabilitation, based on subsurface
investigations already performed. The geotechnical seismic analyses
consisted of the following:
Evaluation of soil liquefaction potential
Settlements due to liquefaction and partial liquefaction and post-
liquefaction
Lateral and axial capacities of existing pile foundations
Stability of abutments
Bearing capacity and stability of spread footing foundations
Uplift Resistance of pile supported foundations as per NYSDOT Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges.
b. 3D computer analytical models were developed for the 21 truss spans and 1
thru-truss span. 3D computer analytical models were developed for
representative concrete spans and stringer spans.
c. Capacityldemand (CID) ratios were calculated for potential failure modes for
theL'as-ii'viaduct under two levels of earthquakes.
The potential failure modes considered in this study included:
Inadequate support length at expansion bearings and inadequate ultimate
force capacity at fixed bearings (and their anchorages).
Non-ductile details in concrete columns, piers and foundations, which are
susceptible to brittle (often catastrophic) span collapse including members
with light lateral confinement, inadequate anchorage, and poor anchorage.
Excessive movements in foundations and abutments.
d. Retrofit alternatives were developed for the seismic deficient details.
e. Modeling and analyses of the'ketrofitted'structure based upon the retrofit.
Capacityldemand ratios were calculated.
f. Cost estimates were developed for the proposed retrofit measures.
g. Recommendations were developed and proposed for the seismic retrofit
measures required for the deficient details.
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE
The existing structure is a 1689.506 m (5543') long, 103-span structure founded on
spread and pile foundations. The section of the structure fiom Spans 1 to 78 totaling
534.01 0 m (1752') is a concrete viaduct consisting of 74 concrete-slab-on-concrete-bent
spans, 2 rigid concrete frame spans and 2 prestressed concrete box beam spans; the
section Spans 79 to 100 totaling 1075.030 m (3527') is a steel viaduct consisting of 21
steel truss-floorbeam spans and one 91.440 m (300') through-truss-floorbeam main span
over Newtown Creek; Span 101 is a 4.572 m (1 5') long simple slab span; and Spans 102
and 103 totaling 75.286 m (247') are steel stringer - concrete deck spans. The structure
also includes two ramps; each ramp is 173.126 m (568') long and has 25 concrete spans.
The general plan and elevation of the structure are shown in Figures 1 (a) through (f).
The original viaduct and bridge structure was constructed in the late 1930s. The structure
was rehabilitated during 1967 to 1972. The rehabilitation included replacement of the
deck slab with a concrete filled steel grating and widening of the roadway on the steel
structure by eliminating existing sidewalks. IVew bridge railing, concrete median barrier
and bridge lighting were also provided during this rehabilitation.
An interim rehabilitation contract was done in 1992. The contract mainly included deck
repairs and resurfacing with a thin polymer wearing course, considerable steel repairs,
repairs of the concrete bents in the concrete spans and jacketing of the large concrete
columns in the steel truss spans with 8" thick reinforced concrete. In 2000, a painting
contract was done which included additional miscellaneous steel repairs.
1.3.1 SUPERSTRUCTURE
SPANS 1 to 78
This section of the viaduct is a 78- span, 534.886 m (1754'-10 !h") long structure
(between joints) and includes two ramps. Each ramp is 173.126 m (568') long and has 25
spans. Typical cross sections of these spans are shown in Figures 2(a), (b) and (f).
The cross section consists of two roadways, each 11.735 m (38'-6") wide curb-to-curb,
separated by a 610 mm (2'-0") wide concrete median barrier. A 762 mm (2'-6") wide
parapet and safety walk is located on both the east and west sides of the structure. The
fascia width of this section of the structure is 26.213 m (86'4").
With the exception of Spans 8, 30,3 1, 7 1, superstructure construction of all spans
consists of a three span continuous 343 mm (1 '-1 %") thick reinforced concrete deck slab,
spanning approximately 6.096 m (20')' as shown in Figure 2(a) and (b). The deck slab is
monolithic with the reinforced concrete cap beam. The construction for Spans 8 and 7 1
consists of reinforced concrete rigid frames having span lengths of 22.558 m (74'-0 118")
and 28.85 1 m (94'-7 7-8") between joints, respectively, as shown in Sections F and G of
Figure 2(c). The construction of Spans 30 and 3 1 consists of adjacent precast prestressed
box beam construction overlaid with a six-inch thick cast-in-place concrete deck, as
shown in Section H of Figure 2(c).
The cross section of each ramp consists of 6.096 m (20'-0") wide roadway with a 610
mm (2'-0") wide safety walk and parapet on the outside, as shown in Figure 2(b). The
superstructure construction of all spans except Span 1 consists of a three span continuous
reinforced concrete deck slab, 343 mm (1'-1 V) thick, spanning approximately 6.096 m
(20'). The deck slab is cast monolithic with the pier cap beams. Span 1 for both ramps
consists of prestressed box beams overlain with a 152 mm (6") thick cast-in-place
concrete deck.
SPANS 79 to 88
This section of the viaduct consists of 10 spans having a total length of 49.260 m (1920'-
7 318") between roadway joints. A typical section through those spans is shown in Figure
2(c).
The cross section consists of two roadways separated by a 610 mm (2'4") wide concrete
median barrier. A 584 mm (1 '-1 1") wide safety walk and steel bridge railing is located
on the outside of each roadway. The width of the northbound roadway varies fiom
17.069 m (56'-0") at the south end to 10.363 m (34'4") at the north end. The width of
the southbound roadway varies fiom 17.069 m (56'-0") at the south end to 10.363 m
(34'-0") at north end.
Superstructure construction consists of 108 mm (4 ?4") thick concrete filled steel grating
supported by fabricated steel I-shape cross beams. The maximum spacing of cross beams
is 1.635 m (5'-4 318"). The cross beams are supported by rolled wide flange stringers.
The stringer spacing varies fiom 1.372 m (4'-6") to 3.353 m (1 1'-0"). The stringers are
supported by floor beams spanning 19.202 m (63'4") between two deck trusses. The
floor beams are of riveted construction and consist of four angles, flange plates and web
plates. Outside portions of both roadways (northbound and southbound) are supported by
brackets of riveted construction, which is similar to the floor beam construction. The
brackets are attached to the trusses at each floor beam location.
Two trusses support the entire bridge in each span, spanning between the piers. The
construction of each truss consists of riveted box shape members fabricated out of plates,
angles and channels.
SPAN 89
Span 89 is of through truss construction, 91.440 m (300') long, between roadway joints.
The typical cross section is shown in Figure 2(d).
The cross section consists of two roadways, each 10.363 m (34'-0") wide, separated by a
838 mm (2'-9") wide concrete median barrier. 1.753 m (5'-9") wide sidewalks are
located at each fascia. The fascia-to-fascia width of this section is 27.026 m (88'-8").
The superstructure consists of 108 mm (4 %') thck concrete filled steel grating supported
by fabricated steel I-shape cross beams. The cross beams are placed at spacing of 1.292
m (4'-2 718") and 1.524 m (5'-0"). The cross beams are supported by rolled wide flange
stringers. The stringer spacing is 1.372 m (4'-6") at the centerline of bridge and 3.25 1 m
(10'-8") under each roadway. The stringer spacing under the sidewalks is 1.346 m (4'-
5"). The stringers are supported by floor beams, which frame into the two through
trusses. The maximum spacing of floor beams is 7.620 m (25'-0") and they span a
distance of 23.114 m (75'-10") between the centerlines of the trusses. Both the floor
beams and the through trusses are of riveted construction fabricated out of angles,
channels and plates. The cantilevered sidewalks are supported by brackets, which are
riveted to the outside of the trusses. The center-to-center span between bearings for the
through trusses is 90.729 m (297'-8").
SPANS 90 to 100
This section of the viaduct consists of 1 1 spans having a total length of 354.178 m
(1 162'). A typical cross section of the spans is shown in Figure 2(c).
The cross-section consists of two roadways separated by a 610 mm (2'4") wide concrete
median barrier. 584 mm (1 '-1 1") wide safety walks and steel railings are located on the
outside of each roadway. The width of the northbound roadway is 12.802 m (42') and
the width of the southbound roadway varies from 12.802 m (42') to 14.021 m (46'). The
fascia-to-fascia width of the bridge varies from 28.600 m (93 '-10") at the north end to
27.381 m (89'-10") at the south end (span 90).
Superstructure construction consists of 108 mm (4 W ) thick concrete filled steel grating
supported by fabricated steel I-shape cross beams. The maximum spacing of cross beams
is 1.635 m (5'-4 318"). The cross beams are supported by rolled wide flange stringers.
The stringer spacing varies from 1.372 m (4'-6") to 3.353 m (1 1'-0"). The stringers are
supported by floor beams spanning 19.202 m (63'-0") between the two trusses. The floor
beams are of riveted construction and consist of four angles, flange plates and web plates.
Outside portions of both roadways (northbound and southbound) are supported by
brackets of riveted construction similar to the floor beam construction. The brackets are
attached to the trusses by riveted connections at each floor beam location.
Two trusses support the entire bridge in each span, spanning between the piers. The
construction of each truss consists of riveted box shape members fabricated out of plates,
angles and channels.
SPAN 101
The superstructure construction in Span 101 consists of a 330 mm (13") reinforced
concrete monolithic deck slab spanning 3.607 m (1 1'-10") between the piers.
The cross-section consists of two roadways separated by a 610 mm (2'-0") wide concrete
median barrier. 457 mm (1 '-6") wide safety walks and parapets with one rail railing are
located on the outside of each roadway. The northbound roadway is 12.802 m (42') wide
and the southbound roadway is 14.021 m (46') wide.
This section of the structure consists of two spans, each having a length of 76.248 m
(250'-1 718") between joints measured along the west fascia. A typical cross section of
the spans is shown in Figure 2(e).
The cross-section consists of two roadway separated by a 610 mm (2'-0") wide concrete
median barrier. 457 mm (1 '-6") wide safety walks and parapets with one rail railing are
located on the outside of each roadway. The width of the northbound roadway varies
form 12.802 m (42') at the south end to 16.764 m (55') at the north end. The width of the
southbound roadway varies from 14.021 m (46') at the south end to 17.374 m (57') at the
north end.
Superstructure construction consists of a 191 rnm (7 %") monolithic reinforced concrete
deck slab supported by welded steel girder stringers spanning between piers and north
abutment. All girders have a constant web depth of 1.372 m (4'-6"). The superstructure
construction is composite with the reinforced concrete deck slab. The composite action is
achieved through spiral shear connectors welded to the top flanges ofthe steel girders.
1.3.2 SUBSTRUCTURE
SPANS 1 to 78
With the exception of Spans 8,31 and 71, the substructure in this section consists of
individual concrete columns connected at the top by a reinforced concrete cap beam. The
columns are supported on reinforced concrete spread footings. Footings for the columns
are located approximately 3.048 m (10') to 3.658 m (12') below ground level. The area
below the bridge is enclosed by reinforced concrete walls with brick facing. Spans 8 and
7 1 are of reinforced concrete rigid frame construction. The vertical walls of the rigid
frame are supported on continuous reinforced concrete spread footings. Span 3 1 is
supported by a cantilever abutment type structure supported on continuous spread
footings.
SPANS 79 to 88
The substructure in this section consists of two very lightly reinforced massive octagonal
concrete columns per pier. There are two types of piers. Piers 79 to 82 are Type I, which
consists of two individual columns with a tie beam connecting the footings. Piers 83 to
87 are Type 11, which consists of two columns with a tie beam connecting the top of the
two columns. The columns for Piers 79 to 84 are supported on spread footings. Piers 85
to 87 are supported on reinforced concrete pile caps which in turn are supported by
precast reinforced concrete piles of hexagon shape.
SPAN 89
The substructure of the main span over Newtown Creek consists of two steel piers (Piers
88 and 89) located on each side of Newtown Creek. Each bent consists of two steel
towers with a steel truss tie beam at the top of the towers. Pier 89 is supported by pile
foundation and Pier 88 is supported on spread footing.
SPANS 90 to 99
Each pier consists of two very lightly reinforced massive concrete piers of two different
types. Piers 90 to 94 are Type 11, which consists of two massive concrete columns
supported on individual footings. The columns are connected at the top by a lightly
reinforced spread beam. Piers 95 to 99 are Type I, which consists of two individual
massive concrete columns, lightly reinforced, with a tie beam connecting individual
spread footings. Piers 90 to 93 are supported on pile foundations. Piers 96 to 99 are
supported on spread footings. It is not clear from the existing plans which type of
foundation was used for Piers 94 to 95, since the Contractor was given the option to use
either spread footings or pile foundations for these piers and as-built drawings are not
available.
PIER 100
This pier is the original north abutment of the Kosciuszko Bridge prior to the
rehabilitation of the structure during 1967 when the structure was extended and the entire
interchange between the Long Island Expressway and the Brooklyn Queens Expressway
was constructed.
The construction of this pier consists of two massive concrete columns supporting each
main truss. The columns are connected by a reinforced concrete wall-406 mm (1 '-4")
thick. There is no backfill behind the 406 mm (1 '-4") thick reinforced concrete wall.
The two columns and the 406 rnm (1 '-4") thick reinforced concrete wall are supported on
reinforced concrete spread footings.
PIER 101
Pier 101 is a solid reinforced concrete wall, 914 mm (3'-0") thck, supported on a
continuous reinforced concrete spread footing. This pier was constructed in about 1967.
PIER 102
This pier consists of two frames with 3 reinforced concrete columns, each 1.067 m (3'-
6") square. The columns are tied together at the top by a 1.067 m (3'-6") wide by 1.524
m (5'-0") deep reinforced concrete cap beam. The cap beam supports the individual
stringers of the superstructure construction. The pier columns are supported on a
continuous reinforced concrete spread footing located approximately 4.572 m (1 5')
below existing ground.
NORTH ABUTMENT AND WINGWALLS
The north abutment consists of a 1.219 m (4'-0") thick reinforced concrete cantilever
wall of approximately 3.048 m (lo') height and is supported on a continuous reinforced
concrete spread footing, 1.016 m (3'4") thick by 5.334 m (17'-6") wide located
approximately 2.134 m (7') below ground surface.
The construction of the wingwalls is similar to the abutment construction. The exposed
face of the wingwalls have an architectural brick facing.
SOUTH ABUTMENT AND WINGWALLS
The south abutment and wingwalls were reconstructed above ground level in the 1971
rehabilitation of the bridge under Contract 22. On the south side, this abutment supports
the structural steel Meeker Avenue Viaduct, which was rehabilitated a few years ago
under NYSDOT Contract D252291. On the north side, this abutment supports the
Kosciuszko Bridge Viaduct.
The abutment consists of a 838 rnrn (2'-9") thick reinforced concrete wall supported on
continuous reinforced concrete spread footing, 2.362 m (7'-9") wide by 686 rnrn (2'-3")
thck. The wingwalls consist of reinforced concrete walls faced with brick.
111. - - *LO. "0
It- m IIDI(CI "a
I L..
.UL. . (MI*. ILXlllllt
PIN X728.77 BIN 1-07569-8
L E S l W l DOOR 1 0 LWNXWCE PUlFORY
m ROMWAV O W N
SIDW w n a L
W P M 1 U O SUPPD91
A POUCE IELtPHONC SIATIOH
0 lrUTFlC S l W
i
PLAN -
t
1
1 . 1 *NU IIIUIYI.IIDII mmuct
' 0 P1WI Wt. rcno** S l I P
"'al m.
I1WU1
6
1 - 1
t
I
B O P ."*
(rl cc B.0.L) ELEVATION - MAIN BRIDGE
FIGURE l(b)
AS - BUILT REVISIONS
- (Wr
GENERAL PLAN AND ELEVATION - P STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION m.
";" [ ,.z, ( " 1 - 11
ELEVATION - BROOKLYN BOUND RAMP IFFUND KAVANAOH WATERBURY. P.C. / CWCLL W. FINLEI, P.C.
Y N Tam. "c" msr
'3'd 'A31NI4 'M l l3M3
XUOA M3N A0 31VlS
A - N011VA313 aNV NWd lVU3N30
3,- m,-
SNOISIAIU l i tnu - sv
( ~ 1 1 3UflOll
N I P JIJNdL 0
NOllVlS lNOHd313l lJrXId V
IWddnS OW ISOdaWl f# 3 a u m rw~lolr o
NnnO A v m n m
nwJ1nd IJmnyHrn- 01 (1000 1311s 5 -
ON3931
6-69510-1 NlQ 11'621% Nld
S11""Ol r m . Irn" 11111 11*01111* I I L O lwdll 0111*>lbX p
'1" I
U l b R '01( mot urn ~ k v u M '- ma~r - .m, 01 'Dl"
1 11.. I . I Ullll" I I U M A m * LMW,
.~IC.,,,"O ,.W' 0°C. m w * CIII , I W S . P * I Y , COU"I1.
PIN X728.77 BIN 1-07569-9
c 4 I CL %In R U M
L-
D SlEl l DODR 1 0 H L I N I f W E PUlFORU
RDMWAY O W N
0 SWEWNU W M F
1 MYPFOSV N I D OUPPORI
A P W C C IUPHOHE SIATDH
0 T R U i E SIGN
FIGURE l(e)
ELEVATION AS - BUILT REVISIONS
GENERAL PIAN AND ELEVATION - P - I r r u N o KAVANAOH WATERBURY. P.C. /
[WILL W. TINLCV. P.C. "R -, (m .-
STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
an -cm wu 5 ,--w-0. I 1
CHAPTER 2
SEISMIC CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY
The seismic analyses conform to the requirements of NYS DOT Standard Specifications
for Highway Bridges, dated July, 2002. The Multimode Spectral Method was utilized for
the entire viaduct. The analyses was performed for the "as-is" condition which includes
the work performed under the Interim Rehabilitation Contract and for the proposed
rehabilitated condition which includes seismic retrofit features as well as major features
of the final rehabilitation contract.
This bridge is classified as a critical bridge by NYSDOT and was analyzed for two
earthquake levels: a lower level (functional) event with a Return Period of 500 years;
and an upper level (safety) event with a Return Period of 2500 years as required by the
Standard Specifications.
2.1 IMPORTANCE CATEGORY
There are three (3) importance categories specified in the NYSDOT Standard
Specifications: Critical Bridge, Essential Bridge and Other Bridge. The Kosciuszko
Bridge is classified by the NYSDOT as a critical bridge.
A Critical Bridge must provide immediate access after the lower (functional) level event
and limited access after the upper level (safety) event. A Critical Bridge has to continue
to function as a part of the lifeline, social/survival networks and serve as an important
link for civil defense, police, fire department orland public health agencies to respond to a
disaster situation after the event, providing a continuous route.
2.2 SEISMIC HAZARD LEVEL
As required by the NYSDOT Standard Specifications, a Critical Bridge shall be analyzed
for two earthquake levels: a lower level event (functional evaluatioddesign level) having
10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years (return period of 500 years); and an upper
level event (safety evaluatioddesign level) having 2% probability of being exceeded in
50 years (retum period of 2500 years).
2.3 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
The performance criteria specified in the NYSDOT Standard Specifications for a critical
bridge are:
A Critical Bridge shall survive the upper level event with "repairable damage". Traffic
access following the event shall be limited: access shall be available for emergency and
defense vehicles within 48 hours and for general traffic within months. A Critical Bridge
shall survive the lower level event with no damage to primary structural members and
with "minimal damage" to other components. Traffic access following the event shall be
immediate to all traffic within a few hours after inspection.
The damage levels mentioned above are defined as follows:
Minimal Damage: The bridge should essentially behave elastically during the earthquake,
although minor inelastic response could take place. Post earthquake damage should be
limited to narrow flexural cracking in concrete and masonry elements. There should be
no permanent deformations to structural members. Only minor damage or permanent
deformations to non-structural members should take place.
Repairable Damage: The extent of damage should be limited so that the structure can be
restored to its pre-earthquake condition without replacement of structural members.
Inelastic response may occur resulting in: concrete cracking, minor cover spalling and
reinforcement yielding; minor yielding of structural steel members; some damage to
secondary members and non-structural components; some damage to masonry. Repair
should not require complete closure of the bridge. Permanent offsets should be small and
there should be no collapse.
2.4 SITE EFFECT
There are six (6) soil profile types specified in the NYSDOT Standard Specifications,
ranging from hard rock (Type A) to special soil (Type F), as shown in Table 2-1. Site
soil can be classified in accordance with the average shear wave velocity method or the
average standard penetration resistance method.
Based on the soil investigation performed as part of this study, the soil for the entire
length of the viaduct was classified as Soil Profile Type D (stiff soil) using the average
standard penetration resistance method.
The response spectra corresponding to Soil Profile D with a 5% damping ratio for the
lower and upper level events are shown in Figures 2.1 and 2.2, respectively.
2.5 SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION
The effect on seismic performance due to the dynamic soil-structure interaction between
the foundation system and its residing soil layers was considered, as specified in the
NYSDOT Standard Specifications.
The foundation system included in the project consists of two types of footings: Spread
Footings and Pile Groups. A 6x6 stiffness matrix was constructed to simulate the
dynamic soil-structure interaction for each footing in accordance with the procedure
specified in the Seismic Design of Highway Bridge Foundation, by FHWA (1986).
Detailed computation and results are shown in Appendix A.
2.6 SEISMIC ANALYSIS APPROACH
A multi-mode spectral analysis approach was used to establish the seismic vulnerability
for either seismic event. The maximum response was obtained by superimposing modal
response using Complete Quadric Combination (CQC) method. The number of modes
was selected such that more than 80% of mass participation can be obtained.
The Kosciuszko Bridge was analyzed in two orthogonal horizontal directions, the
longitudinal direction and the transverse direction. A combined seismic response (or
demand) resulting from the two orthogonal directions was used to account for the
directional uncertainty of earthquake ground motions and the simultaneous occurrence of
the earthquake ground motions in the orthogonal directions. Two combinations were
considered:
Combination 1 : 100% of the absolute value of the response in the longitudinal
direction and 30% of the absolute value of the response in the
transverse direction
Combination 2: 30% of the absolute value of the response in the longitudinal
direction and 100% of the absolute value of the response in the
transverse direction
The seismic retrofit for the upper level event was confirmed by a nonlinear static
(pushover) analysis.
Table 2-1 Site Classifications (NYSDOT Specifications, 2002)
SOILPROFTLX .
TYPE
A
B
C
D
E
F
DESCRIPTION
Hard Rock
Rock
Very dense soiYsoft rock
Stiff Soil
Soft Soil
Special Soils Requiring sitespecific
evaluation
- V mlsec. (ft./sec.)
Top 30 meters (100 ft.)
> 1500 (5000)
760-1500(2500-5000)
3601760 (12003500)
180-360 (600-1200)
< 180 (600)
See Appendix to Section 6B
2500-Year Earthquake(84th Percentile, 5% Damping)
0.104 0.13 0.217 0.296 0.443 0.05 0.062 0.109 0.148 0.222
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Period, T (sec)
Figure 2-1 Response Spectra for 2500-Year EartHquake in New York City Area
and Surrounding Areas (Upper Level)
500-Year Earthquake (84th Percentile, 5% Damping)
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Period, T (sec)
Figure 2-2 Response Spectra for 500-Year Earthquake in New York City Area
and Surrounding Areas (Lower Level)
.
-
-
.
- b
-Period (sec)
0.0000 0.0400 0.1000 0.1400 0.2000 0.3000 0.31 00 0.3400 0.5000 1.0000 2.0000 5.0000
............. J.... ......................... I.............................................
.....................................................................................
................................... .......................................... - I I
I
Soil Profile
A 0.061 0 0.1450 0.1450 0.1450 0.1030
0.0510 0.0320 0.0150 0.0060
Soil Profile
B 0.0770 0.1800 0.1800 0.1800 0.1290
0.0640 0.0400 0.0190 0.0080
Soil Profile
E 0.1 920 0.4530 0.4530
0.4530
0.4530 0.4000 0.2800 0.1400 0.0700 0.0280
Soil Profile
C 0.0920 0;2180 0.21 80
0.2180
0.21 80
0.1360 0.0680 0.0340 0.0140
Soil Profile
D 0.1230 0.2900 0.2900
0.2900
0.2900 0.1960 0.0980 0.0490 0.0200
CHAPTER 3
SEISMIC EVALUATION PROCEDURE AND
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODES
The seismic evaluation was carried out in two phases. The first phase was a quantitative
evaluation of local structural components. A capacity/demand. (CID) ratio was calculated
for each potential failure mode in each local structural component. The second phase of
evaluation was an assessment of the influence of local component failure on global
structural behavior.
There are four major areas where local failure may take place and where C/D ratios were
calculated. These are:
1. Bearings. The typical failure modes are seating failure for expansion bearings
and anchor failure for both expansion and fixed bearings.
2. Pier Columns. The typical failure modes are column axial force-moment
interaction failure and column shear failure.
3. Footings. The typical failure modes are footing moment failure, footing shear
failure, soil bearing failure, pile overload and soil liquefaction.
4. Abutments. Two typical instability failures: sliding and overturning.
The C/D ratios were calculated at the nominal ultimate capacity without the use of
strength reduction factor (4) so as to obtain a more realistic estimate of the capacity of the
members. The CID ratios can be expressed as:
where
r = CapacityDemand Ratio
R, = Nominal ultimate displacement or force capacity for the structural component
being evaluated.
CQi = Sum of the displacement or force demands for loads other than earthquake
loading
QEQ = Displacement or force demand for earthquake loading
The Specifications and Guidelines used in the seismic evaluation procedure are:
1. NYSDOT Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, July 2002.
2. Seismic Retrofit Manual for Highway Bridges, FHWA Report No.
FHWALRD-941052, 1995.
3. Seismic Design of Highway Bridge Foundation, Volume 11. Design
Procedures and Guidelines, FHWA Report No. FHWA/RD-861102, 1986.
4. Seismic Design of Highway Bridge Foundation, Volume 111. Example
Problems and Sensitivity Studies, FHWA Report No. FHWA/RD-861103,
1986.
5. NYSDOT Geotechnical Design Procedure, GDP-9.
6. Foundations and Earth Structures, Design Manual 7.2, Department of the
Navy, Navy Facilities Engineering Command, 1982.
3.1 BEARINGS
3.1.1 Expansion Bearing Seat Support Length
The expansion bearing seat must provide sufficient support length to accommodate the
relative displacements induced during an earthquake. The C D ratio for the expansion
bearing seat support length was calculated as (Figure 3-1):
where
N(c) = the support length provided.
N(d) = the seat support length demand and can be obtained fi-om the minimum support
length specified in AASHTO. For the upper level seismic event with PGA=0.366g7 the
minimum support length is specified as (AASHTO SPC D Eqs. 7-3A and 7-3B):
For the lower level seismic event with PGA=O. 123g7 the minimum support length is
specified as (AASHTO SPC B Eqs. 6-3A and 6-3B):
where:
L = bridge deck length fkom the support under consideration to the adjacent expansion
joint or to the end of the bridge deck. (m or ft)
H = for abutments, H is the average height of columns supporting the bridge deck to the
next expansion joint. For piers, H is the column height. (m or A)
S = skew angle of support (deg.)
3.1.2 Bearing Anchor Force
The C/D ratio for the bearing anchor was evaluated as:
where
Vb(c) = the nominal ultimate shear capacity of the anchor bolts
Vb(d) = the seismic force acting on the anchor bolts and can be determined from the
elastic response spectrum analysis. To prevent sudden span collapse, a 25%
increase (R=0.8) in demand is recommended by NYSDOT.
3.2 PIER COLUMNS
3.2.1 Column Axial Force-Moment Interaction Failure
The column axial force-moment interaction failure is closely related to the anchorage and
splice length of the longitudinal reinforcement, and the confinement of the transverse
reinforcement. Insufficient anchorage will result in the pullout of longitudinal
reinforcement from the footing. Inadequate splice length of the longitudinal
reinforcement will result in the splice failure. Widely spaced transverse reinforcement
will result in lateral confinement failure. A sudden loss (non-ductile failure) of gravity
load carrying capacity will result from any one the above.
The 6-step procedure for calculating C/D ratio for columns (and footings) is illustrated in
Figure 3-2.
Anchorage of Longitudinal Reinforcement
The minimum required anchorage length requirements specified by FHWA, 1985 (Figure
3-3) are summarized as follows:
For straight anchorage:
la(d) = (2.626) kS db 1 [ (1 + 2.5 c/db + k ~ ) (f c ) ~ ' ~ ] (in KPa units)
la(d) = ks db / [ (1 + 2.5 c/db + kb-) (f 1 (in psi units)
where
ks = (fy-75845)/33.1 KPa or (fy-1 1000)/4.8 psi, a constant for reinforcing steel with a
yield stress of fy (in KPa or psi)
db = rebar diameter (mm or in)
f , = concrete compressive strength (KPa or psi)
k, = (A,(c) f,) (600 s db) < 2.5 (KPa or psi)
A,(c) = transverse reinforcement area normal to potential splitting cracks (rnrn2 or in2)
f, = yield stress of transverse reinforcement (KPa or psi)
s = spacing of transverse reinforcement (mm or in)
For anchorage with 90 degree hooks:
la(d) = 1200 (2.626) km db f, / [ 6000 (f c)0.5 ] > 15 db (in KPa units)
la(d) = 1200 km db f, / [ 6000 (f' c)0.5 ] > 15 db (in psi units)
where
km = 0.7 for # 1 1 rebars or smaller and km = 1.0 for all other cases.
The procedure for calculating the C/D ratio for the anchorage of column longitudinal
reinforcement, rca, is shown in Figure 3-4.
Splice of Longitudinal Reinforcement
A rapid splice failure in the plastic hinge area can occur if the transverse confinement is
not adequately provided. Extra splice length alone does not significantly improve the
inelastic response of splices, however, a minimum splice length should be provided as
(FHWA, 1995):
where
f , = concrete compressive strength (KPa or psi)
db = rebar diameter (rnm or in)
Sufficient closely spaced transverse reinforcement is required in the splice area to prevent
splitting between spliced bars under cyclic reversed loading, as illustrated in Figure 3-5.
The minimum required transverse reinforcement area is (FHWA, 1995):
where
Ab = area of the spliced bar
s = spacing of transverse reinforcement
fy = yield stress of longitudinal reinforcement
f,, = yield stress of transverse reinforcement
1, = splice length
The procedure for calculating the C/D ratio for the splices of longitudinal reinforcement,
rcs, is shown in Figure 3-6.
Transverse Confinement (Ductility)
A sudden failure of the column can occur if the transverse confinement in the plastic
hinge region is not adequately provided, due to buckling of the longitudinal
reinforcement and crushing of the concrete.
The C/D ratio for the transverse confinement reinforcement was evaluated as (FHWA,
1995):
where p is the ductility indicator and can be calculated using
where
kl = p(c) / (p(d) [ 0.5 + 1.25 PC I (PC A,)]) 5 1 .O
k2 = 6db/s I 1.0 or 0.2 bmin/s I 1 .O, whichever is smaller
k3 = effectiveness of transverse bar anchorage and is a function of ductility indicator,
p. k3 =1 for p<2. k3 decreases to 0 at p=4.
p(c) = volumetric ratio of existing transverse reinforcement
p(d) = volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement required by NYSDOT
PC = axial compression on the column
A, = gross area of column
s = spacing of transverse reinforcement (in)
db = rebar diameter (in)
Bmin = minimum width of the column cross section
Instead of the p factor specified in FHWA 1995, this study uses a Response Modification
Factor, R, as required by the NYSDOT Specifications, to account for the ductility effect
due to transverse confinement. The R factor for substructure in the three importance
categories is tabulated in Table 3-1 (AASHTO-LRFD, 1998). The Kosciuszko Bridge is
classified as critical and has an R factor of 1.5. Only very minor yielding or damage is
allowed for R=1.5.
3.2.2 Column Shear Failure
A sudden loss of shear capacity can occur if a concrete column shear reinforcement is not
adequately provided. This brittle shear failure will cause disintegration of the column
and loss of gravity load carrying capacity.
The C/D ratio for evaluating a column shear failure is illustrated in Figures 3-7 and 3-8
(FHWA, 1995). Three cases are included:
Case A: Shear failure occurs before flexural yielding (p<l) due to an initial low
shear capacity, V,(d) > V~(C).
Case B: Shear failure occurs during flexural yielding due to shear capacity
degradation, Vu(d) > VAc).
Case C: Shear failure is not expected since shear capacity is always larger than
shear demand, Vu(d) < VAc) < Vi(c).
where
V,(d) = the maximum calculated elastic shear demand
V,(d) = the maximum shear force demand resulting from plastic hinge at column ends
Vi(c) = the initial column shear capacity including the resistance of concrete gross
section and transverse reinforcement
VAc) = the final column shear capacity including the resistance of concrete core section
and properly anchored transverse reinforcement
3.3 FOOTINGS
3.3.1 Footing Moment
The flexural capacity at the critical sections for both spread footings and pile footings
was checked in accordance with AASHTO Specifications as (Figure 3-9):
The elastic moment demand, Mfe(d), obtained from the response spectrum analysis can be
reduced by a Ductility Factor, p, as listed in Table 3-2 (FHWA, 1995). MAC) is the
footing moment capacity.
Instead of a p factor specified in FHWA 1995, as required by the NYSDOT
Specifications, this study uses a Response Modification Factor, R, with a much smaller
value of 1.5 for the critical bridge. Only very minor yielding (damage) or settlement is
allowed for R=1.5.
3.3.2 Footing Shear
A sudden loss of overturning resistance can result from a brittle shear failure in the
footing, as shown in Figure 3-10. The shear capacity at the critical sections for both
spread footing and pile footing was checked in accordance with AASHTO Specifications
as:
rfv = VAC) 1 Vfe(d)
No ductility reduction was introduced for the elastic shear force demand, Vfe(d), due to
the brittle nature of concrete shear failure. VAc) is the footing shear capacity.
3.3.3 Soil Bearing or Pile Bearing
Tilting of the footing resulting fiom a soil bearing failure or a pile bearing failure (see
Figure 3-1 1) were evaluated as follows:
For spread footing:
For pile footing:
where:
q(c) = the soil bearing pressure capacity
q(d) = the elastic soil pressure demand obtained from the response spectrum analysis
P(c) = the load bearing capacity of the pile
P(d) = the elastic load demand in the pile obtained from the response spectrum analysis
p = ductility factor, 4 for soil bearing and 3 for pile overload as listed in Table 3-2
(FHWA, 1995). As required by the NYSDOT Specifications, this study uses a
Response Modification Factor, R, with a much smaller value of 1.5 for the critical
bridge. Only very minor yielding (damage) or settlement is allowed for R=1.5.
3.3.4 Liquefaction Potential
The potential for liquefaction was evaluated at each of the bridge piers by analysis using
the methods outlined in NYSDOT Geotechnical Design Procedure GDP-9, or by
inspecting the recorded N-values and making judgments by comparing N-values to those
at the piers where analyses were conducted. The analyses were conducted using the
commercially available computer software "LiquefyPro" (CivilTech Software).
The potential consequences of liquefaction were evaluated by considering the results of
static analyses and the additional seismic related analyses of pile capacities, stability of
abutments and bearing capacity and stability of spread footing foundations, as
appropriate.
3.4 ABUTMENTS
Instability failure of abutments during earthquakes usually involves overturning (tilting)
or sliding (shifting) of the abutment, due to inertia forces transmitted from the
superstructure and earthquake-induced earth pressures. Abutment stability evaluation
including sliding and overturning were carried out in accordance withdAASHTO as:
For sliding:
where:
Psliding(c) = sliding shear capacity
= f CV (f = friction coefficient and CV = sum of vertical forces)
Psliding(d) = sliding shear demand
= (FS) CH (FS = safety factor = 1.5 and CH = sum of horizontal forces)
For overturning:
rot = Mot@) Mot@)
where:
Mot(c) = overturning moment capacity
= CMV
= sum of moments due to vertical forces
Mot(c) = overturning moment demand
= (FS) EMH (FS = safety factor = 1.5 for footing on soil and 1 .I25 for footing on
rock; EMH = sum of moments due to horizontal forces.)
Table 3-1 Response Modification Factors - Substructure
(AASHTO-LRFD 1 988)
SUBSTRUCTURES
Wall-type piers
Reinforced concrete pile bents Vertical piles only With batter piles
Single columns
Steel or composite steel and concrete pile bents
Vertical pile only With batter piles
Multiple column bents
CRITICAL
1.5
1.5 1.5
1.5
1.5 1.5
1.5
ESSENTIAL
1.5
2.0 1.5
2.0
3.5 2.0
3.5
OTHER
2.0.
3.0 2.0
3.0
5.0 3.0
5.0
Table 3-2 Footing Ductility Indicator (FHWA, 1995)
Reinforcing Steel Yielding in the Footing Concrete Shear or Tension in the Footing
Pile Overload (Compreesion or Tension) Reinforcing Steel Yielding in the Footing Pile Pullout at Footing Concrete Shear or Tension in the Footing Flexural Failure of Piling Shear Failure of Piling
ABUTMENT COLUMN OR PIER
t - ~ - i HINGE WITHIN A SPAN
Figure 3-1 Minimum Support Length Requirements (AASHTO)
Moment Capacity1 Elastic Moment Demand Ratios
(Steps 1 - 3)
Determine Plastic Hinging Case at Column Base
(step 4)
Calculate CID Ratios for Calculate CID Ratios for Calculate CID Ratios for Anchorage and S p l i i Anchorage, S p l i , and Anchomge. Splices.
Continement. and Footing
Hinging at Column Top?
No
Calculate C/D Ratios for Column Shear
(Step 6)
Yes
Calculate CR) Ratios for Anchorage and . .
Splices
Figure 3-2 Procedure for Determining C/D Ratios for Columns, walls and
I 1
footings.
Calculate CID Ratios for Anchorage. Splices,
andConfinement .
STRA
FOOTING OR BENT CAP
I
Figure 3-3 Anchorage Length of Longitudinal Reinforcement (FHWA, 1995)
.IGHT BAR--
I '
*\
COLUMN
r,- HOOKED BAR
% I
1
- w L.
0 r) Y \
Determine Existing Effective Anchorage
Length
Determine Required Effective Anchorage
Length !,(dl
I Case A
Identify Anchorage 1 Detail
Figure 3-4 Procedure for Determining C/D Ratios for Anchorage of
4 I
Longitudinal Reinforcement
Detail No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Anchorage Type
Straight
90° hook away from centerline 90° hook toward
centerline
Straight
90° hook
-
Location
Footing
Footing
Footing
Footing
Footing
Bent Cap
Top Footing Reinforcing
No
No
No
Yes
Yts
-
CID Ratio
ra = r,,
r= = 1.3 rd
ra = 2.0 r,,
C= 1.5 r,,
1 .O
1 .O
Single Leg
Atr = ab
Double Leg
Atr = 2 ob
Spiral
Atr 2nb
- Foilure Plane
Eob 3 - 2Qb A'r = "0. of splices 3
Figure 3-5 Splice Failure (Orangun et al., 1974)
Yes ' . No
Delerrnine Existing. Splitx Length.and Area
and Spacing of Transverse Reinforcement,
I,, &(c), and s
Calculate Minimum Required Area of
Transverse Reinforcement, %(d) .
CapacitylDemand Ratio is Not Applicable
+ I Case A I I Case B I
Yes
I50 - 1, -A&) s r, -- . A&) c r r c
AaO (4easlJi;') d, 4 4
r, > 0.75 r,,
Figure 3-6 Procedure for Determining C/D Ratios for Splices in Longitudinal
Reinforcement
A&) t=- A k a
CASE A J
Vu(d1 W 0 - a \SHEAR DEMAND 0 LL. SHEAR CAPACITY P: u w - r V) -
I I
I 2 3 4 5 DUCTILITY INDICATOR - p
CASE 0 1
W 0 . a SHEAR CAPACITY 0 k .
a 4 , W
5 a
I 2 3 4 5 DUCTILITY INDICATOR - p
CASE C I
0 LL
SHEAR DEMAND
Y i I
I 2 3 4 . 5 DUCTILITY INDICATOR - p
Figure 3-7 Resolution of Shear Demand and Capacity (FHWA, 1995)
Determine Elastic Shear Demand, V,(d),
Determine Maximum Shear Demand Due to
Plastic Hinging,
Calculate initial and Final Shear Capacities,
V,(c) and Vdc)
Column Yild?
Identify Shear Case 0 Figure 3-8 Procedure for Determining C/D Ratios for Column Shear
+ - + + Case A
I V,(c) < V,OI
VXc) r,= - v,o r=
Case B I Vdc) 2 Vdd) * Vf(c)l
rn= Ctr,
Gase C
[vf (c) r V,OI
F L E X U R A L Y I E L D I N G O F R E I N F O R C I N G
(a) Spread Footing
F L E X U R A L Y I E L D I N G OF R E I N F O R C I N G
(b) Pile Footing
Figure 3-9 Flexural Reinforcement Yielding of Footing (FHWA, 1995)
C O N C R E T E SHEAR F A I L U R E
(a) Spread Footing
@) Pile Footing
Figure 3-10 Concrete Shear Failure of Footing (FHWA, 1995)
SOIL B E A R I N G F A I L U R E
(a) Spread Footing - Soil Bearing Failure
PILE OVERLOAD
(b) Pile Footing - Pile Overload
Figure 3-1 1 Instability Failure of Footing (FHWA, 1995)
CHAPTER 4
SEISMIC EVALUATION RESULTS
Seismic evaluation was carried out based upon the seismic criteria and methodology
specified by the NYSDOT Standard Specifications, as discussed in Chapter 2. The
potential seismic failure modes, discussed in Chapter 3, were examined. The results are
presented in this Chapter.
4.1 STEEL TRUSS SPANS (SPANS 79 TO 100)
This section presents the seismic evaluation results for the 22 steel truss spans, starting
from Pier Bent 78 in Brooklyn Borough to Pier Bent 100 in Queens Borough. The
substructure consists of 22 reinforced concrete pier bents (Pier Bents 79 to 87 and 90 to
100) and 2 steel pier bents (Pier Bents 88 and 89).
4.1.1 Bearings
4.1.1.1 Expansion Bearing Seat Support Length
The expansion bearing seat layouts for the 22 steel truss spans are shown in Figures 4-
l(a) and (b). The support length for each expansion bearing, N(c), was taken from the
distance between the centerline of the bearing support to the edge of the pier column.
The C/D ratios for the minimum expansion bearing seat support lengths, rbd, for the 22
steel truss spans when subjected to the upper level earthquake and lower level earthquake
are shown in Table 4-l(a) and (b), respectively.
As indicated in the above tables, the C/D ratio is larger than 1.0 for each expansion
bearing for both earthquake levels. All bearing seats were found to meet the minimum
support length requirement.
4.1.1.2 Bearing Anchor Force
The existing fixed and expansion bearings for the main span trusses are shown in Figures
4-2(a) and (b), respectively. The existing fixed and expansion bearings for the 230-fi
span trusses are shown in Figures 4-2(c) and. (d), respectively. The existing fixed and
expansion bearings for Spans 87 and 91 are shown in Figures 4-2(e) and (f), respectively.
The existing fixed and expansion bearings for the remaining spans are shown in Figures
4-2(g) and (h), respectively.
Bearing anchor failures were considered in the following two connection interfaces: (1)
Upper Connection Interface - the connection interface between the truss bottom chord
and the upper portion of the bearing shoe, and (2) Lower Connection Interface - the
connection interface between the lower portion of the bearing shoe and the bearing seat.
The C/D ratios for the bearing anchor, rbf, for the 22 steel truss spans when subjected to
the upper level earthquake and the lower level earthquake are shown in Table 4-2(a) and
(b), respectively.
Bearing anchor failures were found at both expansion and fixed bearings. Under the
upper level earthquake, most bearings were found to have anchor failures except for the
fixed bearings at Pier 89 and the expansion bearings at Piers 79,81, 88,90, 97 and 99.
Under the lower level earthquake, all expansion bearings perform satisfactorily. Anchor
failures were found only for the fixed bearings at Piers 87 and 90.
4.1.2 Pier Columns
There are two types pier bents. The Type I pier bents consist of two individual columns
with a tie beam connecting the footings, as shown in Figure 4-3(a). The reinforcement
details for the Type I pier bents are shown in Figure 4-3(b). The Type I1 pier bents
consist of two individual columns with a tie beam connecting the top of the two columns,
as shown in Figure 4-3(c). The reinforcement details and pile layouts for the Type 11 pier
bents are shown in Figure 4-3(d). The elevations and dimensions for both pier types are
shown in Figure 4-3(e).
4.1.2.1 Column Axial Force-Moment Interaction
The C/D ratios for the axial force-moment interaction, re,, at the bottom sections of the
columns for the 22 steel truss spans when subjected to the upper level earthquake and the
lower level earthquake are shown in Table 4-3(a) and (b), respectively.
Most columns exhbit minor to moderate yielding at the bottom section when subjected to
the upper level earthquake, except Piers 79, 81,97 and 99. No yielding was found when
subjected to the lower level earthquake.
The C/D ratios for the axial force-moment interaction, re,, at the top sections of the
columns (right below the capbeam) for the 22 steel truss spans when subjected to the
upper level earthquake and the lower level earthquake are shown in Table 4-3(c) and (d),
respectively.
No yielding was found at the top sections of the columns under the two levels of
earthquakes.
Anchorage of Longitudinal Reinforcement
The C/D ratios for the anchorage of longitudinal reinforcement, r,,, at the bottom sections
of the columns for the 22 steel truss spans when subjected to the upper level earthquake
and the lower level earthquake are shown in Table 4-4(a) and (b), respectively.
The longitudinal reinforcement for all the Type I pier columns (Piers 79, 80, 81, 82,95,
96, 97, 98 and 99) is anchored into the heavily reinforced tie beams with sufficient
anchor length, as shown in Figure 4-3(c). No longitudinal reinforcement anchorage
failure is expected.
For Type I1 pier columns, under the upper level earthquake, all concrete piers were found
to have longitudinal reinforcement anchorage failures except Pier 94. Under the lower
level earthquake, Piers 83, 84, 87,90,92 and 93 were found to have longitudinal
reinforcement anchorage failures.
This longitudinal reinforcement anchorage failure was primarily due to the bond
degradation that accompanies flexural cracking on both top and bottom surfaces of the
footing concrete under the reversal seismic loading. The pullout of the longitudinal
reinforcement can be brittle since there is no top reinforcement layer for all Type I1 pier
footings.
Splice of Longitudinal Reinforcement
The C/D ratios for the splice of longitudinal reinforcement, r,,, for the 22 steel truss spans
when subjected to the upper level earthquake and the low level earthquake are shown in
Table 4-5(a) and (b), respectively.
The splices of longitudinal reinforcement for all the piers perform satisfactorily under the
two levels of earthquakes. No splice failure is expected in the plastic hinge area.
Transverse Confinement (Ductility)
The C/D ratios for the transverse confinement, rcc, at the bottom section of the columns
for the 22 steel truss spans when subjected to the upper level earthquake and the low level
earthquake are shown in Table 4-6(a) and (b), respectively.
All piers were found to behave satisfactorily based on the ductility capacity, p(c),
obtained from FHWA, 1995, under the two levels of earthquakes. Adequate transverse
confinement will maintain the gravity load carrying capacity in the plastic hinge area.
However, based on the hgher requirement by NYSDOT to use R factor = 1.5 for a
critical interstate highway bridge, Piers 79, 80, 82,84,92,94,95, 96 and 98 yielded
beyond the allowable damage limit under the upper level earthquake.
All piers perform satisfactorily under the lower level earthquake.
All piers perform satisfactorily under the lower level earthquake.
4.1.2.2 Column Shear
The C/D ratios for the column shear, r,,, for the 22 steel truss spans when subjected to the
upper level earthquake and the lower level earthquake are shown in Table 4-7(a) and (b),
respectively.
No shear failures along the entire lengths of the columns were found under the two levels
of earthquakes.
4.1.3 Footings
4.1.3.1 Footing Moment
The C/D ratios for the footing moment, rf,, for the 22 steel truss spans when subjected to
the upper level earthquake and the lower level earthquake are shown in Table 4-8(a) and
(b), respectively.
Under the upper level earthquake, all concrete footings were found to have flexural
failure along the column faces except at Piers 78, 79, 8 1,97, 99 and 100.
Under the lower level earthquake, the footings at Piers 82,83, 84, 87, 90,92,93,95 and
96 were found to have flexural failure.
4.1.3.2 Footing Shear
The C/D ratios for the footing shear, rr,, for the 22 steel truss spans when subjected to the
upper level earthquake and the lower level earthquake are shown in Table 4-9(a) and (b),
respectively.
All the footings perform satisfactorily under the two levels of earthquakes.
4.1.3.3 Soil Bearing and Pile Bearing
The C/D ratios for the soil bearing, rf, and the pile bearing, r%, for the 22 steel truss spans
when subjected to the upper level earthquake and the lower level earthquake are shown in
Table 4- 10(a) and (b), respectively.
All the spread footings were found to be satisfactory without soil bearing failures except
at Pier 78 (South Abutment) when subjected to the upper level earthquake.
All the pile footings were found to be satisfactory without pile overloading under the two
levels of earthquakes.
4.1.3.4 Liquefaction Potential
The detailed liquefaction analyses can be found in the Geotechnical Report submitted
earlier in January, 2005. Only the conclusion is summarized in this section.
The Kosciuszko Bridge site alignment is underlain by dense granular glacial deposits,
overlain by post-glacial normally consolidated cohesive soils beneath Newtown Creek.
Localized deposits of man-made fill are also present along the land portions of the
alignment. The cohesive soils and the dense granular soils are not generally prone to
liquefaction. In some areas, the recent fill is very loose with very high liquefaction
potential if subjected to a Functional (lower level) or Safety (upper level) Event
earthquake of Magnitude 6.
For the Functional Event, small, almost negligible pier settlements may result over a
relatively short time period of a few minutes to a few days. The bridge should be able to
tolerate these settlements.
For the Safety Event, Piers Numbers 92 and 93 could experience significant settlements
during or shortly after the event. Consequently, it is recommended that the subsoils
surrounding these piers be densified using chemical or compaction grouting down to the
tips of the piles.
4.1.4 Steel Tower Piers - Main Span
The substructure of the main span over Newtown Creek consists of two steel piers (Piers
88 and 89) located on each side of Newtown Creek. Each bent consists of two steel
towers and each steel tower consists of four legs. The two steel towers are connected by
a steel capbeam. The four tower legs are x-braced with a steel truss tie beam at the top of
the tower.
Seismic evaluation was carried out for each steel tower member. Only the C/D ratios for
the governing gravity load carrying tower legs are presented.
The C/D ratios for the tower legs at Piers 88 and 89 when subjected to the upper level
earthquake are shown in Table 4-1 1 (a) and (b), respectively. The cori-esponding member
designation is shown in Figure 4-4(a) and (b), respectively.
All steel tower legs at Piers 88 and 89 perform satisfactorily under both earthquake
levels.
4.1.5 Steel Trusses
Seismic evaluation was carried out for each steel component of the 22-span truss
superstructure. Only the C/D ratios for the primary load carrying members when
subjected to the upper level earthquake are presented, which include top chords (TC),
bottom chords (BC), verticals (VS) and diagonals (DS). Other secondary members have
a minimum participation in the primary modes of excitation.
The C/D ratios for the primary truss members in Spans 79 through 100 when subjected to
the upper level earthquake are shown in Table 4-1 2(a) through (v), respectively. The
corresponding member designation is shown in Figure 4-4(c) through (x).
As indicated in the above tables, all the truss members perform satisfactorily under the
upper level earthquake. All the truss members have a much smaller response and
perform satisfactorily under the lower level earthquake.
The C/D ratios for all the potential failure modes for the 22 steel spans when subjected to
the upper level earthquake and the lower level earthquake are shown in Tables 4-13(a)
and (b), respectively.
4.2 CONCRETE SPANS (SPANS 1 TO 78 & SPANS 101 TO 103)
Since most of the Concrete Spans are short deck spans, involving larger numbers of
columns and footings, the SEISAB Program and the multimode spectral method were
used for seismic analysis of all the concrete spans.
4.2.1 Bearings
4.2.1.1 Expansion Bearing Seat Support Length
For the concrete spans, only Spans 30 and 3 1 in Brooklyn and Spans 101, 102 and 103 in
Queens required investigation. The rest of the concrete spans (including ramps) consist
of a continuous concrete bridge deck, rigidly connected to the concrete structure below.
No relative movement could take place between the concrete deck and the top of
supporting structure and no bearing elements exist between them.
Calculations indicate that the C/D ratios for minimum bearing support lengths are all over
1. They meet the requirements for the minimum bearing seat support length for both the
lower level and the upper level earthquakes (see Table CAS-5).
4.2.1.2 Fixed Bearing Anchor Force
For a similar reason delineated in 4.2.1.1, only Spans 30 and 3 1 in Brooklyn and Spans
102 and 103 in Queens required investigation. With the exception of Spans 102 and 103,
it was found that C/D ratios for the fixed bearing anchor shear force are all over 1, when
subjected to both level earthquakes (see Tables CAS-6-land CAS-6-2). For Spans 102
and 103, the C/D ratios for anchor bolt shear strength are over 1 for the lower level
earthquake but much lower than 1 for the upper level earthquake for all the anchor bolts
located at the top of the bearing seats of Pier 101 and Pier 102 (see Table CAS-6-2). This
indicates that these bearing anchor bolts are not strong enough to sustain the upper level
earthquake.
4.2.2 Pier Columns
4.2.2.1 Column Axial Force-Moment Interaction
Investigation results for lower level earthquake
Findings are that except for the concrete columns at Pier 102, all other pier columns,
abutments, and the supporting concrete walls for the entire length of the concrete spans
have C/D ratios for the axial force-moment relative to the column capacities larger than 1
(this includes the concrete ramps and the concrete rigid frames at Varick Avenue and
Morgan Avenue). T h s indicates that these concrete columns are capable of sustaining
axial force-moments induced by the lower level earthquake. It should be noted, however,
that the spacing of ties for all the existing reinforced concrete columns do not meet
current AASHTO criteria. These columns were designed and built around 1938.
For the concrete columns at Pier 102, the C/D ratios were found to be exceptionally low
(see Table CAS 1-7). Pier 102 supports the 121 ' long bridge deck of Span 103 and the
125' long bridge deck of Span 102 simultaneously. This is the reason for the low C/D
ratios since the mass of these two long and heavy bridge decks and the earthquake would
exert exceptionally large horizontal dynamic forces to the columns at Pier 102. In order
to increase the C/D ratios for the columns at Pier 102 to above 1, it is recommended that
all the existing high steel bearings in Spans 102 and 103 (including both the steel rocker
expansion bearings and the companion high steel fixed bearings) be replaced with
elastomeric bearings.
For the "as-is" condition, high steel rocker expansion bearings and a series of companion
high steel fixed bearings were used to analyze Spans 102 and 103. These steel bearings
are considered to be seismically vulnerable. Article 6A.6.2.1 in NYSDOT Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges 2002 suggests to replace them with elastomeric
bearings. Calculations indicate that if elastomeric bearings are used to replace all the
existing steel rocker expansion bearings and the high companion steel fixed bearings in
Spans 102 and 103 (see Figures CAS-1, CAS-2 and CAS-3), the C/D ratios for all
columns at Pier 102 increase to above I , not only for the lower level earthquake, but also
for the upper level earthquake. The existing columns at Pier 102 are strong enough to
sustain both levels of earthquakes without additional strengthening after replacement of
the bearings.
Investigation results for upper level earthquake
With reference to Note 1, Figure CAS-4-1, the following columns were found to have
C/D ratios for the axial force-moment much lower than 1.
1. Column Lines B and F at Pier Nos. 47 through 77, inclusive.
2. Column Line C at Pier Nos. 1B through 7, inclusive; Pier Nos. 8 through 29B,
inclusive; and Pier Nos. 33 through 77, inclusive.
3. Column Lines D and E at Pier 1B through 7, inclusive; Pier nos. 8 through 29B,
inclusive; and Pier Nos. 32 through 77, inclusive.
All other columns and all abutment walls were found to have C/D ratios larger than 1.
It was found that the C/D ratios for some of the columns could be raised to above 1 if the
columns next to them in the same pier have been sufficiently strengthened. The locations
of these columns are, as follows (refer to Figures CAS-4-1, CAS-4-2, CAS-4-3 and CAS-
4-4):
1. All columns at locations along,Column Line A.
2. Along Column Line B, at Piers Nos. 1B through 7 inclusive, and Piers Nos. 8
through 29 inclusive.
3. Along Column Line F, at Piers Nos. 1B through 7 inclusive, and Piers Nos. 8
through 29 inclusive.
4. All columns at locations along Column Line G.
4.2.2.2 Column Shear
It was found that, for both the lower level earthquake and the upper level earthquake, all
pier columns, abutments and the supporting concrete walls for the entire length of the
concrete spans have C/D ratios for the column shears larger than 1 (this includes the
concrete ramps and the concrete rigid frames at Varick Avenue and Morgan Avenue), see
Tables CAS 7-1 through CAS 7-7, and Tables CAS 8-1 through CAS 8-7. However, as
previously noted, the tie arrangement for all the columns in the concrete spans do not
meet current AASHTO criteria. --
4.2.3 Footings
4.2.3.1 Footing Moment
Investigation results for lower level earthquake
The C/D ratios for footing moments were found to be larger than 1 for all footings under
the lower level earthquake.
Investigation results for upper level earthquake
Footings identified as F1, F2, and F3 in Figures CAS-4-1, CAS-4-2 and CAS-4-3 were
found to have C/D ratios much lower than 1 and are not capable of sustaining the upper
level earthquake.
4.2.3.2 Footing Shear
It was found that all the footings in the concrete spans have sufficient shear strength for
the lower earthquake. They all have C/D ratios larger than 1 for the lower level
earthquake.
However, those footings identified as F1, F2, and F3 in Figures CAS-4-1, CAS-4-2,
CAS-4-3, and CAS-4-4 have C/D ratios much lower than 1 for the upper level
earthquake.
4.2.3.3 Soil Bearing
All footings in the concrete spans are spread footings bearing directly on the soil. Values
for Soil Profile Type D with a 5% damping ratio were used for the seismic analysis for
the structures in the entire concrete spans.
Soil spring constants used for input into the SEISAB seismic analysis programs were
based on Article: Analysis of Footings in "FHWA, Seismic Design of Highway Bridge
Foundations, Volume I1 Design Procedures and Guidelines, 1986".
The Allowable Bearing Capacity of the underlined soils was determined based on the
equations delineated in the Article: Bearing Capacity in AASHTO 2002. The New York
City Building Code has been used as a reference.
It was found that concrete footings F1, F2, and F3 shown on Figures CAS-4-1,2,3, and 4
have soil reactions, induced by the seismic forces, excessively larger than the Allowable
Bearing Capacity.
4.2.3.4 Liquefaction Potential
Based on the Geotechnical Report for this seismic study, there is no liquefaction potential
for the concrete spans.
4.2.4 Abutments
It was found that C/D ratios for the North Abutment and the South Abutment are above 1
for both earthquake levels.
Table 4-l(a): Minimum Bearing Seat Support Length When Subjected to Upper Level Earthquake
Table 4-l(b): Minimum Bearing Seat Suppon Length When Subjected to Lower Level Earthquake
Table 62(a): Bearing Anchor Force When Subjected to Upper Level Earthquake
Y O ZSC I8Pl EEE @.9'I-P PL6 61Z 3 (oZ) 86 Ja!d
PZZ 4 (oZ) 86 Ja!d --- 501 3 (61) L6 Ja!d
NO I W I OIL 3 (61) L6 Jald I C I
NO
XO
Y O
ZO'Z I W l BEE I ha.1-p 1 EEL 99 I 4 I (8I) 96 Ja!d
NO 86'C I W I BEE 9.9. I-P LPL 89 1 z! (81) 96 Ja!d
NO 8L'Z I W I EEE 99' L-b a 9 OZI 3 (L I) 96 Ja!d
XO t C'Z IwI EEE 9.9'I-b 969 L9 I 3 (L I ) 96 Ja!d
YO I1.L I8PL EEE 9,s 1-P 662 4 (91) P6 Jald 1 ZEEI
Ea'l
t a ' t
f C't
LWI
I W I EEE
Qa'C EEE
no wz - LWI I EEE 1 hw-b ) ~ 9 9 I/ no I oa'z I rwr I EEE I @"9.1* I P L ~
fifi l l
I8PI
I W I
I W I
a~nlle j JOWW 86'0 LWL EEE I +.,9'1-P 1 PISI 111 no 1 wz I IwI 1 ccc I @.~I-P I zo9
(PL) 16 Ja!d
(El) 16 Ja!d
(€1) I 6 Ja!d,
OPE (11) 06 Ja!d
5E I (11) 06 Ja!d "P
BEE
EEE
EEB
YO 8 I'Z I W I EEE I $u9.L-P I 089 €5 I 3 I (6) L8 Ja!d
I Z T I I I8PI I EEE 1 9~9'1-P 1 6 1 I 91 1 4 1 (8) 98 Jald I 1,
9.9 I-P
9,.5'I-~
h9'1-b
NO OP'S POI9 LPI I @.9ZlC'l-81 W6 Z 11 4 (11) 68 Ja!d
Y O
NO
aJnllej ~ 0 4 3 ~
POZl
65V
OLP
Y O
80'8
tS.9
E6'0
XO Z9'1 I8PI EEE 9.5'I-P ZI6 902 3 I N O PL't I W l BEE h5'I-b 06E I 68
ILZ
EO I
90 I
1 Y O 1 9S.C 1 18PI 1 EEE 1 9 ' I LP6 I E l l I 3 I (I) 08 ~ a ! d I 11 OZ'E
)10
)10
aloN
W I 9
9IZE
I W I
z!
3
3
I W I
t9.Z
EZ'I
eyenbqvea leAe1 Jemolo) petaerqn~ ueqM eaJo3 ~ o q a u v Gul~eeg : ( q ) r ~ elqel
J q ~
o!letl a13
LPII
EZL
EEE
(lnW N) 001 Ja!d
(IZ) 66 Jald
(12) 66 Ja!d
ECE 1 I I E9P 1 PO I
----- I W I
I8Pl
(NY)
I~)W!W-~,,
00 1
~ ~ z I E ' I - ~ I
9~919!4'I-8
@US 1-P
3 1 (E) I8Ja!d
ECE
EEE
(sd!~)
6uueag ad WOE JOWW
6E8
E6t
6891
)9'I-P
@,,9'1-b
a a l s & ~ h + ~ ~ 5 z =(p)q,, 6u~eaa
68 1
1 I I
LEE
E99
9021
(NY)
'ON Ja!d
3
3
4
'ON ueds
LZI
1LZ
(sd!~)
(01) 88 Ja!d
(0 1) 88 Ja!d
(6) LB Jald
68
88
3
j
(I) 6L Ja!d
(1nW S) 8L Ja!d 6L
Table 4-3(a): Axial Force-Moment Interaction at Bottom Section of Columns When Subjected to Upper Level Earthquake
Abutment or Pier No.
Pier 78 (S Abut)
Pier 79 (1 )
Pier 80 (2)
Pier 81 (3)
Pier 82 (4)
Pier 83 (5)
Pier 84 (6)
Pier 85 (7)
Pier 86 (8)
Pier 87 (9)
Pier 90 (12)
Pier 91 (13)
Pier 92 (14)
Pier 93 (1 5)
Pier 94 (1 6)
Pier 95 (17)
Pier 96 (1 8)
Pier 97 (1 9)
Pier 98 (20)
Pier 99 (21)
Pier 100 (N Abut)
Mn(c) Me(d) = (M~M:)'.~ CID Ratio
rec
0.68
1.57
0.61
1.01
0.56
0.85
0.65
0.78
0.68
0.73
0.76
0.80
0.59
0.78
0.50
0.65
0.65
1.03
0.53
1.53
0.96
(kips-ft)
10408
19571
20714
20953
22894
36946
43286
46939
59857
67857
65000
61571
601 43
46224
40110
34976
2381 0
22564
17214
17143
8592
(kips-ft)
15276
12486
33742
20694
40581
43613
67100
601 39
881 25
931 77
85462
77089
101 170
59642
8061 0
541 50
36686
21 884
32459
11216
8945
Note
Yielding occurs
No yielding occurs
Yielding occurs
No yielding occurs
Yielding occurs
Yielding occurs
Yielding occurs
Yielding occurs
Yielding occurs
Yielding occurs
Yielding occurs
Yielding occurs
Yielding occurs
Yielding occurs
Yielding occurs
Yielding occurs
Yielding occurs
No yielding occurs
Yielding occurs
No yielding occurs
Yielding occurs
(kN-m)
14112
26535
28085
28408
31041
50092
58688
63640
81156
92002
881 28
83480
81 543
62672
54382
47421
32282
30593
23339
23243
1 1649
(kN-m)
2071 1
16928
45748
28057
55021
59131
90976
81 537
1 19481
126331
11 5871
104519
137168
80864
109292
7341 7
49740
29670
44008
15207
12128
Table 43(b): Axial Force-Moment Interaction at Bottom Section of Columns When Subjected to Lower Level Earthqauke
Abutment or Pier No.
Pier 78 (S Abut)
Pier 79 (1)
Pier 80 (2)
Pier 81 (3)
Pier 82 (4)
Pier 83 (5)
Pier 84 (6)
Pier 85 (7)
Pier 86 (8)
Pier 87 (9)
Pier 90 (1 2)
Pier 91 (1 3)
Pier 92 (1 4)
Pier 93 (1 5)
Pier 94 (1 6)
Pier 95 (1 7)
Pier 96 (1 8)
Pier 97 (1 9)
Pier 98 (20)
Pier 99 (21)
Pier 100 (N Abut)
Me(d) = (M,~+M;)'.~
(kips-ft)
5059
41 55
11174
6879
13437
14568
2221 7
20043
29181
30854
28313
25486
33208
19785
26466
14290
1 1953
6241
10622
3024
2979
(kN-m)
6860
5634
151 51
9327
18218
19751
30122
271 75
39565
41 833
38388
34554
45024
26825
35883
19375
16206
8461
14402
41 00
4040
Mn(c) Seismic Vulnerability Assessment
2.06
4.71
1.85
3.05
1.70
2.54
1.95
2.34
2.05
2.20
2.30
2.42
1.81
2.34
1.52
2.45
1.99
3.62
1.62
5.67
2.88
(kips-ft)
10408
19571
20714
20953
22894
36946
43286
46939
59857
67857
65000
61571
60143
46224
40110
34976
23810
22564
17214
17143
8592
Note
No yielding occurs
No yielding occurs
No yielding occurs
No yielding occurs
No yielding occurs
No yielding occurs
No yielding occurs
No yielding occurs
No yielding occurs
No yielding occurs
No yielding occurs
No yielding occurs
No yielding occurs
No yielding occurs
No yielding occurs
No yielding occurs
No yielding occurs
No yielding occurs
No yielding occurs
No yielding occurs
No yielding occurs
(kN-m)
14112
26535
28085
28408
31 041
50092
58688
63640
81 156
92002
88128
83480
81 543
62672
54382
47421
32282
30593
23339
23243
11649
Table 4-3(c): Axial Force-Moment Interaction at Top Section of Columns When Subjected to Upper Level Earthquake
1 -1
Table 4-3(d): Axial Force-Moment Interaction at Top Section of Columns When Subjected to Lower Level Earthquake
1 .. ,
Table 4-4(a): Anchorage of Column Longitudinal Reinforcement When Subjected to Upper Level Earthquake
Table 44b ) : Anchorage of Column Longitudinal Reinforcement When Subjected to Lower Level Earthquake
I I I I 11 Pier No.
Pier 78 (S Abut)
Pier 79 (1)
Pier 80 (2)
Pier 81 (3)
11 Pier 85 (7) I Straight 1 293 1 30 1 762 1 50 1 1278 1 1.68 1 1.21 1 No Anchorage Failure
Bar Anchorage
Straight
Straight
Pier 82 (4)
Pier 83 (5)
Pier 84 (6)
1) Pier86(8) I Straight 1 12 1 293 1 30 1 762 1 50 1 1278 ( 1.68 1 1.04 1 NoAnchorageFailure 11
Straight
Straight
Straight
Straight
Straight
Ldd)
12
12
(in)
12
12
12
12
12
Pier 87 (9)
Pier 90 (12)
Pier 91 (13)
Pier 92 (14)
La(d)-min = 30db
(mrn)
293
293
293
293
12
12
Straight
Straight
P w a
I( Pier 98 (20) 1 Straight 1 12 1 293 1 30 1 762 1 50 1 1278 1 1.68 ( OK I Not Susceptible to Anchorage Failure
(in)
30
30
293
293
293
Straight
Straight
Pier 96 (18)
Pier 97 (19)
(mm)
762
762
La@) = 50d,
30
30
293
293
Pier 93 (15)
Pier 94 (16)
Pier95(17)
ra LAC) I La@)
1.68
1.68
(in)
50
50
30
30
30
12
12
Straight
Straight
Pier 99 (21)
PierIOO(NAbut)
(rnm)
1278
1278
762
762
30
30
Straight
Straight
Straight
CID Ratio
r,=ref
7.88 ,
OK
762
762
762
293
293
12
12
Straight
Straight
Note
No Anchorage Failure
Not Susceptible to Anchorage Failure
50
50
762
762
12
12
12
50
50
50
30
30
293
293
12
12
1278
1278
50
50
293
293
293
1278
1278
1278
762
762
30
30
293
293
1.68
1.68
1278
1278
30
30
30
1.68
1.68
1.68
50
50
762
762
30
30
OK
OK
1.68
1.68
762
762
762
Not Susceptible to Anchorage Failure
Not Susceptible to Anchorage Failure
OK
0.81
0.97
1278
1278
50
50
762
762
Not Susceptible to Anchorage Failure
Pullout Failure after Footing Yielding
Pullout Failure after Footing Yielding
0.87
0.91
50
50
50
Pullout Failure after Footing Yielding
Pullout Failure after Footing Yielding
1.68
1.68
1278
1278
50
50
1278
1278
1278
1.15
0.81
1.68
1.68
1278
1278
No Anchorage Failure
Pullout Failure after Footing Yielding
1.68
1.68
1.68
OK
OK
1.68
1.68
0.68
1.28
OK
Not Susceptible to Anchorage Failure
Not Susceptible to Anchorage Failure
Pullout Failure after Footing Yielding
No Anchorage Failure
Not Susceptible to ~nchorage Failure
OK
10.75
Not Susceptible to Anchorage Failure
No Anchorage Failure I
Table 4S(a): Splice of Column Longitudinal Reinforcement When Subjected to Upper Level Earthquake
CID Ratio
rcs=rec rtr
3.16
7.28
2.85
4.70
2.62
3.93
2.99
3.62
3.15
3.38
3.53
3.71
2.76
3.60
2.31
3.00
3.01
4.79
2.46
7.09
4.46
Pier No.
Pier 78 (S Abut)
Pier 79 (1)
Pier 80 (2)
Pier 81 (3)
Pier 82 (4)
Pier 83 (5)
Pier 84 (6)
Pier 85 (7)
Pier 86 (8)
Pier 87 (9)
Pier 90 (1 2)
Pier 91 (1 3)
Pier 92 (14)
Pier 93 (1 5)
Pier 94 (16)
Pier 95 (1 7)
Pier 96 (18)
Pier 97 (19)
Pier 98 (20)
Pier 99 (21)
Pier 100 (N Abut)
Note
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure .
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure .
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
rtr A&) 1 Add)
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
Add) A,(c) - (2#6 Rebars)
(in2)
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
(in2)
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88 L
(mm2)
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
(mm2)
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
Table 45(b): Splice of Column Longitudinal Reinforcement When Subjected to Lower Level Earthquake
Pier No.
Pier 78 (S Abut)
Pier 79 (1)
Pier 80 (2)
Pier 81 (3)
Pier 82 (4)
Pier 83 (5)
Pier 84 (6)
Pier 85 (7)
Pier 86 (8)
Pier 87 (9)
Pier 90 (12)
Pier 91 (1 3)
Pier 92 (14)
Pier 93 (1 5)
Pier 94 (16)
Pier 95 (17)
Pier 96 (18)
Pier 97 (1 9)
Pier 98 (20)
Pier 99 (21)
Pier 100 (N Abut)
rtr Alr(~) I Add)
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
CID Ratio
rcs=rec rtr
9.55
21.86
8.60
14.14
7.91
11.77
9.04
10.87
9.52
10.21
10.66
11.21
8.41
10.84
7.03
11.36
9.25
16.78
7.52
26.31
13.38
Add)
-
Note
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure .
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
No Splice Failure
(in2)
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
A,(c) - (2#6 Rebars)
(mm2)
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
122.32
(in2)
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
(mm2)
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
567.74
Table 4-6(a): Transverse Confinement (Ductility) at Bottom Section of Columns When Subjected to Upper Level Earthquake
-,
Table 46(b): Transverse Confinement (Ductility) at Bottom Section of Columns When Subjected to Lower Level Earthquake
Note
N'O Ductility Failure. Within NYSDOT Damage Limit.
No Ductility Failure. Within NYSDOT Damage Limit.
No Ductility Failure. Within NYSDOT Damage Limit.
No Ductility Failure. Within NYSDOT Damage Limit.
No Ductility Failure. Within NYSDOT Damage Limit.
No Ductility Failure. Within NYSDOT Damage Limit.
No Ductility Failure. Within NYSDOT Damage Limit.
No Ductility Failure. Within NYSDOT Damage Limit.
No Ductility Failure. Within NYSDOT Damage Limit.
No Ductility Failure. Within NYSDOT Damage Limit.
No Ductility Failure. Within NYSDOT Damage Limit.
No Ductility Failure. Within NYSDOT Damage Limit.
No Ductility Failure. Within NYSDOT Damage Limit.
No Ductility Failure. Within NYSDOT Damage Limit.
No Ductility Failure. Within NYSDOT Damage Limit.
No Ductility Failure. Within NYSDOT Damage Limit.
No Ductility Failure. Within NYSDOT Damage Limit.
No Ductility Failure. Within NYSDOT Damage Limit.
No Ductility Failure. Within NYSDOT Damage Limit.
No Ductility Failure. Within NYSDOT Damage Limit.
No Ductility Failure. Within NYSDOT Damage Limit.
Abutment or Pier No.
Pier 78 (S Abut)
Pier 79 (1)
Pier 80 (2)
Pier 81 (3)
Pier 82 (4)
Pier 83 (5)
Pier 84 (6)
Pier 85 (7)
Pier 86 (8)
Pier 87 (9)
Pier 90 (12)
Pier 91 (1 3)
Pier 92 (14)
Pier 93 (1 5)
Pier 94 (1 6)
Pier 95 (17)
Pier 96 (1 8)
Pier 97 (1 9)
Pier 98 (20)
Pier 99 (21)
Pier 100 (N Abut)
k3
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
kl
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.15
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.15
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.19
0.18
Ductiliy Capacity,
P(C)
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
1 2.5
k2
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
NYSDOTR Factor
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
CID
= ( c ) r e
5.16
11.83
4.65
7.63
4.27
6.32
4.84
5.81
5.07
5.43
5.67
5.97
4.47
5.80
3.77
6.09
4.99
9.06
4.07
14.27
7.23
Ratio
r,=R re,
3.09
7.06
2.78
4.57
2.56
3.80
2.92
3.51
3.08
3.30
3.44
3.62
2.72
3.50
2.27
3.67
2.99
5.42
2.43
8.50
4.33
Table 4-7(a): Column Shear When Subjected to Upper Level Earthquake
Pier No.
(kips) (kN) (kips) (kN) (kips) (kN) (kips) ( k ~ )
No shear Failure
No shear Failure
No shear Failure
Note. Ve(d) = (V;+V:~ vf(C) CID Ratio
'-C"
Vu(d) = CM(c) I Hc Vi(c)
Table 4-8(a): Footing Moment Capacity Evaluation When Subjected to Upper Level Earthquake
Pier No. Footing Type
Pier 78 (S Abut) Spread
11 Pier 79 (1) I Spread
Pier 82 (4) Spread
Note
118 1 526 1 4.65 1 No Flexural Failure 11
273 1 1214 1 0.71 1 Flexural Failure along Column Face 1)
97
273
210
((pier 83 (5) I Spread 1 551 1 2451 1 371 1 1650 1 0.67 1 Flexural Failure along Column Face (1
43 1
1214
934
Pier 84 (6)
Pier 85 (7)
Pier 86 (8)
I F r 9 0 ( 1 2 ) ( Pile 1 671 1 2985 ( 472 1 2098 ( 0.70 1 Flexural Failure along Column Face I(
3.03
0.79
1.62
(1 Pier 87 (9)
No Flexural Failure
Flexural Failure along Column Face
No Flexural Failure
Spread
Pile
Pile
Pile -1 7 1 5 1 3180 1 472 1 2098 ] 0.66 ( Flexural Failure along Column ~ a r I(
Pier 91 (13)
Pier 92 (14)
Pier 93 (15)
Pier 94 (1 6)
I( Pier 97 (19) I Spread 1 132 1 587 1 133 1 592 1 1.01 1 No Flexural Failure . 11
41 5
570
761
Pile
Pile
Pile
Pile - -
Pier 95 (1 7)
Pier 96 (1 8)
1846
2535
3385
302
457
Spread
Spread
Pier 98 (20)
Pier 99 (21)
Pier 100 (N Abut)
440
588
1025
450
273
97
118
310
526
589
1343
2033
Spread
Spread
Spread
1957
261 5
4559
2002
1214
431
526
1379
2338
261 8
153
273
326
31
15
394
352
526
42 1
1450
138
67
0.84
3.13
7.88
0.75
0.92
0.77
681
1214
Flexural Failure along Column Face
No Flexural Failure
No Flexural Failure
Flexural Failure along Column Face
Flexural Failure along Column Face
Flexural Failure along Column Face
1751
1564
2338
1873
0.51
0.60
0.89
0.60
0.51
0.94
Flexural Failure along Column Face
Flexural Failure along Column Face
Flexural Failure along Column Face
Flexural Failure along Column Face
Flexural Failure along Column Face
Flexural Failure along Column Face
Table 4-8(b): Footing Moment Capacity Evaluation When Subjected to Lower Level Earthquake li 11
Pier No.
Pier 78 (S Abut)
Pier 79 (1)
Pier 80 (2)
Pier 81 (3)
Pier 82 (4)
Pier 83 (5)
Pier 84 (6)
Pier 85 (7)
Pier 86 (8)
Pier 87 (9)
Pier 90 (1 2)
Pier 91 (1 3)
Pier 92 (14)
Pier 93 (1 5)
Pier 94 (16)
Pier 95 (1 7)
Pier 96 (18)
Pier 97 (19)
Pier 98 (20)
Pier 99 (21)
Pier 100 (N Abut)
Footing Type
Spread
Spread
Spread
Spread
Spread
Spread
Spread
Pile
Pile
Pile
Pile
Pile
Pile
Pile
Pile
Spread
Spread
Spread
Spread
Spread
Spread
Mf(d)
(kips-Wit)
15
30
231
103
286
457
320
435
566
540
517
342
435
768
329
180
349
109
231
29
, 11
(kN-m/m)
67
133
1027
458
1272
2033
1423
1935
251 8
2402
2300
1521
1935
341 6
1463
801
1552
485
1027
129
49
Mf(c) Seismic
Vulnerability Assessment (C/D Ratio)
7.88
3.23
1.18
2.04
0.95
0.81
0.97
1.21
1.04
0.87
0.91
1.15
0.81
0.68
1.28
0.85
0.78
1.22
1.18
3.34
10.75
(kips-fUft)
118
97
273
210
273
371
310
526
589
472
472
394
352
526
421
153
273
133
273
97
118
Note
No Flexural Failure
No Flexural Failure
No Flexural Failure
No Flexural Failure
Flexural Failure along Column Face
Flexural Failure along Column Face
Flexural Failure along Column Face
No Flexural Failure
No Flexural Failure
Flexural Failure along Column Face
Flexural Failure along Column Face
No Flexural Failure
Flexural Failure along Column Face
Flexural Failure along Column Face
No Flexural Failure .
Flexural Failure along Column Face
Flexural Failure along Column Face
No Flexural Failure
No Flexural Failure
No Flexural Failure
No Flexural Failure
(kN-m/m)
526
431
1214
934
1214
1650
1379
2338
261 8
2098
2098
1751
1564
2338
1873
681
1214
592
1214
43 1
526
Table 48(a): Footing Shear When Subjected to Upper Level Earthquake
Pier No.
Pier 79 (1) spread 1 0 I 0 1 54 1 7 8 8 1 OK 7 No Shear Failure 11 Pier 78 (S Abut)
Pier 80 (2) I Spread 1 37 1 546 1 70 1 1022 1 1.87 1 No Shear Failure (1
Footing Type
Spread
Pier 84 (6)- spread 1 22 1 316 1 117 1 1 7 1 4 1 5.42 7 No Shear ~ i l u r e 11
'Jf(d)
Pier 81 (3)
Pier 82 (4)
Pier 83 (5)
-
Pier 85 (7) I Pile 1 28 1 409 1 133 1 1945 ( 4.76 1 No Shear Failure 11 Pier 86 (8) I Pile 1 28 1 409 1 149 1 2175 1 5.32 1 No Shear Failure (1
'Jf(c)
I
Spread
Spread
Spread
OK
(kipslft)
0
P i e r 92 (14) 1 Pile 1 31 1 452 1 133 1 1945 1 4.30 1 No Shear Failure (1
CID Ratio
r,
No Shear Failure
14
44
40
Pier 87 (9)
Pier 90 (1 2)
Pier 91 (1 3)
Note
(kNlm)
0
P i e r 96 (18) 1 spread 1 53 1 776 1 70 1 1022 1 1.32 1 No Shear Failure 11
205
640
580
Pile
Pile
Pile
Pier 93 (15)
Pier 94 (1 6)
Pier 95 (1 7)
Pier 97 (19) 1 Spread 1 14 1 208 1 54 1 788 1 3.78 1 No Shear Failure . 1)
(kipslft)
54
Pier 98 (20) 1 Spread 1 35 1 515 1 70 1 1022 1 1.98 1 No Shear Failure (1
(kN1m)
794
54
70
117
50
47
50
Pile
Pile
Spread
788
1022
1714
730
686
730
59
26
29
Pier 99 (21)
Pier 100 (N Abut)
3.85
1.60
2.96
149
149
149
861
379
42 1
Spread
Spread
No Shear Failure
No Shear Failure
No Shear Failure
2175
21 75
21 75
133
133
70
0
0
2.98
3.17
2.98
1945
1945
1022
0
0
No Shear Failure -
No Shear Failure
No Shear Failure
2.26
5.13
2.43
54
54
No Shear Failure
No Shear Failure
No Shear Failure
788
794
OK
OK
No Shear Failure
No Shear Failure
, /
Table 4-9(b): Footing Shear When Subjected to Lower Level Earthquake
Table 4-10(a): Soil or Pile Bearing Subjected to Upper Level EQ I- I
Abutment or Pier No.
Pier 78 (S Abut)
Pier 79 (1)
Pier 80 (2)
Pier 81 (3)
Pier 82 (4)
Pier 83 (5)
Pier 84 (6)
Pier 85 (7)
Pier 86 (8)
Pier 87 (9)
Footing Type
Spread
Spread
Spread
Spread
Spread
Spread
Spread
Pile
Pile
Pile
q-(d) 01 Pm,(d)
(ksf or kips)
16.96
7.14
13.26
9.36
10.96
7.06
9.36
95
96
91
qm,(c) or Pm,(c)
(Mpa pr kN)
0.81
0.34
0.63
0.45
0.52
0.34
0.45
423
427
405
Seismic Vulnerability Assessment (CID Ratio)
0.94
2.24
1.20
1.71
1.46
2.26
1.71
1.65
1.81
1.38
(ksf or kips)
15.96
1596
15.96
15.96
15.96
15.96
15.96
156
174
126
Note
Soil Beaing Failure
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
(Mpa pr kN)
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
695
775
559
11 Pier78(SAbut)I Spread 1 9.01 1 0.43 1 15.96 1 0.76 1 1.77 1 OK 11
Table 4-10(b): Soil or Pile Bearing Subjected to Lower Level EQ
11 Pier 79 (1) I Spread 1 6.67 1 0.32 1 15.96 1 0.76 1 2.39 1 OK 11 (1 Pier 80 (2) 1 Spread 1 8.83 1 0.42 1 15.96 1 0.76 1 1.81 1 OK 11
Abutment or Pier No.
(1 Pier 81 (3) I Spread 1 7.43 1 0.36 1 15.96 1 0.76 1 2.15 1 OK 11
Seismic Vulnerability Assessment (CID Ratio)
11 Pier 82 (4) I Spread 1 7.91 1 0.38 1 15.96 1 0.76 ( 2.02 I OK 11 .
Note
I h e r 83 (5) I Spread 1 5.38 1 0.26 1 15.96 1 0.76 1 2.97 1 OK 11
Footing Type
qmsx(c) or Pm,(c) qmax(d) or pmu(d)
(ksf or kips)
Pier 84 (6)
Pier 85 (7)
Pier 86 (8)
Pier 87 (9)
Pier 88 11 0)
11 Pier91113) I Pile 1 70 1 311 1 117 1 521 1 1.67 1 OK 11
(ksf or kips) (Mpa pr kN)
Pier 89 (1 1)
Pier 90 112)
11 Pier92(14) I Pile 1 80 ( 356 1 110 1 488 1 1.37 1 OK 11
(Mpa pr kN)
-
Spread
Pile
Pile
Pile
Spread
1) Pier 93 (15) I Pile 1 76 1 338 1 128 1 568 1 1.68 1 OK 11
Pile
Pile
(1 Pier 94 (16) I Pile 1 74 1 329 1 132 1 589 1 1.79 1 OK 11
6.72
72
71
68
9.22
57
65
0.32
320
31 6
302
0.44
Pier 95 (1 7)
Pier 96 (1 8)
Pier 97 (1 9)
254
289
Pier 98 (20)
Pier 99 (21)
Pier 100 (N Abut)
15.96
156
174
126
15.96
Spread
Spread
Spread
133
Spread
Spread
Spread
0.76
695
775
559
0.76
7.39
9.01
8.45
592
8.86
6.40
6.02
2.38
2.1 7
2.45
1.85
1.73
0.35
0.43
0.40
- -
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
2.33
126
0.42
0.31
0.29
OK
1.94 562
15.96
15.96
15.96
15.96
15.96
15.96
OK
0.76
0.76
0.76
I
0.76
0.76
0.76
2.16
1.77
1.89
OK
OK
OK
1.80
2.49
2.65
OK
OK
OK
Table 4-1 11a): North Tower LC Ca
Tower Ultimate P Column
' Pu=0.85AFcr
(kips) (kN) PCN 1 3420 15213 PCN 2 3409 15165 PCN 3 3401 15126 PCN 4 3392 15086 PCN 5 3392 15086 PCN 6 3392 15086 PCN 7 3392 15086 PCN 8 7197 32011 PCN 1 1 3420 15213 PCN 1 2 3409 15165 PCN 1 3 3401 15126 PCN 1 4 3392 15086 PCN 1 5 3392 15086 PCN 1 6 3392 15086 PCN 1 7 3392 15086
PCN 2 2 15165 PCN 2 3 PCN 2 4 PCN 2 5 PCN 2 6 PCN 2 7 PCN 2 8 PCN 3 1 PCN 3 2 PCN 3 3 PCN 3 4 PCN 3 5 PCN 3 6 PCN 3 7 PCN 3 8 PCN 4 1 PCN 4 2 PCN 4 3 PCN 4 4 PCN 4 5 PCN 4 6 PCN 4 7 PCN 4 8 PCN 5 1 PCN 5 2 PCN 5 3 PCN 5 4 PCN 5 5 PCN 5 6 PCN 5 7 1w PCN 6 2
(Pier 89) Evaluation 3cw
Ultimate M
'Vhen Subjected to U De
EQ COI P=PDL+PEQL+0.3P~Q~
per Level Earthquake
bina at ion CID Ratio -1 Mz=MzEaL+0.3MzEaT I I (PIPutMzlMu) Note
(kipsin) (kN-m)
Table 4-1 1 (b): South Tower Leg (Pier 88) Evaluation
(kips) ) (kN) 1 (kips-in) 1 (kN-m) 3420 1 15213 1 21038 1 2377
I Nhen Subjected to Upper Earthquake
PCS 2 3409. PCS 3 3401 PCS 4 3392 PCS 5 3392 PCS 6 3392
PCS 1 3 3401 PCS 1 4 3392 PCS 1 5 3392 PCS 1 6 3392 PCS 1 7 3392
Tower C.O'Ymn
Demand EQ Combination
PCS 1 81 7197 ( 32011 1 129446 PCS 2 11 3420 1 15213 1 21028
Capacity Ultimate P Ultimate M
Pu=0,85AFcr ! MY=RF'MD
CID Ratio
I I (PIPY+MMu)
17.04 4.92 4.08 3.99 2.89 2.48 2.03
PCS 2 2 3409 15165 20956 PCS 2 3 3401 15126 20910 PCS 2 4 3392 15086 20790 PCS 2 5 3392 15086 20762 PCS 2 6 3392 15086 20739 PCS 2 7 3392 15086 20710
Note
OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
P=PDL+PEQL+0.3PEm
PCS 3 2 3409 15165 20948 2367 PCS 3 3 3401 15126 20903 2362 PCS 3 4 3392 15086 20832 2354 PCS 3 5 3392 15086 20754 2345 PCS 3 6 3392 15086 20692 2338
(kips) 163 653 700 822 1112 1339 1447
M Z = M Z ~ ~ ~ + O . ~ M Z ~ Q ~
PCS 3 7 PCS 3 8 PCS 4 1 PCS 4 2 PCS 4 3 PCS 4 4 PCS 4 5 PCS 4 6 PCS 4 7 n
(kN) 724
2903 31 12 3654 4947 5955 6438
(kips-in) 234 247 . 828 181 368 1 69 1356
PCS 4 8 7197 32011 129446 14626 PCS 5 1 3420 15213 21039 2377 PCS 5 2 3409 15165 20959 2368
(kN-m) 26 28 94 20 42 19
153
PCS 5 3 3401 15126 20907 2362 PCS 5 4 3392 15086 20784 2348 PCS 5 5 3392 15086 20755 2345 PCS 5 6 3392 15086 20736 2343 PCS 5 7 3392 15086 20708 2340
II PCS 5 81 7197 1 32011 1 129446 PCS 6 11 3420 1 15213 1 21039 PCS 6 2 3409 15165 20959 PCS 6 3 3401 15126 20907 PCS 6 4 3392 15086 20784 PCS 6 5 3392 15086 20755 PCS 6 6 3392 15086 20736 PCS 6 7 3392 15086 20708
vs112 VS113 VS114 VS115 VS116 VS117 VSI 18 VS119 DSlOl DS102 CIS103 DS104 DS105 DS106 DS107 DS108 D S l l I DS112 DS113 DS114 DS115 DS116 DS117 -
1
a): Truss C
Ult Pu=
(kips) - 1386 1829 1829 2122 2122 1829 1829 1386 1386 1829 1829 2122 2122 1829 1829 1386 1357 1357 1966 1966 1966 1966 1357 1357 1357 1357 1966 1966 1966 1966 1357 1357 1346 535 1058 535 1058 535 1058 535 1346 1346 535 1058 535 1058 535 1058 535 1346 1713 1504 1103 665 662 1109 1498 1721 1713 1504 1103 665 662 1109 1498 1721
TClOl TC102 TC103 TC104 TC105 TC106 TC107 TCI 08 TCl11 TC112 TC113 TC114 TC115 TC116 TC117 TCl I 6 BC101 BC102 BC103 BC104 BC105 BC106 BC107 BC108 BCl I 1 BC112 BC113 BC114 BC115 BC116 BC117 BC118 VS101 vs102 VS103 VS104 VS105 VS106 VS107 VS108
!mbers Eval acity rte Str 35AFcr
(kN) 6166 81 36 8136 9437 9437 81 36 8136 6166 6166 81 36 8136 9437 9437 8136 81 36 6166 6038 6038 8743 8743 8743 8743 6038 6038 6038 6038 8743 8743 8743 8743 6038 6038 5989 2379 4706 2379 4706 2379 4706 2379 5989 5989 2379 4706 2379 4706 2379 4706 2379 5989 7621 6688 4907 2959 2946 4931 6665 7657 7621 6688 4907 2959 2946 4931 6665 7657
ation Subjected to Upper EQ - Span 79 (1) Demand
G/U KaU
(Pu-P~3 Pm, 20.1
EQ Combination Pj=PEQL+o.3PEQT
(kips) I (kN) P2'o.3PEaL+PEaT
(kips) 1 (kN) 46 I 204 69
pma=max(pl,~2)
(kips) I (kN) 69 I 306 306
Table 4-12
Truss Members
TC201 TC202 TC203 TC204 TC205 TC206 TC211 TC212 TC213 TC214 TC215 TC216 BC201 BC202 BC203 BC204 BC205 BC206 BC211 BC212 BC213 BC214 BC215 BC216 vs201 vs202 VS203 VS204 VS205 VS206 VS207 vs211 vs212 vs213 VS214 VS215 VS216 VS217 DS201 DS202 DS203 DS204 DS205 DS206 DS211 DS212 DS213 DS214 DS215 DS216
b): Truss Members Evalc Capacity
Ultimate Sir Pu=0.85AFcr
ation Subjected to Upper EQ - Span 80 (2) Demand
EQ Combination Pl=PEQL+o.3PEQT I P2=0.3PEaL+PEQT Pmar=ma~(PiPP2)
-
(kips) (kN) - (kips) (kN) (kips) (kN) pma 50 221 46 206 50 221 27.5 188 836 236 1050 236 1050 6.0 178 794 232 1033 232 1033 6.1 205 91 1 253 1124 253 1124 5.6 178 793 237 1053 237 1053 6.0
Table 4-12 c : Truss k
Members Pu=(
(kips) TC301
~bers Evaluation Subjected to Upper EQ - Span 81 (3) :ity Demand ? Str EQ Combination
CID Rati'
AFcr P,'PEQL+o.3PEaT P ~ = o . ~ P ~ ~ ~ + P ~ , , ~ Pma=max(P1 ,PA (Pu-p~d
(kN) (kips) (kN) (kips) (kN) (kips) (kN) P,,, 61 11 65 288 56 247 65 288 21.2 8788 179 796 250 11 11 250 1111 5.6 8788 218 97 1 268 1193 268 1193 5.2 8788 177 787 255 1133 255 1133 5.5 8788 203 903 263 1170 263 1170 5.3 61 10 50 220 49 216 50 220 27.6 6111 65 288 56 247 65 288 21.2 8788 179 796 250 1111 250 1111 5.6 8788 218 970 268 1192 268 1192 5.2 8788 177 788 255 1134 255 1134 5.5 8788 203 904 263 1170 263 1170 5.3 6110 50 220 49 216 50 220 27.6 6476 498 2217 349 1553 498 2217 2.2 6476 493 2191 348 1549 493 2191 2.3 10110 467 2076 546 2430 546 2430 3.0 10110 462 2054 545 2424 545 2424 3.0
Table 4-12:d):
Truss Members
TC401 TC402 TC403 TC404 TC405 TC406 TC411 TC412 TC413 TC414 TC415 TC416 BC401 BC402 BC403 BC404 BC405 BC406 BC411 BC412 BC413 BC4 14 BC415 BC416 VS401 VS402 VS403 VS404 VS405 VS406 VS407 VS411 VS412 VS413 VS414 VS415 VS416 VS417 DS401 DS402 DS403 DS404 DS405 DS406 DS411 DS412 DS413 DS414 DS415 DS416
Truss Members Evaluation Capacity
Ultimate
(kips) 1373 1974 1974 1974 1974 1379 1373 1974 1974 1974 1974 1379 1455 1455 2271 2271 1455 1461 1455 1455 2271 227 1 1455 1461 1346 535 1058 535 1058 535 1346 1346 535 1058 535 1058 535 1346 1810 1246 650 654 1240 1837 1810 1246 650 654 1240 1837
CID Ratis
(Pu-PDL) P,,
30.1 6.4 6.7 6.3 6.9 21.6 30.1 6.4 6.7 6.3 6.9 21.6 4.2 4.2 3.3 3.3 2.4 2.4 4.2 4.2 3.3 3.3 2.4 2.4
174.7 9.3 30.1 10.2 32.6 5.3 55.6 174.5 9.3 30.1 10.2 32.6 5.3 55.4 5.7 6.3 4.7 4.9 5.9 6.9 5.7 6.3 4.7 4.9 5.9 6.9
Subjected to Upper EQ - Span 82 (4)
Str Pu=0.85AFcr
(kN) 6106 8781 8781 8781 8781 6133 61 06 8781 8781 8781 8781 6133 647 1 6471 10100 I0100 6471 6500 6471 6471 10100 I0100 6471 6500 5989 2379 4706 2379 4706 2379 5989 5989 2379 4706 2379 4706 2379 5989 8051 5540 2893 2910 5514 8170 8051 5540 2893 2910 5514 8170
(kips) 45 182 165 204 169 63 45 181 165 204 169 63 166 170 414 419 485 489 166 169 414 419 485 489 5 22 30 26 28 89 22 5 22 30 25 28 89 22 192 154 119 112 1 56 130 192 154 119 112 156 130
P,=PEQL+0.3PEQT
(kN) 199 807 732 909 754 282 199 807 732 908 753 282 739 754 1842 1864 2157 2175 738 753 1841 1863 2156 2175 23 97 134 113 126 397 96 23 97 134 113 126 397 96 856 687 53 1 497 696 576 855 687 531 497 696 576
Demand
pm,=max(p1,
(kips) 45 220 213 226 209 63 45 220 21 3 226 209 63 265 267 498 50 1 485 489 265 267 498 501 485 489
8 51 3 1 46 29 89 24 8 51 31 46 29 89 24
231 154 119 112 156 199 231 154 119 112 156 199
EQ
(kips) 45 220 213 226 209 46 45 220 21 3 226 209 46 265 267 498 501 368 370 265 267 498 501 368 370 8
51 31 46 29 87 24 8 51 31 46 29 87 24 23 1 143 89 76 136 199 231 143 89 76 136 199
p2)
(kN) 202 979 948 1006 928 282 202 979 948 1005 927 282 1178 1188 2216 2227 2157 2175 1177 1188 2216 2227 2156 2175 33 226 140 206 130 397 105 33
226 140 206 130 397 105
1029 687 531 497 696 885 1029 687 531 497 696 885
Combination P,=0.3PEQL+PE,
(kN) 202 979 948 1006 928 203 202 979 948 1005 927 203 1178 1188 2216 2227 1638 1644 1177 1188 221 6 2227 1638 1644 33
226 140 206 130 389 105 33
226 140 206 130 389 105 1029 637 395 339 606 885 1029 637 395 339 606 885
e): Truss I C
UItl Pu=
(kips) 1377 1976 1976 2552 2552 1976 1976 1377 1377 1976 1976 2552 2552 1976 1976 1377 1348 1343 2437 2437 2437 2437 1343 1348 1348 1343 2437 2437 2437 2437 1343 1348 1317 526 1026 526 1026 526 1026 526 1317 1317 526 1026 526 1026 526 1026 526 1317 1794 1626 1064 646 642 1072 1617 1807 1794 1626 1064 646 642 1072 1617 1807
rnbers Evaluation Subjected to Upper EQ - city
CID Ratit
(PU-PDL) pm, - 22.8 3.5 3.8 3.2 3.1 3.8 3.4
11 Members
Truss Members
- CID Rati
0: Truss Members Evaluation
Ultimate
(kips) 1377 1811 1811 2273 2273 1811 1811 1377 1377 1811 1811 2273 2273 181 1 181 1 1377 1348 1343 2270 2270 2270 2270 1343 1348 1348 1343 2270 2270 2270 2270 1343 1348 1305 519 1002 51 9 1002 51 9 1002 51 9 1305 1305 51 9 1002 51 9 1002 519 1002 51 9 1305 1777 1604 1052 640 636 1061 1593 1790 1777 1604 1052 640 636 1061 1593 1790
Capacity Str
Pu=O.8MFcr
(kN) 6124 8055 8055 I0110 I0110 8055 8055 6124 6124 8055 8055 I0110 10110 8055 8055 6124 5994 5975 10099 10099 10099 10099 5975 5994 5994 5975 10099 10099 10099 10099 5975 5994 5806 2308 4459 2308 4459 2308 4459 2308 5806 5806 2308 4459 2308 4459 2308 4459 2308 5806 7902 7133 4678 2849 2828 4719 7085 7962 7902 7133 4678 2849 2828 4719 7085 7962
Subjected to Upper EQ -
(kips) 43
244 235 331 323 239 231 51 43 244 235 331 323 239 231 51 171 174 452 455 559 562 452 454 171 174 452 455 559 562 452 454 4 28 43 45 39 45 40 47 11 4 28 43 45 39 45 40 47 11
227 205 1 74 127 117 165 196 196 227 205 1 74 127 117 165 196 196
P,'PEQL+o.3PEQT
(kN) 190 1087 1046 1471 1438 1062 1026 225 190 1087 1046 1471 1438 1061 1026 225 762 774 201 0 2025 2485 2500 2012 2021 762 774
2009 2025 2485 2500 2012 2021 20 125 190 199 173 199 178 208 50 20 125 190 199 173 198 178 208 50
1010 91 3 772 563 51 9 733 874 871 1010 91 3 772 563 51 9 733 874 87 1
Span 84 (6)
EQ
(kips) 55
351 314 51 0 505 342 359 62 55 351 314 510 505 342 359 62
283 285 776 779 790 791 264 264 283 285 776 779 790 791 264 264 6 62 37 92 49 102 38 58 13 6 62 37 92 49 102 38 58 13
322 301 252 101 64 230 303 325 322 301 252 101 64
230 303 325
(kips) 55
351 314 510 505 342 359 62 55
351 314 510 505 342 359 62 283 285 776 779 790 791 452 454 283 285 776 779 790 791 452 454 6 62 43 92 49 102 40 58 13 6 62 43 92 49 102 40 58 13
322 301 252 127 117 230 303 325 322 301 252 127 117 230 303 325
Demand Combination
P2=0.3PEQL+PEQ~
(kN) 244 1559 1399 2268 2248 1519 1596 274 244 1559 1399 2268 2248 1519 1596 274 1260 1270 3451 3463 351 2 3518 1172 1173 1260 1270 3450 3463 3512 3518 1172 1173 28 276 163 41 1 21 9 453 170 259 60 28 276 163 41 1 219 453 170 259 60
1430 1339 1121 447 287 1022 1346 1443 1430 1339 1121 447 287 1022 1346 1443
Prnax=mW'?nP2)
(kN) 244 1559 1399 2268 2248 1519 1596 274 244 1559 1399 2268 2248 1519 1596 274 1260 1270 3451 3463 3512 351 8 2012 2021 1260 1270 3450 3463 3512 3518 201 2 2021 28
276 190 411 21 9 453 178 259 60 28 276 190 411 21 9 453 178 259 60
1430 1339 1121 563 519 1022 1346 1443 1430 1339 1121 563 51 9 1022 1346 1443
Capacity ation Subjected to Upper EQ - Span 85 (7 )
Demand Truss
Members
LIU Kall
(Pu-P~~) p,, 24.4
EQ Combination PI=PEQL+o.3PEQT
(kips) I (kN) 50 I 223
P2=o.3PEQL+PEQT (kips) 1 (kN)
56 I 251
Pmax=ma~(P1,P2) (kips) I (kN)
56 I 251
j Table 4-12 h : Truss M i
TC801 TC802 TC803 TC804 2273 TC805 2273 TC806 TC807
mbers Eva11 acity ~ te Str IMFcr
Ition Subjected to Upper EQ - Span 86 (8) Demand
CID Rati
(Pu-P,,) Pm, - 25.5 3.8 4.5 3.1 3.2 3.7 3.6 18.5 25.5 3.8 4.5 3.1 3.2 3.7 3.6 18.5 3.5 3.4 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.5 I .5 3.5 3.4 1.8 I .8 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.5
165.0 7.7 34.7 5.5 21.9 4.7 34.4 3.4 31.8 165.0 7.7 34.7 5.5 21.9 4.7 34.4 3.4 31.8 4.0 4.1 3.2 4.1 4.7 3.9 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.1 3.2 4.1 4.7 3.9 4.1 4.1
EQ Combination P1=PEaL+0.3PEQT
(kips) I (kN) 45 I 199
P2=0.3PEQL+PEQT (kips) I (kN)
54 I 240
Prnax=max(Pi ,P2)
(kips) 1 (kN) 54 I 240
Truss Members
0: Truss Members Evaluation Subjected to Upper EQ - Span 87 (9) Capacity
Ultimate Str Pu=O.BSAFcr
(kips) 1702 2905 2905 3724 3724 2905 2905
CID Rati~
(PU-P~~) Pmax 15.7 4.1 4.7 3.5 3.4 3.9 3.5
Demand EQ Combination
(kN) 7571 12922 12922 16566 16566 12922 12922
Pl=PEQL+o.3PEQ~
(kips) 72 363 357 506 512 394 405
(kN) 31 9 1614 1587 2249 2277 1751 1804
PZ=0.3PEQL+PEQ~
(kips) 108 454 395 668 676 478 523
Pma=max(Pl,P2)
(kN) 482 2021 1758 2972 3006 2125 2325
(kips) 108 454 395 668 676 478 523
(kN) 482 2021 1758 2972 3006 2125 2325
Table 4-1:
Truss Members
- TC1001 TC1002 TC1003 TC1004 TC1005 TC1006 TC1007 TC1008 TC1009 TClOl l TClOl2 TC1013 TC1014 TC1015 TC1016 TC1017 TC1018 TC1019 BC1001 BC1002 BC1003 BC1004 BC1005 BC1006 BC1007 BC1008 BC1011 BC1012 BClO13 BC1014 BC1015 BC1016 BC1017 BC1018 VSlOOl vs1002 VS1003 VSI004 VS1005 VS 1 006 VS1007 VS1008 VS1009 VSIOI I vs1012 VSlOl3 VS1014 VS1015 VS1016 VS1017 VS1018 VS1019 DSlOOl DS1002 DS1003 DS1004 DS1005 DS1006 DS1007 DS1008 DSl 01 I DS1012 DS1013 DS1014 DS1015 DS1016 DS1017 DS1018 -
j): Truss MI Ca
Ultin Pu=O
(kips1 1703 2693 2693 3734 3734 3325 3325 2584 2584 1703 2693 2693 3734 3734 3325 3325 2584 2584 1925 1925 3322 3322 3541 3541 2858 2858 1925 1925 3322 3322 3541 3541 2858 2858 1638 639 1118 639 1118 639 1118 639 1118 1638 639 1118 639 1118 639 1118 639 1118 2793 231 8 1744 1031 593 1031 1744 2318 2793 231 8 1744 1031 593 1031 1744 231 8
nbers Eva11 acity te Str ~5AFcr
(kN) 7574 11 977 11977 16608 16608 14789 14789 11 494 11 493 7574 11977 11 977 16608 16608 14789 14789 11494
. 11493 8561 8561 14778 14778 15751 15751 12711 12711 8561 8561 14778 14778 15751 15751 12711 1271 1 7288 2840 4974 2840 4974 2840 4974 2840 4974 7288 2840 4974 2840 4974 2840 4974 2840 4974 12422 10309 7759 4585 2637 4585 7759 10309 12422 10309 7759 4585 2637 4585 7759 10309
lion Subjected to Upper EQ - Span 88 (10) Demand
(kN) I (kips) 456 I 102
CID Ratim
(Pu-Pod pm, -
1 16.5 4.6 4.0 4.4 4.1 4.3 3.9 10.3
Table 412(k): Truss Members Evalualion Subjected to Upper EQ - Span 89 (1 1)
Truss Members
TCl101
Capacity Ultimate Str
Pu=O.85AFff
(kips) I (kN) 3655 1 16257
cm Ratio
(Pu-PD~ I P, 11.0
Demand EQ Combination
P,=PE~,+O.~P,,~ (bps) / (kN) I (bps) I (kN) I (kips) I (kN) 126 1 560 1 224 1 997 1 224 1 997
P2=0.3PEa,+PE,, Pm,=max(P,.P2)
Table 4-12
Truss Members
TC1201 TC1202 TC1203 TC1204 TC1205 TC1206 TC1207 TC1208 TC1209 TC1211 TC1212 TC1213 TC1214 TC1215 TC1216 TC1217 TCI218 TC1219 BC1201 BC1202 BC1203 BC1204 BC1205 BC1206 BC1207 BCI208 BC1211 BC1212 BC1213 BC1214 BC1215 BC1216 BC1217 BC1218 vs1201 vs1202 VS1203 VS1204 VS1205 VS1206 VS 1 207 VS1208 VS1209 vs1211 vs1212 VS1213 VS1214 VS1215 VS1216 VS1217 VS1218 VS1219 DS1201 DS1202 DS1203 DS1204 051205 , DS1211 DS1212 DS1213 DS1214 DS1215 DS1216 DS1217
!): Truss Members Evalu Capacity
Ultimate Str Pu=0.85AFcr
2692 11973 2692 11973 3732 16602
16602 14784
3324 14784 2583 11490
:ion Subjected to Upper EQ - Span 90 (12) Demand CID Ratim
(pu-po~) pm, - 4.8 9.6 4.2 7.7 7.6 6.6 10.8 7.8 27.5 4.8 9.6 4.2 7.7 7.6 6.6 10.8 7.8 27.5 2.3 2.3 2.8 2.8 3.8 3.8 8.5 8.6 2.3 2.3 2.8 2.8 3.8 3.8 8.5 8.6 12.3 10.9 28.4 7.7 33.4 10.3 43.9 6.2
140.4 12.3 10.9 28.4 7.7 33.4 10.3 43.9 6.2
140.4 8.1 9.6 11.1 11.4 3.6 4.0 6.3 5.8 8.1 9.6 11.1 11.4 3.6 4.0 6.3 5.8
bination
:QL+PEQT P,,=max(Pl, P2) (kips)
1020 246 1095
Capaci Ultimate Str
ation Subjected to Upper EQ - Span 91 (13) Demand CID Ratic
(PU-P,,) ' pm, 15.5 3.7 4.1 3.3 3.2 4.2 3.6
EQ Combination Members Pu=O.8MFcr
(kips) 7469
Table 4-12(n): Truss Members Evaluation Subjected to Upper EQ - Capacity
Truss Ultimate Str Members Pu=0.85AFcr P,=PEQL+0.3PmT
(kips) (kN) (kips) (kN) TC1401 1377 61 23 47 208 TC1402 1975 8784 243 1080 TC1403 1975 8784 234 1042 TC1404 2573 11444 306 1361 TC1405 2573 11444 288 1282 TC1406 1975 8784 21 8 968 TC1407 1975 8784 201 894
I CID Rati
Table 4-1:
Truss Members
TC1501 TC1502 TC1503 TC1504 TC1505 TC1506 TC1507 TC1508 TC1511 TC1512 TC1513 TC1514 TC1515 TC1516 TC1517 TC1518 BC1501 BC1502 BC1503 BC 1504 BC1505 BC1506 BC1507 BC1508 BC15l I BC1512 BC1513 BC1514 BC1515 BC1516 BC1517 BC1518 VS1501 VS1502 VS1503 VSI 504 VS1505 VS1506 VS1507 VS1508 VS1509 VS1511 VS1512 VS1513 VS1514 VS1515 VS1516 VS1517 VS1518 VS1519 DS1501 DS1502 DS1503 DS1504 DS1505 DS1 506 DS1507 DS1508 DS1511 DS1512 DS1513 DS1514 DS1515 DS1516 DS1517 DS1518
CID Rati
(PU-PDL) Pmax - 20.1 3.3 3.6 2.9 2.9 3.4 3.2
23.0 20.1 3.3 3.6 2.9 2.9 3.4 3.2 23.0 I .8 I .8 I .8 I .8 I .8 I .8 2.8 2.8 I .8 I .8 I .8 I .8 I .8 I .8 2.8 2.8 67.7 6.2
22.3 3.9 17.5 3.9 19.1 7.3
156.4 67.7 6.2 22.3 3.9 17.5 3.9 19.1 7.2
156.4 3.4 3.2 2.8 3.9 4.1 2.8 3.4 3.0 3.4 3.2 2.8 3.9 4.1 2.8 3.4 3.0
0): Truss Members Evaluation Subjected to Upper EQ - Span 93 (15) Capacity
Ultimate Str Pu=O.8MFcr
1975 1 8784 1 264 1 1176 1 415 / 1844 1 415 1 1844
Demand EQ Combination
(kips) 1377 1975 1975 2573 2573 1975 1975 1375 1377 1975 1975 2573 2573 1975
(kN) 6123 8784 8784 11444 11444 8784 8784 6117 6123 8784 8784 11444 11444 8784
P~'PEQ~+0.3PEQ~
(kips) 59
229 240 334 344 260 264 48 59 230 240 334 344 260
(kN) 264 1020 1066 1485 1529 1154 1175 213 264 1021 1066 1486 1531 1155
P2=0.3PEQL+PEQT (kips)
68 396 366 588 592 392 415 60 68
397 366 588 592 392
Pma~max(P1,P2)
(kN) 305 1763 1627 261 3 2632 1742 1844 266 305 1764 1627 2614 2633 1742
(kips) 68 396 366 588 592 392 415 60 68 397 366 588 592 392
(kN) 305 1763 1627 2613 2632 1742 1844 266 305 1764 1627 261 4 2633 1742
CID Rati
Table 4-12(p): Truss Members Evaluation Subjected to Upper EQ - Span 94 (16)
DS1602 DS1603 DS1604 DSI 605 DS1606 DS1607
Truss Members
TC1601 TC1602 TC1603 TC1604 TC1605 TC1606 TC1607
Capacity Ultimate Str
Pu=O.BMFcr
Demand EQ Combination
(kips) 1377 1975 1975 2573 2573 1975 1975
(kN) 6123 8784 8784 11444 11444 8784 8784
P1'PEQL+o.3PEQT
(kips) 49 242 223 335 316 237 221
(kN) 216 1077 992 1490 1403 1056 982
P2=0.3PEQL+PEQT
(kips) 57
371 350 517 509 31 8 344
Pmax=max(Pl# Pz)
(kN) 252 1651 1557 2299 2263 1416 1531
(kips) 57
371 350 517 '
509 31 8 344
(kN) 252 1651 1557 2299 2263 1416 1531
\ Table 4-12(q): Truss I I I r! 11 Truss
Members
mbers Evaluation Subjected to Upper EQ -Span 95 (17) acily ~ te Str l5AFcr
(kN) 6123 8784 8784 11444 11444 8784 8784
CID Rati
P " - P ~ ~ ) Pma 16.0 3.7 4.2 3.3 3.2 3.6 3.4
Demand EQ Combination
P1=PEQL+0.3PEQT
(kips) 86 253 279 340 367 239 263
(kN) 384 1123 1242 1512 1632 1061 1171
PZ=O.3PEQL+PEQ~
(kips) 79 337 305 499 504 355 371
Pma=ma~(P1,P2)
(kN) 350 1499 1355 2218 2241 1579 1650
(kips) 86
337 305 499 504 355 371
(kN) 384 1499 1355 2218 2241 1579 1650
, Table 4-12(r):
Truss Members
TC1801 TC1802 TC1803 TC1804 TC1805 TC1806 TC1811 TC1812 TC1813 TC1814 TC1815 TC1816 BC1801 BC1802 BC1803 BC1804 BC1805 BC1806 BC1811 BC1812 BC1813 BC1814 BC1815 BC1816 VSl80l VS1802 VS1803 VS1804 VS1805 VS1806 VS1807 VS1811 VS1812 VS1813 VS1814 VS1815 VS1816 VS1817 DS1801 DS1802 DS1803 DS1804 CIS1805 DS1806 DS1811 DS1812 DS1813 DS1814 DS1815 DS1816
Truss Members Evaluation Capacity
Ultimate Pu=O
(kips) 1373 1962 1962 1962 1962 1373 1373 1962 1962 1962 1962 1373 1467 1468 2285 2285 1468 1467 1467 1468 2285 2285 1468 1467 1358 530 1053 530 1053 530 1358 1358 530 1053 530 1053 530 1358 1823 1232 652 652 1232 1823 1823 1232 652 652 1232 1823
CID Rat1
(Pu-PDL) P,,
39.3 7.0 6.9 7.3 7.5
29.9 39.4 7.0 7.0 7.3 7.5
29.9 4.1 4.1 3.8 3.8 3.2 3.1 4.1 4.1 3.8 3.8 3.2 3.1
62.6 6.0 37.2 9.4
40.4 8.4
107.6 64.7 6.0 37.8 9.4
40.3 8.4
107.3 6.2 8.4 6.8 5.5 6.8 6.8 6.2 8.4 6.8 5.5 6.8 6.8
Subjected to Upper EQ - Span 96 (18)
Str 85AFcr
(kN) 61 09 8729 8729 8729 8729 6108 6109 8729 8729 8729 8729 6108 6527 6528 10162 10162
. 6528 6525 6527 6528 10162 10162 6528 6525 6040 2356 4685 2356 4685 2356 6040 6040 2356 4685 2356 4685 2356 6040 8110 5478 2901 2901 5478 8107 8110 5478 2901 2901 5478 8107
PI=~EQL+~
(kips) 35 132 120 137 114 21 35 131 119 136 113 21 147 149 323 326 358 366 145 147 322 325 357 365 8 29 20 22 18 37 9 8 28 20 21 18 37 9
151 113 83 93 107 108 150 113 83 93 107 107
3 P ~ ~ ~
(kN) 155 588 533 61 1 507 95 155 582 527 607 502 95
653 662 1436 1450 1591 1628 646 655 1430 1444 1588 1625 36 127 89 96 81 163 40 36 123 88 95 81 163 40 671 504 370 416 475 481 666 502 370 415 474 477
Demand
Pma~max(P1
(k1p.s) 35 204 204 195 188 46 35
203 204 195 188 46
281 282 437 437 358 366 280 281 436 437 357 365 21 79 25 50 23 56 12 20 78 25 50 23 56 12
219 113 83 102 140 199 219 113 83 102 140 199
EQ
(kips) 35 204 204 195 188 46 35 203 204 195 188 46 28 1 282 437 437 318 324 280 281 436 437 317 322 21 79 25 50 23 56 12 20 78 25 50 23 56 12
219 110 66 102
. 140 199 219 110 66 102 140 199
,P2)
(kN) 155 906 909 869 837 203 155 902 906 868 836 203 1252 1254 1943 1944 1591 1628 1247 1250 1941 1943 1588 1625 94 349 113 222 104 249 55 91
348 111 222 104 249 55
975 504 370 454 622 884 972 502 370 453 621 883
Combination
P2=o.3PEQL+PEQT
(kN) 154 906 909 869 837 203 154 902 906 868 836 203 1252 1254 1943 1944 1413 1439 1247 1250 1941 1943 1408 1434 94 349 113 222 104 249 55 91
348 111 222 104 249 55
975 491 295 454 622 884 972 489 296 453 62 1 883
CID Rati
(pu-p~d pm, - 29.7 6.5 6.2 6.2 6.2
Table 4-12(s): Truss Members Evaluation Subjected to Upper EQ - Span 97 (19)
Truss Members
TC1901 TC1902 TC1903 TC1904 TC1905 TC1906 TC1911 TC1912 TC1913 TC1914 TC1915
Capacity Ultimate Str
Pu=O.8MFcr
Demand EQ Combination
(kips) 1373 1962 1962 1962 1962 1373 1373 1962 1962 1962 1962
(kN) 6109 8729 8729 8729 8729 6108 6109 8729 8729 8729 8729
P,'PEaL+0.3PEQT
(kips) 46 152 168 155 160 37 46 152 168 155 160
(kN) 205 677 748 691 712 165 205 677 748 69 1 712
P,=0.3P,,+PE,, Pm,=max(Pl ,P2)
(kips) 44 220 229 227 228 42 44 220 229 227 228
(kips) 46 220 229 227 228 42 46 220 229 227 228
(kN) 198 977 1020 1012 1014 188 197 977 1020 1010 1013
(kN) 205 977 1020 1012 1014 188 205 977 1020 1010 1013
pan 98 (20) 1
\ Table 4-12:t):
Truss Members
TC2001 TC2002 TC2003 TC2004 TC2005
Truss Members Evaluation Subjected to Upper EQ - C/D Ratio
(PU-P,~) / -
Demand EQ Combination
P2=o.3PEQL+PEoT
Capacity Ultimate Str
Pu=O 85AFcr Prnax=ma(Pl, Pz) (kips) 1373 1962 1962 1962 1962
PI=PEQL+O ~ P E Q T (kN) 6109 8729 8729 8729 8729
(kips) 52
204 177 221 178
(kN) 231 907 788 981 793
' Table 4-12:~).
Truss Members
TC2101 TC2102 TC2103 TC2104 TC2105
CID Rat1
(Pu-~oL) Pma,
21.3 5.1 4.8 5.2 5.1
26.7 21.3 5.1 4.8 5.2 5.1 26.7 2.3 2.3 3.0 3.1 3.9 3.9 2.3 2.3 3.0 3. I 3.9 3.9
105.0 6.6 22.5 8.4 22.6 8.1
176.1 105.0 6.6 22.5 8.4 22.6 8.1
176.0 5.3 5.7 4.7 4.3 5.1 4.8 5.3 5.7 4.7 4.3 5.1 4.8
Truss Members Evaluation Capac~ty
Ult~mate Str Pu=O 85AFcr
Subjected to Upper EQ - Span 99 (21)
(kips) 1373 1962 1962 1962 1962
TC2111 TC2112 TC2113 TC2114 TC2115 TC2116 BC2101 BC2102 BC2103 BC2104 BC2105 BC2106 BC2111 BC2112 BC2113 BC2114 BC2115 BC2116 VS2101 VS2102 VS2103 VS2 1 04 VS2105 VS2106 VS2107 VS2111 VS2112 VS2113 VS2114 VS2115 VS2116 VS2117 DS2101 DS2102 DS2103 DS2104 DS2105 DS2106 DS2111 DS2112 DS2113 DS2114 DS2115 DS2116
(kN) 6109 8729 8729 8729 8729
P1=P~Q~+O
NIPS) 64 185 21 8 182 199 51 64 185 218 182 199 51
496 492 456 451 183 179 496 492 456 451 183 179 12 51 33 28 33 23 3 12 51 33 28 33 23 3
157 152 119 130 1 76 214 157 152 119 130 1 76 214
1373 1962 1962 1962 1962 1373 1467 1468 2285 2285 1468 1467 1467 1468 2285 2285 1468 1467 1358 530 1053 530 1053 530 1358 1358 530 1053 530 1053 530 1358 1823 1232 652 652 1232 1823 1823 1232 652 652 1232 1823
Demand EQ Comb~nat~on
3 P ~ ~ ~
(kN) 286 821 971 808 884 228
- - -P~
286 821 97 1 808 884 228 2206 2188 2029 2005 812 795
2207 2188 2030 2005 812 795 52
225 147 125 147 101 14 52
225 147 125 147 101 14
697 674 527 578 783 951 697 674 527 578 783 951
6108 6109 8729 8729 8729 8729 6108 6527 6528 10162 10162 6528 6525 6527 6528 10162 10162 6528 6525 6040 2356 4685 2356 4685 2356 6040 6040 2356 4685 2356 4685 2356 6040 8110 5478 2901 2901 5478 8107 8110 5478 2901 2901 5478 8107
51 227
P2=O 3 p ~ ~ ~ + p ~ Q ~
51
(kips) 53
277 297 274 280
228 ---
(~IPS) 64
277 297 274 280
(kN) 238 1233 1319 1219 1244
Pmax=ma~(P1,P2)
(kN) 286 1233 1319 1219 1244
286 1233 1319 1219 1245 228 2206 2188 2435 2422 1311 1299 2207 2188 2435 2422 131 1 1299 56 314 187 248 185 257 33 56
314 187 248 185 257 33
1146 734 527 578 829 1245 1146 734 527 578 829 1245
53 277 297 274 280 51
342 34 1 547 545 295 292 342 341 547 545 295 292 13 71 42 56 42 58 8 13 71 42 56 42 58 8
258 165 85 108 186 280 258 165 85 108 186 280
238 1233 1319 1219 1245 227 1521 1517 2435 2422 1311 1299 1521 1517 2435 2422 131 1 1299 56
314 187 248 185 257 33 56
314 187 248 185 257 33
1146 734 378 482 829 1245 1146 734 378 482 829 1245
64 277 297 274 280 51
496 492 547 545 295 292 496 492 547 545 295 292 13 71 42 56 42 58 8 13 71 42 56 42 58 8
258 165 119 130 186 280 258 165 119 130 186 280
Table 4-12(v): Truss Members Evaluation Subjected to Upper EQ - Span 100 (22) I Canacitv I nernanrl
CID Ratio
(Pu-POL) I
pm,
20.2 4.8 5.0 4.4 4.8 17.5 20.2 4.8 5.0 4.4 4.8 17.5 3.6 3.6 2.7 2.7 1.7 1.7 3.6 3.6 2.7 2.7 I .7 1.7
179.0 8.1 22.7 8.9 17.5 5.8 98.9 178.9 8.1
22.7 8.9 17.5 5.8 98.9 4.6 3.9 3.3 4.0 5.7 4.9 4.6 3.9 3.3 4.0 5.7 4.9
Truss Members
-- Ultimate Str
- - . . . - . . - EQ Combination
Pu=0,85AFcr PI=PEaL+0.3PEQT I P2'o.3PEQL+PEQT Pma~ma~(P1, P2)
Table 4-13(a) Seismic Evaluation (CID Ratios) Summary for 22 Steel Truss Spans When Subjected to Upper Level Earthquake
Blue - Satisfactory. Red - Unsatisfactory
hoPe)s~esun - pay 'ho~e)sges - anle
1) ~ 9 . z I no I SL'OC I 91.c I EE'P I 8c .c~ I SL'OL I EZ' c I VN I ~uaulnqv .N
11 LL.1 1 18.1 I 8L.O 1 Z8.L I 66.Z I SZ.6 I YO I ZO'Z I 86'1 I VN I VN I (81) 96 ~a!d 11
6P'Z
08' 1
68' 1
Y O
96'Z
ZL'P
9L'Z Z C'P S8'0 CP'L L9'E
LC' 1
L9' 1
t6' 1
PE'E
81'1
ZZ' 1
11 6 L l I 10.1 1 821 1 SE'S I LZ'Z EO'L 8Z' 1 I 11'1 I 9Z.L I VN I VN I ( 9 1 ) ~ 6 ~ a ! d
-
9s' 11
EE'Z
EL' 1
68' 1
SP'Z
6L'S
Z6'E
P C'P
L L:Z
8E'Z
L6'Z
EO'E 60's 66'6 88'L EZ' 1 VN tuautnqv 'S
40!1wna =!ids a 6 e ~ o ~ u ~ WON I qlnos WON I ulnas
J ~ ~ U S '4u!atl 'AsueJl 'ju!atl leu!pnl!6uo1 q16ua1 'OddnS JaqlunN Ja!d
uo!peJalul yy-d 4!3ede3 J0'3uV leas uo!suedq
S1'01
PC's
P6'6
Y O 8L'Z
Y O
Y O
Z6'E
0 C'L
20.2
S 1'2
18'1
L8'0
61'1
L6'0
SE'9
LE'L
6L'E
OS'8
EP'Z
ZP'S
EL'Z
Y O
Y O
L8'0
W' 1
PZ'Z
S8'P
L8'Z
PO'L
S6'L
OP'8
CZ. 1
L6'0
L8'0
LE'9Z
ZS'L
8L.9 1
6P'9
Y o
Y O
£2'8
80.6
96'0
W'Z
81'1
81'6 I (LC) S6 Ja!d
ZL'Z
Z9'E
W E
OL'L
6E.9
LZ'9
Y O
YO
Y O
Y O
OE'E
80's
S f 9
09'0 1
Z9'S
lP'8
LZ' 11
99'0 1
LS'E
Z6'Z
08's
EZ'E
29'1
61's
9S'Z
LS'P
8L'Z
L8'0
S l ' l
L6'0
uo!peJalul yyd - Jam01 p a l s
L8'Ol
W'6
LL' 11
SC'E
6P'L
ZO'E
98'P
80'9
E6'0
ZE'C
LZ'O 1
ZS'6
16'L
Pl 'Pl
09'8
8Z'l
OE'Z
86'0
L8'0
PO' 1
CZ' 1
L6'0
L8'0
ZP'L
VN
05'9
OP'S
ES'9
81'Z
OS'1
Y O
Y O
Y O
9Z'L
OZ'Z
9P'Z
SS'Z
LS'L
Z9.Z
E6'S
VN
EE'S
VN
OP'L
VN
VN
8S'l
6E'E
9S.l
(CZ) 66 Ja!d
(OZ) 86 Ja!d
(6 1) L6 Ja!d
VN
L6'S
VN
9L'Z
LS'l
OC'Z
VN
PL'S
E8't
VN
P6'1
0Z.E
Z9'1
VN
E9'P
LL'P
(1 1) 68 Ja!d
(0 1) 88 Ja!d
(6) L8 Ja!d
(8) 98 Ja!d
EZ'9
VN
96'9
(P 1) Z6 Ja!d
(EC)C6Ja!d
(21) 06 Ja!d
VN
16.9
VN
ZO'S
VN
6P'S
(L) S8 Ja!d
(9) @8 Ja!d
(S) E8 Ja!d
VN
EE'S
VN
(P) 28 Ja!d
(E) 18 Ja!d
(1) 08 Ja!d
J Table CAS 1-1: CID Ratios for Axial Force-Moment Interaction at Columns When Subject to Lower Level Earthquake
\ Table CAS 1-2: C/O Ratios for Axial Force-Moment Interaction at Columns When Subject to Lower Level Earthquake i
. .~ .\ Table CAS 1-3: C D Ratios for Axial Force-Moment Interaction at Columns When Subject to Lower Level Earthquake
/ ) I
Abutment
or
Bent No.
30
31
32
32
32
2
Along
Column Line
(see FIGURE CAS
4-1.4-2.4-3 & 44)
Vande~ort Ave.
Vandemrt Aue.
D. F
D, F
E
3
Diredon
S. Abutment
N. Abutment
Longitudinal
Transverse
Longitudinal
4
Moment
due to EQ
(From Output)
4Bl(D&L)
(Kip-Ft)
1133
1172
1 72
1 97
1 82
10
Notes
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
5
Response
Factor
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1 .5
6 Qeq
Design EQM=
(4)1(5)
755.3333333
781 3333333
1 14.6666667
131.3333333
121.3333333
7 IQ i
Moment
Design DL
(Output)
4Bl(DL)
(KipFt)
368
134
60
17
60
8 RC .
Moment
Member
Ultimate Capacity
(From Calculations)
(KipFt) 5000
4417
179
180.5
180.5
9 r = (RC-1~ i ) i~eq
CapacitylDemend
Ratio
((8H7)Y(6)
6.13
5.48
1.04
1.24
0.99
1 Table CAS 1-4: CID Ratios for Axial Force-Moment Interaction at Columns When Subject to Lower Level Earthquake
57
588
588
B, C. E, F
G
G
Transverse
Longitudinal
Transverse
221
1 34
158
1 .5
1.5
1.5
OK
OK
OK
147.3333333
89.33333333
105.3333333
2
41
34
205.5
310.3
236.2
1.38
3.01
1.92
,\, Table CAS 1-5: CID Ratios for Axial Force-Moment Interaction at Columns When Subject to Lower Level Earthquake
Table CAS 1-6: CID Ratios for Axial Force-Moment Interaction at Columns When Subject to Lower Level Earthquake
76B
77
77
291
229
229
B. C, E, F
A, D, G
A, D, G
Transverse
Longitudinal
Transverse
1.5
I .5
1.5
0
4
36
194
152.6666667
152.6666667
254.4
254.4
254.4
1.31
1.64
1.43
OK
OK
OK
\ Table CAS 1-7: CID Ratios for Axial Force-Moment Interaction at Columns When Subject to Lower Level Earthquake
, -\, Table CAS 2-1: CID Ratios for Axial Force-Moment Interaction at Columns When Subject to Higher Level Earthquake /
\ Table CAS 2-2: CID Ratios for Axial Force-Moment Interaction at Columns When Subject to Higher Level Earthquake
298
298
298
B, D. F
C, E
C. E
Transverse
Longitudinal
Transverse
593
548
796
1.5
1.5
1.5
395.3333333
365.3333333
530.6666667
17
60
0
180.5
180.5
180.5
0.41
0.33
0.34
NG NG NG
Table CAS 2-3: CID Ratios for Axial Force-Moment Interaction at Columns When Subject to Higher Level Earthquake
44.45 B, D, F I ~ongitudinall 538 1 1.5 358.6666667) 9
NG 226.41 0.61
44,45 B, D. F 1 Transverse 52 1 1.5
NG 347.3333333 29 181.8 0.44
Table CAS 2 4 : CID Ratios for Axial Force-Moment Interaction at Columns When Subject to Higher Level Earthquake
57
588
588
B, C, E, F
G
G
Transverse
Longitudinal
Transverse
667
436
384
I .5
1.5
1.5
444.6666667
290.6666667
256
205.5
310.3
236.2
2
36
28
0.46
0.94
0.81
NG NG NG
Table CAS 2-5: CID Ratios for Axial Force-Moment Interaction at Columns When Subject to Higher Level Earthquake
1
Abutment
or
Bent No.
588
588
2
Along
Column Line
(see FIGURE CAS
3
Direction
4
Moment
due to EQ (From Output)
4-1,4-2.4-3 8 4-4) 481(D&L)
(KipFt)
460
629
D
D
5
Response
Factor
Longitudinal
Transverse
1.5
1.5
6 Qeq
Design EQM=
(4)1(5)
306.6666667
419.3333333
7 XQi
Moment
Design DL
(Output)
4Bl(DL)
(MPFt)
48
20
8 RC -
Moment
Member
Ultimate Capacity
(From Calwlations)
(KpFt)
226.4
181.8
9 r = (Rc-1Qi)IQeq
CapacitylDemend
Ratio
10
Notes
((8)-(7))1(6)
0.58
0.39
NG NG
-\ Table CAS 2-6: CID Ratios for Axial Force-Moment Interaction at Columns When Subject to Higher Level Earthquake
. . --l -
Abutment
or
Bent No.
678
678
678
-
71
71
71
2
Along
Column Line
(see FIGURE CAS
4-1.4-2,4-3 8 4-4)
A, G
D
D
70
70
70
70
Varick Ave
A. D. G
A. D, G
3
Direction
Transverse
Longitudinal
Transverse
D
B. C, E, F
0, C. E. F
Varick Ave
N. Abubnent
Longitudinal
Transverse
4
Moment
due to EQ
(From Output)
481 (D&L)
(Kip-Ft)
629
460
629
Transverse
Longitudinal
Transverse
S. Abutment
5546
550
770
5
Response
Factor
1.5
1.5
1.5
629
459
667
5546
1.5
1.5
1.5
6 Qeq
Design EQM=
(4)/(5)
419.3333333
306.6666667
419.3333333
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
3697.333333
366.6666667
513.3333333
7 ZQi
Moment
Design DL
(Output)
4Bl(DL)
(KipFt)
20
48
20
419.3333333
306
444.6666667
3697.333333
0
45
22
20
48
2
0
10
Notes
NG NG NG
8 RC -
Moment
Member
Ultlrnate Capacity
(From Calculations)
(Kip-Ft)
181.8
226 4
181.8
50000
. 254.4
254.4
9 r = (Rc-IQi)/Qeq
CapacilylDemend
Ratio
((8>C1))/(6)
0.39
0.58
0.39
181.8
239.8
205.5
50000
13.52
0.57
0.45
0.39
0.63
0.46
13.52
OK
NG NG
NG NG NG OK
\ Table CAS 2-7: C/D Ratios for Axial Force-Moment Interaction at Columns When Subject to Higher Level Earthquake
,. ~
Table CAS 4-1: CID Ratios for Axial Force-Moment Interaction at Columns When Subject to Lower Level Earthquake
9 1
Abutment
or
Bent No.
1 02
102
102
102
2
Along
Column Line
(see FIGURE CAS
4-1,4-2.4-3 8 4-4)
Fascia
Fascia
Interior
Interior
3
Direction
Longitudinal
Transverse
Longitudinal
Transverse
4
Moment
due to EQ
(From Output)
481 (D8L)
(KipFt)
847
594
840
645
5
Response
Factor
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
6 Qeq
Design EQM=
(4)/(5)
564.6666667
396
560
430
10
Notes
OK OK OK OK
7 XQi
Moment
Design DL
(Output)
4BI(DL)
(KiP-Ft)
226
702
226
10
8 RC -
Moment
Member
Ultimate Capaclty
(From Calculations)
(KipFt)
1333
1333
1333
1333
9 r = (Rc-xQi)/Qeq
CapacitylDemend
Ratio
((8)-(7))1(6)
1.96
1.59
1.98
3.08
1 Table CAS-5 CID Ratios for Minimum Bearing Seat Support Length (for Concrete Approach Spans)
1
Span
-
2
Member
3 Items
Direction
4 N c (Inches)
Longitudinal
Support Length
Provided
(From Drawing)
5 L
AASHTO
Fig.3.10
(p 452)
Eq. (63A)
(p 460)
7 6 H
AASHTO
Fig.3.10
(p 452)
Eq. (6-3A)
(p 460)
10
Note
8 N(d) (Inches)
Minimun
Support Length
(As defined in
NYS specs for HIW Br)
(8+0.02L+O.O8H)
9 r
CapacitylDernend
Ratio
(N c)lN(d)
(4Y(8)
\ 1 Table CAS-6-1 CID Ratios for Bearing Anchors When Subject to Lower Level Earthquake
Table CAS4-2 CID Ratios for Bearing Anchors When Subject to Higher Level Earthquake
Table CAS 7-1: CID Ratios for Column Shear When Subject to High Level Earthquake /
-
148
148
148
440
440
484
B. D, F
B. D. F
C , E
0.67
0.67
0.67
~ o n ~ i t u l 3 39
12.5
41.5
Transvs 3
14.5
39.6
12.4 Longitu5 3
1.5
1.5
1.5
27.74
27.68
28.88
60
60
60
10.3
10
10.3
9
9
9
93.85
92.73
98.65
3.38
3.35
3.42
\ Table CAS 7-2: CID Ratios for Column Shear When Subject to High Level Earthquake
298
298
29B
B. D. F
C. E
C , E
Transve
Longitu
Transve
3
3
3
440
484
484
0.67
0.67
0.67
12.5
41.5
16
39.6
12.4
53.4
3.35
3.42
2.65
1.5
1.5
1.5
27.68
28.88
37.16
60
60
60
10
10.3
10.3
9
9
9
92.73
98.65
98.65
\ Table CAS 7-3: CID Ratios for Column Shear When Subject to High Level Earthquake
Table CAS 7-4: CID Ratios for Column Shear When Subject to High Level Earthquake /
-
57 B. C, E. F isverse 3 528 0.67 10.8 35.9 1.5 24.99 60 16.5 9 131.31 5.25
588 G ~itudinal 3 484 0.67 22.2 7.1 1.5 15.54 60 18.5 9 135.39 8.71
588 G bsverse 3 484 0.67 7.3 22.7 1.5 15.90 60 16.5 9 126.48 7.96
Table CAS 7-5: CID Ratios for Column Shear When Subject to High Level Earthquake
Table CAS 7-6: CID Ratios for Column Shear When Subject to High Level Earthquake /
.- . -
768
77
77
L
B. C, E. F
A. D, G
A. D. G
isverse
itudinal
isverse
3
3
3
729
729
729
0.67
0.67
0.67
34.1
33.8
34.1
22.7
10.7
26.9
1.5
1.5
1.5
27.31
23.64
28.96
60
60
60
23.5
23.5
23.5
9
9
9
184.51
184.51
184.51
6.76
7.81
6.37
Table CAS 7-7: CID Ratios for Column Shear When Subject to High Level Earthquake
, Table CAS 8-1: CID Ratios for Column Shear When Subject to Lower Level Earthquake )
i
1~9.86 16 ~ ' O C 109 IWOL ICL
L
E9'8 28'90 1 6 L C 09 88'21 S'C 8'LC E'S EL'8 1~2.1 11 6 ZL 09 PL'ZC S'L c'c C'QI
L9'0 182s E p l 3 '3 8Z 'LZ
1°'0 182s E )nl!6uol 3 '3 8Z 'LZ
- . - " . L. L*" "0"
SP'6 S9'86 6 E'OC 09 WOL IS'C ISL WC 1 S9.86 6 E'OC 09 E9'8 - - 6" . -. S6'CC EL'Z6 6 01 09 9L'L I s 1
- -. " - EL8 LZ'CC 1 6 ZC 09 PL'ZC 9'1 S'S c .8~ €9'0 1 I L C.L6 6 01 09 EL'6 S' L L'EL c
I I I I I - . -. 1~0'90 c 16 IZC 109 IEL.ZL IC.L I7.a I I I I -. -. - 7 - " . L
SP'6 199.86 16 IEOL h a I w n ~ 112.1 1 - 2 1 IF.& I - -- . -- ..-- a . =. l a v
WCC 199.86 16 ICOC 109 IWQ 19 .~
I a.
PL'8 Iz0.901 16 121 109 IEC.ZL
I - --. -- ..-- a . 2 I I v
WCC 1~9.86 19.1 I I I ."
SG'C 1 IEL'ZG
EL8 LZ'C CL 6 ZL 09 PL'Zl S'L S'9 '2'81
E9'O 1 I L C'L6 6 01 09 EC'6 S'L L'EL c . -. PL'8 Z0'901 6 ZC 09 EL'ZC S'L Z'9 C'LC SP'6 199.86 6 6.01 09 WOC S'L SL
99.86
SG'CL IEL'Z6
- - - -- ---r a . Q L I G I
€1.8 LZ'CCC 6 ZL 09 PL'ZC S'L S'S ~ ' 8 1
€9'0 1 1 C'L6 6 01 09 EL'6 S'L C'EC P
PL'8 20.90 1 6 ZC 09 EL'ZL C'L
(~)3N(3 !A) 9PO-2613 (1ndln0 (1ndln0
0!8- (!d) u o ~ j ) u o ~ j )
puurglde3 (smAw)+(@.sw1~) dw~s'~zv~r?llh+zv~uoy\)) 03 0) anp 33 q an1
J O W j Ueyl\ Buoy\
a13 = 3 !A - s p 4 = ( P ~ A ~ea4s asuodsaa sags ~savs
OO'E 1 00'21 11 01 6
I . -
=u!l 10
uowal!C uwnlo3 luauwqy
6 u o ~
JJb' 6b' 3J
P E Z 1 !I!PU03 ,,Sl-SW,, ~04)
, Table CAS 8-3: CID Ratios for Column Shear When Subject to Lower Level Earthsuake
Table CAS 84: CID Ratios for Column Shear When Subject to Lower Level Earthauake
Table CAS 8-5: CID Ratios for Column Shear When Subject to Lower Level Earthquake
(For "As-Is" Condition) (concrete Approach Spans) 1
Abutment
or
Bent No.
588
588
58B
Along
Column
Line
D
D
3rection
itudinal
isverse
B. C. E. F bitudinal
2' - f~
(ksi)
3
3
3
3- . Ag
(lnA2)
440
484
-4 Atr
(lnA2)
4400.67
0.67
0.67
13 CID
CaplDmnd
Ratio
(Vi c)Nc(d)
13.70
17.12
' -5 Shear
Vlong
due to
(From
Output)
(Kips)
6.8
2.6
19.17 7.4
6 Shear
Vtran
ECdue to EQ
(From
Output)
(Kips)
7.7
7.7
2.2
7 Response
Factor
8 Shear Vc(d) =
1.5 60 5.15
9
fy
((VlongA2+VtranA2fl.5yRF
(ksi) 60
60
10.3
RF
1.5
1.5
1 0 1 1 d
(Kips)
.6.85
5.42
(Inch)
10.3
10
9 98.65
S
"' 12 - Vi C =
(Inch)
9
9
( 2 r d 0 . ~ - ~ g p ( w d h )
(psi)
El92046
(P. A5)
93.85
92.73
\ Table CAS 8-7: CID Ratios for Column Shear When Subject to Lower Level Earthquake
. -... - ": . .. LONGIIUOIN~L ELEVATION
i.. . . . . . e-.. --. . . .-
TRANSVERSE ELEVATION
SECTI'ON EE FIX&. SHOES 230 FT. SPAN TRUSSES ION-TOWERS)
Figure 4-2(c) Existing Fixed Bearing for 230-Ft Span Trusses .
Ui 0) 3.352m
PlER 95 (11'-0.)
3.048m m m d PlER 80. 81. 82. 96. 97. 98. 99 r - m a
BEARING S W FOR STEELWORK-ELEV. 8 7
C BRIDGE
E OF PlER
19.202m
E TRUSS (63'-0') E TRUSS
TYPE I PLAN OF TOP
[TOP OF PIER-ELN. A
I
SECTION A-A
3
SECTION PLAN B-B
Figure 4-3 (a) Type I Pier Bents
4-106
- PLAN OF T.0P '
Figure 4-3 (b) Reinforcement Details fo r Type I Pier Bents
4-107
SECTION PLAN B-B Figure 4-3 (c) Type II Pier Bents
Figure 4-3 (d) Reinforcement Details and Pile Layouts for Type I I Pier Bents
Figure 4-3 (e) Elevation and Dimension for Both Pier Bent Types
4-1 10
Y Figure 4-4(a) Steel Tower Member Designation - Pier Bent 89 (North Tower)
Inches Kips
Figure 4-4(b) Steel Tower Member Designation - Pier Bent 88 (South Tower)
4-1 12
Inches Kips
Figure 4-4(e) Steel Tn~ss Member Designation - Span 81
Inches Kips
Figure 4-4(1) Steel Truss Member Designation - Span 88
Inches Kips
Figure 4-4(m) Steel Truss Member Designation - Span 89
Inches Kips
Figure 4-4(n) Steel Tn~ss Member Designation - Span 90
Inches Kips
Figure 4-4@) Steel Tmss Member Designation - Span 92
Inches Kips
Figure 4-4(v) Steel Truss Member Designation - Span 98
Inches Kips
Figure 4-4(x) Steel Truss Member Designation - Span 100
Inches Kips
& L 54th AVE
SPAN 1 0 3 SPAN 1 0 2
NOTE: 1 . REPLACE ALL EXISTING. STEEL ROCKER EXPANSION BEARINGS DENOTED
AS E WlTH ELASTOMERIC BEARING PADS. SEE FIGURE CAS-2 FOR SUGGESTED REPLACEMENT DESIGN.
2 . REPLACE ALL EXISTING HIGH STEEL COMPANION FIXED BEARINGS DENOTED AS F WlTH ELASTOMERIC BEARING PADS. SEE FIGURE CAS-3 FOR SUGGESTED REPLACEMENT DESIGN.
FIGURE CAS-1 REPLACEMENT OF BEARINGS I IN SPANS 1 0 2 AND 1 0 3
BOTTOM OF EXISTING GIRDER
ASTOMERIC :ARING PAD
W SAME SIZE OR LARGER ANCHOR BOLT
I I
-
1 ' WITH HIGHER STRENGTH STEEL (TYP.)
I I
TlNG
I l l f I l l ' I I 1 I l l s REPLACE EXISTING ANCHOR BOLT B Y
STEEL PLATE
ELASTOMERIC BEARING PAD
STEEL PLATE
FIGURE CAS-2 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF ELASTOMERIC EXPANSION BEARING
PLATE
I WITH HIGHER STRENGTH STEEL (TYP.)
FIGURE CAS-3 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF ELASTOMERIC FIXED BEARING
NOTES:
1. ALL BENT COLUMNS AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE RETROFITTED IN ORDER TO MEET THE HIGHER LEVEL (2,500 YEARS RETURN) EARTHQUAKE. ALONG COLUMN LlNE B: AT BENT NOS. 47 THROUGH 70 INCLUSIVE, AND BENT NOS. 71 THROUGH 77 INCLUSIVE. . ALONG COLUMN LlNE C: AT BENT NOS. 1B THROUGH 7 INCLUSIVE, BENT NOS. 8 THROUGH 298 INCLU.SIVE, BENT NOS. 33 THROUGH 7 0 INCLUSIVE, AND BENT NOS. 71 THROUGH 77 INCLUSIVE. ALONG COLUMN LlNE D: AT BENT NOS. 1B THROUGH 7 INCLUSIVE, BENT NOS. 8 THROUGH 298 INCLUSIVE, BENT NOS. 3 2 THROUGH 7 0 INCLUSIVE, AND BENT NOS. 71 THROUGH 77 INCLUSIVE. ALONG COLUMN LlNE E: AT BENT NOS. 1B THROUGH 7 INCLUSIVE, BENT NOS. 8 THROUGH 298 INCLUSIVE, BENT NOS. 3 2 THROUGH 7 0 INCLUSIVE, AND BENT NOS. 71 THROUGH 77 INCLUSIVE. ALONG COLUMN LlNE F: AT BENT NOS. 47 THROUGH 70 INCLUSIVE, AND BENT NOS. 71 THROUGH 77 INCLUSIVE.
2. FOR BENT COLUMNS AT LOCATION ALONG COLUMN LINE D AND AT BENT LINE 768. SEE FIGURE CAS-5-1 FOR SUGGESTED COLUMN RETROFIT SCHEME.
3. ALL OTHER BENT COLUMNS AT LOCATIONS LISTED IN NOTE 1 OTHER THAN THE COLUMNS LISTED IN NOTE 2, SEE FIGURE CAS-5-2 FOR SUGGESTED RETROFIT SCHEME.
4. ALL FOOTINGS DENOTED AS F1, F2 AND F3 ON THE FIGURES CAS-4-1, CAS-4-2, CAS-4-3, AND CAS-4-4 HEREIN ARE REQUIRED T O BE RETROFITTED IN ORDER TO MEET THE HIGHER LEVEL (2,500 YEARS RETURN) EARTHQUAKE. FOR FOOTING F1, SEE SUGGESTED RETROFIT SCHEME SHOWN ON FIGURE CAS-4-5. FOR FOOTING F2. SEE SUGGESTED RETROFIT SCHEME SHOWN ON FIGURE CAS-4-6. FOR FOOTING F3, SEE SUGGESTED RETROFIT SCHEME SHOWN ON FIGURE CAS-4-7.
KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE
I flGURE CAS-4-1 KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE-CONCRETE APPROACH SPANS-COLUMNS AND f00TINGS PLAN (1) I
I FIGURE CAS-4-2 KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE-CONCRETE APPROACH SPANS-COLUMNS AND FOOTINGS PLAN (2)
CHAPTER 5
SEISMIC RETROFIT MEASURES
The seismic evaluation were presented and discussed in the previous chapter. This
chapter presents the proposed seismic retrofit measures for each seismic failure mode.
The C / D ratios for the proposed retrofitted details are also presented.
5.1 STEEL TRUSS SPANS (SPANS 79 TO 100)
The following failure modes were found for the 22 steel truss spans:
1. Bearing anchor failure
2. Pier column axial force-moment interaction failure
3. Footing flexural failure
4. Soil bearing failure
The seismic retrofit measures for each seismic failure mode were developed and are
presented in the following sub-sections.
5.1.1 Bearing Anchor Failure
Bearing anchor failures were found at both expansion and fixed bearings. Under the
upper level earthquake, most bearings were found to have anchor failures except for the
fixed bearings at Pier 89 and the expansion bearings at Piers 79,81,88,90,97 and 99.
Under the lower level earthquake, all expansion bearings perform satisfactorily. Anchor
failures were found only for the fixed bearings at Piers 87 and 90.
Two retrofit alternates are proposed: Alternate 1 - to replace all existing high bearings by
multi-rotational pot bearings, and Alternate 2 - to increase bearing anchor capacity by
providing additional anchor bolts.
5.1.1.1 Alternate 1
It is proposed to replace all the existing high bearings, 44 expansion rocker bearings and
44 fixed bearings. Due to high gravity loads, new multi-rotational pot bearings are
recommended.
5.1.1.2 Alternate 2
Bearing anchor failures were considered in the following two connection interfaces: (1)
Upper Connection Interface - the connection interface between the truss bottom chord
and the upper portion of the bearing shoe, and (2) Lower Connection Interface - the
connection interface between the lower portion of the bearing shoe and the bearing seat.
All the unsatisfactory bearings were classified into the following five groups. Retrofit
measures are proposed for each group.
Fixed Bearings in Spans 87, 88 and 9 1 (Piers 86. 87 and 90)
A minimum of four (4) additional bolts are required to resist the seismic shear force
along the upper connection interface. It is proposed to add four (4) bolts by attaching
four "z-shape" angles at the four comers, as shown in Figure 5-l(a).
A minimum of nine (9) additional anchor bolts are required in the lower connection
interface. It is proposed to drill and grout ten (10) additional anchor bolts into the
concrete pedestal, as shown in Figure 5-l(b).
Expansion Bearings in Spans 87,90 and 91 (Piers 87,90 and 91)
The existing eight (8) bolts along the upper connection interface were found to be
sufficient.
A minimum of two (2) additional anchor bolts are required in the lower connection
interface. It is proposed to drill and grout four (4) additional anchor bolts into the
concrete pedestal, as shown in Figure 5- 1 (b).
Expansion Bearings in 159-ft and 120-ft spans (Piers 79, 83, 85,91,93, and 95)
The existing eight (8) bolts along the upper connection interface were found to be
sufficient.
A minimum of two (2) additional anchor bolts are required in the lower connection
interface. It is proposed to h l l and grout four (4) additional anchor bolts into the
concrete pedestal, as shown in Figure 5-1 (c).
Fixed Bearings in 159-ft and 120-ft spans (Piers 78, 80, 82, 84, 86,92,94, 96,98 and
100)
A minimum of three (3) additional bolts are required to resist the seismic shear force
along the upper connection interface. It is proposed to add four (4) bolts by attaching
four "z-shape" angles at the four corners, as shown in Figure 5-1 (e).
A minimum of seven (7) additional anchor bolts are required in the lower connection
interface. It is proposed to h l l and grout eight (8) additional anchor bolts into the
concrete pedestal, as shown in Figure 5-l(d).
Besides providing additional anchor bolts, vertical restraint is also required to secure the
bearing pin in place, as shown in Figure 5- 1 (e).
The C/D ratios for the retrofitted bearing anchors, rbf, for the 22 steel truss spans when
subjected to the upper level earthquake and the lower level earthquake are shown in
Table 5-1 (a) and (b), respectively.
5.1.2 Pier Column Axial Force-Moment Interaction Failure
Two types of axial force-moment interaction failure modes were found for reinforcement
concrete pier columns. They are: (1) longitudinal reinforcement pullout failure, and (2)
transverse reinforcement confinement failure.
Longitudinal Reinforcement Pullout failure
The longitudinal reinforcement for all the Type I pier columns is anchored into the
heavily reinforced tie beams with sufficient anchor length and no longitudinal
reinforcement anchorage failure is expected.
For Type I1 pier columns, under the upper level earthquake, all concrete piers were found
to have longitudinal reinforcement anchorage failures except at Pier 94. Under the lower
level earthquake, Piers 83, 84, 87, 90,92 and 93 were found to have longitudinal
reinforcement anchorage failures.
It is proposed to increase the footing flexural capacity by adding footing depth with a top
reinforcement layer, as shown in Figures 5-2(a) and (b) for Types I and I1 piers,
respectively. The dowels are provided both to the column and the footing. The added
top reinforcement layer will limit the flexural cracking and maintain the footing integrity
under a reversal seismic loading.
The C/D ratios for the anchorage of column longitudinal reinforcement, r,,, for the
columns with retrofitted footings when subjected to the upper level earthquake and the
lower level earthquake are shown in Table 5-2(a) and (b), respectively.
As shown, all columns perform satisfactorily without pullout failure.
Transverse Reinforcement Confinement failure
As discussed in Chapter 4, all piers were found to behave satisfactorily based on the
ductility capacity, p(c)=2.5, in accordance with the FHWA criteria, 1995. The existing
transverse reinforcement, 19mm (W) (b tie rods at 305mm (12") centers, provide
sufficient lateral confinement in the plastic hinge area under both earthquake levels. The
columns maintain the gravity load carrying capacity under both earthquake levels. No
retrofit is necessary.
However, based on the higher requirement under NYSDOT criteria to use R factor = 1.5
for a critical interstate highway bridge, Piers 79, 80, 82,84, 92,94,95, 96 and 98 yielded
beyond the allowable damage limit under the upper level earthquake. All piers perform
satisfactorily under the lower level earthquake.
To meet the allowable damage limit by NYSDOT under the upper level earthquake, the
most direct approach is to increase the strength of the columns. It is proposed to use
reinforced concrete jacketing around the existing column, as shown in Figures 5-2(c) and
(d) for Types I and I1 piers, respectively. The dowels are provided both to the column
and the footing. The reinforced concrete jacketing retrofit has been shown to be
successful in enhancing the strength and ductility in a column.
It should be noted that all concrete columns were jacketed with 203 mm (8") reinforced
concrete during an interim rehabilitation contract in the mid 1990s. That jacketing was
for the entire length of the column to the level of one foot below grade. This jacketing is
down to and connected to the footing.
The C/D ratios for the transverse reinforcement confinement, r,,, for the retrofitted
jacketed columns when subjected to the upper level earthquake are shown in Table 5-
2(c).
All piers columns perform satisfactorily.
5.1.3 Footing Flexural Failure
Under the upper level earthquake, all concrete footings were found to have flexural
failure along the column faces except at Piers 78,79, 81,97,99 and 100.
Under the lower level earthquake, the footings at Piers 82, 83, 84, 87, 90,92, 93, 95 and
96 were found to have flexural failure.
The proposed retrofit measure for footing flexural failure is the same as the proposed
retrofit measure for column longitudinal reinforcement pullout failure, as discussed and
shown in Section 5.2.
The C/D ratios for the footing moment, rf,,,, for the retrofitted footings when subjected to
the upper level earthquake and the lower level earthquake are shown in Table 5-3(a) and
(b), respectively.
The proposed retrofit for Type I Piers 80, 82,95,96 and 98 that requires both column and
footing strengthening is shown in Figure 5-2(e). The proposed retrofit for Type I1 Piers
84 and 92 that requires both column and footing strengthening is shown in Figure 5-2(f)
5.1.4 Soil Bearing Failure
As concluded in Chapter 4, soil bearing failure was found at Pier 78 (South Abutment)
only. It is proposed to limit the soil bearing pressure by increasing the footing size, see
Figure 5-3.
The C/D ratio for the soil bearing pressure for the retrofitted footing is increased to 1.22,
from 0.94.
5.2 CONCRETE SPANS
5.2.1 Bearing Anchor Failure
It is recommended that all existing anchor bolts in Piers 101 and 102 and North
Abutment be replaced with longer anchor bolts having the same size or larger. The bolts
shall be of steel with upper strength (i.e. ASTM A576 with a minimum of yield strength
of 70,000 psi or upper). The existing rocker expansion bearings and the companion high
fixed bearings in Piers 10 1 and 102 and North Abutment shall be replaced with
elastomeric bearings as shown in Figures CAS-1, CAS-2, and CAS-3.
5.2.2 Column Retrofit
To retrofit all the deficiencies of the Kosciuszko Bridge to meet the requirements for the
upper level earthquake, it is recommended that those columns listed in Figures CAS-4-1,
CAS-4-2, CAS-4-3, and CAS-4-4 be strengthened by adding steel angles and steel straps
as shown in Figures CAS-5-1, CAS-5-2, CAS-5-3, and CAS-5-4. The use of steel angles
and steel straps to retrofit the columns is based on the following reasons:
1. The steel angles are much smaller in size, have a much lighter weight than large
steel plates, and are much easier to handle by workers during construction.
2. The cost of this scheme is expected to be much less than the installation of steel
. . plates or concrete jacketing.
3. The steel straps can compensate for the lack of closely spaced ties at the critical
locations between the column and the cap beam, and between the column and the
footing. As previously noted, the tie spacing of all the columns does not meet
current AASHTO criteria.
4. The suggested retrofit scheme proposed herein can be done while traffic is
maintained at all times.
5.2.3 Footing Retrofit
To retrofit all the deficiencies of the Kosciuszko Bridge in order to meet the requirements
for the upper level earthquake, it is recommended that those weak footings identified as
F1, F2 and F3 in Figures CAS-4-1, CAS-4-2, CAS-4-3, and CAS-4-4 be strengthened in
accordance with the conceptual design shown in Figures CAS-4-5, CAS-4-6 and CAS-4-
7.
palluo~letl 10'Z PPW 666 5 1 8011
pa l l ~o~ la t l
pauuwatl
p a ~ ~ o ~ l a t l
P~UUOJI~U
' pa l i ~o~ la t l
P~NUOJI~~~
P~UUOJI~U
pa l l ~o~ la t l
~ a l l ~ o ~ l a t l
P ~ U U ~ J I ~ ~
~a l~uo l i a t l
~ a l l ~ o ~ i a t l
L6'C
p8' c C t ' C
C C ' l
SZ' L
ZB'C
SE'C
LZ'C
XO
YO
YO
6P'l PPPP 1 666 1 Z 1 9861 1 lL9 3 I (8) 98 Ja!d 98
E96Z 999 ( hs.r-8 I Q5Ll I 96E 1 3 ( ( ~ ) S 8 ~ a ! d
SZ'C
EE'C
w 1
EL'C
YO
pa l l~o~ la t l
WUUOJiatl
PPPP
cffiz E96Z
WW
W
E96Z
EQ6Z
WW
19'1
OB'C
C0'Z
XO EC'C 1 W l EEE b5'1-t
no QO'C 1 . 8 ~ ~ EEE h s ~ + pa l l~o~ la t l 95.1 PPPP 666 b B 1-21
, ~a l l uo~ la t l 19'1 PPPP 666 $,,s 1-ZL
NO EZ'C 18Pl SX h5'l-P
pauuoaatl SL'L E96Z 999 b5'r-a
PPPP
E96Z
mz ----- 5815
1 C'Z
80'1
WC
L
palluo~latl
~ a l l ~ a ) c l t l
WUUOJlatl
pa l l ~o~ la t l
28 SIC1 961 3 (E) 18 Ja!d
Z W l SIB 3 (E) 18 Ja!d 18
E98Z lP9 4 (2) 08 Ja!d
19LZ 119 d (1) 08 Jatd 08
ZOZ I OLZ 3 (1) 6L Ja!d
069 1 08E 3 (1) 6L Ja!d =,
666
999
999
666
666
999
999
666
' q ~ 6uyeag lad adf.1 'ON Ja!d 'ON ueds o!letl a13 @)1w!w-qA slloa ~ 0 4 3 ~ spg(;,,+;,,)l/ogz.l =(p)q~ 6uyeae
666
999
99s
9911
5 1ZE
Pol9
POLS
SIZE
S8L5
E96Z
9S.l
PL'C
OP'C
LS. C
bm5'I-ZI
bs'r-8
CSL-8
$,,S L-ZL
+6m5'1-~1
+.5'1-8
b5'1-8
$US 1-21
+.fZ95'L-8
@~5ZlE'l-81
h ~ Z l ~ ' 1 - 8 1
EZL
LPl 1
~ ~ 1 1
$uE'I'Zl
+&'1-8
+g.1-8
bS ' l+ l
EZL
9911
999
W W
E96Z
8961
PPPP
SEZZ
~ o s r S O ~ Z
1ZW
1WE
9 ~ 8 1
L161
W E
8661
ZP8Z
ESZ
Z9SE
ZE61
LZOZ
ZLW
bEZS1-8
$.S'l+L
@.5'1-8
666
999
999
666
LO9
1%
ELP
M)6
96L
1 IP
LEP
L8L
6W
669
OLS
108
bW
I SP BZOL
ZWL
ZOW
SOZ
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
3
5 '
+.s'~-8
h5'r-s
bn5'l-Zl
4
3
3
4
EEE
080L
Z9P
OP9
E8E
LLP
9E9
SP8Z
Z O L ~
~ Z L Z
lE8Z
(81) 96 Ja!d
(LC) S6 Je!d
(Ll) 56 Ja!d
(9L) P6 Jald
(9 1) P6 Ja!d
(51) E6 Jald
(51) E6 Ja!d
b l ) Z6 Jald
(1 1) 68 Ja!d
(L 1) 68 Ja!d
(01) 88 Ja!d
96
96
P6
E6
(PI) 16 Ja!d
(El) 16 Ja!d
(El) 16 Ja!d -- ( 1 1) 06 Ja!d
06
68
3
4
3
4
3
3
4
16
16
(01) 88 Ja!d
(6) L8 Ja!d
(6) L8 Ja!d
(9) P8 Jald
(5) E8 Ja!d - (9) E8 Ja!d
(P) 18 Ja!d
88
,"
P8
E8
Table 5-l(b): Retrofitted Bearing Anchor Force When Subjected to Lower Level Earthquake
I I II Vb(d)= 1.25(~,'+~:?~ Anchor Bolts vb--i~~(C) C/O Ratio ) Span M I Pier NO. I BFl:g 1
per Bearing I I I C I
Pier 82 (4) F 21 1 1 939 12-1.V$ 999 1 4444 4.73
Pier83(5) I E 1 158 1 704 1 8-I.% 1 666 1 2963 1 4.21 1 OK
Pler 92 (14) F 26 1 1161 12-1.54 999 4444 3.83 93 -
Pier 93 (15) E 143 037 8-1.5'4 4.65 ---- - - Pier 93 (15) E 137 609 8-1.5y 666 2963 4.87 OK
94 Pier 94 (16) F 264 1174 12-1.5") 999 4444 3.79 OK
I - l Pier 83 (5)
P1er84(6) 1 F 1 212 / 942 1 12-1.5") 1 999 1 4444 1 4.72 1 OK I E 127 584 8-1 .W 666 2963 5.25 OK
I
Table 5-2(a): Anchorage Retrofit of Column Longitudinal Reinforcement When Subjected to Upper Level Earthquake
Table 5-2(b): Anchorage Retrofit of Column Longitudinal Reinforcement When Subjected to Lower Level Earthquake
Pier No.
Pier 78 (S Abut)
Not Susceptible to Anchorage Failure
Bar Anchorage
Type
Straight
La@)
(in)
12
(mm)
293
La@)-min = 30d,
(in)
30
La(c) = 50d,
(mm)
762
r a La(c) 1 La(d)
1.68
(in)
50
(mm)
1278
CID Ratio
. rca=ref
7.88
Note
No Anchorage Failure
Table 5-3(a): Footing Moment Capacity Evaluation When Subjected to Upper Level Earthquake
I1 I pier NO. Footing Type I I C/D Ratio I rtm Note
11 Pier79(1) I Spread 1 32 1 142 1 97 1 431 1 3.03 1 No Flexural Failure 11 Pier 78 (S Abut)
Retrofitted
No Flexural Failure
Retrofitted
Retrofitted
Retrofitted
Retrofitted
Spread
Pier 80 (2)
Pier 81 (3)
Pier 82 (4)
Pier 83 (5)
Pier 84 (6)
Pier 85 (7)
Pier 86 (8)
Pier 87 (9)
Retrofitted 11 Retrofitted 11
1 Pier 90 (12) 1 Pile 1 671 1 2985 1 723 1 3217 1 1.08
Spread
Spread
Spread
Spread
Spread
Pile
Pile
Pile
Retrofitted 11
(kips-Wft)
25
11 Pier 91 (1 3) Pile 440 1957 603 2683 1.37 Retrofitted Y
(kN-m/m)
113
346
130
387
551
415
570
76 1
71 5
I F 9 2 ( 1 4 ) 1 Pile 1 588 1 2615 1 603 1 2683 1 1.03 1 Retrofitted 11
(kips-Wft)
118
I F 9 3 (15) 1 Pile 1 1025 1 4559 1 1029 1 4575 1 1.00 1 Retrofitted 11
4.65
(kN-mlm)
526
1539
578
1721
2451
1846
2535
3385
3180
(1 Pier 94 (16) 1 Pile 1 450 1 2002 1 522 1 2322 1 1.16 ) Retrofitted 11
No Flexural Failure
46 1
21 0
46 1
572
477
65 1
903
723
Retrofitted
Retrofitted
No Flexural Failure
Retrofitted
No Flexural Failure
Pier 95 (17)
Pier 96 (1 8)
Pier 97 (19)
Pier 98 (20)
Pier 99 (21)
2049
936
2049
2546
21 23
2898
4016
3217
1.33
1.62
1.19
1.04
1.15
1.14
1.19
1.01
Spread
Spread
Spread
Spread
Spread - -
I --
302
457
132
326
31
I Pier 100 (N Abut) ( Spread I 15 67 118 526 7.88
1343
2033
587
1450
138
No Flexural Failure 1
396
46 1
133
46 1
97
1763
2049
590
2049
431
I .31
1.01
1.01
1.41
3.13
Table 5-3(b): Footing Moment Capacity Evaluation When Subjected to Lower Level Earthquake
pier NO.
--
I Pier 78 (S ~ b u t ) I spread-15 1 67 1 I 18 526 7 7.88
(kips-Wft) I (kN-mlm) I (kips-Wft) 1 (kN-mlm)
1 Pier 79 (1) I Spread 1 30 ( 133 1 97 1 431 1 3.23
Footing Type
(CID Ratio)
p e r 80 (2) 1 Spread 1 231 1 1027 1 461 1 2049 1 1.99
r pier 81 (3) ( Spread 1 103 1 458 1 210 1 936 1 2.04
Mf(d)
1 Pier 82 (4) I Spread 1 286 1 1272 1 461 ( 2049 1 1.61
Mf(c)
Pier 86 (8) 1 Pile 1 566 1 2518 1 903 1 4016 1 1.60
Seismic Vulnerability Assessment
Pier 83 (5)
Pier 84 (6)
Pier 85 (7)
- -
pier 99 (21) s p r e a n 29 1 1 2 9 1 9 7 I 4 3 1 3 3 4
Spread
Spread
Pile
Pier 87 (9)
Pier 90 (12)
Pier 91 (13)
Pier 92 (1 4)
Pier 93 (15)
Pier 94 (1 6)
Pier 95 (1 7)
Pier 96 (1 8)
Pier 97 (19)
Pier 98 (20)
Note
No Flexural Failure 11
457
320
435
Pile
Pile
Pile
Pile
Pile
Pile
Spread
Spread
Spread
Spread
No Flexural Failure 11 No Flexural Failure .
2033
1423
1935
540
517
342
435
768
329
180
349
109
231
No Flexural Failure 11 Retrofitted 11
572
477
651
2402
2300
1521
1935
3416
1463
801
1552
485
1027
Retrofitted 11 Retrofitted 11
2546
2123
2898
723
723
603
603
1029
522
396
46 1
133
461
No Flexural Failure 11
1.25
1.49
1.50
No Flexural Failure 11 3217
3217
2683
2683
4575
2322
1763
2049
590
2049
Retrofitted
Retrofitted
No Flexural Failure
Retrofitted
Retrofitted
No Flexural Failure
Retrofitted
Retrofitted
No Flexural Failure
No Flexural Failure
No Flexural Failure
No Flexural Failure
1.34
1.40
1.76
1.39
1.34
1.59
2.20
1.32
1.22
1.99
Table CAS 3-1: CID Ratios for Axial Force-Moment Interaction at Columns When Subiect to Higher Level Earthauake
Table CAS 3-2: C/O Ratios for Axial Force-Moment Interaction at Columns When Subject to Higher Level Earthquake
(For "Retrofitted" Condition) (Concrete Approach Spans) 1
2 3 4 I 5 1 6 I 7 1 8 -
I Qeq I ZQi I RC - - 9
r = (Rc-1Qi)lQeq
10
Table CAS 33: CID Ratios for Axial Force-Moment Interaction at Columns When Subject to Higher Level Earthquake
-
438
438
44.45
44.45
44.45
C. E
C, E B. D, F
8, D, F C. E
Longitudinal
Transverse
Longitudinal
Transverse
Longitudinal
1242
1352
1251
1176
1304
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
828
901.3333333
834
784
869.3333333
21 1
0
4
133
4
1500
1500
1583
1417
1583
1.56
1.66
1.89
1.64
1.82
OK OK OK OK OK
', Table CAS 34: CID Ratios for Axial Force-Moment Interaction at Columns When Subject to Higher Level Earthquake
\ Table CAS 3-5: CID Ratios for Axial Force-Moment Interaction at Columns When Subject to Higher Level Earthquake
(For "Retrofitted" Condition) (Concrete Approach Spans) 1
Abutment
Or
Bent No.
2
Along
Column Line
(see FIGURE CAS
3
Direction
4-1,4-2,4-3 & 4-4)
1
4
Moment
due to EQ
(From Output)
481 (D&L)
( W F t )
5
Response
Factor
4BI(DL)
(KipFt)
6 Qeq
Design EQM=
(4)1(5)
(From Calculations)
( W F t )
7 ZQi
Moment
W i n DL
(Output)
((8).(7)Y(6)
8 RC --
Moment
Member
Ultimate Capacity
9 r = (Rc-1Qi)tQeq
CapacitylDemend
Ratio
10
Notes
\ Table CAS 3-6: CID Ratios for Axial Force-Moment Interaction at Columns When Subject to Higher Level Earthquake
9 1
Abutment
or
Bent No.
678
678
678
678
678
68,69
68,69
2
Along
Column Line
(see FIGURE CAS
3
Direction
4
Moment
due to EQ
(From Output)
4-1.4-2.43 8 4-4) 4Bl(D&L)
(Kip-Ft)
320
964
1468
1405
1194
454
299
A, G
D
D
B. C, E, F
B. C, E, F
A, G
A. G .
Transverse
Longitudinal
Transverse
Longitudinal
Transverse
Longitudinal
Transverse
5
Response
Factor
7 YQi
Moment
Design DL
(Output)
6 Qeq
Design EQM=
(4)1(5)
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
4Bl(DL)
(Kip-Ft)
22
115
62
131
0
2
36
213.3333333
642.6666667
978.6666667
936.6666667
796
302.6666667
199.3333333
8 RC s
Moment
Member
Ultimate Capacity
(From Calculations)
(KipFt)
236.2
1583
1417
1500
1500
310.3
236.2
9 r = (Rc-xQi)/Qeq
CapacityRkmend
Ratio
10
Notes
((8)-(7)Y(6)
1.00
2.28
1.38
1.46
1.88
1.02
1.00
OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
\
Table CAS 3-7: CID Ratios for Axial Force-Moment Interaction at Columns When Subject to Higher Level Earthquake (For "Retrofitted" Condition) (Concrete ro roach spansj
Bent No. 4-1, 4-2.43 8 44) 4Bl(D&L) 4Bl(DL) (Fmm Calculations)
9 r = (Rc-1Qi)IQeq
CapacityIDemend
Ratio
1
Abutment
or
10
Notes
2
Along
Column Line
(see FIGURE CAS
3
Direction
4
Moment
due to EQ
(From Output)
5
Response
Factor
7 EQi
Moment
Design DL
(Output)
6 Qeq
Design EQM=
(4)1(5)
8 RC "
Moment
Member
Ultimate Capacity
F I X E D SHOES
Figure 5-l(a) Proposed Retrofit Measure for Existing Fixed Bearing in Spans 87, 88, and 91 (Piers 86, 87, and 90)
I C L COLUMN
j CL BRIDGE
COLUMN FACE
PROPOSED FOOTING RETROFIT
SECTION B-B
1 FOUNDATION I
I d
ELEVATION I
Y I SECTION A-A
- Figure 5-2 (a) Footing Retrofit f o r Type I Pier Bents
5-28
ELEVATION
SECTION A-A
Figure 5-2 (b) Footing Retrofit fo r Type II Pier Bents
5-29
L C L COLUMN I CL BRIDGE
SECTION B-B I 3 1 ' - 6 " I
ELEVATION I
MAX. C.C. BOTH WAYS
#16 (#5 ) MECHANICAL SPLICE ( N P . )
ROUGHEN AND CLEAN EXISTING
CONCRETE SURFACE PRIOR TO PLACE NEW CONC.
2 0 3 mm(8 " ) (TYP. CONC. JACKET # 1 6(#5) L-SHAPE ANCHOR BARS
GROUTED INTO 3 1 . 7 5 m m (1%") DIA. HOLES
EXISTING COLUMN / CONC. PERIPHERY
\ # I 6(#5) TIES AT 190 m m (7%")
SECTION A-A
Figure 5-2 (c) Column Retrofit (Reinforced Concrete Jacketing) f o r Type I Pier Bents
5-30
CL COLUMN
i
I
ELEVATION
P
BARS AT 914 mm (3 ' -0" ) MAX. C.C, BOTH WAYS
# 1 6 ( # 5 ) MECHANICAL SPLICE ( N P . ) 1
EXISTING COLUMN CONC. PERIPHERY
\ # 1 6 ( # 5 ) TIES AT 1 9 0 mm (7&")
SECTION A-A
Figure 5-2 (d) Column Retrofit (Reinforced Concrete Jacketing) fo r Type II Pier Bents
I
ELEVATION
SECTION A-A
Figure 5-2 (e) Column And Footing Retrofit for Type I Pier Bents
5-32
ICL COLUMN
I EXISTING COLUMN ! / FACE
ELEVATION
SECTION A-A
Figure 5-2 (f) Column and Footing Retrofit for Type I I Pier, Bents
5-33
/ HORIZONTAL REINFORCING BARS -1 (TOP & BOTTOM) (BOTH WAYS) (TYP3
~ C L . OF BENT \ PLAN \
VERTICAL STEEL SEC1-IOIV F - F STIRRUPS TO BE
PLACED BOTH WAYS (TYP.)
Fl GU RE CAS-4-5
SUGGESTED RETROFIT DESIGN AND DETAILS FOR FOOTING ( F1)
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Seismic analyses have been carried out for the Kosciuszko Bridge. Thls chapter
summarizes the seismic evaluation results and the proposed retrofit measures.
7.1 STEEL TRUSS SPANS (SPANS 79 TO 100)
7.1.1 Conclusions
The seismic evaluation (C/D ratios) for all the potential failure modes for the 22 steel
spans when subjected to the upper level earthquake and to the lower level earthquake are
summarized in Table 7-l(a) and (b), respectively.
The following failure modes were found: Bearing Anchor failure, Pier Column axial
force-moment interaction failure, Footing flexural failure and Soil Bearing failure.
Seismic retrofit measures are proposed for each failure mode, as follows:
1. Bearing Anchor failure. Two alternates are proposed:
Alternate 1 - provide additional anchor bolts and vertical restraint. Alternate 2 - replace existing bearings.
2. Pier Column axial force-moment interaction failure. Two types of axial force-
moment interaction failure modes were found for reinforced concrete pier
columns. They are: (1) longitudinal reinforcement pullout failure, and (2)
transverse reinforcement confinement failure.
For the columns with longitudinal reinforcement pullout failure (from footing), it
is proposed to increase the footing flexural capacity by adding footing depth with
a top reinforcement layer.
For the columns with inadequate transverse confinement, it is proposed to apply
reinforced concrete jacketing around the existing columns with the reinforcing
bars extending down to the existing footings.
3. Footing flexural failure. The proposed retrofit measure for footing flexural failure
is the same as the proposed retrofit measure for column longitudinal
reinforcement pullout failure.
4. Soil Bearing failure. It is proposed to limit the soil bearing pressure by increasing
the footing size.
The seismic evaluation (C/D ratios) for each failure mode with retrofit measures when
subjected to the upper level and lower level earthquakes are summarized in Table 7-2(a)
and (b), respectively.
The cost estimates for the retrofit measures for both the upper level and lower level
earthquakes are summarized in Table 7-3.
7.1.2 Recommendations
1. It is recommended that all required retrofit measures as proposed in Chapter 6 be
implemented to comply with the current code requirements for both earthquake
levels for a critical bridge (See 7.3 Prioritization below).
2. Most existing bearing were found to have inadequate anchor capacity under the
earthquake loadings. However, all existing bearings are in gdod working
condition and perform satisfactorily under gravity loading. In addition, all
existing expansion bearings consist of four side bars that will lock the bearing in
place once the seismic displacement is beyond the allowable expansion limit. No
span collapse is expected.
As a result, it is not required to replace all existing bearings (Alternate I) to
satisfy seismic requirements. Alternate 2 (provide additional anchor bolts and
vertical restraint) is recommended for the bearing anchor failure.
3. Based on the Geotechnical Report, it is recommended that the subsoils
surrounding Piers 92 and 93 be densified to limit the liquefaction potential.
7.2 CONCRETE SPANS (SPANS 1 TO 78 & 101 TO 103)
The entire length of the concrete viaduct was originally designed and constructed around
1938. The original bridge deck of the concrete spans was removed and replaced in 1971,
including the portion of the viaduct in Spans 30 and 3 1 (at Vandervoort Avenue), which
was replaced with a structure of prestressed concrete boxes in Span 3 1 and a structure of
prestressed concrete void slabs in Span 30.
Seismic analyses and evaluations of existing structural elements were conducted based
upon current seismic criteria; elements not meeting the criteria were identified; and
workable conceptual retrofit measures were developed for the deficient structural
elements.
7.2.1 Conclusions and Recommendation
The priority of the selection of the retrofit measures will be greatly influenced by the
estimated construction costs of various retrofit alternatives and the desire to meet the
maximum extent of seismic requirements (i.e. to meet the seismic requirements for the
lower level earthquake or the upper level earthquake). The difference in the estimated
construction costs for the various retrofit alternatives are substantial. It is recommended
that the retrofit measures be as follows:
A. To satisfy the seismic requirements for a lower level. (functional) earthquake, the only
retrofit measure needed is to replace all the existing steel rocker expansion bearings
and their companion high steel fixed bearings with elastomeric bearings in Piers 102
and 103 and North Abutment (including replacing all the anchor bolts) as shown on
Figures CAS-1, CAS-2, and CAS-3. A temporary support and jacking system will be
needed during the bearing replacement operation.
This retrofit measure is denoted as Retrofit Measure Alternate 1 in Chapter 6.
B. To also satisfy the seismic requirements for an upper level (safety) earthquake, the
required retrofit measures will be expanded to include the following:
(1) The replacement of all the existing steel rocker expansion bearings and
their companion high steel fixed bearings with elastomeric bearings as
noted above.
(2) The strengthening of existing concrete columns and existing concrete
footing as shown in Figures CAS-4-1 through CAS-4-7. The existing
columns are to be strengthened by anchoring new steel angles and steel
straps on the existing concrete columns with steel anchor bolts. T h s
retrofit measure is denoted as Retrofit Measure Alternate 2 in Chapter 6.
(3) Instead of strengthening the existing columns by anchoring new steel
angles and steel straps on the existing concrete columns with steel anchor
bolts as noted above, the existing columns can be strengthened by concrete
jacketing, with the reinforcing bars extending from the body of the
jacketed column to a newly constructed footing which in turn sets on top
of the existing footing as shown in Figures CAS-4-5 through CAS-4-7
with additional details to strengthen the connection between the cap beams
and the columns. The purpose of h s alternative is to transmit the seismic
moment force from the deck to the footing. Every newly concrete
jacketed column requires a new footing whch increases the cost. This
retrofit measure is denoted as Retrofit Measure Alternate 3 in Chapter 6.
Since Alternative 2 (anchoring steel angles and straps) is less expensive and
accomplishes the required strengthening, Alternative 2 is recommended over Alternative
3.
7.3 PRIORITIZATION
Based upon the analyses performed for both the steel and concrete spans, it is concluded
that the bearings are the most vulnerable structural elements subject to failure as
compared to, say, the columns and footings. This is not to say that all the retrofit
measures won't eventually have to be implemented.
Consequently, based upon the availability and adequacy of funds to undertake a retrofit
program, the construction packages should be prioritized, as follows:
1. Do all the retrofit measures to satisfy the requirements of a lower level
earthquake.
2. Subsequently, do all the retrofit measures to satisfy the requirements of an
upper level earthquake.
3. If funds are not sufficient to cover the costs of Items 1 or 2 above in their
entirety, the packages should be further broken up, as follows:
Lower Level Earthquake
Do the bearing retrofit.
Do the column and footing retrofits.
Upper Level Earthquake
Do the bearing retrofit.
Do the column, footing and soil densification retrofit.
Table 7-1 (a) Seismic Evaluation (CID Ratios) Summary for 22 Steel Truss Spans When Subjected to Upper Level Earthquake
Blue - Satisfactoly, Red - Unsatisfactoly
Table 7-1 (b) Seismic Evaluation (CID Ratios) Summary for 22 Steel Truss Spans When Subjected to Lower Level Earthquake
BEARING I RC PIER COLUMN
I Expansion seat I Anchor Capacity 1 P-M Interaction
Pier Support Length Longitudinal Reinf. I Transv. Reinf. Shear
S. Abutment
Pier 79 (1)
I( Pier 80 (2) I NA I NA 1 1.62 1 1.56 1 OK 1 8.60 1 2.78 1 5.62 1 1.18 1 2.87 1 1.81 11
FOOTING
- -
Pier 81 (3) 5.33 6.51 3.20 3.39 OK 14.14 4.57 10.60 2.04 4.85 2.15
Pier 82 (4) N A N A 1.94 1.58 OK 7.91 2.56 6.45 0.95 2.24 2:02
Pier 83 (5) 5.49 6.96 2.10 2.62 0.81 11.77 3.80 6.21 0.81 3.79 2.97
Moment
7.88
3.23
South ( North
N A
6.38 ( 7.93
Blue - Satisfactory. Red - Unsatisfactory
Shear
OK
OK
South 1 North
1.23
2.63 1 3.74
Pier 84 (6)
Pier 85 (7)
Pier 86 (8)
Soil Bearing or Pile
Capacity
1.77
2.39
Anchorage
7.88
OK
N A
5.02
N A
Splice
9.55
21.86
N A
6.23
N A
Ductility
3.09
7.06
1.57
2.76
1.50
3.03
10.65
1.57
2.55
1.32
0.97
1.21
1.04
9.04
10.87
9.52
2.92
3.51
3.08
6.39
7.70
9.08
0.97
1.21
1.04
7.37
6.35
7.10
2.38
2.1 7
2.45
Table 7-2(a) Seismic Evaluation (CID Ratios) Summary for 22 Steel Truss Spans with Retrofit Measures When Subjected to Upper ~ e v e l Earthquake
Blue - Satisfactory, Green - Retrofitted
Table 7-2(b) Seismic Evaluation (CID Ratios) Summary for 22 Steel Truss Spans with Retrofit Measures When Subjected to Lower Level Earthquake
7 BEARING 1 RC PIER COLUMN 1 FOOTING
Seat Anchor Capacity 11 Pier 1 Support Length (
11 Pier 79 (1) 1 6.38 1 7.93 1 2.63 1 3.74 1 OK 1 21.86 1 7.06 1 10.65 1 3.23 1 OK 1 2.39 1) S. Abutment
P-M Interaction
Longitudinal Reinf. 1 Transv. Reinf. Soil Bearing
Shear 1 Moment I Shear I or Pile 1
Pier 80 (2)
Pier 81 (3)
Pier 82 (4)
Pier 83 (5)
South
Pier 84 (6)
Pier 85 (7)
Pier 86 (8)
North
N A
5.33
N A
5.49
Pier 87 (9)
Pier88 (10)
Pier 89 (1 1)
)( Pier 93 (15) 1 5.10 1 6.34 1 2.33 1 2.43 1 1.34 1 10.84 1 3.50 1 7.43 1 1.34 1 3.03 1 1.68 11
South
N A
N A
5.02
N A
Pier 90 (12)
Pier 91 (1 3)
Pier 92 (14)
North
N A
6.51
N A
6.96
4.83
5.74
N A
(1 Pier 97 (19) 1 5.33 1 6.50 1 3.02 1 3.19 1 OK 1 16.78 1 5.42 1 9.94 1 1.22 1 4.72 1 1:89 11
1.23
Anchorage
7.88
N A
6.23
N A
4.77
4.63
N A
Pier 94 (1 6)
Pier 95 (17)
Pier 96 (1 8)
Pier 98 (20) NA N A 1.49 1.52 OK 7.52 2.43 5.14 1.18 2.96 1.80
Pier 99 (21) 5.93 7.42 3.15 3.23 OK 26.31 8.50 10.15 3.34 OK 2.49
N. Abutment N A 1.23 10.75 13.38 4.33 3.16 10.75 OK 2.65
Blue - Satisfactory, Green - Retrofitted
Ductility
3.09
Splice
9.55
1.62
3.20
1.94
2.10
NA
7.40
N A
1.57
2.76
1.50
N A
5.97
N A
N A
5.18
N A
3.03
1.56
3.39
1.58
2.62
2.18
6.53
5.40
1.57
2.55
1.32
2.46
2.20
1.26
N A
6.49
NA
7.88
OK
OK
OK
1.25
3.26
6.08
4.86
1.49
1.21
1.04
3.42
2.30
1.28
1.26
2.13
1.98
OK
8.60
14.14
7.91
11.77
1.34
Capacity
1.77
9.04
10.87
9.52
1.40
1.15
1.39
1.11
2.78
2.02
2.78
4.57
2.56
3.80
10.21
2.92
3.51
3.08
Steel Tower - PM lnteraction
10.66
11.21
8.41
1.28
OK
OK
5.62
10.60
6.45
6.21
3.30
6.39
7.70
9.08
OK
OK
3.44
3.62
2.72
7.03
11.36
9.25
1.18
2.04
1.61
1.25
8.23
1.49
1.21
1.04
OK
OK
8.40
7.95
7.04
2.27
3.67
2.99
2.87
4.85
2.24
3.79
1.34
1.81
2.15
2.02
2.97
7.37
6.35
7.1 0
OK
OK
1.40
1.15
1.39
5.35
7.41
7.82
2.38
2.17
2.45
3.92 1.85
OK
OK
4.14
3.92
5.79
1.28
2.20
1.32
1.73
2.33
1.94
1.67
1.37
7.01
4.12
1.81
1.79
2.16
1.77
Table 7-3 Summary of Cost Estimate for Seismic Retrofit Measures
(1) Alternate 1 - Bearing Replacement. Alternate 2 -Add Anchor Bolts and Vertical Restraint (2) Steel Jacketing Alternate (3) Concrete Jacketing Alternate
APPENDIX A
SEIMSIC MODELING
A.l BRIDGE STRUCTURE - Steel Truss Spans
Geometrv and Structural Members
A 3-D GT-Strudl model developed for the 22 steel truss spans is shown in Figure A-1.
The node and element identifications for the 21 approach spans (Spans 79 to 88 and
Spans 90 to 100) are shown in Figure A-2. The node and element identifications for the
main span (Span 89) are shown in Figure A-3.
Each span consists of the following members: Top Chords (TC), Bottom Chords (BC),
Verticals (VS), Diagonals (DS), Floorbeams (FB), Stringers (SG), Top Laterals (TL),
Bottom Laterals (BL), Horizontal Bracing of Sway Frame (HB), Vertical Bracing of
Sway Frame (VB), Struts (SS), Legs (LS), Bearings (BS), Pier Columns (PC), Capbeams
(CB), Portal (PL) and End Post (EP).
The superstructure is connected to the pier columns by means of rigid bar elements to
maintain the elevation of its mass center.
The pier bent column elements were released at the bottom ends and replaced by three
translational springs and three rotational springs to account for the soil-structural
interaction, see Section A.2.
All structural members were modeled as 3-D fiarne elements (three translational and
three rotational degrees of freedom) except bracing members were as 3-D truss
elements (three translational degrees of freedom).
Deck stiffhess was not included in the model. Deck weight was calculated and
superimposed on the stringers.
Material Properties
Structural steel and steel reinforcement was assumed to have a yielding strength of 228
Mpa (33 ksi). A Young's modulus of 200000 Mpa (29000 ksi) was assumed for the steel
members. Concrete was assumed to have an ultimate compressive strength of 20.7 Mpa
(3000 psi) and an elastic modulus of 21.5 Mpa (3 122 ksi).
Member Stifhess . --
The effective flexural stiffness, EI,, for both pier bent columns and cap beams was based
on the effective or cracked section properties since yielding was anticipated under the
seismic loading. The EI, can be obtained by a rigorous axial force-moment-curvature
analysis as:
where My is the ideal yield moment and 4, is the corresponding ideal yield curvature.
Paxial is the axial force of the member evaluated at the gravity load level.
Instead, the EI, chart, as a function of the axial load ratio (Paxial 1 F7,A,) and the
longitudinal reinforcement ratio (Ast 1 A,), was used, see Figure A-4. 'F', is the concrete
compressive strength. Ag is the gross sectional area of the member. Ast is the longitudinal
reinforcement area of the member.
A.2 SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION
As specified in the NYSDOT Standard Specifications, the seismic evaluation shall
consider the dynamic soil-structure interaction effects between the foundation system and
its residing soil layers. The foundation system in the project consists of two types of
footings: Spread Footing and Pile Group.
The spread footings (Pier Bents 78,79,80,81,82,83,84,88,95,96,97,98,99, 100) are
typically founded on natural granular soils.
The remaining piers are sat on the pile groups with both vertical and battered piles. All
piles are either precast or cast-in-place reinforced concrete piles with an octagonal cross
section, except at Pier 89 with H piles.
The methodology recommended by Seismic Design of Highway Bridge Foundations
(FHWA, 1986) was used to generate the 6x6 stifbess matrix or boundary springs to
simulate the soil-structure interaction.
The soil parameters used in the soil-structure interaction analyses were obtained from the
boring test results as well as from the parallel seismic test results. As shown in Appendix
B, these soil parameters for various soil layers include soil layer elevation, unit weight,
effective unit weight, fiction angle, relative density and ground water elevation. The
Young's modulus, shear modulus and Poisson's ratio are also included for the backfill
soil immediately adjacent to the piers and abutments and above the bottom of the footing
elevations.
A.2.1 Spread Footing
The current state of practice in soil-structure interaction analyses for a spread footing is
based on the solution of a rigid spread footing foundation on a semi-infinite elastic half
space. The general form of a rigid spread footing is shown in Figure A-5.
K1 1 and K22 are the translational stiffness in the two horizontal directions. K33 is the
translational stiffness in the vertical direction. Kqq and Ks5 are the rotational stiffness,
and I(d6 is the torsional stifkess. The off-diagonal terms are typically small for highway
bridges applications and can be neglected. G and u are the shear modulus and Poisson's
ratio for the half elastic space, respectively. R is the equivalent radius of the spread
footing as illustrated in Figure A-6. a is the shape correction factor as shown in Figure
A-7 and P is the embedment correction factor as shown in Figure A-8.
The stiffness matrices for the spread footings are summarized in Table A-1.
A.2.2 Pile Group Foundation
Pile group foundations provide a means of support for the structure in a difficult soil
subgrade or under a large loading condition.
The pile group foundations have a pile length ranging ftom 14 ft at Pier 92 to 48 A at Pier
86. All the piles included in this project are frictional piles.
For each pile foundation analysis, the three translational local stifhess (K,, K,, Kz) for a
single pile is developed and combined together to form the global stifhess matrix (K1 1,
Kz2, K33, J&, K55) for a pile group based on the rigid pile cap assumption. G6, torsional
stifhess, is neglected.
In the pile-soil interaction analysis, presented in the following subsections, all piles are
assumed to be vertical, that is, the battered pile effect is neglected. . ..
Pile Head Vertical Stiffhess of a Single Pile
A simple hand calculation procedure was used to generate the vertical stifhess for a
single pile. Three stifhess components are considered: a side-fiiction nonlinear stiffness,
an end-bearing nonlinear stiffhess and an axial elastic stifhess. The steps are outlined as
follows:
1. Generate the nonlinear side-fnction load-deformation curve (t-z curve) based on
the earth pressure coefficient by Bhusan (1 982).
where Qs = total friction resistance and zc = critical displacement corresponding to
maximum t(z). A zc value of 0.2 inch is recommended for all soil types by
FHWA (1986).
2. Generate the nonlinear end-bearing load-deformation curve (q-z curve) based on
the Meyerhof s Method.
where Qp = total fiiction resistance and z, = critical displacement corresponding
to maximum q(z). A zc value of 0.05D inch (D = pile diameter) is recommended
for all soil types by FHWA (1986).
3. The side-hction and end-bearing load-deformation curves are superimposed into
a total axial resistance curve (Q-z curve).
A simplified linear elastic stiffness, KQ, was obtained at the load level equal to
4. The axial stiffness of a single pile, Kaxial, is obtained as
Where A, = pile cross-section area; Ec = pile concrete elastic modulus; L, = pile
length.
5. At last, the equivalent vertical stiffness (Kz) can be obtained as
Pile Head Translation Stiffhess of a Single Pile
A lateral soil-pile interaction analysis generally involves the following steps:
1. Generate a set of nonlinear lateral load-deformation curves (p-y curves) along the
entire length of the pile (one p-y curve at each selected depth). Interpolations are
used to provide p-y characteristics between the generated p-y curves.
2. A nonlinear lateral load-deflection curve at the pile head (PT-6 curve) by
assuming rigid pile cap can be constructed by integrating the p-y curves along the
entire pile depth.
3. A simplified linear lateral stiffhess is obtained at the anticipated lateral load level
(Kx or K,).
This analysis procedure involves complex and tedious nonlinear iteration. As a result,
LPILE PLUS 3.0 for windows (a commercial computer software by Ensoft Inc.) was
used to generate the nonlinear lateral load-deflection curve at the pile head. The initial
tangent modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction, kl , is required for the iteration of pile
analysis by the program. The kl values recommended by Reese (1974) were used, shown
as a function of a relative density, Dr, or a function of friction angle, +, in Figure A-9.
Stiffness Matrix for a Pile Group
The stifhess matrix for a pile group can be easily carried out by hand calculation based
on the stifhess characteristics (K,, K,, and Kz) for a single pile, discussed above. The
following assumptions were used:
1. Rigid pile head-cap connection
2. Off-diagonal terms in the stiffhess matrix are insignificant and can be neglected
3. Battered pile effect can be ignored.
4. Torsional stiffhess, G6, can be ignored.
By prescribing a unit displacement in each direction of the five degrees of freedom, 3
translations (A1=l, A2=1, A3=l) and 2 rotations (&=I, A5=1) at the geometric center of
the pile group, the stiffness can be obtained by summing the resulting forces in the
corresponding DOF as:
K11 = K x C [ 1- 2 xi sin2 (0.5)]
K22 = Ky C [ 1- 2 yi sin2 (0.5) ]
K33=KzC [ 1- 2 (xi -yi) sin (0.5) cos (0.5) ]
I(44 = Kz C yi [ 1- 2 (xi - yi) sin (0.5) cos (0.5) ]
K55=KZC (- xi ) [ 1- 2 (xi - yi) sin(0.5) cos (0.5) ]
where (xi , yi) is the coordinate for the ith Pile with respect to the geometric center of the
pile group. The stiffness matrices for the pile group footings in the project are also
summarized in Table A- 1.
A.3 . CONCRETE SPANS
Because the concrete spans are mostly deck spans that involve a large number of columns
and footings. In many occasions, in order to obtain a satisfactory "proposed
rehabilitated" condition, many trial and error analyses were needed. This caused the
analysis work for this project to become exceptionally large. In order to perform the task
efficiently the SEISAB Program was selected to analyze all the concrete spans.
The advantage of the SEISAB Program for smaller bridges is the simplicity of the input
of data and modeling of the structure. SEISAB Program simplifies the modeling by
condensing the mass of the structural members into a single line along the centroid of the
structural members ( it sometimes is called a "stick model"). Input data are entered
conveniently in accordance with Data Blocks. The time required for computer analysis is
very short; therefore, the result of each of the analysis can be obtained rather swiftly.
Most of the concrete spans involve 3 span or 2 span continuous concrete decks with bents
of 2,3, or 4 columns without abutments. The SEISAB" Program requires the input data
for the Data Block of BENT and Data Block of ABUTMENT. In order to satisfy the
computer input Data Block requirements, a structural model equivalent to the actual "As-
Is" andlor the "Rehabilitated" model for the computer analysis was developed. To
accomplish ths, a dummy superstructural span and a dummy abutment at each end of the
3 or 2 span structures were added. The computer treats the data in the Data Block of
BENT as an actual bent (not as an abutment) during the analysis. The SEISAB Program
computes the results of moments, shears, axial forces, and torsions, . : .etc for various
structural members. The results of the computer analysis are used for the evaluation and
for the retrofit design of various structural elements of the structure. A very small mass
(nearly zero) is assigned to the dummy portion of the superstructure between the dummy
abutment and the first (or the last) bent. As a result, the structural model of the
continuous concrete spans with the dummy abutments and the dummy spans yields
negligible differences to the actual continuous concrete spans without the dummy spans
and the dummy abutments. All of the results of the computer analysis are considered
satisfactory and accurate.
Similar modeling principles have also been applied for the modeling of the rigid fi-me,
2-span box beam, and 3-span (stringer spans 102 & 103, & Span 101 Concrete Slab
Span). They are described in Figures CAS-6-1,2,3,4,5,6, 7 and 8.
Table A-I SoilStructure Interaction Stiffness Matrices for Footings
Abutment or Pier No.
Pier78(SAbut)
Pier 79 (1)
Pier 80 (2)
Pier 81 (3)
Pier 82 (4)
Pier 83 (5)
Pier 84 (6)
Pier 85 (7)
Pier 86 (8)
Pier 87 (9)
Pier 88 (10)
Pier 89 (1 1)
Pier 90 (12)
Pier 91 (1 3)
Pier 92 (14)
Pier 93 (1 5)
Pier 94 (1 6)
Pier 95 (1 7)
Pier 96 (1 8)
Pier 97 (19)
Pier 98 (20)
Pier 99 (21)
PierlOO(NAbut)
Footing Type
Spread
Spread
Spread
Spread
Spread
Spread
Spread
Pile
Pile
Pile
Spread
Pile
Pile
Pile
Pile
Pile
Pile
spread
Spread
Spread
Spread
Spread
Spread
~ 1 1
Kipslin
4.077E+03
1.128E+04
1.137E+04
1.1 37E+04
1.222E+04
9.428E+03
9.428E+03
6.359E+04
1.022E+05
8.841 E+04
1.840E+04
6.388E+04
8.435E+04
4.903E+04
4.398E+04
7.295E+04
4.259E+04
1.227E+04
1.140E+04
1.137E+04
1.1 37E+04
1.128E+04
4.577E+03
K22
Kipslin
4.061E+03
1.128E+04
1.137E+04
1.1 37E+04
1.222E+04
9.373E+03
9.373E+03
6.359E+04
1.022E+05
8.841 E+04
1.772E+04
6.1 52E+04
8.435E+04
4.903E+04
4.398E+04
7.295E+04
4.259E+04
1.227E+04
1.140E+04
1.1 37E+04
1.137E+04
1.128E+04
4.277E+03
K33
Kipslin
4.054E+03
1.023E+04
1.031E+04
1.031 E+04
1.125E+04
9.954E+03
9.954E+03
9.884E+04
1.210E+05
1.655E+05
1.045E+03
1.142E+04
1.799E+05
1.348E+05
1.374E+05
1.218E+05
1.234E+05
1.129E+04
1.045E+04
1.031 E+04
1.031 E+04
1.023E+04
4.382E+03
K44
Kips-inlrad
4.597E+07
1.614E+09
1.662E+09
1.662E+09
2.036E+09
7.369E+08
7.369E+08
1.748E+09
2.348E+09
3.744E+09
1.508E+10
1.873E+10
4.069E+09
3.052E+09
3.314E+09
1.491 E+09
2.565E+09
2.065E+09
1.748E+09
1.662E+09
1.662E+09
4.597E+07
6.687E+07
K55
Kips-inlrad
4.276E+07
2.216E+08
2.239E+08
2.239E+08
3.498E+08
5.915E+08
5.915E+08
1.748E+09
2.546E+09
3.480E+09
4.981 E+08
2.596E+09
3.782E+09 J
2.1 28E+09
2.430E+09
2.937E+09
1.832E+09
3.515E+08
2.466E+08
2.239E+08
2.239E+08
2.216E+08
2.110E+07
i: 0 . 2 0 6 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
AXIAL MAD RATIO P/T;A~
a) Circular Sections
0.20 0 4 3 5
AXIAL LOAD RATIO p/fChg b) Rectangular Sections
Figure A-4 Effective Stiffbess of Reinforced Concrete Cracked Sections (Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges, by Priestley, Seible and Calvi, 1996)
Figure A-5 Form of Spread Footing Matrix (Seismic Design of Highway Bridge Foundations, FHWA, 1986)
RECTANGULAR FOOTING
EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR . FOOTING'.
EQUIVALENT RADIUS:
TRANSLATIONAL: ' R = /F
ROTATIONAL: ....-...-........................( X-AXIS ROCKING)
(2Bp (4L) ...............,.................(Y-AXIS ROCKING) 3* 1%
4BL (4g2 + 4 ~ 2 ) .......................( Z-AXIS TORSION) L -I
Figure A-6 Procedure for Calculating Equivalent Radius of a Rectangular Footing (Seismic Design of Highway Bridge Foundation, FHWA, 1986)
Figure A-7 Shape Factor of a Rectangular Footing (Seismic Design of Highway Bridge Foundation, FHWA, 1986)
Figure A-8 Embedment Factor of Footings (Seismic Design of Highway Bridge Foundation, FHWA, 1986)
MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION, Kt , (lb/in3)
Generalized Subsurface Conditions \ ,
Generalized subsurface conditions along the Bridge alignment are shown in the attach figure. The generalized conditions are based on the data from borings drilled during this investigation and interpretation of existing boring data without Standard Penetration Test data, dating from about 1932. Approximate bottom of bridge piers and estimated pile tip elevations are shown on the figure.
Four primary strata and one secondary stratum have been generalized, as follows:
Stratum Number
1
I 3A I Brown & gray sandy Clay, clayey Silt, sandy Silt (SC, I 0 - 32 (most I
2 3
Generalized Soils
Fill: silty Sand & Gravel, cinders
The advancing and retreating glaciers, as described earlier, overrode strata 3, 3A and 4 in the geologic past. These strata are dense to very dense based on the recorded N-values. Stratum 2 is normally consolidated, as described below. Stratum 1 is a recent man made deposit with variable properties.
Typical Range of N-values 3 - 100'
Gray organic silty Clay, clayey Silt (CH, OH - MH) Brown silty Sand & Gravel, cobbles, boulders
4
Soil Properties of Generalized Strata
0 - 2 5 - 100' (most values > 3 5)
Soil properties of granular generalized Strata 1, 3 and 3A were estimated based on N- values and laboratory index tests (grain size analyses, moisture contents, and Atterberg limits) and correlation to data available in the engineering literature. The properties of Stratum 2 were estimated from laboratory physical property tests and compared to data available in the engineering literature for similar materials with similar stress history. Recommended soil properties for analysis and design are summarized below:
ML) lenses Gray sandy Clay, silty Clay, sandy Silt (SC, CL, ML)
Granular soils-
values > 20 >50
Stratum I - Fill (including pile cap backfill)
Unit weights: y = 115 lb/ft3 y' = 53 lb/ft3 Relative Density: DR = 25% Effective fnction angle: $' = 30'
Properties for Seismic Analysis:
Shear modulus: Gmax = 360 t/ft2 Poisson's Ratio: v = 0.35 Young's modulus: E = 975 t/ft2
\ Stratum 3 - Brown silty Sand & Gravel, cobbles, boulders 1
Unit weights: y = 127 lb/ft3 y' = 65 lb/ft3 Relative Density: DR = 75% Effective fiction angle: 4' = 35'
Properties for Seismic Analysis.
Shear modulus: Gma, = 3000 t/ft2 Poisson's Ratio: v = 0.35 Young's modulus: E = 8000 t/ft2
Cohesive Soils-
Stratum 2- Gray organic silty Clay, clayey Silt (CH, OH - MH)
Unit weights: y = 98 lb/ft3 y ' = 36 lb/ft3 Undrained strength: S, or "c" = 440 lb/ft2 Strain: E @ half of compressive strength = 1.3 % Undrained Young's Modulus: E = 60 t/ft2 (250 x S,) Maximum past consolidation pressure: om' = 0.7 - 1.2 (t/ft2), normally consolidated (i.e. vertical effective stress o,,' = om') Compression Ratio: CR = 0.266 Recompression Ratio: RR = 0.03 1 Coefficient of Consolidation:
Normally consolidated c, = 23 ft2/yr Over consolidated c, = 100 ft2/yr
Coefficient of Secondary Compression: Normally consolidated c, = 0.015 ididlog t Over consolidated c, = 0.003 ididlog t
Stratum 3A- Brown & gray sandy Clay, clayey Silt, sandy Silt (SC, ML) lenses
Unit weights: y = 120 lb/ft3 y7 = 58 lb/ft3 Undrained strength: S, or "c" = 2000 lb/ft2 Undrained Young's Modulus: E = 300 t/ft2 (300 x S,) Maximum past consolidation pressure: om' = 3 - 4 (tVt2) Compression Ratio: CR = 0.20 - 0.25 Recompression Ratio: RR = 0.01 - 0.02
Coefficient of Consolidation: Normally consolidated c, = 75 - 200 ft2/yr Over consolidated c, = 300 - 1,000 ft2/yr
Coefficient of Secondary Compression: Normally consolidated c, = 0.001 - .003 ididlog t Over consolidated c, = < 0.00 1 ididlog t
Stratum 4- Gray sandy Clay, silty Clay, sandy Silt (SC, CL, ML)
Unit weights: y = 130 1b/ft3 y' = 68 lb/ft3 Undrained strength: S, or "c" > 4000 1b/fi2 Undrained Young's Modulus: E = 2000 t/fi2 (500 x S, ) -
0 S ) I n d D
0 1 1 n d D
o n o 0 0 0
A !? . . . LJ 4 A ' S w I . . " . . .
(rU 8 I W)
0 PI ,a
W r l m D . .. . . . .
Number of Modes = 400
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GT/LANCZOS SOLUTION DATA
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
NUMBER OF DYNAMIC DEGREES-OF-FREEDOM = 4862 NUMBER OF MODES REQUESTED = 400 EIGENVALUE TOLERANCE = 1.00000E-06 NUMBER OF TERMS IN SKYLINE = 372410 AVERAGE COLUMN HEIGHT OF SKYLINE = 77 OUT-OF-CORE EQUATION SOLVER USED ( 5 BLOCKS) NUMBER OF LANCZOS VECTORS COMPUTED = 706
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * END OF GT/LANCZOS SOLUTION DATA * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TIME TO SOLVE EIGENPROBLEM TIME TO TRANSFORM EIGENVECTORS TO JOINTS
153.03 SECONDS 289.72 SECONDS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * EIGEN-SOLUTION CHECKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
* * * * STRUDL MESSAGE - STURM SEQUENCE CHECK WAS SUCCESSFUL - THERE ARE NO MISSING MODES
MODE------EIGENVALUE-------FREQUENCY-------FREQUENCY--------PERIOD--------ESTIMATED---/ ( (RAD/SEC) **2) (RAD/SEC) (CYC/SEC) (SEC/CYC) ACCURACY
a, fl ([I 1 cn 0
0