10.

BRIDGES
10.1. INTRODUCTION: SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BRIDGES

Bridges are typically simple structures, in that the number of structural

elements (piers, spans, abutments) is generally small. On the other hand
they often are very irregular, with variable column heights, non-uniform
span lengths, and sometimes with horizontal and/or vertical curvature of the
superstructure. Since the structural form is less commonly dictated by
architectural rather than structural considerations, the designer needs to be
aware of the structural consequences of decisions made about structural
form. The scope of this book allows only a brief review of these points. For
more detailed consideration refer to [P4J and [K6].

10.1.1. Pier Section Shapes

b Slab

a Rectangular

d Circular
c Chamfered Rectangular

Fig. 10. 1 Common Section Shapes for Bridge Piers

Figure 10.1 illustrates the principal choices of bridge column section

shapes available to the designer. The principal choices will be between
rectangular and circular sections, and between single or multi-column
piers, with a secondary choice between solid and hollow section shapes.
Rectangular columns, (Fig. 10.1 (a)), though common in bridge design, are
less desirable than circular columns because of the difficulty in providing
adequate restraint by transverse hoops against buckling for the large
number of longitudinal bars common in typically large column section
dimensions. Circular columns (Fig. 10.1(d)) are generally confined by
spirals or circular hoops, are easy to construct, and have the advantage of
omni-directional strength and stiffness characteristics.

Construction can be further simplified, and performance improved by

using a continuous spiral of unstressed prestressing strand as
confinement and shear reinforcement 85.

A further problem with rectangular columns is that under diagonal

seismic response, cover spaliing will initiate at lower seismic intensity
than when responding in the principal directions, because the depth of
the compression zone must be larger to provide the required compression
force, resulting in lower curvatures corresponding to the extreme fibre
spaliing strain.

With the chamfered rectangular section of Fig. 10.1(c) the longitudinal

reinforcement can be confined within a series of interlocking spirals, with
the advantage of ease of construction noted above for circular sections.

When longitudinal response of a bridge with comparatively few spans is

resisted principally by abutments an elongated rectangular pier section
(Fig. 10.1(b)) may be adopted. In the transverse direction the pier acts as
a structural wall, but the flexibility in the longitudinal direction means
that the pier contributes little to longitudinal response.

Because of this flexibility, which aids in permitting thermal movements,

it is generally not necessary to provide confinement reinforcement for
longitudinal responseH3l.

When large, long-span bridges have tall bents, hollow columns may be a
viable option.
 These have the advantage of reducing concrete mass, thus reducing
inertial response of the piers as vertical beams spanning between
foundation and superstructure, and also reducing the tendency for
thermally-induced cracking at an early age resulting from heat of-
hydration temperature variations. In Europe, hollow sections with large
section dimension (up to 8m (26ft) maximum section depth or diameter)
are common. Fig. 10.1 includes alternatives based on hollow circular and
hollow rectangular sections, suggested by the dashed lines representing
the inner surface of the hollow section.

Hollow circular sections are less common than hollow rectangular sections
despite theoretical considerations which would indicate improved seismic
performance for the circular option, resulting from similar considerations
to those noted above for solid sections. It has been shown that for hollow
circular sections an inner layer of reinforcement provides little structural
benefit, except as support for additional vertical reinforcement. Tests on
R1
hollow circular sections subjected to simulated seismic action have
shown that hollow circular columns with all longitudinal and transverse

reinforcement placed in a single layer close to the outer surface provide

excellent stable hysteretic response provided extreme fibre compression
strains are less than about 0.006.

At higher extreme fibre strains, external cover concrete spaliing can

result in a sudden increase in the depth of the neutral axis, increasing the
strain at the internal surface of the section to the stage where internal
spaliing, resulting in implosion, occurs.

10.1.2. The Choice between Single-column and Multi-column Piers

The choice between single-column and multi-column piers cannot be made

Independently of the choice of pier/superstructure connection type (see

Section 10.1.3).

With bearing-supported superstructures, the single-column design has the

attraction that critical seismic response characterisdcs (strength and
 sdffness) can be made equal in orthogonal directions, since the pier will
respond as a simple vertical cantilever in all directions. The location and
performance of the potential plastic hinge will be known to a high degree
of certainty.

Multi-column piers are more appropriate when monolithic

pier/superstructure connection details are selected, and also when the
superstructure width is large, resulting in a potential for high eccentric
live-load moments in single-column piers. When the column has monolithic
connections to the superstructure and foundation, it is again simple to
make the seismic response characteristics Omni-directional. Note,
however, that if the superstructure is bearing-supported on a multi-column
pier-cap, pier response will be as a vertical cantilever in the longitudinal
direction, and by double-bending transversely, resulting in non-uniform
strength and stiffness in orthogonal directions.

10.1.3. Bearing-Supported vs. Monolithic Pier/Superstructure Connection

In situ slab In situ box girders

Precast Beam Precast Beam In situ

diaphragm

Pier Cap
Pier

a Bearing-supported Precast b Monolithic Pier /superstructure.

Beams with In-situ Deck In-situ Construction

Fig. 10. 2 Different Pier/Superstructure Connection Options

Figure 10.2 presents the main options for pier/superstructure connection.
With a moment-resisting connection, the potential for additional
redundancy of energy dissipation exists, since plastic hinges can form at
top and bottom of the columns, at least under longitudinal response. With
multi-column piers this advantage also extends to transverse response.
Lateral resistance will thus be increased for a given column flexural
length, and as a consequence, the column dimensions may be reduced.
The fixed-top connection detail also allows the designer to consider the
option of pinned connections between the column base and foundation,
when multi-column piers are utilized. A major disadvantage of the
monolithic connection detail is that seismic moments developed at the top
of the pier are transmitted to the superstructure. This adds to the super-
structure gravity negative moments at the pier, and may also result in
positive superstructure moments. Resisting these may increase the cost
of the superstructure. Clearly the monolithic detail is only appropriate
when the superstructure is continuous over the pier, rather than simply
supported. This might be felt to rule out designs where the construction
uses precast concrete beams for the superstructure. However, connection
details providing fully monolithic response of bridges with precast
superstructures have been successfully tested under simulated seismic
loadinglH4L Bearing-supported superstructures have the advantage of
minimising the problems associated with moment transfer from the pier
to the superstructure, and with joint-shear and anchorage issues.
Different types of bearings may be considered, including pot-bearings,
rockers, PTFE-stainless steel sliders and elastomeric bearings.

These are discussed in some detail elsewhere l™l. Bearing-supported

connection details will almost always be chosen when a decision is made
to provide seismic resistance by seismic isolation (see Chapter 10).
Seismic displacements of bearing-supported superstructures will
generally be larger than those of structures with monolithic connection,
 and the sensitivity to seismic intensity exceeding the design level will also
be increased as noted above.

10.1.4. Soil-Structure Interaction

Bridges are often required to cross rivers and valleys where foundation
conditions are less than ideal. As a consequence soil-structure interaction
effects frequently require special consideration. Figure 10.3 illustrates
three different foundation conditions where soil-structure interaction and
foundation flexibility can be expected to affect the DDBD process. In Fig.
10.3(a) the pier is supported on a spread footing. The situation is identical

To that for structural cantilever walls on spread footings, which has been
considered in some depth in Section 6.5. The influence on effective
damping and ductility demand and capacity must be considered. As
discussed in Section 6.5.2, the non-linearity of the foundation stiffness
when partial uplift of the footing on the foundation material occurs must
be considered when estimating elastic displacements resulting from
foundation flexibility. A suitable design criterion is that at the design level
of displacement response, at least 50% of the footing should still be in
contact with the foundation material. This will ensure that the footing has
sufficient overturning capacity to support the maximum feasible
overturning moment found from capacity-design considerations.

Figure 10.3(b) represents a design where the column of a pier continues

into a drilled hole in the foundation material to become the single
supporting pile. In the example illustrated, the pile and column have
identical dimensions and the same longitudinal and transverse
reinforcement. Maximum moments will occur some distance (generally
less than two pile diameters) below the ground surface. However, the
elastic curvature in the pile below the location of the potential plastic
hinge adds to the yield displacement, again affecting the damping,
displacement, and ductility capacity.
 The pile-supported footing of Fig. 10.3(c) is similar in response to the
spread footing of Fig. 10.3(a). However, since the soil strength and
stiffness are likely to be lower with a pile-supported footing, horizontal
translation of the pile cap can be more significant. On the other hand, if
the piles are supported on a firm stratum, rotation effects may be lower.

10.1.5. Influence of Abutment Design

Different abutment design options are discussed in some detail in P4].

With shorter bridges, of few spans, a monolithic connection between the
superstructure and the abutment may be chosen. In such cases, effective
periods are likely to be very short, and inertial response will be largely
dictated by the peak ground acceleration. Design of the abutments will
essentially be on a strength basis, and the concepts of ductile response are
inappropriate. Damping, however, is likely to be significantly higher than
the 5% elastic value often adopted for force-based elastic design. Special
studies to determine the appropriate level of damping should be
undertaken.

When the bridge is supported on bearings at abutments, a critical

consideration will be whether the freedom of movement provided by the
bearings occurs in just the longitudinal direction, or also in the transverse
direction. In the former case, significant inertial reactions under
transverse response will be transmitted back to the abutments by
superstructure bending. The dual load path situation imposed by this
action (see Section 1.3.7) requires special attention, and is considered
later in this chapter (Section 10.4.2).

10.1.6. Influence of Movement Joints

Superstructure movement joints are provided to accommodate thermal,

creep and shrinkage displacements. Current practice is to use the
minimum number possible of movement joints as they typically require
continual maintenance. Movement joints also have an influence on the
distribution of inertial forces, which primarily originate from
superstructure inertial response, to supporting piers. Locations of
 movement joints should be considered from the seismic, as well as
serviceability view point.

Modelling of movement joints is complex. Although longitudinal freedom

is provided, impact may well occur across the joint under joint-closing
displacements, particularly when combined with relative rotation of the
superstructure segments on either side of the joint. Seismic force-transfer
due to bearing stiffness or special seismic lock-up devices must be
considered. Generally there will be additional damping associated with
relative joint displacement. See Section 10.4.1 for comments relative to
DDBD.

10.1.7. Multi-Span Long Bridges

Many bridges have considerable length - often several kilometres. It needs

to be decided in the design phase if it is realistic to assume that the
seismic input to all piers is coherent and in phase. There is, however,
reasonable evidence based on analyses lP3°l that the assumption of in-
phase coherent input is conservative provided soil conditions are uniform
along the bridge, and should be adopted unless special studies are carried
out.

Normally bridges will be designed for transverse seismic response

considering independent sub-structures, of perhaps five to eight spans
(normally between movement joints) with simplified representation of the
strength and stiffness of adjacent sections of the bridge. Where this is
adopted, there should preferably be an overlap of spans in successive sub-
structures designed.
10.2. REVIEW OF BASIC DDBD EQUATIONS FOR BRIDGES
10.3. DESIGN PROCESS FOR LONGITUDINAL RESPONSE
10.4. DESIGN PROCESS FOR TRANSVERSE RESPONSE
10.5. CAPACITY DESIGN ISSUES
10.6. DESIGN EXAMPLE 10.6: Design Verification of Design Example 10.5