×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Elastic Seismic Design loads on (older) Bridges

Elastic Seismic Design loads on (older) Bridges

Elastic Seismic Design loads on (older) Bridges

(OP)
I understand from literature that a very small % (about only 6%) of gravity weight was used in the design of many of the older bridges (even in California) against earthquakes.

I was wondering if there's any reason/basis for choosing such a small lateral design forces knowing the importance of seismic design?

Thanks in advance.

-Rao.

RE: Elastic Seismic Design loads on (older) Bridges

believe it or not, earthquake engineering wasn't very well understood until recent times.  As such, engineers mostly neglected the effects of lateral seismic loads until the codes began to descibe/mandate them.  

For example, significant static equivalent lateral force for schools weren't required until after the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake in the US.  It wasn't until the State of California effected the Fielding Act.

As a comparison, the equivalent static lateral force really was initiated in Europe following the Messina, Italy earthquake of 1908.  

While its true that the equivalent static force method was in use prior to the 1933 Long Beach earthquake, the magnitude remained small.  And until the Fielding act, I'm not sure it was mandatory.  Hence, you can see the disparity on the two continents.

The response spectrum method wasn't developed until the 1940s and only after significant computational power was available.  The latter was necessary to analyze all of the specific data available to arrive at the code definition of the RSA.  As one may figure, that technology takes awhile to be absorbed by the engineering community.  And to exacerbate matters, highway technology lags behind due to funding.

Thus you can see why only minimal lateral force values were in use until following the 1971 San Fernando event, which really showed the community just how bridges are vulnerable to strong ground motion.

RE: Elastic Seismic Design loads on (older) Bridges

(OP)
Thanks QSHAKE. I've two more related questions.

(1) Was it the case with the design of building structures too? I mean, older bldg. structures were also designed for smaller % of their gravity loads?

(2) Theoretically speaking, can we take advantage of the presence of high degree of redundancy in buildings to to design them for lower seismic forces as compared to bridges(say in terms of ARS values)?

Can someone point me to the literature on the comparative study of various design procedures (elastic, capacity and dutility/displacement based approaches) as applied to bridge/bldg. design - preferably quantifying their differences ?

-thanks,
Rao.

RE: Elastic Seismic Design loads on (older) Bridges

Do you mean Force Based vs Displacement-Ductility Based? They both pretty much use elastic models for the RSA.

AASHTO and FHWA examples are a good source for the force-based method (R factors).

Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges by Priestley, Seible, and Calvi is a good source for the displacement based (Caltrans, etc).

There is a lot of stuff out there now on the net also.

MikeD

RE: Elastic Seismic Design loads on (older) Bridges

(OP)
Hi Mike, thanks for our response.

In the references you mentioned, I could only find different approaches discussed separately. There is no talk of QUANTITATIVE DIFFERENCES among different approaches.

Let me try on the net as you suggested (is there any specific site you have to suggest?).

-thanks,
Rao.

RE: Elastic Seismic Design loads on (older) Bridges

You are right about comparing the two. Several years ago I was involved in some bridge designs where we performed the seismic analysis / design using both methods. Everything is hardcopy and packed in boxes somewhere.

I remember two main things after finished: 1)Don't try and mix and match the methods and 2)The dispacement/ductility method makes more sense but involves more analysis.

I can't spend too much more time on this but check the Caltrans sites and search the web on earthquake research. The ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering had some stuff awhile back.

A lot of this stuff is in publications.

MikeD

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources