AASHTO LRFDSEIS-2011 AASHTO Guide specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (2nd Edition Includes 2015 Interim Revisions).pdf

1、LRFD Seismic Bridge DesignPublished by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation OfficialsISBN: 978-56051-521-0 Publicaton Code: LRFDSEIS-22nd Edition2011AASHTO Guide Specifications forISBN: 978-1-56051-521-0 Pub Code: LRFDSEIS-2 American Association of State Highway and Transport

2、ation Officials 444 North Capitol Street, NW Suite 249 Washington, DC 20001 202-624-5800 phone/202-624-5806 fax www.transportation.org 2011 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. 2011 by the Americ

3、an Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.iii EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2011-2012 Voting Members Officers: President: Susan Martinovich, P.E., Nevada Vice President: Kirk T. Steudle, P.E., Michigan Secretary-Treasurer: Ca

4、rlos Braceras, Utah Regional Representatives: REGION I: Beverley K. Swaim-Staley, Maryland One-Year Term Jeffrey B. Mullan, Massachusetts Two-Year Term REGION II: Mike Hancock, Kentucky One-Year Term Robert St. Onge, South Carolina Two-Year Term REGION III: Thomas K. Sorel, Minnesota One-Year Term V

5、acant Two-Year Term REGION IV: Amadeo Saenz, Jr., Texas One-Year Term Francis G. Ziegler, P.E., North Dakota Two-Year Term Nonvoting Members Immediate Past President: Vacant AASHTO Executive Director: John Horsley, Washington, DC 2011 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation O

6、fficials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.iv HIGHWAYS SUBCOMMITTEE ON BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES, 2011 MALCOLM T. KERLEY, Chair DAVID P. HOHMANN, Vice Chair M. MYINT LWIN, Federal Highway Administration, Secretary RAJ AILANEY, Federal Highway Administration, Assistant Se

7、cretary KEITH M. PLATTE, AASHTO Liaison KELLEY REHM, AASHTO Liaison ALABAMA, John F. Black, Eric J. Christie, William “Tim” Colquett ALASKA, Richard A. Pratt ARIZONA, Jean A. Nehme ARKANSAS, Carl Fuselier CALIFORNIA, Barton J. Newton, Susan Hida, Barton J. Newton, Michael Keever COLORADO, Mark A. Le

8、onard, Michael G. Salamon CONNECTICUT, Julie F. Georges DELAWARE, Jiten K. Soneji, Barry A. Benton DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Ronaldo T. “Nick” Nicholson, L. Donald Cooney, Konjit “Connie” Eskender FLORIDA, Sam Fallaha, Dennis Golabek, Jeff Pouliotte GEORGIA, Paul V. Liles, Jr. HAWAII, Paul T. Santo IDAH

9、O, Matthew M. Farrar ILLINOIS, D. Carl Puzey, Tim Armbrecht, Thomas J. Domagalski INDIANA, Anne M. Rearick IOWA, Norman L. McDonald KANSAS, James J. Brennan, Loren R. Risch KENTUCKY, Mark Hite, Marvin Wolfe LOUISIANA, Hossein Ghara, Arthur DAndrea, Paul Fossier MAINE, David Sherlock, Jeffrey S. Fols

10、om, Wayne Frankhauser Jr. MARYLAND, Earle S. Freedman, Robert J. Healy, Jeffrey L. Robert MASSACHUSETTS, Alexander K. Bardow, Shoukry Elnahal MICHIGAN, Steven P. Beck, David Juntunen MINNESOTA, Nancy Daubenberger, Kevin Western MISSISSIPPI, Mitchell K. Carr, B. Keith Carr MISSOURI, Dennis Heckman, M

11、ichael Harms MONTANA, Kent M. Barnes NEBRASKA, Mark J. Traynowicz, Mark Ahlman, Fouad Jaber NEVADA, Mark P. Elicegui, Todd Stefonowicz NEW HAMPSHIRE, Mark W. Richardson, David L. Scott NEW JERSEY, Vacant NEW MEXICO, Raymond M. Trujillo, Jimmy D. Camp NEW YORK, Wahid Albert, Donald F. Dwyer, Arthur P

12、. Yannotti NORTH CAROLINA, Greg R. Perfetti, Dan Holderman NORTH DAKOTA, Terrence R. Udland OHIO, Timothy J. Keller, Jawdat Siddiqi OKLAHOMA, Robert J. Rusch, Gregory D. Allen, John A. Schmiedel OREGON, Bruce V. Johnson, Hormoz Seradj PENNSYLVANIA, Thomas P. Macioce, Lou Ruzzi PUERTO RICO, Vacant RH

13、ODE ISLAND, David Fish SOUTH CAROLINA, Barry W. Bowers, Jeff Sizemore SOUTH DAKOTA, Kevin Goeden TENNESSEE, Edward P. Wasserman TEXAS, Keith L. RamseyDavid P. Hohmann U.S. DOT, M. Myint Lwin, Raj Ailaney UTAH, Carmen Swanwick VERMONT, Wayne B. Symonds VIRGINIA, Malcolm T. Kerley, Kendal Walus, Prasa

14、d L. Nallapaneni, Julius F. J. Volgyi, Jr. WASHINGTON, Jugesh Kapur, Tony M. Allen, Bijan Khaleghi WEST VIRGINIA, Gregory Bailey, James D. Shook WISCONSIN, Scot Becker, Beth A. Cannestra, William C. Dreher WYOMING, Paul G. Cortez, Michael E.Menghini, Keith R. Fulton ALBERTA, Lloyd Atkin KOREA, Eui-J

15、oon Lee, Sang-Soon Lee NEWFOUNDLAND, Peter Lester NOVA SCOTIA, Mark Pertus ONTARIO, Bala Tharmabala SASKATCHEWAN, Howard Yea TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD Waseem Dekelbab GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, Kary H. Witt MDTA, Dan Williams N.J. TURNPIKE AUTHORITY, Richard J. Raczynski N.Y. STATE BRIDGE AUTHORITY, Wi

16、lliam J. Moreau PENN. TURNPIKE COMMISSION, James L. Stump U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERSDEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Phillip W. Sauser, Christopher H. Westbrook U.S. COAST GUARD, Hala Elgaaly U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREFOREST SERVICE, Tom Gillins 2011 by the American Association of State Highway and Tra

17、nsportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.v FOREWORD Following the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, significant effort was expended to develop comprehensive design guidelines for the seismic design of bridges. That effort led to updates of both the AASHTO a

18、nd Caltrans design provisions and ultimately resulted in the development of ATC-6, Seismic Design Guidelines for Highway Bridges, which was published in 1981. That document was subsequently adopted by AASHTO as a Guide Specification in 1983; the guidelines were formally adopted into the Standard Spe

19、cifications for Highway Bridges in 1991, then revised and reformatted as Division I-A. Later, Division I-A became the basis for the seismic provisions included in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. After damaging earthquakes in 1980s and 1990s, and as more recent research efforts were com

20、pleted, it became clear that improvements to the seismic design practice for bridges should be undertaken. Several efforts culminated in the publication of ATC-32, Improved Seismic Design Criteria for California Bridges: Provisional Recommendations in 1996; the development of Caltrans Seismic Design

21、 Criteria; publication of MCEER/ATC-49 (NCHRP 12-49), Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Highway Bridges in 2003; and the development of the South Carolina Seismic Design Specifications in 2001. Thus in 2005, with the T-3 Seismic Design Technical Committees support, work began to

22、identify and consolidate the best practices from these four documents into a new seismic design specification for AASHTO. The resulting document was founded on displacement-based design principles, recommended a 1000-yr return period earthquake ground motion, and comprised a new set of guidelines fo

23、r seismic design of bridges. During 2007, a technical review team refined the document into the Guide Specifications that were adopted at the 2007 annual AASHTO Highways Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures meeting. The following year, further refinement was completed by the team and was adopted.

24、The 2007 document, combined with the modifications approved in 2008, form the basis of these Guide Specifications. The scope of these Guide Specifications covers seismic design for typical bridge types and applies to noncritical and non-essential bridges. The title of the document reflects the fact

25、that the Guide Specifications are approved as an alternate to the seismic provisions in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. These Guide Specifications differ from the current procedures in the LRFD Specifications in the use of displacement-based design procedures, instead of the traditiona

26、l, force-based “R-Factor” method. This new approach is split into a simplified implicit displacement check procedure and a more rigorous pushover assessment of displacement capacity. The selection of which procedure to use is based on seismic design categories, similar to the seismic zone approach u

27、sed in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Also included is detailed guidance and commentary on earthquake-resisting elements and systems, global design strategies, demand modeling, capacity calculation, and liquefaction effects. Similar to the LRFD force-based method, capacity design proc

28、edures underpin the Guide Specifications methodology, and these procedures include prescriptive detailing for plastic hinging regions and design requirements for capacity protection of those elements that should not experience damage. These Guide Specifications incorporate recent experience, best pr

29、actices, and research results and represent a significant improvement over the traditional force-based approach. It is expected that these Guide Specifications will be revised as refinements or improvements become available. AASHTO Highways Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures 2011 by the American

30、 Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, a

31、nd was conducted in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council. The first edition of any technical publication is especially labor intensive. AASHTOs Highways Subcommittee on Bridges and Struc

32、tures gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the following people: AASHTO Technical Committee for Seismic Design NCHRP Project 20-07, Task 193Principal Investigator, Roy A. Imbsen of Imbsen Consulting The technical review team: Mark Mahan, CA DOT (Team Leader, 2007) Lee Marsh, BERGER/ABAM Engi

33、neers (Team Leader, 2008) Roy A. Imbsen, Imbsen Consulting Elmer Marx, AK DOT Jay Quiogue, CA DOT Chris Unanwa, CA DOT Fadel Alameddine, CA DOT Chyuan-Shen Lee, WSDOT Stephanie Brandenberger, MT DOT Daniel Tobias, IL DOT Derrell Manceaux, FHWA Tony Allen, WSDOT Don Anderson, CH2M Hill 1000-yr Maps a

34、nd Ground Motion CD ToolEd V. Leyendecker, USGS 2011 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.vii PREFACE This second edition of the Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design includes technic

35、al content approved by the Highways Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures through 2011. In addition to revising the first edition content, he authors have added Appendix B, “Design Flowcharts.” An abbreviated table of contents follows this preface. Detailed tables of contents precede each Section a

36、nd Appendix. AASHTO Publications Staff 2011 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. 2011 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is

37、a violation of applicable law.ix ABBREVIATED TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1-i SECTION 2: DEFINITIONS AND NOTATION 2-i SECTION 3: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS . 3-i SECTION 4: ANALYSIS AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS . 4-i SECTION 5: ANALYTICAL MODELS AND PROCEDURES 5-i SECTION 6: FOUNDATION AND ABUTMEN

38、T DESIGN . 6-i SECTION 7: STRUCTURAL STEEL COMPONENTS . 7-i SECTION 8: REINFORCED CONCRETE COMPONENTS . 8-i REFERENCES R-1 APPENDIX A: FOUNDATION-ROCKING ANALYSIS . A-i APPENDIX B: DESIGN FLOWCHARTS . B-i 2011 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reser

39、ved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TABLE OF CONTENTS 1-i 1 1.1BACKGROUND . 1-1 1.2TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AASHTO AND USGS 1-2 1.2.1Maps 1-3 1.2.2Ground Motion Tool 1-3 1.3FLOWCHARTS. 1-4 2011 by the American Association of State Highway and Trans

40、portation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1BACKGROUND C1.1 The state of practice of the seismic design of bridges iscontinually evolving, and the AASHTO GuideSpecifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design was developed to incor

41、porate improvements in the practice thathave emerged since publication of ATC 6, Seismic Design Guidelines for Highway Bridges, the basis of the currentAASHTO seismic design provisions. While smallimprovements have been incorporated into the AASHTOseismic design procedures in the intervening years s

42、inceATC 6 was published in 1981, these Guide Specificationsand related changes to the current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications represent the first major overhaul ofthe AASHTO procedures. The development of these Guide Specifications was performed in accordance with therecommendations of the

43、NCHRP 20-07/Task 193 Task 6Report. The Task 6 effort combined and supplementedexisting completed efforts (i.e., AASHTO Standard Specifications Division I-A, NCHRP 12-49 guidelines, SCDOT specifications, Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria,NYCDOT Seismic Intensity Maps (1998), and ATC-32) into a single

44、document that could be used at a national levelto design bridges for seismic effects. Based on the Task 6effort and that of a number of reviewers, includingrepresentatives from State Departments of Transportation,the Federal Highway Administration, consulting engineers,and academic researchers, thes

45、e Guide Specifications weredeveloped. Key features of these Guide Specifications follow: This commentary is included to provide additional information to clarify and explain the technical basis for the specifications provided in the Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design. These specific

46、ations are forthe design of new bridges. The term “shall” denotes a requirement for compliance with these Specifications. The term “should” indicates a strong preference for a given criterion. The term “may” indicates a criterion that is usable, but other local and suitably documented, verified, and

47、 approved criterion may also be used in a manner consistent with the LRFD approach to bridge design. The term “recommended” is used to give guidance based on past experiences. Seismic design is a developing field of engineering that has not been uniformly applied to all bridge types; thus, the exper

48、iences gained to date on only a particular type are included as recommendations. Adopt the seven percent in 75 yr design event for development of a design spectrum. Adopt the NEHRP Site Classification system andinclude site factors in determining response spectrumordinates. Ensure sufficient conserv

49、atism (1.5 safety factor) forminimum support length requirement. Thisconservatism is needed to accommodate the fullcapacity of the plastic hinging mechanism of thebridge system. Establish four Seismic Design Categories (SDCs) with the following requirements: SDC A o No displacement capacity check needed o No capacity design required o SDC A minimum requirements o No liquefaction assessment required 2011 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation