1、 2014 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.978-1-56051-558-6 Pub Code: GSID-4 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 444 North Capitol Street, NW Suite 249 Washington,
2、DC 20001 202-624-5800 phone/202-624-5806 fax www.transportation.org 2014 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. 2014 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All r
3、ights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 20132014 iii Voting Members Officers: President: Mike Hancock, Kentucky Vice President: John Cox, Wyoming Secretary-Treasurer: Carlos Braceras, Utah Regional Representatives: REGION I: Chris Clement, New Hampshire, One-
4、Year Term Shailen Bhatt, Delaware, Two-Year Term REGION II: Sheri LeBas, Louisiana, One-Year Term John Schroer, Tennessee, Two-Year TermREGION III: Paul Trombino, Iowa, One-Year Term Ann L. Schneider, Illinois, Two-Year Term REGION IV: John Halikowski, Arizona, One-Year Term Malcolm Dougherty, Calif
5、ornia, Two-Year Term Nonvoting Members Immediate Past President: Michael P. Lewis, Rhode Island AASHTO Executive Director: Bud Wright, Washington, DC HIGHWAYS SUBCOMMITTEE ON BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES, 2012 iv GREGG FREDRICK, Chair BRUCE V. JOHNSON, Vice Chair M. MYINT LWIN, Federal Highway Administrat
6、ion, Secretary RAJ AILANEY, Federal Highway Administration, Assistant Secretary KELLEY REHM, AASHTO Liaison ALABAMA, John F. “Buddy” Black, Eric J. Christie, William “Tim” Colquett ALASKA, Richard A. Pratt ARIZONA, Jean A. Nehme ARKANSAS, Carl Fuselier CALIFORNIA, Barton J. Newton, Susan Hida, Micha
7、el Keever COLORADO, Mark A. Leonard, Michael G. Salamon CONNECTICUT, Timothy D. Fields DELAWARE, Barry A. Benton, Jason Hastings, Douglass Robb DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Ronaldo T. “Nick” Nicholson, L. Donald Cooney, Konjit “Connie” Eskender FLORIDA, Sam Fallaha, Dennis Golabek, Jeff Pouliotte GEORGIA,
8、Paul V. Liles, Jr. HAWAII, Paul T. Santo IDAHO, Matthew M. Farrar ILLINOIS, D. Carl Puzey, Tim Armbrecht INDIANA, Anne M. Rearick IOWA, Norman L. McDonald KANSAS, Loren R. Risch, James J. Brennan KENTUCKY, Mark Hite, Marvin Wolfe LOUISIANA, Hossein Ghara, Arthur DAndrea, Paul Fossier MAINE, David B.
9、 Sherlock, Jeffrey S. Folsom, Wayne Frankhauser MARYLAND, Earle S. Freedman, Jeffrey L. Robert MASSACHUSETTS, Alexander K. Bardow, Shoukry Elnahal, Walter P. Heller MICHIGAN, David Juntunen, Matthew Chynoweth MINNESOTA, Nancy Daubenberger, Kevin Western MISSISSIPPI, Nick J. Altobelli, Justin Walker
10、MISSOURI, Dennis Heckman, Scott B. Stotlemeyer 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, Eli “Dave” Lambert III NEW MEXICO, Raymond M. Trujillo, Jeff C. Vigil
11、 NEW YORK, Richard Marchione, Wahid Albert NORTH CAROLINA, Greg R. Perfetti NORTH DAKOTA, Terrence R. Udland OHIO, Timothy J. Keller, Jawdat Siddiqi OKLAHOMA, Robert J. Rusch, Walter Peters, John A. Schmiedel OREGON, Bruce V. Johnson, Hormoz Seradj PENNSYLVANIA, Thomas P. Macioce, Lou Ruzzi PUERTO R
12、ICO, (Vacant) RHODE ISLAND, David Fish SOUTH CAROLINA, Barry W. Bowers, Jeff Sizemore SOUTH DAKOTA, Kevin Goeden TENNESSEE, Wayne J. Seger, Henry Pate TEXAS, Gregg A. Freeby, Keith L. Ramsey U.S. DOT, M. Myint Lwin, Raj Ailaney UTAH, Carmen Swanwick, Joshua Sletten VERMONT, Wayne B. Symonds VIRGINIA
13、, Kendal “Ken” Walus, Prasad L. Nallapaneni, Julius F. J. Volgyi, Jr. WASHINGTON, Jugesh Kapur, Tony M. Allen, Bijan Khaleghi WEST VIRGINIA, Gregory Bailey WISCONSIN, Scot Becker, Beth A. Cannestra, William C. Dreher WYOMING, Keith R. Fulton, Paul G. Cortez, Michael E. Menghini GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, H
14、IGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, Kary H. Witt MDTA, Dan Williams N.J. TURNPIKE AUTHORITY, Richard J. Raczynski N.Y. STATE BRIDGE AUTHORITY, William J. Moreau PENN. TURNPIKE COMMISSION, James L. Stump U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERSDEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Phillip W. Sauser, Christopher H. Westbrook U
15、.S. COAST GUARD, Kamal Elnahal U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREFOREST SERVICE, Tom Gillens ALBERTA, Lloyd Atkin KOREA, Eui-Joon Lee, Sang-Soon Lee NEWFOUNDLAND, Peter Lest ONTARIO, Bala Tharmabala SASKATCHEWAN, Howard Yea TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD, Waseem Dekelbab 2014 by the American Association
16、of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.PANEL MEMBERS FOR NCHRP PROJECT 20-7/262 v Ralph E. Anderson, P.E., S.E., Engineer of Bridges and Structures, Illinois DOT Barry W. Bowers, P.E., Structural Design Support Engineer, South
17、 Carolina DOT Derrell A. Manceaux, P.E., Structural Design Engineer, Federal Highway Administration Gregory R. Perfetti, P.E., North Carolina DOT Richard A. Pratt, P.E., Chief Bridge Engineer, Alaska DOT Hormoz Seradj, P.E., Steel Bridge Standards Engineer, Oregon DOT Kevin J. Thompson, P.E., Deputy
18、 Division Chief, California DOT Edward P. Wasserman, P.E., Civil Engineering Director, Structures Division, Tennessee DOT WORKING GROUP MEMBERS Academia Ian Buckle, University of Nevada Reno (Chair) Michael Constantinou, State University of New York at Buffalo John Stanton, University of Washington
19、Andrew Whittaker, State University of New York at Buffalo Consultants Ian Aiken, Seismic Isolation Engineering, Oakland Mary Jacak, Isolation Consultant, Oakland Designers Allaoua Kartoum, California Department of Transportation Elmer Marx, Alaska Department of Transportation Dan Tobias, Illinois De
20、partment of Transportation Industry Paul Bradford, EradiQuake Systems Anoop Mokha, Earthquake Protection Systems Armanath Kasalanati, Dynamic Isolation Systems 2014 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicabl
21、e law.PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION, 2010 vi This 2010 Edition of the Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design updates the 1999 Edition by addressing major changes in the way seismic hazard is now defined in the United States, as well as changes in the state of the art of seismic isolation d
22、esign for highway bridges. This Edition is based on the work of NCHRP Project 20-7, Task 262. In summary, this revised edition reflects (a) changes in the definition of the seismic hazard as now defined in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (hereafter referred to as the Design Specificatio
23、ns) and the Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (hereafter referred to as LRFD Seismic); (b) designer experience in the last 10 yr with the implementation of the current specifications; (c) industry trends in the design and construction of isolators; (d) the sun-setting of the AASHTO
24、 Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges; and (e) provisions in the Design Specifications that impact the design and testing of isolation bearings, such as in Section 14, Bearings and Expansion Joints. Major changes therefore include: 1. The seismic hazard section has been updated to be compatib
25、le with the Design Specifications and LRFD Seismic. Previous Section 3, Acceleration Coefficient, and Section 5, Site Effects and Site Coefficients, have been collapsed into a new Section 3, Seismic Hazard, to make way for a new Section 4, Design Response Spectrum, after moving seismic performance c
26、ategories to Section 5. This new section presents the design spectrum in a new figure (taken from the Design Specifications and LRFD Seismic), and is used to define spectral accelerations SDSand SD1. There is one exception to the general rule of compatibility with the Design Specifications. Design S
27、pecifications, Article 3.10.2 requires a site-specific procedure be used if “long-duration effects are expected in the region.” This provision is not in LRFD Seismic and has not been included in these Guide Specifications (Article 3.1). 2. The requirement that the acceleration coefficient (A) for th
28、e design of isolated bridges shall not be less than 0.1 has been deleted (Article 3.1). 3. Eq. 3 for displacement, d, (now Eq. 7.1-4) has been changed to be a function of S1rather than peak ground acceleration (A) since maps of S1are now available. At the same time, the site coefficient in the expre
29、ssion for d was updated from Sito Fv, and the dual units expression was replaced with one that is independent of the unit of measurement. 4. The previous Table 7.1-1 for the Damping Coefficient, B (now labeled BL), has been replaced by an expression directly relating BLto the viscous damping ratio .
30、 The values for BLgiven by this expression are almost identical to those in Table 7.1-1 over the full range of . The advantage of the expression, however, is that it avoids linear interpolation to find BLfor values of that are not listed in the Table. 5. Eqs. 20 and 21 for the shear strain in a bond
31、ed layer of elastomer due to a compressive load have been replaced by a single equation (Eq. 14.2.1-1) that is applicable over the full range of shape factors. This equation is consistent with the recently revised provisions in the Design Specifications for steel-reinforced elastomeric bearings (Des
32、ign Specifications, Article 14.7.5). Likewise, the expression for shear strain due to rotation in Eq. 24 (now Eq. 14.2.4-1) has been updated to be consistent with the Design Specifications provisions. 6. The non-seismic requirements for elastomeric bearings (i.e., service limit states) in Design Spe
33、cifications, Section 14 have recently been updated and the corresponding provisions in these Guide Specifications (Article 14.3) now reference the Design Specifications. 7. Some testing requirements for isolation hardware have been deleted or relaxed if they were judged to be redundant, no longer ne
34、cessary based on experience with current isolator manufacturers, or unrealistically burdensome and no longer serving a useful purpose. 8. Additional commentary is given to clarify such terms as design displacement, which is used for calculating the effective stiffness of an isolator, and total desig
35、n displacement (TDD), which is used for design and specifying the testing requirements for an isolator. 9. Editorial updates/corrections have been made to ensure compatibility with the style and format of the Design Specifications as far as possible. All references to the Standard Specifications hav
36、e been replaced by corresponding references to the Design Specifications and, where appropriate, to LRFD Seismic. 10. The uniform load method of analysis (Article 7.1) has been renamed the simplified method to better reflect the nature of the method and avoid confusion with the uniform load method g
37、iven in the Design Specifications and LRFD Seismic. 11. Portions of Article C7 have been determined to be more appropriate to Article 8.1.2 and have been moved accordingly. Portions of Article C7.1 contain mandatory language and have been moved to Article 7.1 in this edition of the Guide Specificati
38、ons. 2014 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION, 2014 vii This Fourth Edition (2014) of the Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design updates the Third Edition
39、 (2010) principally by the addition of a set of design examples in Appendix B. Today, about 200 bridges have been designed and constructed in the U.S. using the AASHTO Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design but this figure is a fraction of the potential number of applications and falls fa
40、r short of the number of isolated bridges in other countries. One of the major barriers to implementation is that isolation is a significant departure from conventional seismic design and one that is not routinely taught in university degree courses. Furthermore, very few text books on this topic ha
41、ve been published and those that are available focus on applications to buildings rather than bridges. The absence of formal instruction and lack of reference material mean that many designers are not familiar with the approach and uncomfortable using the technique, despite the potential for signifi
42、cant benefits. In an effort to correct this situation, fourteen design examples were developed to illustrate the design process and the design of related isolation hardware in accordance with the Guide Specifications. This work was funded under NCHRP 20-7, Task 262. These design examples are include
43、d in Appendix B and illustrate the application of seismic isolation to a range of bridges for varying seismic hazard, site classification, isolator type, and bridge type. In general, each example illustrates the suitability of the bridge for isolation (or otherwise), and presents calculations for pr
44、eliminary design using the Simplified Method of analysis, preliminary and final isolator design, and detailed analysis using the Multimode Spectral Analysis procedure. However, design of the superstructure, substructure (piers), and foundations is not covered. In addition to the inclusion of a new A
45、ppendix B, a number of editorial corrections have been made to the Guide Specifications, to improve readability and correct typographical errors. 2014 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. 2014 by
46、 the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.TABLE OF CONTENTS ix FRONT MATTER EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE iii HIGHWAYS SUBCOMMITTEE ON BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES 2012 iv PANEL MEMBERS FOR NCHRP PROJECT 20-7/262 . v WO
47、RKING GROUP MEMBERS v PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION, 2010 vi PREFACE TO FOURTH EDITION, 2014 vii LIST OF FIGURES . xv LIST OF TABLES . xviii GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS 1APPLICABILITY . 1 2 DEFINITIONS AND NOTATION . 5 2.1Definitions 5 2.2Notation 7 3 SEISMIC HAZARD . 10 3.1Acceleration Coefficient 10 3.2Site E
48、ffects and Site Factors 10 4DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM 10 5SEISMIC ZONES . 12 6RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR (R) 12 7ANALYSIS PROCEDURES . 13 7.1Simplified Method . 15 7.2Single Mode Spectral Method 19 7.3Multimode Spectral Method 19 7.4Time-History Method 19 8DESIGN PROPERTIES OF ISOLATION SYSTEM . 20
49、 8.1Nominal Design Properties 20 8.1.1Minimum and Maximum Effective Stiffness . 20 8.1.2Minimum and Maximum Kdand Qd. 20 8.2System Property Modification Factors () . 21 8.2.1Minimum and Maximum System Property Modification Factors 21 8.2.2System Property Adjustment Factors . 22 9CLEARANCES 22 10DESIGN FORCES FOR SEISMIC ZONE 1 . 22 11DESIGN FORCES FOR SEISMIC ZONES 2, 3, AND 4 23 x GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR SEISMIC ISOL
