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