Proposed AASHTO Guidelines For Performance-Based Seismic Bridge Design (2020)

This PDF is available at http://nap.nationalacademies.
org/25913
Proposed AASHTO Guidelines for

Performance-Based Seismic Bridge Design
(2020)
DETAILS
86 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK
ISBN 978-0-309-48177-9 | DOI 10.17226/25913
CONTRIBUTORS
Thomas P. Murphy, Modjeski and Masters, Inc., Stuart Bennion Lee Marsh,
BergerABAM, Ian G. Buckle, University of Nevada, Reno, Nicolas Luco, U.S.
BUY THIS BOOK Geological Survey, CH2M Hill Donald Anderson, Mervyn Kowalsky, North Carolina
State University, and Jose Restrepo, Advanced Analysis and Design, LLC;
National Cooperative Highway Research Program; Transportation Research Board;
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
FIND RELATED TITLES SUGGESTED CITATION
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Proposed
AASHTO Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Bridge Design. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25913.
Visit the National Academies Press at nap.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of publications
– 10% off the price of print publications
– Email or social media notiﬁcations of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts
All downloadable National Academies titles are free to be used for personal and/or non-commercial
academic use. Users may also freely post links to our titles on this website; non-commercial academic
users are encouraged to link to the version on this website rather than distribute a downloaded PDF
to ensure that all users are accessing the latest authoritative version of the work. All other uses require
written permission. (Request Permission)
This PDF is protected by copyright and owned by the National Academy of Sciences; unless otherwise
indicated, the National Academy of Sciences retains copyright to all materials in this PDF with all rights
reserved.
Proposed AASHTO Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Bridge Design
N AT I O N A L C O O P E R AT I V E H I G H W AY R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M
NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 949

Proposed AASHTO Guidelines
for Performance-Based
Seismic Bridge Design
Thomas P. Murphy
Modjeski and Masters, Inc.
Mechanicsburg, PA
Lee Marsh
Stuart Bennion
BergerABAM
Federal Way, WA
Ian G. Buckle
University of Nevada, Reno
Reno, NV
Nicolas Luco
U.S. Geological Survey
Reston, VA
Donald Anderson
CH2M Hill
Corvallis, OR
Mervyn Kowalsky
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC
Jose Restrepo
Advanced Analysis and Design, LLC
Alpine, CA
Subscriber Categories
Bridges and Other Structures
Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
2020
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 949

RESEARCH PROGRAM
Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most Project 12-106
effective way to solve many problems facing state departments of ISSN 2572-3766 (Print)
transportation (DOTs) administrators and engineers. Often, highway ISSN 2572-3774 (Online)
problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by ISBN 978-0-309-48177-9
state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities Library of Congress Control Number 2020942362
and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transporta-
© 2020 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
tion results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to high-
way authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated
program of cooperative research.
Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini- Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
tiated an objective national highway research program using modern written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research published or copyrighted material used herein.
Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
FTA, GHSA, NHTSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice.
(FHWA), United States Department of Transportation, under Agree-
It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and
ment No. 693JJ31950003. not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to
administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity
and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited
NOTICE
for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com-
mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication
according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board
subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and
and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer-
sities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the National Academies is an The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of special- Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; the
ists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research FHWA; or the program sponsors.
directly to those in a position to use them.
The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
The program is developed on the basis of research needs iden- and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
tified by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein
transportation departments, by committees of AASHTO, and by solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
the FHWA. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO
Special Committee on Research and Innovation (R&I), and each year
R&I’s recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Direc-
tors and the National Academies. Research projects to address these
topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are
selected from submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of
research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Academies
and TRB.
The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make
significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems
of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however,
is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate,
other highway research programs.
Published research reports of the
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

are available from
Transportation Research Board

Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

https://www.nationalacademies.org
and then searching for TRB
Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through
trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The
Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from
the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by
state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation,
and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 949

Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Waseem Dekelbab, Senior Program Officer
Tyler Smith, Senior Program Assistant
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Natalie Barnes, Associate Director of Publications
Linda A. Dziobek, Senior Editor
NCHRP PROJECT 12-106 PANEL

Field of Design—Area of Bridges
Thomas A. Ostrom, California DOT, Sacramento, CA (Chair)
Richard A. Pratt, Alaska DOT and Public Facilities, Juneau, AK
Xiaohua Hannah Cheng, New Jersey DOT, Trenton, NJ
Timothy E. Huff, Tennessee Tech University, Cookeville, TN
Bijan Khaleghi, Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA
Mark D. Shaffer, Illinois DOT, Springfield, IL
W. Phillip Yen, International Association of Bridge Earthquake Engineering, Centreville, VA (Deceased)
Jeffrey Ger, FHWA Liaison
Stephen F. Maher, TRB Liaison
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research was performed and the research report prepared under NCHRP Project 12-106 by a
research team led by Modjeski and Masters, Inc., with Thomas P. Murphy as the principal investigator,
supported by Travis Hopper, Diane Long, and Maria Lopez. The research team also consisted of Lee
Marsh and Stuart Bennion of BergerABAM; Ian G. Buckle of the University of Nevada, Reno; Nico Luco
of the U.S. Geological Survey; Donald Anderson of CH2M Hill; Mervyn Kowalsky of North Carolina
State University; and Jose Restrepo of Advanced Analysis and Design, LLC.

FOREWORD
By Waseem Dekelbab
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
NCHRP Research Report 949: Proposed AASHTO Guidelines for Performance-Based

Seismic Bridge Design presents a methodology to analyze and determine the seismic capacity
requirements of bridge elements expressed in terms of service and damage levels of bridges
under a seismic hazard. The methodology is presented as proposed AASHTO guidelines for
performance-based seismic bridge design with ground motion maps and detailed design
examples illustrating the application of the proposed guidelines and maps. This report will
be of immediate interest to bridge engineers.
The current AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design “guide specifi-
cations” do not address performance-based seismic bridge design or provide design criteria
for bridges that are critical or essential. Furthermore, the AASHTO guide specifications
do not provide direction to assist owners and designers who wish to consider seismic risk
mitigation beyond the life safety objective. A bridge may have different operational require-
ments depending on the post-earthquake functions (e.g., serving the community by pro-
viding emergency vehicle access), which would suggest a higher performance objective than
the basic levels included in the design codes. Research was needed to provide guidance
to help bridge owners and designers define enhanced seismic performance objectives and
design bridges to meet those objectives.
Modjeski and Masters, Inc., performed research under NCHRP Project 12-106, “Proposed
Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Bridge Design,” to develop the following:
• Proposed AASHTO guidelines for performance-based seismic bridge design,
• Proposed revisions to the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design
to link with the proposed AASHTO guidelines for performance-based seismic bridge
design, and
• Proposed ground motion maps for inclusion in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Speci-
fications, as well as the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design.
Two deliverables were provided as appendices and are not included within the published
report but are available on TRB’s website at www.trb.org by searching on NCHRP Research
Report 949. The appendices are as follows:
Appendix A: SDOF Column Investigation Sample Calculations and Results
Appendix B: Hazard Comparison


CONTENTS
1 Summary
3 Chapter 1 Introduction
3 Background
3 Research Objectives
4 Chapter 2 Literature Review and Synthesis

4 Literature Review
4 Purpose of Literature Review
4 Literature Review Process
5 Synthesis of PBSD (2012–2016)
5 Objectives of NCHRP Synthesis 440
6 Public and Engineering Expectations of Seismic Design
and the Associated Regulatory Framework
10 Seismic Hazard Prediction
17 Structural Analysis and Design
24 Damage Analysis
25 Loss Analysis
27 Organization-Specific Criteria for Bridges and Project-Specific Criteria
34 Identification of Knowledge Gaps
37 Chapter 3 Development of the AASHTO Guidelines for

Performance-Based Seismic Design
37 Goals of PBSD
38 Steps to Achieve PBSD
39 Operational Categories
41 Performance Levels
42 Engineering Design Parameters
43 Strain Limits
47 Translating Limit State Strains to Member Deformations
49 Approach Fill Rotation and Displacement Limits
52 Geometric Displacement Limits
52 Demand Analysis and Capacity Assessment Requirements
53 Seismic Hazard
54 Seismic Design Category
54 Geoseismic Hazards and Liquefaction Assessment
56 Earthquake Resisting Systems
57 Capacity Design
57 Design Examples

58 Chapter 4 AASHTO Seismic Map Update

58 Background Information
60 Option 1—2014 Hazard Model 3-Period Spectrum
60 Option 2—2018 Hazard Model 3-Period Spectrum
60 Option 3—2018 Hazard Model Multi-Period Spectra
60 Hazard Models Considered
60 Map Development and Comparison Effort
63 Summary of Comparisons and Recommendations
66 Chapter 5 Conclusions and Suggested Research

66 Conclusions
66 Suggested Research
67 References and Bibliography

75 Appendices
Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing.
The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.

SUMMARY
Proposed AASHTO Guidelines

for Performance-Based
Seismic Bridge Design
This research report details the development of the proposed AASHTO Guidelines for
Performance-Based Seismic Design of Highway Bridges. Starting from the work presented in
NCHRP Synthesis 440: Performance-Based Seismic Bridge Design (Marsh and Stringer 2013),
a methodology was developed to implement performance-based seismic design utilizing
primarily strain-based engineering design parameters to control the performance and
expected damage levels of bridges under a two-level seismic hazard approach. The methodol-
ogy included analysis and capacity determination requirements based on the desired perfor-
mance, the seismic hazard, and the parameters of the bridge structure. Due to limitations in
available performance data, the proposed guidelines are not fully probabilistic.
NCHRP Synthesis 440 provided an in-depth background to the issues surrounding
implementation of performance-based seismic design (PBSD) for bridges and examples of
how different organizations have approached implementation. Recent implementations
of PBSD were reviewed in this report, and similarities summarized. Based on the survey of
the state of the practice of PBSD, the development of the methodology for a set of guide-
lines for implementation under the auspices of AASHTO was initiated. A number of key
points were determined as follows:
• There does not currently exist enough research data to enable a fully probabilistic
implementation of PBSD, in particular when earthquake-resisting systems beyond
flexure in reinforced concrete columns are considered.
• A two-level approach to ensuring desired performance, consistent with that used in the
FHWA’s Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Structures: Part 1—Bridges (Buckle et al.
2006), would provide a robust control of performance levels while maintaining continuity
with existing methods and practice.
• Using strain limits, rather than ductility, would provide better control of performance
while simultaneously allowing for systems beyond reinforced concrete columns to be
easily incorporated.
With the previous criteria established, a methodology was developed that implements
PBSD for design of highway bridges in the form of guidelines proposed for adoption by
AASHTO. These guidelines consist of establishing three major categories of bridges based
on their importance in the transportation system; establishing the performance goals for
each of these categories for both a lower level and a higher level seismic event; tying the
performance goals to engineering design parameters (EDPs), which the designer uses in
proportioning the structure; and laying out analysis and capacity determination require-
ments consistent with the level of behavior indicated by the performance levels.
In the course of developing these guidelines, it became apparent that the damping values
often used in seismic analyses, in particular nonlinear response history analyses, may be
1

2 Proposed AASHTO Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Bridge Design
overestimated and result in nonconservative estimates of bridge performance. A discussion

of this issue is contained in an appendix to the guidelines.
Among the available analysis types, the substitute structure approach, also known as
direct displacement-based design (DDBD), is a powerful tool that can simplify the design
approach for PBSD for structures that can be reasonably approximated as a single degree of
freedom system. These guidelines represent the first time this method has been proposed
for inclusion in an official AASHTO publication. Appendix B details the method.
A series of case studies were carried out as part of this project, which resulted in single
column studies for a variety of different seismic hazards, as well as detailed column designs
for specific hazard locations. As a result of the column studies, deficiencies in the “equal
displacement” rule that underpins the elastic analysis approach for seismic design were
identified and relate to the damping issues discussed in Appendix A of the proposed AASHTO
guidelines. Further research is recommended to explore this issue.

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Background
As design for seismic motions has matured over the past decades, the single performance
goal of avoidance of collapse has more and more frequently been found not to meet the expec-
tations of postevent condition by owners, policy makers, and the public at large for a certain
subset of the bridge inventory. Because of this and because of advances in seismic engineering
that have made the attainment of higher levels of seismic performance practical both technically
and financially, a need was identified to provide guidance to designers and owners on how to
identify what increased level of performance should be considered and, once identified, how
to achieve that performance through the design process.
Research Objectives
The two main objectives of this research were to develop proposed AASHTO guidelines for
performance-based seismic bridge design and updated seismic hazard maps for AASHTO
based on the latest U.S. Geological Survey hazard models.
3

CHAPTER 2
Literature Review and Synthesis
Literature Review
Purpose of Literature Review
Performance-based seismic design (PBSD) for infrastructure in the United States is a
developing field, with new research, design, and repair technologies; definitions; and method-
ologies being advanced every year. A synthesis report, NCHRP Synthesis 440: Performance-
Based Seismic Bridge Design (Marsh and Stringer 2013), was created to capture PBSD
understanding up to that point. This synthesis report described the background, objec-
tives, and research up until 2011 to 2012 and synthesized the information, including areas
where knowledge gaps existed. The literature review in this research report focuses on new
information developed after the efforts of NCHRP Synthesis 440. The intention is that this
research report will fuel the next challenge: developing a methodology to implement PBSD
for bridge design.
Literature Review Process

Marsh and Stringer (2013) performed an in-depth bridge practice review by sending a
questionnaire to all 50 states, with particular attention to regions with higher seismic hazards.
The survey received responses from a majority of those agencies. This process was continued
in the current project with a request for new information or research that the state depart-
ment of transportation (DOT) offices have participated in or are aware of through other
organizations. The research team reached out to the list of states and researchers in Table 1.
An X within a box is placed in front of their names if they responded. The team also examined
the websites of the state DOTs that participated to investigate whether something was studied
locally, especially work being developed in California.
The research team made an additional effort to perform a practice review of bridge designs,
research, and other design industries, specifically in the building industry. The building industry
has been developing PBSD for more than 20 years, and some of their developments are appli-
cable to bridge design. These combined efforts have allowed the research team to assemble an
overview of the state of PBSD engineering details and deployment since Marsh and Stringer’s
(2013) report was published.
NCHRP Synthesis 440 primarily dealt with the effects of strong ground motion shaking.
Secondary effects such as tsunami/seiche, ground failure (surface rupture, liquefaction, or slope
failure), fire, and flood were outside the scope of this study. Regardless, their impact on bridges
may be substantial, and investigation into their effects is undoubtedly important.

Literature Review and Synthesis 5
Table 1. List of state DOT offices and

their participation.
Participation State
Alaska DOT
Arkansas DOT
California DOT (Caltrans)
Illinois DOT
Indiana DOT
Missouri DOT
Montana DOT
Nevada DOT
Oregon DOT
South Carolina DOT
Utah DOT
Washington State DOT
The following e-mail was sent to the owners and researchers.

Dear (individual):
We are assisting Modjeski & Masters with the development of proposed guidelines for Performance-
Based Seismic Bridge Design, as part of NCHRP [Project] 12-106. Lee Marsh and our Team at BergerABAM
are continuing our efforts from NCHRP Synthesis 440, which included a literature review up to December
of 2011. From this timeframe forward, we are looking for published research, contractual language, or
owner documents that deal with the following categories:
1. Seismic Hazards (seismic hazard levels, hazard curves, return periods, geo-mean vs. maximum direc-
tion, probabilistic vs. deterministic ground motions, conditional mean spectrum, etc.)
2. Structure Response (engineering design parameters, materials and novel columns, isolation bearings,
modeling techniques, etc.)
3. Damage Limit States (performance descriptions, displacement ductility, drift ratios, strain limits,
rotation curvature, etc.)
4. Potential for Loss (damage descriptions, repairs, risk of collapse, economical loss, serviceability
loss, etc.)
5. Performance Design Techniques (relating hazard to design to performance to risk, and how to assess
[these] levels together)
If you are aware of this type of resource, please provide a contact that we can work with to get this
information or provide a published reference we can gather. Your assistance is appreciated. We want to
minimize your time, and ask that you respond by Wednesday, 8 February 2017.
Thank you again,
Research Team
Synthesis of PBSD (2012–2016)

Objectives of NCHRP Synthesis 440
The synthesis gathered data from a number of different but related areas. Marsh and Stringer
(2013), herein referred to as NCHRP Synthesis 440, set the basis for this effort. The research
report outline follows what has been added to the NCHRP Synthesis 440 effort since 2012.
The information gathered that supplements NCHRP Synthesis 440 includes, but is not
limited to, the following topics.
• Public and engineering expectations of seismic design and the associated regulatory
framework

• Seismic hazard analysis

• Structural analysis and design
• Damage analysis
• Loss analysis
• Organization-specific criteria for bridges
• Project-specific criteria
Where new or updated information is available for these areas, a summary is included.
Marsh and Stringer (2013) also identified gaps in the knowledge base of PBSD, current as
of 2012, that need to be closed. Knowledge gaps certainly exist in all facets of PBSD; however,
key knowledge gaps that should be closed in order to implement PBSD are covered.
• Gaps related to seismic hazard prediction
• Gaps related to structural analysis
• Gaps related to damage prediction
• Gaps related to performance
• Gaps related to loss prediction
• Gaps related to regulatory oversight and training
• Gaps related to decision making
These knowledge gaps have been filled in somewhat in this research report but, for the most
part, these areas are still the key concepts that require additional development to further the
development of a PBSD guide specification.
Public and Engineering Expectations of Seismic Design

and the Associated Regulatory Framework
The public expectation of a structure, including a bridge, is that it will withstand an earthquake,
but there is a limited understanding of what that actually means. Decision makers struggle to
understand how a bridge meeting the current requirements of the AASHTO Guide Specifications
for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (2011), herein referred to as AASHTO guide specifications,
will perform after either the expected (design) or a higher level earthquake. Decision makers
understand the basis of life safety, wherein the expectation is that no one will perish from
a structure collapsing, but often mistakenly believe that the structure will also be usable after
the event. In higher level earthquakes, even in some lower level events, this is not true without
repair, retrofit, or replacement.
In the past decade, there has been an increased awareness by owners and decision makers as
to the basis of seismic design. As a result, a need has developed for performance criteria so that
economic and social impacts can be interwoven with seismic design into the decision processes
(see Figure 1).
Several states, including California, Oregon, and the State of Washington, are working
toward resiliency plans, although these are developed under different titles or programs within
the states. Resiliency has been defined in several ways: (1) amount of damage from an event
measured in fatalities, structural replacement cost, and recovery time and (2) the time to resto-
ration of lifelines, reoccupation of homes and structures, and, in the short term, resumption of
normal living routines.
The California DOT

Caltrans has generated risk models and is in the process of developing a new seismic design
specification to address PBSD in bridge design. The risk models and specifications are not
published yet, but the use in PBSD is discussed in greater detail later in this chapter.

Figure 1. PBSD decision-making process

(Guidelines Figure 2.0-1). References to guidelines
figures and tables within parentheses indicate the
proposed AASHTO guidelines.
The State of Washington

The State of Washington’s resiliency plan, outlined in Washington State Emergency
Management Council–Seismic Safety Committee (2012), works to identify actions and policies
before, during, and after an earthquake event that can leverage existing policies, plans, and
initiatives to realize disaster resilience within a 50-year life cycle. The hazard level used for trans-
portation planning is the 1000 year event. The goals for transportation systems vary depending
on the type of service a route provides, as shown in following components of the plan.
For major corridors such as Interstates 5, 90, and 405 and floating bridges SR 520, I-90,
and Hood Canal, the target timeframe for response and recovery is between 1 to 3 days and
1 to 3 months, depending on location. The current anticipated timeframe based on current
capacity and without modifications is between 3 months to 1 year and 1 to 3 years, depending
on location.
The actual response and recovery time will depend on a number of factors. For example:
1. The number of Washington State DOT personnel who are able to report to work may be
limited by a variety of circumstances, including where personnel were at the time of the
earthquake and whether they sustained injuries.
2. Bridges and roadways in earthquake-affected areas must be inspected. How long this takes
will depend on the number and accessibility of the structures and the availability of qualified
inspectors.
3. Some bridges and segments of road may be rendered unusable or only partially usable as a
result of the earthquake or secondary effects. The response and recovery timeframe will
depend on the number, the location, and the extent of the damage.
4. Certain earthquake scenarios could result in damage to the Ballard Locks and cause the
water level in Lake Washington to drop below the level required to operate the floating bridges.
5. Depending on the scenario and local conditions, liquefaction and slope failure could
damage both interstates and planned detours.
During the first 3 days after the event, the Washington State Department of Transportation
(Washington State DOT) will inspect bridges and begin repairs as needed. Washington State
DOT’s first priority will be to open key routes for emergency response vehicles. Subsequent
phases of recovery will include setting up detours where necessary and regulating the type and

volume of traffic, to give the public as much access as possible while damaged roads and bridges
are repaired.
For major and minor arterials, which encompass arterial roadways (including bridges) other
than the interstates (so therefore includes state highways and many city and county roads), the
target timeframe for response and recovery is between 0 to 24 hours and 3 months to 1 year,
depending on location; the percentage of roadways that are open for use will increase over this
period. Anticipated timeframe based on current capacity is between 1 week to 1 month and 1 to
3 years, depending on location; the percentage of roadways that are open for use will increase
over this period.
The goal of Washington State Emergency Management Council’s resiliency plan is to
establish a means to coordinate agencies, public–private partnerships, and standards toward
these resiliency goals. The plan outlines goals for recovery times for transportation systems
in terms of hours, days, weeks, months, and years, with targets to achieve different levels of
recovery (see Table 2) as follows.
Similar recovery timeframe processes were established for service sectors (e.g., hospitals,
law enforcement, and education); utilities; ferries, airports, ports, and navigable waterways;
mass transit; and housing. The overall resiliency plan also discusses the degree to which the
recovery of one component or sector would depend on the restoration of another. The key
interdependencies that the participants identified include information and communication
technologies, transportation, electricity, fuel, domestic water supplies, wastewater systems,
finance and banking, and planning and community development.
It appears that the implementation of the Washington State Emergency Management
Council’s initiative, originally assumed to take 2.5 to 3 years in 2012, has not seen significant
development since then. However, the State’s initiative to develop a more resilient community
has been extended down to the county level, with King County’s efforts referenced in Rahman
et al. (2014) and, at the city level, with the City of Seattle referenced in CEMP (2015). This
reflects the commitment needed not only by the legislature and the state departments but
also by other agencies (e.g., county, city, or utilities) and the public to take an interest in, and
provide funding for, the development of a resiliency plan. The recovery continuum is presented
graphically in Figure 2.
Developing this relationship with other agency plans is an iterative process that will take time,
as shown in Figure 3.
Identifying the critical sectors of the agency is necessary to develop a resiliency model
and determine how to approach a disaster recovery framework. King County worked from
Washington State’s initiative to develop Figure 4.
The Oregon DOT

Oregon DOT has developed a variation of the approach identified by the State of Wash-
ington; further discussion is found later in this chapter.
Other Resilience Documents

The building industry has recently seen the development of two additional documents that
address PBSD in terms of expectations and process.
The REDi Rating System from REDi (2013) sets an example for incorporating resilience-
based design into the PBSD process. This document outlines structural resilience objectives
for organizational resilience, building resilience, loss assessment, and ambient resilience to
evaluate and rate the decision making and design methodology using PBSD for a specific project.

Table 2. Washington State’s targets of recovery.
Minimal (A minimum level of service is restored, primarily for the use of emergency
responders, repair crews, and vehicles transporting food and other critical supplies.)
Functional (Although service is not yet restored to full capacity, it is sufficient to get
the economy moving again—for example, some truck/freight traffic can be
accommodated. There may be fewer lanes in use, some weight restrictions, and
lower speed limits.)
Operational (Restoration is up to 80 to 90 percent of capacity: A full level of service
has been restored and is sufficient to allow people to commute to school and to work.)
Time needed for recovery to 80 to 90 percent operational given current conditions.
Source: Washington State Emergency Management Council–Seismic Safety Committee (2012).
The document is one of the only references that addresses a system to develop probabilistic
methods to estimate downtime. The overall intent is to provide a roadmap to resilience. This
roadmap is intended to allow owners to resume business operation and to provide livable
conditions quickly after an earthquake.
The Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council (LATBSDC 2014) created an alter-
native procedure specific to their location. Design specification criteria are identified and modi-
fications are described as appropriate for the PBSD approach to tall buildings in this localized

Source: Adapted from FHWA by CEMP (2015).
Figure 2. Recovery continuum process.
region. This procedure is a good example of how PBSD criteria and methodology need to be
established locally, with a knowledge of risk, resources, and performance needs in order to set
the criteria for true PBSD.
Seismic Hazard Prediction

As outlined in NCHRP Synthesis 440, the seismic hazard includes the regional tectonics
and the local site characteristics from either a deterministic or probabilistic viewpoint. The
deterministic form allows the assessment of shaking at a site as a function of the controlling
earthquake that can occur on all the identified faults or sources. The probabilistic approach
Source: CEMP (2015).
Figure 3. Relationship of disaster recovery framework to

other city plans.

Source: Rahman et al. (2014).
Figure 4. Resilient King County critical sectors and corresponding subsectors.
defines an acceleration used in design that would be exceeded during a given window of time
(e.g., a 7% chance of exceedance in 75 years). The following subsections provide a summary
of procedures currently used within AASHTO, as well as new issues that should be eventually
addressed in light of approaches used by the building industry.
AASHTO Probabilistic Approach

As summarized in the AASHTO guide specifications, the current approach used by AASHTO
involves the use of a probabilistic hazard model with a nominal return period of 1000 years.
Baker (2013) noted that the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis involves the following
five steps:
1. Identify all earthquake sources capable of producing damaging ground motions.
2. Characterize the distribution of earthquake magnitudes (the rates at which earthquakes of
various magnitudes are expected to occur).
3. Characterize the distribution of source-to-site distances associated with potential earthquakes.
4. Predict the resulting distribution of ground motion intensity as a function of earthquake
magnitude, distance, and so forth.
5. Combine uncertainties in earthquake size, location, and ground motion intensity, using a
calculation known as the total probability theorem.
While implementation of the five steps in the probabilistic approach is beyond what most
practicing bridge engineers can easily perform, AASHTO, working through the U.S. Geological
Survey, developed a website hazard tool that allows implementation of the probabilistic proce-
dure based on the latitude and longitude of a bridge site. The product of the website includes
peak ground acceleration (PGA), spectral acceleration at 0.2 s (Ss), and spectral acceleration at
1 s (S1). These values are for a reference-site condition comprising soft rock/stiff soil, having a
time-averaged shear wave velocity (Vs) over the upper 100 feet of soil profile equal to 2500 feet
per second (fps). The Geological Survey website can also correct for local site conditions following
procedures in the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design.
One of the limitations of the current U.S. Geological Survey hazard website is that it is based
on a seismic hazard model developed in 2002. The Geological Survey updated its seismic model
in 2008 and then in 2014; however, these updates are currently not implemented within the
AASHTO hazard model on the Geological Survey’s website. Oregon and the State of Washington
have updated the seismic hazard map used by the Oregon DOT and the Washington State

DOT to include the 2014 U.S. Geological Survey hazard model; however, most state DOTs are
still using the out-of-date hazard model. Use of the outdated hazard model introduces some
inconsistencies in ground motion prediction, relative to the current Geological Survey hazard
website tool at some locations. Discussions are ongoing between NCHRP and the U.S. Geological
Survey to update the 2002 website tool.
Another issue associated with the current AASHTO probabilistic method is that it is based on
the geomean of the ground motion. In other words, the ground motion prediction equations
in the hazard model are based on the geomean of recorded earthquake motions. These motions
are not necessarily the largest motion. The building industry recognized that the maximum
direction could result in larger ground motions and introduced maximum direction corrections.
These corrections increase spectral acceleration by a factor of 1.1 and S1 by a factor of 1.3. The
relevance of this correction to bridges is discussed in the next subsection of this review.
The building industry also introduced a risk-of-collapse correction to the hazard model
results. This correction is made to Ss and S1. The size of the correction varies from approximately
0.8 to 1.2 within the continental United States. It theoretically adjusts the hazard curves to
provide a 1% risk of collapse in 50 years. The risk-of-collapse corrections were developed by the
U.S. Geological Survey for a range of building structures located throughout the United States.
Although no similar corrections have been developed for bridges, the rationale for the adjust-
ment needs to be further evaluated to determine if the rationale should be applied to bridge
structures.
As a final point within this discussion of probabilistic methods within the AASHTO guide
specifications, there are several other areas of seismic response that need to be considered. These
include near-fault and basin effects on ground motions, as well as a long-period transition
factor. The near-fault and basin adjustments correct the Ss and S1 spectral accelerations for
locations near active faults and at the edge of basins, respectively. These adjustments typically
increase spectral accelerations at longer periods (> 1 s) by 10% to 20%, depending on specifics
of the site. The long-period transition identifies the point at which response spectral ordinates
are no longer proportional to the 1/T decay with increasing period. These near-fault, basin,
and long-period adjustments have been quantified within the building industry guidance
documents but remain, for the most part, undefined within the AASHTO guide specifications.
As bridge discussions and research move closer to true probabilistic format for PBSD, these
issues need to be addressed as part of a future implementation process.
Correction for Maximum Direction of Motion

Over the last decade, a debate has been under way within the building industry regarding
the appropriate definition of design response spectra (Stewart et al. 2011). The essence of the
argument relates to the representation of bidirectional motion via response spectra. In both the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2014), as well as the AASHTO Guide Specifications
for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (SGS), response spectra are established by defining spectral
ordinates at two or three different periods from design maps developed by the U.S. Geological
Survey for a return period of 1000 years. The resulting spectra are then adjusted for local site
conditions, resulting in the final design spectra.
In establishing the design maps for parameters such as Ss and S1, the U.S. Geological Survey
has traditionally relied upon probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, which utilizes ground motion
prediction equations (GMPEs) defined by the geometric mean of the two principal directions
of recorded motion. In 2006, Boore introduced a new rotation independent geometric mean
definition termed GMRotI50 (Boore et al. 2006). Then, in 2010, Boore developed a new defini-
tion that does not rely upon the geometric mean termed RotD50 spectra, which can be generi-
cally expressed as RotDNN spectra, where NN represents the percentile of response (i.e., 50 is

consistent with the median, 0 is the minimum, and 100 is the maximum). The NGA–West2
project GMPEs utilized RotD50 spectra for the ground motion models; however, the 2009
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) provisions adopted a factor to
modify the median response, RotD50, to the maximum possible response, RotD100 as the
spectra for the design maps (Stewart et al. 2011). Introducing RotD100 resulted in a 10% to 30%
increase in spectral ordinates results relative to the geometric mean, which has traditionally
been used as a basis of seismic design.
In order to appreciate the impact of these choices, a brief discussion of RotDNN spectra is
warranted. As described in Boore (2010), for a given recording station, the two orthogonal-
component time series are combined into a single time series corresponding to different rotation
angles, as shown in Equation 1:
aROT(t; θ) = a1(t)cos(θ) + a2(t )sin(θ) (1)
where a1(t ) and a2(t ) are the orthogonal horizontal component acceleration time series and
q is the rotation angle. For example, consider the two orthogonal horizontal component
time series, H1 and H2, shown in Figure 5. The single time series corresponding to the rotation
angle q is created by combining the Direction 1 and Direction 2 time series. Then, the response
spectrum for that single time series can be obtained, as shown in the figure.
The process is repeated for a range of azimuths from 0° to one rotation-angle increment
less than 180°. If the rotation-angle increment is q, then there will be 180/q single time series,
as well as 180/q corresponding response spectra. For example, if q = 30°, then there will be six
single time series (the original two, as well as four generated time series), as well as six response
spectra, as shown in Figure 6.
Once the response spectra for all rotation angles are obtained, then the nth percentile of the
spectral amplitude over all rotation angles for each period is computed (e.g., RotD50 is the
median value and RotD100 is the largest value for all rotation angles). For example, at a given
period of 1 s, the response spectra values for all rotation angles are sorted, and the RotD100
value would be the largest value from all rotation angles while RotD50 would be the median.
This is repeated for all periods, with potentially different rotation angles, producing the largest
Source: Palma (2019).
Figure 5. Combination of time series

to generate rotation dependent spectra.

Figure 6. Example of time

series rotations with an angle
increment (p) of 30ç.
response at any given period (period-dependent rotation angle.) Figure 7 shows an example of
the two orthogonal horizontal components, as well as the RotD50 and RotD100 spectra for the
as-recorded ground motion from the 2011 Christchurch, New Zealand, earthquake at Kaiapoi
North School station.
As can be seen in the sample spectra (see Figure 7), the RotD100 spectrum represents a sub-
stantial increase in demand when compared with the RotD50 spectrum. The main question
facing the bridge community from this point onward is the appropriate selection of response
spectra definition. This question can only be answered by developing sample designs to both the
RotD50 and RotD100 spectra, which would then be evaluated via no-linear time history analysis.
Such a study will require multiple bridge configurations and multiple ground motions.
As an example of the potential impact, Figure 8 shows the results of a single-degree-of-
freedom bridge column designed according to both RotD50 and RotD100 spectra, along with
the resulting nonlinear time history analysis. The column was designed using direct displacement-
based design to achieve a target displacement of 45 cm. It is clear from the results in Figure 8d
that the nonlinear response of the column designed to the RotD100 spectrum matches the target
Figure 7. Sample spectra for a recorded ground

motion pair.

Figure 8. Single bridge column designed according to both RotD50 and RotD100 spectra (Tabas EQ = Tabas
earthquake and displ. = displacement).
reasonably well, while designing to the RotD50 spectrum results in displacements that are
much greater than expected. This is, of course, only one result of an axisymmetric system. In the
future (and outside the scope of this project), a systematic study could be conducted for both
single degree of freedom and multiple degrees of freedom systems.
The literature on this topic can be divided into two categories: (1) response spectra definitions
and (2) impact on seismic response. The majority of the literature addresses the former. For
example, Boore et al. (2006) and Boore (2010) introduced orientation-independent measures
of seismic intensity from two horizontal ground motions. Boore et al. (2006) proposed two
measures of the geometric mean of the seismic intensity, which are independent of the in-situ
orientations of the sensors. One measure uses period-dependent rotation angles to quantify the
spectral intensity, denoted GMRotDnn. The other measure is the GMRotInn, where I stands for
period-independent. The ground motion prediction equations of Abrahamson and Silva (1997),

Boore et al. (1997), Campbell and Bozorgnia (2003), and Sadigh et al. (1997) have been updated
using GMRotI50 as the dependent variable.
Since more users within the building industry expressed the desire to use the maximum spec-
tral response over all the rotation angles without geometric means, Boore (2010) introduced
the measures of ground-shaking intensity irrespective of the sensor orientation. The measures
are RotDnn and RotInn, whose computation is similar to GMRotDnn and GMRotInn without
computing the geometric means.
With regard to impact on seismic response, the opinion paper by Stewart et al. (2011) and the
work by Mackie et al. (2011) on the impact of incidence angle on bridge response are relevant.
Specifically, Stewart et al. (2011) noted the importance of computational analysis of structures
(which had not been done as of 2011) in proposing appropriate spectra definitions.
Other Methodologies for Addressing Seismic Ground Motion Hazards

There are several other reports that address the question of the methodology that may be
utilized in developing the seismic hazard. These recent studies endeavored to create a method-
ology that is easier for engineers, as users, to understand how to tie the seismic hazard to the
performance expectation. The variability of these approaches also demonstrates the broad range
of options and therefore a limited understanding by practitioners in the bridge design industry.
Following are some examples that apply to PBSD.
Wang et al. (2016) performed a probabilistic seismic risk analysis (SRA) based on a single
ground motion parameter (GMP). For structures whose responses can be better predicted using
multiple GMPs, a vector-valued SRA (VSRA) gives accurate estimates of risk. A simplified
approach to VSRA, which can substantially improve computational efficiency without losing
accuracy, and a new seismic hazard de-aggregation procedure are proposed. This approach and
the new seismic hazard de-aggregation procedure would allow an engineer to determine a set
of controlling earthquakes in terms of magnitude, source–site distance, and occurrence rate for
the site of interest. Wang et al. presented two numerical examples to validate the effectiveness
and accuracy of the simplified approach. Factors affecting the approximations in the simplified
approach were discussed.
Kwong and Chopra (2015) investigated the issue of selecting and scaling ground motions as
input excitations for response history analyses of buildings in performance-based earthquake
engineering. Many ground motion selection and modification procedures have been developed
to select ground motions for a variety of objectives. This report focuses on the selection and
scaling of single, horizontal components of ground motion for estimating seismic demand
hazard curves of multistory frames at a given site.
Worden et al. (2012) used a database of approximately 200,000 modified Mercalli intensity
(MMI) observations of California earthquakes collected from U.S. Geological Survey reports,
along with a comparable number of peak ground motion amplitudes from California seismic
networks, to develop probabilistic relationships between MMI and peak ground velocity (PGV),
PGA, and 0.3-s, 1-s, and 3-s 5% damped pseudo-spectral acceleration. After associating each
ground motion observation with an MMI computed from all the seismic responses within
2 kilometers of the observation, a joint probability distribution between MMI and ground
motion was derived. A reversible relationship was then derived between MMI and each ground
motion parameter by using a total least squares regression to fit a bilinear function to the
median of the stacked probability distributions. Among the relationships, the fit-to-peak ground
velocity has the smallest errors, although linear combinations of PGA and PGV give nominally
better results. The magnitude and distance terms also reduce the overall residuals and are
justifiable on an information theoretical basis.

Another approach to developing the appropriate seismic hazard comes out of Europe.
Delavaud et al. (2012) presented a strategy to build a logic tree for ground motion prediction in
European countries. Ground motion prediction equations and weights have been determined
so that the logic tree captures epistemic uncertainty in ground motion prediction for six different
tectonic regions in Europe. This includes selecting candidate GMPEs and simultaneously running
them through a panel of six experts to generate independent logic trees and rank the GMPEs on
available test data. The collaboration of this information is used to set a weight to the GMPEs
and create a consensus logic tree. This output then is run through a sensitivity analysis of the
proposed weights on the seismic hazard before setting a final logic tree for the GMPEs.
Tehrani and Mitchell (2014) used updated seismic hazard maps for Montreal, Canada to
develop a uniform hazard spectra for Site Class C and a seismic hazard curve to analyze bridges
in the localized area.
Kramer and Greenfield (2016) evaluated three case studies following the 2011 Tohoku
earthquake to better understand and design for liquefaction. Existing case history databases are
incomplete with respect to many conditions for which geotechnical engineers are often required
to evaluate liquefaction potential. These include liquefaction at depth, liquefaction of relatively
dense soils, and liquefaction of gravelly soils. Kramer and Greenfield’s investigation of the three
case histories will add to the sparse existing data for those conditions, and their interpretations
will aid in the validation and development of predictive procedures for liquefaction potential
evaluation.
Structural Analysis and Design

Predicting the structural response to the earthquake ground motions is critical for the PBSD
process. NCHRP Synthesis 440 outlined several analysis methods that can be used to accomplish
this task. The multimodal linear dynamic procedures are outlined in AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications (AASHTO 2014) and AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic
Bridge Design (AASHTO 2011), although the Guide Specifications also include the parameters
for performing a model pushover analysis in addition to prescriptive detail practices to ensure
energy-dissipating systems behave as intended and other elements are capacity-protected.
Other methods of analysis may be better suited for PBSD, but the initial PBSD approach will
likely follow the procedures of the AASHTO guide specifications, with multi-level hazards and
performance expectations.
Limited research and code development have been accomplished since NCHRP Synthesis 440,
but one new analysis method, outlined in Babazadeh et al. (2015), includes a three-dimensional
finite element model simulation that is used to efficiently predict intermediate damage limit
states in a consistent manner, with the experimental observations extracted from the actual
tested columns.
Other recent articles of structural analysis identified areas of improvement in the current
design methodology that may be beneficial to PBSD. Huff and Pezeshk (2016) compared the
substitute structure method methodology for isolated bearings with the displacement-based
design methodology for ordinary bridges and showed that these two methodologies vary in
estimating inelastic displacements. Huff (2016a) identified issues that are generally simplified
or ignored in current practice of predicting inelastic behavior of bridges during earthquakes,
both on the capacity (in the section of the element type and geometric nonlinearities) and
demand (issues related to viscous dampening levels) sides of the process. The current SGS
methodology for nonlinear static procedures were compared in Hajihashemi et al. (2017) with
recent methodologies for multimodal pushover procedures that take into account all significant
modes of the structure and with modified equivalent linearization procedures developed for

FEMA-440 (FEMA 2005). All of these analysis articles identify areas of current discussion on
how to improve the analytical procedures proposed in the SGS.
NCHRP Synthesis 440 focused primarily on new analysis methods, but a recent increased focus,
in both academia and industry, has to do with new materials and systems and their impacts on
PBSD. The evolution of enhanced seismic performance has been wrapped into several research
topics, such as accelerated bridge construction (ABC), novel columns, and PBSD. The following
are several aspects, though not all-encompassing, which have been improved upon in the last
6 years or so.
Improving Structural Analysis Through Better Material Data

The analysis and performance of a bridge are controlled with material property parameters
incorporated into the seismic analysis models, specifically for the push-over analysis method.
AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (AASHTO 2011) specifies the
strain limits to use for ASTM A706 (Grade 60) and ASTM A615 Grade 60 reinforcement.
These strain limits come from Caltrans study of 1,100 mill certificates for ASTM A706 Grade 60
in the mid-1990s for projects in Caltrans bridge construction. The results were reported as
elongation—not strain—at peak stress, so select bar pull tests were performed to correlate
elongation to strain at peak stress. This was assumed to be a conservative approach, though it
has recently been validated with a new ASTM A706 Grade 80 study at North Carolina State
University by Overby et al. (2015a), which showed Caltrans numbers, by comparison, for
Grade 60 are reasonable and conservative.
Overby et al. (2015b) developed stress strain parameters for ASTM A706 Grade 80 reinforcing
steel. Approximately 800 tests were conducted on bars ranging from #4 to #18 from multiple heats
from three producing mills. Statistical results were presented for elastic modulus, yield strain
and stress, strain-hardening strain, strain at maximum stress, and ultimate stress. Research is
currently under way at North Carolina State University that aims to identify strain limit states,
plastic hinge lengths, and equivalent viscous damping models for bridge columns constructed
from A706 Grade 80 reinforcing steel. Work is also under way at the University of California,
San Diego, on applications of Grade 80 rebar for capacity-protected members such as bridge
cap beams.
Design Using New Materials and Systems

Structural analysis and design are fundamentally about structural response to the earthquake
ground motion and the analysis methods used to develop this relationship. The complexity of
the analysis depends on the geometry of the structure and elements and the extent of inelastic
behavior. This is coupled with the damage, or performance criteria but has been broken out
for the purposes of this report and NCHRP Synthesis 440. Next generation bridge columns,
often referred to as novel columns, are improving as a tool for engineers to control both the
structural analysis, as the make-up of the material changes the inelastic behavior, and the
element performance of bridges in higher seismic hazards. The energy-dissipating benefits of
low damage materials—such as ultrahigh-performance concrete (UHPC), engineered cementi-
tious composites (ECC), and shape memory alloy, fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) wraps and
tubes, elastomeric bearings, and post-tensioned strands or bars—can be utilized by engineers
to improve seismic performance and life-cycle costs after a significant seismic event. Recent
(Saiidi et al. 2017) studies tested various combinations of these materials to determine if there are
columns that can be built with these materials that are equivalent to, or better than, conventional
reinforced concrete columns (in terms of cost, complexity, and construction duration) but that
improve seismic performance, provide greater ductility, reduce damage, and accommodate a
quicker recovery time and reduce loss in both the bridge and the economic environment.

Accelerated bridge construction is also a fast-developing field in bridge engineering, with

draft guide specifications for design and construction currently being developed for adop-
tion by AASHTO for AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO 2014). ABC has
economic impacts that go beyond seismic engineering, but research is focusing on details and
connections for accelerated construction in higher seismic regions, moving two research paths
forward at the same time. Tazarv and Saiidi (2014) incorporated ABC research with novel
column research to evaluate combined novel column materials that can be constructed quickly.
The research focused on the performance of materials and how to incorporate them into practice.
Key mechanical properties of reinforcing SMA were defined as follows:
• Observed yield strength (fyo) is the stress at the initiation of nonlinearity on the first cycle of
loading to the upper plateau.
• Austenite modulus (k1) is the average slope between 15% to 70% of fyo.
• Post yield stiffness (k2) is the average slope of curve between 2.5% and 3.5% of strain on the
upper plateau of the first cycle of loading to 6% strain.
• Austenite yield strength (fy) is the stress at the intersection of line passing through origin with
slope of k1 and line passing through stress at 3% strain with slope of k2.
• Lower plateau inflection strength (fi) is the stress at the inflection point of lower plateau
during unloading from the first cycle to 6% strain.
• Lower plateau stress factor, β = 1 – (fi/fy).
• Residual strain (eres) is the tensile strain after one cycle to 6% and unloading to 1 ksi (7 MPa).
• Recoverable super-elastic strain (er) is maximum strain with at least 90% strain recovery
capacity. Using the ASTM standard for tensile testing, er ≤ 6%.
• Martensite modulus (k3) is the slope of the curve between 8% to 9% strain, subsequent to
one cycle of loading to 6% strain, unloading to 1 ksi (7 MPa) and reloading to the ultimate
stress.
• Secondary post-yield stiffness ratio, α = k3/k1.
• Ultimate strain (eu) is strain at failure.
A graphical representation is shown in Figure 9, and minimum and expected mechanical
properties are listed in Table 3.
Other researchers, such as at the University of Washington, are currently testing grouted bars
using conventional grouts and finding that these development lengths can be reduced greatly.
However, it is the force transfer of the grouted duct to the reinforcing outside the duct that may
Figure 9. NiTi SE SMA nonlinear

model.

Table 3. Minimum expected reinforcing NiTi SE SMA mechanical properties.
Tensile Compressive,
Parameter
Minimuma Expectedb Expectedb
require additional length to adequately develop the energy-dissipating or capacity-protecting

system that was intended by the designer for performance of the bridge in a high seismic event.
Tazarv and Saiidi (2014) identified other material properties such as UHPC and ECC,
shown in Tables 4 and 5, respectively.
Tazarv and Saiidi (2014) also addressed grouted splice sleeve couplers, self-consolidating
concrete (SCC), and other connection types that could be used in ABC and novel column
configurations, testing these materials in the laboratory to see if various combinations produced
a logical system to be carried forward in research, design, and implementation.
Trono et al. (2015) studied a rocking post-tensioned hybrid fiber-reinforced concrete
(HyFRC) bridge column that was designed to limit damage and residual drifts and that was
tested dynamically under earthquake excitation. The column utilized post-tensioned strands,
HyFRC, and a combination of unbonded and headed longitudinal reinforcement.
There have been two projects related to the field of novel columns and ABC through the
National Cooperative Highway Research Program. One project was NCHRP Project 12-101,
which resulted in NCHRP Report 864, 2 volumes (Saiidi et al. 2017), and the other project
was NCHRP Project 12-105, which resulted in NCHRP Research Report 935 (Saiidi et al. 2020).
NCHRP Project 12-101 identified three novel column systems—specifically, SMA and ECC,
ECC and FRP, and hybrid rocking column using post-tensioned strands and fiber-reinforced
Table 4. UHPC mechanical properties.
Properties Range Equation

20 to 30 ksi, A time-dependent equation for UHPC
Compressive Strength (f'UHPC)
(140 to 200 MPa) strength is available.
0.9 to 1.5 ksi,
Tensile Cracking Strength (ft,UHPC) ft,UHPC = 6.7 f'UHPC (psi)
(6 to 10 MPa)
6000 to 10000 ksi,
Modulus of Elasticity (EUHPC) EUHPC = 49000 f'UHPC (psi)
(40 to 70 GPa)
Poisson’s Ratio 0.2
(5.5 to 8.5)x10-6/°F,
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
(10 to 15)x10-6/°C
Creep Coefficient* 0.2 to 0.8
(0.04 to 0.3)x10-6/psi,
Specific Creep*
(6 to 45)x10-6/MPa
Total Shrinkage** up to 900x10-6
*Depends on curing conditions and age of loading.
**Combination of drying shrinkage and autogenous shrinkage and depends on curing method.

Table 5. ECC mechanical properties.
Properties Range
Compressive Strength 3 to 14 ksi (20 to 95 MPa)
First Crack Strength 0.4 to 1.0 ksi (3 to 7 MPa)
Ultimate Tensile Strength 0.6 to 1.7 ksi (4 to 12 MPa)
Ultimate Tensile Strain 1 to 8%
Modulus of Elasticity 2600 to 5000 ksi (18 to 34 GPa)
Flexural Strength 1.5 to 4.5 ksi (10 to 30 MPa)
polymer confinement—and compared them to a conventional reinforced column. The research

and properties of the material are provided; incorporating laboratory tests and calibration,
design examples are created to help engineers understand how to use these advanced materials
in a linear elastic seismic demand model and to determine performance using a pushover
analysis. It is worth noting that ductility requirements do not accurately capture the perfor-
mance capabilities of these novel columns, and drift ratio limits are being used instead, similar
to the building industry. NCHRP Project 12-101 also provided evaluation criteria that can be
evaluated and incorporated by AASHTO into a guide specification or into AASHTO Guide
Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (AASHTO 2011) directly.
NCHRP Project 12-105 synthesized research, design codes, specifications, and contract
language throughout all 50 states and combined the knowledge base and lessons learned for
ABC into proposed guide specifications for both design and construction. This work focused on
connections, and most of that information is related to seismic performance of ABC elements
and systems. Earthquake resisting elements (ERE) and earthquake resisting systems (ERS) are
specifically identified, defined, and prescribed for performance in AASHTO guide specifica-
tions (AASHTO 2011) but only implicitly applied in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
(AASHTO 2014). Since NCHRP Project 12-105 is applicable to both of these design resources,
ERE and ERS are discussed in terms of how to apply performance to the force-based seismic
design practice of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO 2014). The proposed
guide specification language also identifies when performance of materials have to be incor-
porated into the design, say in higher seismic hazards, and when it is acceptable to apply ABC
connections and detailing practices with prescriptive design methodologies.
As the industry’s understanding of performance increases, the engineering industry is accepting
the benefits that come from a more user-defined engineering practice that is implemented by
identifying material properties; evaluating hazards and soil and structural responses; and verifying
performance through strain limits, damage limits states, moment curvature, displacements, and
ductility. These tools and advancements in ABC and novel column designs, including other
material property performance and analytical methodologies, are allowing PBSD to advance in
other areas, such as hazard prediction, loss prediction, and the owner decision-making process.
Feng et al. (2014a) studied the application of fiber-based analysis to predict the nonlinear
response of reinforced concrete bridge columns. Specifically considered were predictions of
overall force-deformation hysteretic response and strain gradients in plastic hinge regions. The
authors also discussed the relative merits of force-based and displacement-based fiber elements
and proposed a technique for prediction of nonlinear strain distribution based on the modified
compression field theory.
Fulmer et al. (2013) developed a new steel bridge system that is based upon ABC techniques
that employ an external socket to connect a circular steel pier to a cap beam through the use of
grout and shear studs. The resulting system develops a plastic hinge in the pipe away from the
column-to-cap interface. An advantage of the design is ease of construction, as no field welding

is required: the two assemblies are placed together and the annular space between the column
and cap filled with grout. Figure 10 shows the details of this connection, and Figure 11 shows
a test of the system.
Another system being investigated is isolation bearings or dampening devices. Xie and
Zhiang (2016) investigated the effectiveness and optimal design of protective devices for the
seismic protection of highway bridges. Fragility functions are first derived by probabilistic
seismic demand analysis, repair cost ratios are then derived using a performance-based methodol-
ogy, and the associated component failure probability. Subsequently, the researchers tried to
identify the optimal design parameters of protective devices for six design cases with various
combinations of isolation bearings and fluid dampers and discussed the outcomes.
Damage mitigation through isolation and energy dissipation devices is continually improving
based on research, development, and implementation in the field. Recent events within the
State of Washington, Alaska, and other state agencies have shown that the benefits of these tools
can be compromised if the intended performance cannot be sustained for the 75-year design
life of the structure. Mackie and Stojadinovic (2015) outlined performance criteria for fabrica-
tion and construction that need to be administered properly, and engineers should consider
the effects of moisture, salts, or other corrosive environmental conditions that can affect the
performance of the isolation or energy-dissipating system.
Another constraint with these systems can be the proprietary nature that occurs as a specific
isolation or energy-dissipating system is utilized to develop a specific performance expectation
that can only be accomplished with the prescribed system. This proprietary nature of these
systems can create issues for certain funding sources that require equal bidding opportunities
and the project expense that can accompany a proprietary system. To address this type of design
constraint, Illinois DOT has been developing an earthquake-resisting system (ERS) to leverage
the displacement capacity available at typical bearings in order to provide seismic protection to
substructures of typical bridges. LaFave et al. (2013a) identified the effects and design parameters,
5"
Pipe 24x0.500 UT 100%

45°
A A 3
8"
1 2'-0"
24"
Grout Provided By 4 at 5"
and Placed by NCSU O.C.
4 at 5" O.C.
HSS16x0.500 1'-11"
Offset Studs Inside
Pipe from
Typ. 30° Cap Beam CL 2 21 "- 43 "Ø Shear Studs
15° Pipe Stud Detail
12 Studs Spaced Around

Cross Section
A-A Connection Details

Source: Fulmer et al. (2013).
Figure 10. Grouted shear stud bridge system.

Source: Fulmer et al. (2013).
Figure 11. Photograph of completed system before

seismic testing showing hinge locations.
such as fuse capacity, shear response, and sliding response, which can be used to account for more
standard bearing configurations in seismic analysis, especially lower seismic hazard regions.
A variation on the use of bearings in order to improve seismic performance of a pier wall
configuration was outlined in Bignell et al. (2006). Historically, pinned, rocking, and sliding
bearings have been used with interior pier walls and steel girder superstructures. These bearing
configurations were compared with replacement elastomeric bearing configurations and details
for structural analysis techniques, damage limit states, and structural fragility, and performance
through probability distributions were utilized as a PBSD process for determining solutions
to seismic isolation and enhanced seismic performance. The foundation conditions, pier wall
effects, bearing type, and even embankment effects to structural performance were included in
this evaluation.
Another approach to enhanced performance is modifications to foundation elements or
increased understanding and modeling of soil–structure interaction, specifically where lateral
spread or liquefaction design conditions make conventional bridge design and elements imprac-
tical. One example of this is the seismic design and performance of bridges constructed with
rocking foundations, as evaluated in Antonellis and Panagiotou (2013). This type of rocking
goes beyond the loss of contact area currently allowed in the guide specifications. The applica-
tion of columns supported on rocking foundations accommodates large deformations, while
there is far less damage, and can re-center after large earthquakes. Another approach is to tie
a tolerable displacement of an individual deep foundation element to a movement that would
cause adverse performance, excessive maintenance issues, or functionality problems with the
bridge structure. Roberts et al. (2011) established a performance-based soil–structure–interaction
design approach for drilled shafts.
Chiou and Tsai (2014) evaluated displacement ductility of an in-ground hinging of a fixed
head pile. Assessment formulas were developed for the displacement ductility capacity of a
fixed-head pile in cohesion-less soils. The parameters in the formulas included the sectional
over-strength ratio and curvature ductility capacity, as well as a modification factor for consider-
ing soil nonlinearity. The modification factor is a function of the displacement ratio of the pile’s
ultimate displacement to the effective soil yield displacement, which is constructed through a
number of numerical pushover analyses.

Damage Analysis
As stated in NCHRP Synthesis 440, it is a fundamental need for the PBSD methodology to
determine the type of damage and the likelihood that such damage will occur in the particular
components of the structural system. This determination is of vital importance, as the damage
sustained by a structure (and its nonstructural components) is directly relatable to the use or loss
of a system after an earthquake. Therefore, there is a need to be able to reliably link structural
and nonstructural response (internal forces, deformations, accelerations, and displacements) to
damage. This is the realm of damage analyses, where damage is defined as discrete observable
damage states (e.g., yield, spalling, longitudinal bar buckling, and bar fracture). Although the
primary focus of the discussions is on structural components, similar considerations must
be made for nonstructural components as well.
NCHRP Synthesis 440 outlined an initial discussion on types of structural damage observed
during historic earthquakes and laboratory experiments, prefaced the methods that have been
developed to predict damage, identified structural details and concepts that could be used
to reduce damage even in strong ground shaking, and reviewed post-event inspection tools.
The new materials discussed in previous sections also apply to this discussion but are not
repeated herein.
Accurate damage prediction relies upon accurate definitions of performance limit states at
the material level (i.e., strain limits) and the corresponding relationship between strain and
displacement. Examples of recent research follow.
Research by Feng et al. (2014b, 2014c) used finite element analysis validated by experimental
test results to develop a model for predicting the tension strain corresponding to bar buckling.
The model considers the impact of loading history on the boundary conditions of longitudinal
bar restraint provided by the transverse steel.
Goodnight et al. (2016a) identified strain limits to initiate bar buckling based on experimental
results from 30 column tests (Equation 2). Following additional bidirectional tests on 12 columns,
Equation 2 was revised to Equation 3. In addition, strain limit state equations were proposed for
the compression strain in concrete to cause spiral yielding (Goodnight et al. 2017a).
Goodnight et al. (2016b) also developed a new plastic hinge length model based on the
data collected during those tests, which accounts for the actual curvature distribution in
RC bridge columns. The revised model separates the strain penetration component from the
flexural component while also recognizing that the hinge length for compression is smaller
than that for tension.
Brown et al. (2015) developed strain limit state (Equation 4) (tube wall local buckling) and
equivalent viscous damping equations for reinforced concrete filled steel tubes (RCFSTs).
The recommendations of the authors were based upon reversed cyclic tests of 12 RCFSTs
of variable D/t (diameter to thickness) ratios.
f yhe P
εs bar
buckling = 0.03 + 700ρs − 0.1 (2)
Es f ce′ Ag
f yhe P
εs bar
buckling = 0.032 + 790ρs − 0.14 (3)
Es f ce′ Ag
D
ε tension buckling = 0.021 − ≥ εy (4)
9100t

where
rs = reinforcement ratio,
fyhe = expected yield strength of the steel tube (ksi),
Es = elastic modulus of steel (ksi),
P = axial load (kip),
f ce′ = expected concrete strength (ksi),
Ag = gross area of concrete (in.2),
D = diameter of tube (in.),
t = thickness of tube (in.), and
ey = yield strain for steel (in./in.).
Loss Analysis
The PBSD combines the seismic hazard, structural, and damage analysis into a performance
matrix that can be estimated into a loss metric. There are many loss metrics that can be used
by, and that are important to, stakeholders and decision makers (discussed in detail in NCHRP
Synthesis 440), but all these metrics can be boiled down to three main categories: deaths, dollars,
and downtime.
Bertero (2014) discussed earthquake lessons, in terms of loss, to be considered in both design
and construction of buildings. At the beginning of 2010, two large earthquakes struck the
Americas. The January 12, 2010, Haiti earthquake with a magnitude 7.0 produced about
300,000 deaths (second by the number of fatalities in world history after the 1556 Shaanxi,
China earthquake). A month later, the February 27, 2010, Maule Chilean earthquake with
a magnitude 8.8 (an energy release 500 times bigger than that from the Haiti earthquake)
produced 500 deaths, most due to the resulting tsunami. However, the Chilean earthquake
caused more than $30 billion of direct damage, left dozens of hospitals and thousands of schools
nonoperational, and caused a general blackout for several hours, as well as the loss of service of
essential communications facilities, crucial to take control of the chaotic after-earthquake situ-
ation. Bertero (2014) compared the severity of both earthquakes and comments on their effects
to life and the economy of the affected countries, as well as the features of the seismic codes or
the absence of codes.
An example of risk analysis with PBSD is utilized in Bensi et al. (2011), with the development
of a Bayesian network (BN) methodology for performing infrastructure seismic risk assessment
and providing decision support with an emphasis on immediate post-earthquake applications.
A BN is a probabilistic graphical model that represents a set of random variables and their
probabilistic dependencies. The proposed methodology consists of four major components:
(1) a seismic demand model of ground motion intensity as a spatially distributed random
field, accounting for multiple sources and including finite fault rupture and directivity effects;
(2) a model for seismic performance of point-site and distributed components; (3) models of
system performance as a function of component states; and (4) models of post-earthquake
decision making for inspection and operation or shutdown of components.
The use of the term Bayesian to describe this approach comes from the well-known Bayes rule,
attributed to the 18th-century mathematician and philosopher Thomas Bayes:
Pr ( AB ) Pr ( B A )
Pr ( A B ) = = Pr ( A ) (5)
Pr ( B ) Pr ( B )
Pr(AB) is the probability of joint occurrence of Events A and B; Pr(A) is the marginal
probability of Event A; Pr(A|B) is the conditional probability of Event A, given that Event B

has occurred; and Pr(B) is the marginal probability of Event B. The quantity Pr(B | A) is known
as the likelihood of the observed Event B. Note that the probability of Event A appears on
both sides of Equation 5. The Bayes rule describes how the probability of Event A changes
given information gained about the occurrence of Event B.
For discrete nodes, a conditional probability table is attached to each node that provides the
conditional probability mass function (PMF) of the random variable represented by the node,
given each of the mutually exclusive combinations of the states of its parents. For nodes
without parents (e.g., X1 and X2 in Figure 12), known as root nodes, a marginal probability
table is assigned.
Figure 12.
A simple BN. The joint PMF of all random variables X in the BN is constructed as the product of the
conditional PMFs:
p ( x ) = ∏ i =1 p ( x i Pa ( x i ))
n
(6)
Bensi et al. (2011) goes on to introduce BN models further and discusses how to incorporate
BN-based seismic demand models into bridge design. The BN methodology is applied to
modeling of random fields, construction of an approximate transformation matrix, and numer-
ical investigation of approximation methods, including a discussion on the effect of correlation
approximations on system reliability. Modeling component performance with BNs to capture
seismic fragility of point-site components and distributed components, as well as modeling
system performance of BNs with both qualitative and conventional methods, is explained.
This reference goes on to identify efficient minimal link set (MLS), minimal cut set (MCS)
formulations, optimal ordering of efficient MLS and MCS formulations, and heuristic augmen-
tation that can be utilized with the BN methodology.
Bensi et al. (2011) continues the PBSD process by addressing the owner decision-making
process (see more discussion later in the report) and how to incorporate this model into that
process. Two example problems are provided utilizing this methodology, including a California
high-speed rail system that incorporates the bridge modeling into the example.
Similarly, in Tehrani and Mitchell (2014), the seismic performance of 15 continuous four-
span bridges with different arrangements of column heights and diameters was studied using
incremental dynamic analysis (IDA). These bridges were designed using the Canadian Highway
Bridge Design Code provisions (CSA 2006). The IDA procedure has been adopted by some
guidelines to determine the seismic performance, collapse capacity, and fragility of buildings.
Similar concepts can be used for the seismic assessment of bridges. Fragility curves can be devel-
oped using the IDA results to predict the conditional probability that a certain damage state
is exceeded at a given intensity measure value. Assuming that the IDA data are lognormally
distributed, it is possible to develop the fragility curves at collapse (or any other damage state)
by computing only the median collapse capacity and the logarithmic standard deviation of the
IDA results for any given damage state. The fragility curves can then be analytically computed
using Equation 7 as follows:
 ln ( x ) − ln ( SaC50% ) 
P ( failure Sa = x ) = Φ   (7)
 β TOT 
where
function F = cumulative normal distribution function,
SCa 50% = median capacity determined from the IDA, and
bTOT = total uncertainty caused by record-to-record variability, design requirements,
test data, and structural modeling.

The seismic risk associated with exceeding different damage states in the columns, includ-
ing yielding, cover spalling, bar buckling, and structural collapse (i.e., dynamic instability) was
predicted. Some simplified equations were derived for Montreal, Quebec, Canada, to estimate
the mean annual probability of exceeding different damage states in the columns using the IDA
results.
Repair and retrofit procedures are linked to loss predictions, as outlined in the FHWA’s retro
fitting manual (Buckle et al. 2006). Several chapters/articles address analysis, methodologies,
effects, analytical tools, and costs for retrofit and repairs to mitigate damage or return a structure to
a serviceable condition. Zimmerman et al. (2013) is one example, in which numerical techniques
and seismic retrofit solutions for shear-critical reinforced concrete columns was investigated,
utilizing test data of a reinforced concrete column with widely spaced transverse reinforcement.
The study focused on the analysis method of nonlinear trusses and the retrofit option known
as supplemental gravity columns, which is an example of how loss prediction and the analysis
process are linked and should be iterated through PBSD.
Organization-Specific Criteria for Bridges

and Project-Specific Criteria
NCHRP Synthesis 440 has two sections of criteria: organization-specific criteria for bridges
and project-specific criteria. New information for both of these sections since NCHRP Synthesis
440 published is combined.
The California DOT (Caltrans)

Caltrans is currently updating their Seismic Design Criteria (SDC) to specify requirements to
meet the performance goals for newly designed Ordinary Standard and Recovery Standard con-
crete bridges. Nonstandard bridges require Project-Specific Seismic Design Criteria, in addition
to the SDC, to address their nonstandard features. For both standard and nonstandard bridges,
Caltrans is also categorizing their inventory in terms of Ordinary Bridges, Recovery Bridges, and
Important Bridges.
Some states have had issues with terms like Important or Essential, as a bridge is considered
important to those that utilize each bridge. Caltrans is using these terms to correlate with loss
analysis of an owner’s infrastructure and the time to reopen the bridge to support lifeline and
recovery corridors. The bridge performance is also evaluated using a dual-seismic hazard; for
Caltrans SDC they are listed as a Safety Evaluation Earthquake (SEE) for Ordinary Bridges.
Both SEE and Functional Evaluation Earthquake (FEE) for Recovery Bridges are summarized
in Table 6.
Caltrans SDC revisions will also provide updates to the design parameters in Chapter 3 of the
SDC and updates to both the analysis methods and displacement ductility demand values in
Chapter 4 of the SDC. The adjustments to the displacement ductility demand values are revised
to limit the bridge displacements beyond the initial yielding point of the ERE, specifically
if a recovery standard bridge is being designed. The revisions to their SDC is an example of
how PBSD is being gradually introduced as a better method of dealing with the hazards,
soil–structure interaction, analysis tools, methodologies, material properties, damage states,
performance, and loss.
Similar revisions are being made to Seismic Design Specifications of Highway Bridges, as detailed
in Japan Road Association (JRA) revisions in 2012. A synopsis of the revisions is provided in
Kuwabara et al. (2013). The JRA specifications apply to Japanese road bridges and consist of
five parts: Part I, Common; Part II, Steel Bridges; Part III, Concrete Bridges; Part IV, Substruc-
tures; and Part V, Seismic Design. The revisions are based on improvements in terms of safety,

Table 6. Caltrans draft proposed seismic design bridge

performance criteria.
BRIDGE SEISMIC HAZARD POST EARTHQUAKE EXPECTED POST

CATEGORY EVALUATION LEVEL DAMAGE STATE EARTHQUAKE
SERVICE LEVEL
Source: Caltrans.
serviceability, and durability of bridges. Based on those lessons, design earthquake ground
motions corresponding to the subduction-type earthquake were revised, and the requirements
for easy and secure maintenance (inspection and repair works) for the bridges were clearly
specified. JRA has clarified their performance of ERE conventionally reinforced columns for a
dual-level (SPL 2 and SPL 3) seismic performance evaluation, as summarized in Table 7.
The JRA 2012 revisions also address connection failures between reinforced concrete steel
piles and the pile-supported spread footing to improve structural detailing and performance at
the head of the piles. This is similar to research performed by the University of Washington,
see Stephens et al. (2015) and Stephens et al. (2016) for both Caltrans and Washington State DOT,
respectively, to evaluate capacity protecting this region and even considering the development
of plastic hinges at these locations for combined hazard events or large lateral spreading and
liquefaction occurrences.
Caltrans also funded a study by Saini and Saiidi (2014) to address probabilistic seismic
design of bridge columns using a probabilistic damage control approach and reliability analysis.
Table 7. Seismic performance of bridge and limit states of conventionally

reinforced concrete bridge column.
SPL2 SPL3
Note: SPL1: Fully operational is required. Limit state of bridge is serviceability limit state. Negligible structural damage
and nonstructural damage are allowed.

Table 8. Design performance levels.
Damage State Service Service to Emergency Design Earthquake Levels (Years)

(DS) to Emergency Repair Damage Index
Public (DI)
Note: O-ST = ordinary standard bridge, O-NST = ordinary nonstandard bridge, Rec. = recovery bridge,
Imp. = important bridge, and NA = not applicable.
The probabilistic damage control approach uses the extent of lateral displacement nonlinearity
defined by Damage Index (DI) to measure the performance of bridge columns. DI is a measure of
damage from the lower measure of zero damage to the ultimate measure of a collapse mecha-
nism for an element that has been subjected to base excitations. The performance objective
was defined based on predefined apparent Damage States (DS), and the DS were correlated
to DIs based on a previous study at the University of Nevada, Reno (Figure 13) (Vosooghi
and Saiidi 2010).
A statistical analysis of the demand damage index (DIL) was performed to develop fragility
curves (load model) and to determine the reliability index for each DS. The results of the reliability
analyses were analyzed, and a direct probabilistic damage control approach was developed to
calibrate design DI to obtain a desired reliability index against failure. The calculated reliability
indices and fragility curves showed that the proposed method could be effectively used in seismic
design of new bridges, as well as in seismic assessment of existing bridges. The DS and DI are
summarized with performance levels defined by Caltrans in Table 8, which shows the correlation
between DS and DI. Figure 14 shows a fragility curve using lognormal distribution. Figure 15
shows both the fragility curves (upper two graphs) and reliability indices (lower two graphs) for
four column bents (FCBs), with 4-foot diameter columns that are 30 feet in length in Site D
for both the 1000 year and 2500 year seismic events.
P (DI { DS)
DI
Figure 13. Correlation between DS and DI.

Figure 14. Fragility curve.
The Oregon DOT

The Oregon DOT is developing a global plan for addressing resiliency in order to improve
recovery for the next Cascadia Earthquake and Tsunami, using PBSD in terms of applying
applicable hazards, identifying critical services, developing a comprehensive assessment of
structures and systems, and updating public policies. The resilience goals are similar to those
discussed at the beginning of this chapter, with the following statement:
Oregon citizens will not only be protected from life-threatening physical harm, but because of risk
reduction measures and pre-disaster planning, communities will recover more quickly and with less
continuing vulnerability following a Cascadia subduction zone earthquake and tsunami.
100% 100%
80% 80%
60% 60%
P (DIL)
P (DIL)
40% 40%
20% 20%
0% 0%
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
DIL DIL
(a) (b)
6.0
4.0
5.0
Reliability Index | DS
Reliability Index | DS
3.0
4.0
3.0 2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.0 0.0
DS3 DS4 DS5 DS6 DS3 DS4 DS5 DS6
Damage State (DS) Damage State (DS)
(c) (d)
Figure 15. Fragility curves and reliability indices for FCBs with 4-foot columns in Site D.

Source: OSSPAC (2013).
Figure 16. Cascadia earthquake timeline.
Research has shown that the next great (magnitude 9.0) Cascadia subduction zone earth-
quake is pending, as shown in Figure 16. This comparison of historical subduction zone
earthquakes in northern California, Oregon, and Washington covers 10000 years of seismic
history. The evidence of a pending event has made decision makers and the public take notice
and put forth resources to develop strategies revolving around PBSD.
Oregon’s performance-based features are modified from NCHRP Synthesis 440 to account
for a third hazard condition: Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake (CSZE) in Oregon DOT’s
Bridge Design and Drafting Manual—Section 1, Design (Oregon DOT 2016a; see also Oregon
DOT 2016b). Design of new bridges on and west of US 97 references two levels of perfor-
mance criteria: life safety and operational. Design of new bridges east of US 97 requires life
safety criteria only. Seismic design criteria for life safety and operational criteria are described
as follows.
• “Life Safety” Criteria: Design all bridges for a 1,000-year return period earthquake (7 percent prob-
ability of exceedance in 75 years) to meet the “Life Safety” criteria using the 2014 USGS Hazard Maps.
The probabilistic hazard maps for an average return period of 1,000 years and 500 years are available at
ODOT Bridge Section website, but not available on USGS website. To satisfy the “Life Safety” criteria, use
Response Modification Factors from LRFD Table 3.10.7.1-1 using an importance category of “other.”
• “Operational” Criteria: Design all bridges on and west of US 97 to remain “Operational” after a full
rupture of Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake (CSZE). The full-rupture CSZE hazard maps are
available at the ODOT Bridge Section website. To satisfy the “Operational” criteria, use Response
Modification Factors from LRFD Table 3.10.7.1-1 using an importance category of “essential.” When
requested in writing by a local agency, the “Operational” criteria for local bridges may be waived.
The CSZE is a deterministic event, and a deterministic design response spectrum must
be generated. To allow for consistency and efficiency in design for the CSZE, an application
for generating the design response spectra has been developed by Portland State University
(Nako et al. 2009).
AASHTO guide specifications values for Table 3.4.2.3-1 are modified into two tables for
(1) values of Site Factor, Fpga, at zero-period on the acceleration spectrum and (2) values of
Site Factor, Fa, for short-period range of acceleration spectrum. Table 3.4.2.3-2 is replaced with
values of Site Factor, Fv, for long-period range of acceleration spectrum.
For seismic retrofit projects, the lower level ground motion is modified to be the CSZE with
full rupture, as seen in Table 9. Performance levels, including performance level zero (PL0),
are specified based on bridge importance and the anticipated service life (ASL) category
required.

Table 9. Modifications to minimum performance levels for retrofitted bridges.
BRIDGE IMPORTANCE
and
EARTHQUAKE
SERVICE LIFE CATEGORY
GROUND MOTION
The South Carolina DOT

South Carolina Department of Transportation (South Carolina DOT) has updated its geo-
technical design manual (South Carolina DOT 2019). Chapters 12, 13, and 14 for geotechnical
seismic analysis, hazard, and design, respectively, have been updated to current practices and
research, including incorporation of PBSD hazard prediction. South Carolina DOT is also
updating their site coefficients to be more appropriate for South Carolina’s geologic and seismic
conditions; see Andrus et al. (2014). Note that with the revisions, South Carolina DOT issued a
design memorandum in November 2015 that revised the substructure unit quantitative damage
criteria (maximum ductility demand) table (Table 7.1 of the SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications
for Highway Bridges). See Table 10.
The Utah DOT

The Utah DOT and Brigham Young University (see Franke et al. 2014a, 2014b, 2015a, 2015b,
2015c, 2016) are researching the ability for engineers to apply the benefits of the full performance-
based probabilistic earthquake analysis without requiring specialized software, training, or
education. There is an emphasis on differences between deterministic and performance-based
procedures for assessing liquefaction hazards and how the output can vary significantly with
these two methodologies, especially in areas of low seismicity.
Guidance is provided regarding when to use each of the two methodologies and how to bind
the analysis effort. Additionally, a simplified performance-based procedure for assessment
of liquefaction triggering using liquefaction loading maps was developed with this research.
The components of this tool, as well as step-by-step procedures for the liquefaction initiation
and lateral spread displacement models, are provided. The tool incorporates the simplified
performance-based procedures determined with this research.
National Highway Institute

Marsh et al. (2014) referenced a manual for the National Highway Institute’s training course
for engineers to understand displacement-based LRFD seismic analysis and design of bridges,
which is offered through state agencies and open to industry engineers and geotechnical engi-
neers. This course helps designers understand the principles behind both force-based AASHTO
(AASHTO 2014) and displacement-based AASHTO (AASHTO 2011) methodologies, including
a deeper understanding of what performance means in a seismic event. Other similar courses
are also being offered to industry and are improving the understanding of practicing engineers.
Federal Emergency Management Agency

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed a series of design
guidelines for seismic performance assessment of buildings and three of the five documents

Table 10. South Carolina DOT substructure unit quantitative

damage criteria (maximum ductility demand ld).
Bridge Design Operational Classification (OC)

Systems Earthquake
Note: Analysis for FEE is not required for OC III bridges.

Source: South Carolina DOT (2015).
are referenced in FEMA (2012a, 2012b, 2012c). A step-by-step methodology and explanation
of implementation are provided for an intensity-based assessment and for a time-based assess-
ment. The process of identifying and developing appropriate fragility curves is demonstrated.
A software program called Performance Assessment Calculation Tool has also been developed
with a user manual that is included in the FEMA documents to help engineers apply PBSD to
the building industry.
Japan Road Association

The Japan Road Association (JRA) Design Specifications have been revised based on the
performance-based design code concept in response to the international harmonization of
design codes and the flexible employment of new structures and new construction methods.
Figure 17 shows the code structure for seismic design using the JRA Design Specifications.
The performance matrix is based on a two-level ground motion (Earthquakes 1 and 2), with the
first one based on an interpolate-type earthquake and magnitude of around 8, and the second
one with a magnitude of around 7 with a short distance to the structure.
Kuwabara et al. (2013) outlined the incremental revisions from the JRA Design Specifi
cations between 2002 and 2012. These revisions include, but are not limited to, the ductility
design method of reinforced concrete bridges, plastic hinge length equation, evaluation of
hollow columns, and the introduction of high-strength steel reinforcement. Following the
2016 earthquake in Kumamoto, Japan, a new version of the JRA Design Specifications is in
the works.

Overall Goals Objectives

of Codes
Mandated
Functional Requirements Principles of Specifications
(Basic Requirements) Seismic Design
Importance, Loads,
Design Ground Motion,
Performance Limit States
Requirement Level Principles of Performance Verification
Verifications of Seismic Performances Can be Modified or

Verification Methods (Static and Dynamic Verifications) May be Selected with
and Evaluation of Limit States of Members Necessary Verifications
Acceptable Solutions (RC and Steel Columns, Bearings, Foundations
and Superstructure)
Unseating Prevention Systems
Figure 17. Code structure for seismic design using JRA design specifications.
Identification of Knowledge Gaps

The resources to develop guide specifications for PBSD are improving with examples such as
the upcoming Seismic Design Criteria, Version 2 from Caltrans, which will address aspects of
PBSD and the building industry’s efforts to develop practices in PBSD and tools for engineers
and owners to collaborate on solutions based on performance criteria and expectations. There
is still a perception that the bridge industry could better predict likely performance in large,
damaging earthquakes than is being done at the present, and there are still gaps in that
knowledge base that need to be closed. Most of the knowledge gaps listed in Marsh and Stringer
(2013) are still applicable today; see Table 11.
The technology readiness levels represent what has been developed and used; what research
is done, ongoing, and being discussed; and what only exists in concept. Knowledge gaps
certainly exist in all facets of PBSD; however, other key knowledge gaps beyond those listed
in NCHRP Synthesis 440 (Marsh and Stringer 2013) that should be closed in order to improve
the implementation of PBSD are covered.
Table 11. Technology readiness levels for PBSD.
Technology Readiness Level (TRL) % of Development Complete

TRL Description 0-25 25-50 50-75 75-100
1 PBSD concept exists
2 Seismic hazard deployable
3 Structural analysis deployable
4 Damage analysis deployable
5 Loss analysis deployable
6 Owners willing and skilled in PBSD
7 Design guidelines
8 Demonstration projects
9 Proven effectiveness in earthquake

Gaps related to structural analysis can include minimum and expected properties for
reinforcing greater than Grade 80, stainless steel, and other materials that can improve
serviceability and in some conditions performance. Oregon DOT has been using stainless
steel in their bridges located along the coastline and other highly corrosive environments
to extend the service life of the bridge; however, many of these locations are also prone
to large CSZE and the use of these materials in earthquake resisting elements is still being
developed.
In the State of Washington’s resiliency plan, outlined in Washington State Emergency
Management Council–Seismic Safety Committee (2012), what is missing is a link between
damage levels and return to service. This is a knowledge gap given what we know structurally
and what this report is suggesting as a desired goal for post-earthquake recovery.
Gaps related to decision makers can include bridge collapse. It is not intended that the
PBSD guide specifications will address tsunami events, but the JRA specifications do address
tsunami as well as landslide effects. Figures 18 and 19 are examples of these other types of
failure systems and show the collapse of bridges caused by effects other than ground motion
(Kuwabara et al. 2013).
The decision to combine these types of effects with a seismic hazard, even combining
liquefaction, down drag, and lateral spreading effects, needs additional clarification and is
currently left up to the owner to assess implications of probability, safety, and cost ramifications.
Liang and Lee (2013) summarized that in order to update the extreme event design limit states in
the AASHTO 2014, combinations of all nonextreme and extreme loads need to be formulated on
the same probability-based platform. Accounting for more than one-time variable load creates
a complex situation, in which all of the possible load combinations, even many that are not
needed for the purpose of bridge design, have to be determined. A formulation of a criterion to
determine if a specific term is necessary to be included or rejected is described, and a comparison
of the value of a given failure probability to the total pre-set permissible design failure probability
can be chosen as this criterion.
Source: Kuwabara et al. (2013).
Figure 18. Collapse of bridge due to landslide.

(Note: Reprinted courtesy of the National Institute
of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of
Commerce. Not copyrightable in the United States).

Source: Kuwabara et al. (2013).
Figure 19. Collapse of bridge due to tsunami.

(Note: Reprinted courtesy of the National Institute
of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of
Commerce. Not copyrightable in the United States).
While the seismic hazard definition was once thought to be relatively well understood, there
is a growing knowledge gap related to the effect of rotation angle on intensity of ground motions
and how the use of a geometric mean of the motions, or other methods of including the effect of
rotation angle (RotDxx), should be incorporated into seismic design. This issue is not specific
to PBSD; like all seismic design methods, PBSD is reliant on a full understanding of the hazard
definition for proper implementation.
The knowledge gaps identified in NCHRP Synthesis 440 are still applicable. Many of these
knowledge gaps will become evident to both engineers and decision makers as the PBSD
guidelines are developed. Overall, the baseline information to develop PBSD guide specifica-
tions are in place. Industry’s end goal of understanding the relationship between risk-based
decision making and design decisions and methodologies to meet performance goals is going to
be an iterative process.

CHAPTER 3
Development of the AASHTO

Guidelines for Performance-Based
Seismic Design
Goals of PBSD
The motivation behind PBSD is to provide bridge owners and designers with a better way
to influence the performance of a bridge during an earthquake. The current provisions of the
AASHTO guide specifications provide for only one level of performance, that of life safety at a
single-hazard level. For a variety of reasons, including the importance of a bridge to post-event
recovery, economic impacts resulting from closure, and the cost of repair or replacement after
an earthquake, owners need more options for specifying bridge performance objectives at
various seismic hazard levels and designers need guidance how to achieve these goals in a
reliable way. Satisfying these two requirements is the purpose of PBSD.
Full PBSD allows owners and designers to make informed decisions using metrics beyond
engineering-based strains, rotations, and displacements. Such metrics would be based on
impacts and risks to the public and stakeholders that include direct and indirect losses, cost of
construction, cost of repair, and estimates of downtime.
To achieve the goal of full PBSD, the designer must be able to characterize the
1. Seismic hazard at the site for a range of potential ground motions due to the tectonic setting,
geology, and topography of the region;
2. Structural response of the bridge to this response;
3. Potential damage to the bridge due to these motions, which may be nonlinear and inelastic; and
4. Potential for loss in terms of time, agency resources, regional economy, or human injury.
With the ability of the designer to move from earthquake ground shaking through structural
response to loss, decisions can be made regarding the level of structural resistance that must be
provided to achieve a potential loss limit state. As with nonseismic loading, it would be ideal to
characterize the process from loading through to loss in a fully probabilistic manner. However,
the state of the art and the state of the practice are not yet sufficiently advanced to address
PBSD probabilistically, and thus deterministic methods were used in this project. Likewise,
the state of the art for linking engineering design parameters (EDPs) to loss metrics such as
construction and repair costs, downtime, and injuries, is immature and was not included in the
methodology described to achieve PBSD. Nevertheless, the introduction of improved EDPs for
a range of desired performance is a significant step forward toward implementation of PBSD.
But full PBSD is out of reach at this time.
While some owners and agencies may have advanced knowledge and techniques to apply
probabilistic methods more completely than those used in this report, the research team
recognizes that this document must be nationally applicable to all bridge types. It is a fact
that the techniques for structural design and damage evaluation are not evenly advanced
for all bridge, substructure, and foundation types. Certainly, reinforced concrete substructure
37

design and evaluation is the most complete methodology, the most widely used, and the type
closest to full probabilistic design, as seen by the work Caltrans is now advancing in their latest
seismic design criteria. However, a full probabilistic methodology is not universally ready for
deployment in a nationwide fashion.
Steps to Achieve PBSD

The first step to implementing PBSD is to define the levels of performance desired and
provide guidance to owners on when each level of performance would be appropriate. In the
methodology proposed as follows, three performance levels are specified.
• Life Safety is the lowest level of performance, in which the potential for bridge collapse is
minimized during an earthquake but perhaps requires replacement afterward. Since the life
safety level has served as the basis for many of AASHTO’s legacy seismic provisions, the team’s
understanding of the relationship between performance and design parameters at this level
is mature.
• Operational is an intermediate level of performance, in which the bridge is damaged but
accessible by emergency vehicles and reparable with or without restrictions on traffic flow.
This performance level presents the greatest challenge in terms of converting the performance
objective into required design parameters.
• Fully Operational is the highest level of performance proposed herein, in which full use of
the bridge is expected immediately following an earthquake. None of this should be taken
to mean that an inspection to determine the condition of a bridge post-event will not be
required to determine whether a bridge is adequate for emergency or other traffic. Keeping a
structure essentially elastic by adding strength can provide this level of performance, as can
other approaches such as use of seismic isolation.
Adding strength alone may not provide protection for ground motions that are larger than
the upper level motions. As a consequence, minimum detailing for ductility should be provided
even in designs that are essentially elastic. The next step in PBSD is to link performance expec-
tations to bridge operational category and earthquake ground motion level.
Three operational categories are recommended and include Critical, Recovery, and Ordinary.
These terms are intended to replace the operational categories in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications, which uses Critical, Essential, and Other to describe, in decreasing order, the
operational categories of bridges. In addition, two ground motion levels are proposed. These
are a lower level motion and an upper level motion, with return periods of approximately
100 and 1000 years, respectively. These motions and their definitions are consistent with those
recommended in the FHWA’s Retrofitting Manual for Highway Structures: Part 1—Bridges
(Buckle et al. 2006).
Seismic design categories (SDC) are then used to link performance objectives to operational
categories and ground motion by defining appropriate design requirements. Five SDCs are
recommended, with A-D identical to A-D in the guide specifications and E a new category
that has been added for essentially elastic design.
A summary of the preceding key elements in PBSD is given in Table 12. These elements
are then used to build a framework for PBSD as shown in the flowchart in Figure 20. This
methodology comprises 12 major steps, which are further described in a subsequent section
of the report.
While the process mapped in Figure 20 is linear, iteration may be required at many of the
steps shown. Such iteration may be local (within a particular step) or global (involving two or

Development of the AASHTO Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design 39
Table 12. Basic elements in performance-based design of bridgesa

(Guidelines Table 3.0-1).
Element No. Description Table No.

Bridge Operational 3 Critical Table 13
Categories Recovery
Ordinary
Performance Levels 3 PL1: Life Safety Table 14, Table
and Associated PL2: Operational 15, and Table 16
Damage Descriptors PL3: Fully Operational
and Engineering
Design Parameters
Earthquake Ground 2 Lower Level (100 years) Table 17
Motion Levelsb Upper Level (1000 years)
Seismic Hazard Levels 4 I, II, III, IV Table 18
Seismic Design 5 A1, B1-2, C1-3, D1-3, and E1-2 Table 19, Table 20
Categories
a
To the extent possible, methodology is compatible with AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD
Seismic Bridge Design and the FHWA’s Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Structures: Part 1—
Bridges (Buckle et al. 2006).
b
Selection of 100 years and 1000 years for the return periods of the lower- and upper-level ground
motion is discussed in Step 3 of Article 3.1 of the AASHTO guidelines.
more steps). In addition, iteration between the geotechnical and structural engineers will be
required in many of these steps.
It is intended that this methodology be as comprehensive as possible within the constraints
of the current state of the art. Further, it is intended that the methodology be applicable to the
same family of bridge types, configurations, geometries, and materials covered by the guide
specifications. In addition, the framework of the methodology is applicable to bridges not
covered by these specifications (such as suspension bridges) provided modifications are made
to its implementation on a case-by-case basis.
Since adoption is not mandatory, owners and designers will have the freedom to enhance or
modify or simplify the process to suit local conditions and policies.
Operational Categories
The research team developed alternative terminology for the operational categories from
that given by the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. The current wording in AASHTO
LRFD uses Critical, Essential, and Other to describe in decreasing order the operational categories
of bridges. These terms have caused confusion in the past, as the order of importance between
Critical and Essential is difficult to determine. As an alternative, the team developed the terms
Critical, Recovery, and Ordinary to replace them, as shown in Table 13. The Critical category
is retained. Essential is replaced with Recovery, as the term is more descriptive of why the
bridge is important to the regional transportation network after an earthquake. The fact that
the bridge needs to play a role in the recovery of the region provides justification for a higher
performance level. Other is replaced with Ordinary, to better describe the function of the bridge.
This PBSD methodology uses two levels of ground motion to develop a bridge design.
Each level of ground motion has an associated performance level (PL) coupled with an input
seismic hazard and is thus “performance based.” Each operational category is composed of
two ground motion levels: a lower one with an average return period of 100 years and an upper
one with an average return period of 1000 years. There are three basic performance levels: PL1 or

Figure 20. Flowchart of basic steps in framework for PBSD of bridges

(GM = ground motion) (Guidelines Figure 3.0-1).

Table 13. Bridge operational categories (Guidelines Table 3.1-1).
Category Description
Critical Open to all traffic immediately following the upper and lower level Motions.
Usable by emergency vehicles and for security/defense purposes after an
earthquake larger than the upper level motion.
Recovery As a minimum, open to emergency vehicles and for security/defense purposes
immediately following the upper and lower level motions.
Ordinary May be closed following the upper level motion, but no span is expected to
collapse during this motion. As a minimum, open to emergency vehicles and
for security/defense purposes immediately following the lower level motion.
Life Safety, PL2 or Operational, and PL3 or Fully Operational. Additionally, as seen in Table 14,
the three operational categories have increasing performance for each motion level and each
operational category. For example, the ordinary bridge category requires life safety performance
(PL1) for the upper event. In contrast, a bridge in the critical category would require fully opera-
tional performance (PL3) in both the lower level and upper level events.
It is also important to realize that PBSD does not necessarily imply that a two-level earth-
quake event methodology be used. A single-event methodology may be performance based
as long as performance and damage are linked to the EDPs. A two-level seismic-event method-
ology simply indicates that the owner or the authority having jurisdiction requires that the
bridge performance for two different ground motion levels be considered in the design. Such
a requirement is based on the notion that potential losses are best controlled with a two-level
approach. Thus, many PBSD methodologies are two level, although multi-level design is not
fundamentally a necessity for PBSD.
Another facet of the methodology described in this report for the three operational categories
is the use of 100 year and 1000 year motion levels. It is entirely plausible and reasonable that
an owner or authority having jurisdiction could specify larger events for either of the two levels.
The intent of this report is to provide a flexible framework that designers and owners can use
to improve seismic performance, and other earthquake motion levels may be used based on the
owner’s preferences and needs, some of which may be based on cost, so long as basic life safety
performance is met at the 1000 year level, as required by AASHTO LRFD.
Performance Levels
The performance level for each ground motion is determined based on bridge operational
category. See Table 14.
Table 14. Assignment of performance level based on operational category

Bridge Operational Category

Ground Motion Critical Essential Other
Lower Level PL3 PL3 PL3
(100 years) Fully Operational Fully Operational See note below
Upper Level PL3 PL2 PL1
(1,000 years) Fully Operational Operational Life Safety
Note: If a bridge is located on a site where the hazard level is III or IV for the lower level ground motion and
requiring Fully Operational performance (essentially elastic behavior as specified for PL3 in Table 16) would
place an unreasonable burden on the design, owner may reduce the performance level to PL2. In this case,
yield must be expected in the columns, and demand and capacity assessment requirements should be as in
Table 21 for PL2 and not as in Step 10 of the AASHTO guidelines.

Table 15. Performance levels and associated damage descriptors

Performance Levels
PL1: Life Safety PL2: Operational PL3: Fully Operational
Significant damage is sustained during Damage sustained is No damage (or very minor
an earthquake and service is significantly minimal and access for damage that does not require
disrupted, but the potential for collapse is emergency vehicles is immediate attention) is
minimized. The bridge may need to be available after inspection sustained and full service is
replaced after a large earthquake. and clearance of debris. available for all vehicles
Bridge should be immediately after the
reparable with or without earthquake.
restrictions on traffic flow.
Significant damage includes permanent Minimal damage includes Very minor damage consists
offsets and cracking. Exposed, buckled, minor inelastic response of minor cracking of concrete,
and possibly some fractured reinforcing and narrow flexural possible incipient crushing or
steel. Repair may be possible but will cracking in concrete. flaking of concrete cover.
require invasive measures that may Exposed reinforcing steel,
include column replacement. At a but not visibly buckled.
minimum, reinforcing bar segments are Damage requires repair
replaced or plastic hinge relocation using minimally invasive
techniques employed, if repair is techniques that range from
attempted. Beams may be unseated simple patching of cover
from bearings, but no span is expected concrete and epoxy
to collapse. Similarly, foundations are not injection to steel jackets.
damaged except in the event of large Permanent deformations
lateral flows due to liquefaction, in which are not apparent, and
case inelastic deformation in piles may repairs can be made under
be evident. Undesirable failure modes nonemergency conditions
such as shear failure in reinforced with the possible exception
concrete are avoided. of superstructure
expansion joints, which
may need removal and
replacement.
The research team adjusted the performance level for the lower level event, in order to
better align with past practices and limit the burden on designers and owners as much as
possible. The simplest approach was to set the performance level as PL3 Fully Operational
for all bridges at the lower level event. This would allow for simplified elastic demand analyses
and elastic demand to capacity ratio checks for this level of event, regardless of where a bridge
is located.
For certain locations within the United States, the hazard level, even at the reduced return
period of the lower level event, may be such that achieving PL3 would be unduly burdensome
in terms of construction cost. In these cases, a lower performance level is appropriate, with the
trade-off that more rigorous demand analyses and capacity assessment methods are required.
In that case, the designer may use the table provided for the upper level motions to determine
the analysis and capacity methods to be used.
Definitions of each performance level and expected damage states are given in Table 15.
Damage levels have been taken from Hose and Seible (1999).
Engineering Design Parameters

A key component of the PBSD methodology is the development of the EDPs used to link
performance to design decisions. A significant amount of effort has gone into the development
of the parameters, as previously presented, and as repeated in Table 16. As discussed in this
section, the EDPs include both strain and displacement limits.

Table 16. Performance levels and potential engineering design parameters

Performance Level
Engineering PL3: Fully

Design PL1: Life Safety PL2: Operational
Operational
Parameters
Reinforcement f yhe P
tensile strain limit ε s bar
buckling 0.032 790 s 0.14 εs 0.8 εs bar
< 0.010
a,b
(RC Column) Es f ce' Ag buckling
Concrete
compressive fyh εsu f yh εsu
1.4 0.004 1.4 0.004 1.4
v v
εc εc < 0.004
strain limit (RC f 'cc f 'cc
Column)
Steel tube tensile D

strain limit < 0.025 εs 0.021 εy ε
(RCFST) 9100 t
Concrete
compressive
NA NA NA
strain limit
(RCFST)
Superstructure-to-
abutment vertical No limit < 9” < 1”
offset
Superstructure-to-
abutment No Limit < 6” < 1”
horizontal offset
Approach fill
1/50 < 1/100 < 1/250
settlement limitc
Lateral
flow/spread limit Site Specific Evaluation Required < 12” < 6”
due to liquefaction
Note: This table provides recommended strain limits for common bridge element types. The table is not intended to be exhaustive
with respect to bridge element types. For element EDPs not included in the table, the designer in concurrence with the owner
and peer review may develop project-specific EDP criteria. See Article 6.1, “Strain Limits,” of the AASHTO guidelines for further
background on this table. NA = not applicable for RCFST.
a ε s bar
buckling is the tension strain in the reinforcing steel that will result in bar buckling in compression during the following cycle of
seismic response. For definitions of the other variables in this table, refer to the Seismic Guide Specifications.
b Deterministic values are based on the median predictor for PL1. The reduced value for PL2 is based on a 20% probability of
initial bar buckling from the median predictor to create a higher standard of performance.
c
Approach fill settlement limits are defined in terms of vertical settlement versus horizontal distance of the approach slab
(i.e., 1:50 is 0.5 feet settlement over a 25-foot approach slab length). For further discussion of approach fill settlement limits,
see Article 6.3.3.1 of the AASHTO guidelines.
Strain Limits
The primary EDPs used to influence the performance of a bridge under seismic loadings are
strain limits. These were chosen over other possible parameters, such as ductility ratios or drift
ratios, because they appear to be more directly tied to key performance limits. Strains do require
some effort on the part of the designer to calculate; however, these calculations predominantly
involve manipulation of analysis results and do not require additional analyses. The under-
standing of how strains are related to various damage states in reinforced concrete columns is
relatively advanced.

Table 3.1-4 (Table 16) of the proposed AASHTO guidelines details the strain limits for each
performance level. The key values presented relate to the design of reinforced concrete columns,
as these are the predominant construction type used in bridge design in high seismic areas.
The strain limits shown for various performance levels in Table 16 should be considered
ranges, with the deterministic values shown representing median values for the performance
level under consideration. For example, when considering the fully operational concrete
compressive strain limit, some structural members may exhibit crushing at values below or
above this limit. Irrespective of the actual value, once cover concrete exhibits crushing, it should
be repaired to ensure long-term serviceability. However, such repair does not impact the
immediate operation of the structure.
Life Safety Performance Level

The tensile strain limit for reinforcing steel in reinforced concrete is a simplified version
of the model presented in Goodnight et al. (2017b). The intent of this limit is to prevent bar
fracture by limiting the tensile strain in the reinforcing steel to that of incipient bar buckling.
The tensile strain limit will almost always control over the compressive strain limit. The concrete
compressive strain limit is based upon the Mander model and includes a 1.4 factor to address
known conservatism in the equation to define compressive strain capacity.
Figure 21 illustrates various limit states for seismic design using a pushover curve for a
reinforced concrete column. This differs slightly from the limit states used in the AASHTO
Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, and these correspond to the tensile strain
limits and the concrete compressive strain limits given in Table 16. The data in this appendix
also correspond to the limits described in Appendix A posted with this report, which may be
found by searching on NCHRP Research Report 949.
The limits 0 to 4, shown in Figure 21, are described as follows:
• 0 is the onset of spalling of the cover concrete, taken deterministically as an extreme fiber
compressive strain of 0.004. Additionally, a column should not require any repair if the
deformations remain below the spalling limits.
Figure 21. Various limit states in a column

undergoing elastoplastic deformation
[Guidelines Figure 6.1.1-1].

Figure 22. Incipient buckling limit state

(Guidelines Figure 6.1.1-2).
• 1 is the first yield of the transverse steel. The location on the pushover curve of this limit state
depends on transverse steel content, axial load, and curvature demand.
• 2 is the incipient buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement, and this corresponds to the
tensile strain limit given in Table 16. At this point of deformation, bar buckling is just begin-
ning to occur, and generally this buckling is not readily visible to human eye, although it has
been determined in the experimental work of Goodnight et al. (2017b) through the use of
highly accurate optical instruments. Physically, this point corresponds to incipient buckling
of longitudinal reinforcement after a previous deformation in the opposite direction that
induced inelastic tensile strains in the same bars. See Figure 22. This point does not correspond
to a limit state in the SGS. Determination of this point requires the use of a limiting tensile
strain along with a specific tensile plastic hinge length that has been calibrated to the experi-
mental data set that the researchers used. This tensile hinge length is used solely to establish
Limit 2, as shown in Figure 21. Repair of a column whose maximum deformation is between
spalling and incipient buckling should generally be restricted to epoxy injection of cracks and
patching of damaged cover concrete.
• 3 is the lower-bound compression strain limits as given by the well-established Mander
confined concrete model as used in the SGS, and as also given in Table 16. The lower-bound
compression limit state is that value given for PL2, which has a coefficient of 1.0 multiplying
the strain limit. The physical basis for this strain limit is shown in Figure 23, where axial load
is applied concentrically to a reinforced concrete column. The limit corresponds to crushing
of the confined concrete of the core, and this limit is based on the assumption that the strain
energy required to fracture the transverse steel equals the strain energy stored in the core when
this failure occurs. The calculation of the limits is based on semi-empirical consideration of
experimental data.
The lower-bound compressive strain limit was used with the SGS to be conservative since a
bar buckling prediction method did not exist at the time the SGS was developed.
Columns that have been loaded above the incipient buckling limit but that have not
reached the lower-bound compressive limit may be repaired with external jacketing. How-
ever, consideration should be given to the possibility of damage to the transverse steel and
Figure 23. Mander confined

compression strain limit state.

longitudinal steel. This damage state is not entirely definable by strain limits alone, and each
column may need a case-by-case assessment of damage.
• 4 is the upper-bound compressive strain limit, which is also based on the Mander model. This
limit uses the same basic strain equation as Limit 3, except that a coefficient of 1.4 is applied
to the limit. With both bar buckling and compressive concrete strains specified, as in this
report, it is appropriate to increase the concrete compressive limit for PL1 by the 1.4 factor.
Columns that have been deformed above the lower-bound compressive strain limits may
require extensive reconstruction or replacement due to damage to both the transverse and
longitudinal reinforcement.
The pushover curve for a bridge column or pier is determined using the compressive plastic
hinge length, which is the same as that used in the SGS, and by this method a complete pushover
curve is developed. Then the tensile strain limit, along with the tensile plastic hinge length, is
used to determine the displacement at which the tensile strain limit will be reached. The capacity
of the bridge column or pier is then controlled by the limit that is reached first, incipient buckling
(tensile strain limit) or confined-concrete crushing (compressive strain limit).
Example pushover curves for two column diameters (48-in. and 60-in.), two axial loads
(1,000 kips and 2,000 kips), two longitudinal steel ratios (1% and 2%), and three transverse steel
ratios (0.3%, 0.5%, and 0.8%) are shown in Figures 24 and 25. Note that the 0.3% and 0.5%
transverse steel ratios are the lower limits of transverse steel currently specified in the SGS for
SDC B and C, respectively.
In these figures, the SGS implicit equations for displacement capacity are shown super
imposed on the curves for reference. Also for reference, the limiting concrete compressive strain
limit is the same as that in the SGS, and this corresponds to the limit for PL2 in this report. The
tensile limit in the following plots are for PL1, and these limits are shown with a blue diamond.
Thus, the curves provide a reference point for the new tensile limit for PL1 compared with the
life safety limit state of the SGS.
When compared with the SGS displacement capacities, it can be seen that for the higher
axial loads, incipient bar buckling (tensile strain limit) generally controls over the compressive
strains. For the lower axial loads, incipient bar buckling and the compressive crushing limits
are generally closer to one another. If the higher crushing limits (1.4x factor) were used to
generate a new PL1 set of pushover curves, then the new tensile strain limits would generally
control for the lower axial loads.
For RCFSTs, the steel tensile strain limit corresponds to the observed fracture strain of
RCFST systems (Brown et al. 2015).
Operation Performance Level

The tensile strain limit for reinforcing steel in reinforced concrete is based upon the statistical
data obtained from the Goodnight et al. (2017b) model, in which less than 10% of reinforcing
bars are expected to buckle, which works out to be about 80% of the limit at the life safety
performance level. The concrete compressive limit is based upon the Mander model.
For RCFSTs, the steel tensile strain limit corresponds to a value that, if exceeded, results in
tube buckling upon reversal (Brown et al. 2015). The limit is a function of diameter to thickness
ratio of the tube.
Fully Operational Performance Level

The strains listed at this level are those approaching the limit where cover concrete crushing
may occur, reinforcing bars have likely yielded, but residual crack widths are small (less than
1 mm) and do not require repair (or require very minor repair).

Figure 24. Pushover curves for 48-in. diameter columns (Source: Goodnight et al. 2017a).
Translating Limit State Strains to Member Deformations

The limiting strains defined for the EDPs will need to be interpreted in terms of member
deformations. This assessment will depend on whether reinforced concrete (RC) bridge
columns or RC pier walls are being considered.
RC Bridge Columns (All Limit States)

For reinforced concrete, if the plastic hinge method is used to establish a corresponding
displacement limit, the appropriate tension or compression hinge lengths in Goodnight et al.
(2017b) should be employed as follows. The tension hinge length is only used to translate a limit
state curvature at a tensile strain limit to lateral deformations. The compression hinge length is
used for everything else, including overall force versus deformation response and translation of
curvatures at compressive limit states to lateral deformations.
Lsp = αfyedbl Equivalent Strain Penetration Length
α = 0.15 for ksi and α = 0.022 for MPa units
 fue 
k = 0.2  − 1 ≤ 0.08 Moment Gradient Coefficient
 f ye 

Figure 25. Pushover curves for 60-in. diameter columns (Source: Goodnight et al. 2017a).
Lpc = kLc + Lsp ≥ 2Lsp Rectangular Compressive Hinge Length

Lpt = Lpc + γD Rectangular Tension Hinge Length
γ = 0.4 for bidirectional loading and γ = 0.33 for unidirectional
loading
Note that for simplicity, the 0.4 value in the tension hinge length for bidirectional loading
is recommended, since it is rare to have unidirectional ductility demands. As the preceding
equations indicate, the tension hinge length is simply the compressive hinge length plus 0.4x
the diameter for circular sections.
RC Pier Walls (All Limit States)

The following expressions for the plastic hinge length for walls should be used if limit state
displacement based upon the limit state strains is calculated (Paulay and Priestley 1992):
2
he = hw Effective Height
3
Lp = k • he + 0.1lw + LSP Plastic Hinge Length

 fu 
k = 0.2  − 1 ≤ 0.08 Factor for Plastic Hinge Length
 fy 
LSP = 0.15fye • dbl Strain Penetration Length
Approach Fill Rotation and Displacement Limits

An EDP also needs to be developed to represent relative movement between the approach
fill and the bridge abutment. Rather than defining limiting strains, this EDP is defined in terms
of rotations and permanent displacements that occur between the abutment and the fill. The
displacements can be either in the form of permanent settlement or horizontal displacement.
The definition of approach fill settlement is shown in Figure 26, in which the settlement rotation
limit is given as the vertical displacement of the approach divided by the approach length.
Limits on vertical and lateral movement are identified in Table 16. The allowable displace-
ments between the approach fill and an abutment were established by considering both
rideability and foundation capacity requirements for the specified seismic performance level.
Relative settlement between the approach fill and an abutment was identified as the primary
consideration for rideability, while permanent horizontal movement of the approach fill and
an abutment was identified as the primary consideration for meeting foundation capacity
requirements. Although the settlement and lateral movement mechanisms represent a single
composite response of the approach fill and the bridge abutment, the settlement and lateral
movement evaluations are typically decoupled for convenience. The following subsections
provide the basis for the displacement identified for the PL1, PL2, and PL3 performance limits.
Settlement Limits
The settlement limits for abutments are shown in terms of angular distortions. This angular
distortion was defined by the relative settlement between the approach fill and the bridge abut-
ment. Usually an approach slab with a length of 25 feet to 30 feet will provide the transition.
Where no approach slab is used, the discussion of geometric offsets (Article 2.4.4 of the AASHTO
guidelines) applies.
settlement
Approach Fill Settlement =
Figure 26. Definition of approach fill settlement.

For a pile-supported abutment, the distortion results from the settlement of the fill and the
underlying soil during or following seismic shaking. Normally, the pile-supported abutment
would be assumed to undergo negligible settlement during the seismic event. For abutments
supported on spread footings, the angular distortion would be caused by densification of
material forming the approach fill, as well as any relative settlement of the abutment because
of its imposed loads. Soil beneath the spreading footing below the approach fill and the footing
would normally be assumed to be equal.
Settlement is assumed to result from the densification that takes place in loose granular
soils located above the groundwater or from liquefaction and subsequent dissipation of excess
pore-water pressures located below the groundwater table. Various methods are available for
estimating settlement of the soil. These include empirical relationships for liquefied soils devel-
oped by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) and by Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992), cone penetrometer
test methods recommended by Zhang et al. (2004), or through laboratory testing methods.
Amounts of settlement estimated by these methods depend on the density of the cohesion-less
soils, the level of induced shear stress and strain during the seismic event, and the thickness of the
liquefiable layers. For dry soils, approaches developed by Silver and Seed (1971), Youd (1972),
and Pyke et al. (1975) have been used. Factors affecting the settlement of dry sand include
relative density, shear stress or strain amplitude, and layer thickness. Most fills above the water
table have been compacted as part of approach fill construction, and therefore the most signifi-
cant concern occurs where abutment fills are supported on liquefiable soils. These settlements
can be estimated using procedures noted above.
The settlement limits for the PL1, PL2, and PL3 performance levels in Table 16 were developed
using conclusions from NCHRP Web-Only Document 245: Bridge Superstructure Tolerance to
Total and Differential Foundation Movements (Moon et al. 2017). These results are presented
in terms of support movement, where the support settles relative to the adjacent piers or to the
approach slab at the abutment. Tolerable movements for ride quality are rotations less than 1/250.
Guidance is provided for both simple and continuous spans in NCHRP Web-Only Document 245.
For the seismic case given in Table 16, the approach fill settles relative to the abutment; however,
the same angular rotation applies.
NCHRP Web-Only Document 245 defined the angular rotation limits consistent with require-
ments in the current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. These limits are applicable for
PL1, the life safety performance level in AASHTO. Under this level of differential movement,
acceptable performance for gravity loading is assumed to occur. This recommendation means
that for full operations (PL3) of the bridge following a seismic event, an angular rotation at
the abutment of <1/250 could occur and still be within the guidance set in NCHRP Web-Only
Document 245. In other words, as long as the angular rotation is less than this amount, full
operations would be allowed, consistent with current AASHTO guidance. With this inter
pretation, angular rotations for the PL1 and PL2 performance limits would be higher, since these
limits are for life safety and limited use. Allowable rotations of 1/50 and 1/100 were identified
for PL1 and PL2, respectively, based on the assumption that any use of the bridge would be
limited to emergency vehicles and speed would be controlled. For a typical 25-foot long
approach slab, the relative movement between the approach fill and the abutment would be
approximately 1 in., 3 in., and 6 in. for the PL3, PL2, and PL1, respectively, based on the perfor-
mance limits identified in Table 16.
The recommended angular rotation assumes that all settlement occurs within and below the
approach fill and the deep foundations supporting the abutment do not settle during the seismic
event. If the abutment is supported on spread footings, then the relative movement is between the
base of the spread footing and the top of the approach fill. In either case, the geotechnical engineer
would use current empirical, numerical, or test data to estimate the amount of relative movement.

If the interior bents for the bridge are also supported on spread footings, the allowable move-
ment in terms of angular rotation of the footing relative to adjacent bents can be estimated using
the methodology in NCHRP Web-Only Document 245.
Lateral Displacement Limits

Lateral displacement of the approach fill can occur with or without liquefaction. This move-
ment occurs primarily during the seismic event because of inertial forces within the approach
fill. Normally, it is assumed that the bridge abutment moves with the displacing fill, even when
the abutment is supported on deep foundations. In this case, the passive earth pressure imposed
by the moving soil pushes the abutment and supporting piles outward to the free face of the fill.
Either of two methods can be used to estimate the lateral displacements of the approach fill:
(1) simplified pseudo-static slope stability evaluations in combination with Newmark-type
displacement methods or equations, or (2) numerical modeling with two-dimensional (2-D) or
three-dimensional (3-D) computer programs such as FLAC and Plaxis. Restraint provided by
piles penetrating through the approach fill, as well as reaction developed from diaphragm action
of the deck, tends to limit displacements and can be included in the model of the approach fill
and abutment, as described in NCHRP Report 472: Comprehensive Specification for the Seismic
Design of Bridges (ATC/MCEER 2002) and Lateral Spreading Analysis of New and Existing Bridges
(Shantz 2017).
Most cases of bridge damage from lateral soil movement have occurred at locations where the
approach fill is located on liquefiable soils. At these locations the liquefiable soil loses strength
and under the reduced strength, the approach fill deforms laterally either under gravity stresses
(flow failure) or inertial loading (lateral spreading). The abutment is assumed to move with the
sliding approach fill, resulting in bending stresses within the piles supporting the abutment.
Whether the amount of abutment movement that can be tolerated without damage to the piles
or collapse is a very site-specific assessment that depends on the depth and thickness of the
liquefiable layer in combination with the amount of lateral movement. A pile extending
through the liquefiable layer is restrained from movement below the liquefiable layer and
moves with the sliding mass above the liquefiable layer. Bending stresses within the pile will
depend on the distance over which liquefaction occurs. Movement is typically assumed to be
distributed over the thickness of the liquefiable layer plus one to two foundation diameters
above and below the top and bottom of the liquefiable layer. If the zone of liquefaction is small
and lateral movements are large, large curvatures will develop in the pile, which can be more
problematic than if the liquefiable layer is thick. This mechanism is discussed in the example
problems of NCHRP Report 472.
The limits on lateral movement of the abutment listed in Table 16 for PL2 and PL3 are based
on the fact that most piles can tolerate from several inches up to 12 in. of lateral movement,
regardless of pile configuration and soil profile. Even when there is a thin liquefiable zone,
concentration of a few inches of movement can be tolerated through redistribution of movement
into adjacent nonliquefied zone. A limit of 6 in. is defined for the PL3 performance limit state,
and doubling this is identified for the PL2 operational condition. In neither case will movements
likely be discernible. However, for the PL1 life safety limit condition, site-specific analyses are
required to define what amount of displacement could result in collapse of the bridge abutment
from buckling of the foundation support system, since the amount of allowable movement will
depend on a combination of the flexural stiffness of the piles, the thickness of the liquefied zone,
and the level of seismic loading. This assessment needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
The preceding discussions focus on abutments supported on deep foundations. Spread
footings are not recommended above liquefiable soils because of the potential for large lateral
movements from liquefaction, bearing failures from loss in soil strength, and post-earthquake

settlement. If ground improvement is used to limit the development of liquefaction, then the
potential for lateral movement can be evaluated using either simplified pseudo-static stability
analysis method with Newmark-type displacement estimates or by numerical modeling. In
some situations, the displacement of interior bents must also be considered if the zone of lateral
spreading or flow extends beyond the abutment. Again, either the simplified pseudo-static
stability analysis method with Newmark-type displacement estimates or numerical modeling
can be used to assess this condition.
Geometric Displacement Limits

Limits on the allowable residual geometric offsets between the superstructure and abutment
in the vertical and horizontal directions were established as part of the EDPs. For the Fully
Operational (PL3) performance level, a maximum vertical offset of 1 in. was specified. Because
this performance level requires the bridge to be available to normal traffic immediately follow-
ing the seismic event, the vertical offset needs to be small enough to not impair the flow of
traffic. Larger offsets may result in an impediment to high speed traffic, damage to vehicles,
and a potential hazard to motorcycle traffic.
The limit for horizontal offsets was set at 1 in., in order to prevent a snagging hazard from
developing at the barrier. Larger horizontal offsets would mean a significant protrusion might
develop at barrier transitions, which would be considered a safety hazard for normal traffic.
At the Operational (PL2) performance level, the offset limits were increased to 9 in. vertical
and 6 in. horizontal. These limits were developed based on the assumption that primarily emer-
gency vehicle traffic would be using the bridge immediately following the event, but that some
action might be required in order to allow normal traffic to use the bridge. The 9 in. dimension
is based on a curb height, which emergency vehicles could easily mount albeit at a slow speed.
A larger offset could be used but would require the vehicle slowing to nearly a stop. The horizontal
limit of 6 in. was somewhat more arbitrary. Because these are residual displacement limits,
for values much larger than 6 in., the dynamic displacements would probably have been large
enough to induce significant second order effects (P-delta), such that the 6 in. limit is likely the
practical maximum value that has any meaning.
For the Life Safety (PL1) performance level, no residual offset limits are provided. Since no
traffic is envisioned on the bridge after the event, no geometric limits are required.
Demand Analysis and Capacity Assessment Requirements

As the methodology was developed further, it became apparent that reliance on the seismic
design categories as defined in the Seismic Guide Specifications would not be sufficient to
adequately proscribe the types of demand analysis and capacity assessment needed. When
the highest performance level is specified, the structure may remain entirely in the elastic
range. However, if the hazard level is high, simplified demand analysis is likely insufficient to
adequately define the demand, in particular if capacity design principles are elected not to apply
(see the Capacity Design section). Another one of the goals of the research team was to preserve
a minimal requirement for analysis for very low hazard levels, even for performance levels,
which allows for extensive inelastic behavior at the upper level ground motion. In general,
it is deemed desirable for the PBSD procedures to roughly converge to the current SGS for
the Life Safety performance level in the lower seismic hazard zones.
The solution adopted was to define directly both the minimum demand analysis requirements
as well as the minimum capacity assessment method for each performance level and hazard
level. Furthermore, bridges were classified into three different groups based on the regularity

Table 17. Ground motion levels (Guidelines Table 3.1-5).
Probability of Exceedance Approximate Return Period
Lower Level Ground Motion 50% probability of exceedance

100 years
in 75 years
Upper Level Ground Motion 7% probability of exceedance in
75 years 1000 years
of the structural system, structure type, amount of nonlinear behavior expected in the soils,
and magnitude of the constructed value. These divisions are a step beyond what is currently
addressed in the Seismic Guide Specifications, but the research team thought this was needed
to ensure the appropriate level of analysis and assessment was applied for structures whose
behavior may be complex.
The guidelines rely on the methods of demand analysis and capacity assessment that have
been implemented in the Seismic Guide Specifications and LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,
as they have proved reliable and effective and will work equally well in the performance-based
framework. In addition, the direct displacement-based design method has been introduced in an
AASHTO document as an alternative approach to analysis and design. This method, which in a
strictly analytical form has been referred to as the substitute structure method, directly accounts
for the inelastic behavior of a structural system both in terms of a secant stiffness, as well as the
damping associated with inelastic deformations. The method can be cumbersome when applied
to multi-degree of freedom systems but avoids many of the inherent assumptions of elastic
methods that lead to less accuracy in results.
Seismic Hazard
The designer is directed to determine the need for site-specific hazard and site-specific ground
response analyses, in consultation with the owner. These site-specific analyses are typically more
accurate than national hazard maps because they are based on studies of local site conditions.
The decision to use site-specific analyses should primarily be based on (1) the operational
category of the bridge (a higher category equates to a more rigorous analysis) and (2) properties
of the soil profile at the bridge site. Both the upper and lower ground motion level shown in
Table 17 should be considered in the study.
For each return period in Table 17, a response spectrum is constructed using the appropriate
references to the AASHTO Guide Specifications for national hazard maps and site coefficients.
The seismic hazard level is then obtained using the spectral acceleration value (SD1), as shown
in Table 18.
Table 18. Seismic hazard levels

Hazard Level Value of S D1 = F V S 1

I S D1 < 0.15
II 0.15 < S D1 < 0.30
III 0.30 < S D1 < 0.50
IV 0.50 < S D1

Seismic Design Category

The Seismic Design Category (SDC) is determined according to Table 19 based on (1) the
required performance level, (2) the hazard level, and (3) the bridge attributes. The basic
requirements for each SDC are given in Table 20 for the upper and lower ground motion
levels. In addition, detailed requirements for the upper ground level motion are provided in
Table 21 and are a function of the bridge attributes in addition to the performance and hazard
levels. These attributes include the bridge geometry (regular or irregular), type (conventional
or unconventional), the soil (linear or nonlinear), liquefaction potential, and the value of
construction (low, moderate, or high).
Geoseismic Hazards and Liquefaction Assessment

In addition to normal site investigations necessary to determine the site class as described
in previous sections, the designer is directed to assess the potential for geoseismic hazards and
their associated impacts on bridge performance. Geoseismic hazards include
• Seismic-shaking-induced fill settlement and abutment displacements leading to excessive
bridge movement or even collapse, access problems, or structural damage;
• Seismic-induced excess pore-water pressures and liquefaction of saturated sands, non-
plastic silts, and gravels used for fills or serving as foundation soils that can contribute to
slope and abutment instability and lead to loss of foundation-bearing capacity and lateral
pile support;
• Down-drag forces on pile foundations due to seismic-induced ground settlement;
• Soil movement-induced lateral forces on foundations due to lateral spreading or ground
lurching; and
• Progressive degradation in stiffness and strength characteristics of saturated cohesion-less soil
and soft cohesive soils, resulting in changes in lateral support of deep foundations or loss
in bearing capacity of spread footings.
Table 19. Assignment of seismic design category based on performance

and hazard levels and bridge attributes (Guidelines Table 3.1-7).
Ground Motion Level, Performance Level, and Bridge Attributes
Hazard Level Lower Level Upper Level
PL3 PL1 PL2 PL3
Basic, Basic Basic

Basic and
Intermediate, Complex and Complex and Complex
Intermediate
and Complex Intermediate Intermediate
I E1 A1 C3 B2 C3 C3 b
II E2 B1 D2 C2 D2 D3 b
III C1 b D2 b D3 b
a
IV D1 b D2 b D3 b
Note: Sets of bridge attributes (i.e., Basic, Intermediate, and Complex) are described in Table 21 and further
elaborated in Step 8 of the AASHTO guidelines.
a
If a bridge is located on a site where the Hazard Level is III or IV for the lower level ground motion and requiring
fully operational performance (essentially elastic behavior as specified for PL3 in Table 16) would place an
unreasonable burden on the design, owner may reduce the performance level to PL2. In this case, yield must be
expected in the columns, and demand and capacity assessment requirements should be as in Table 21 for PL2
and not as in Step 10 of the AASHTO guidelines.
b Design requirements selected by owner on a case-by-case basis.

Table 20. Basic requirements for each seismic design category (Guidelines Table 3.1-8).
Ground SDC Requirements

Motion
A1 No identification of ERS required
No demand analysis
No implicit capacity check
No capacity design required, although connection strength should develop member strength
Minimum detailing for support length, super-substructure connection forces, column
transverse steel
B1 Identification of ERS required
Demand analysis required (equivalent static analysis)
Implicit capacity check required (SGS Equation 4.8.1-1) (displacement, P – Δ, support length)
Capacity design should be considered for column shear
SDC B level of detailing
B2 Identification of ERS required
Demand analysis required (Equivalent Static Analysis)
Capacity assessment required (demand capacity ratio) (displacement, P – Δ, support length)
Capacity design should be considered for column shear
SDC B level of detailing
Upper Liquefaction evaluation required
Level
C1 Identification of ERS required
Ground
Demand analysis required (elastic dynamic analysis)
Motion
Implicit capacity check required (SGS Equation 4.8.1-2) (displacement, P – Δ, support length)
Capacity design required including column shear requirement
SDC C level of detailing
Liquefaction evaluation required
Capacity assessment required (nonlinear static procedure) (displacement, P – Δ, support length)
SDC C level of detailing
Minimum detailing required despite essentially elastic behavior
D1 Identification of ERS required
Capacity assessment required (nonlinear static procedure) (displacement, P – Δ,
support length)
SDC D level of detailing
Upper Demand analysis required (elastic dynamic analysis)
Level Capacity assessment required (Nonlinear Static Procedure) (displacement, P – Δ,
Ground support length)
Motion Capacity design required including column shear requirement
SDC D level of detailing
Minimum detailing required despite essentially elastic behavior
E1 Demand analysis required (simplified method)
Lower Capacity assessment required (demand capacity ratio)
Level Liquefaction evaluation should be considered for certain conditions
Ground E2 Demand analysis required (equivalent static analysis)
Motion Capacity assessment required (demand capacity ratio)

Table 21. Demand analysis and capacity assessment requirements for upper level ground motion
Hazard Capacity
Bridge Attributesa Performance Level SDC Demand Analysisb
Level Assessmentc
Basic Life Safety, PL1 I A1 None Connection Strength Check
• Regular
II B1 Equivalent Static Analysis Implicit Method B
geometry
• Conventional III C1 Elastic Dynamic Analysis Implicit Method C
type
IV D1 Nonlinear Static Procedure
• Linear soils
• Low-to-moderate Operational, PL2 I B2 Equivalent Static Analysis Demand Capacity Ratio Method
value of
construction II C2 Elastic Dynamic Analysis Nonlinear Static Procedure
III-IV D2
Fully Operational, PL3 I C3 Elastic Dynamic Analysis Demand Capacity Ratio Method
II-IV D3
Intermediate Life Safety, PL1 I A1 None Connection Strength Check
• Irregular
II B1 Elastic Dynamic Analysis Implicit Method B
geometry
• Conventional III C1 Elastic Dynamic Analysis Implicit Method C
type
IV D1 Nonlinear Static Procedure
• Nonlinear soils
• Liquefaction Operational, PL2 I B2 Equivalent Static Analysis Demand Capacity Ratio Method
hazard
II C2 Elastic Dynamic Analysis Nonlinear Static Procedure
• Moderate-to-high
value of III-IV D2
construction
Fully Operational, PL3 I C3 Elastic Dynamic Analysis Demand Capacity Ratio Method
II-IV D3
Complex Life Safety, PL1 I C3 Elastic Dynamic Analysis Demand Capacity Ratio Method
• Irregular
II D2 Nonlinear Static Procedure
geometry
• Nonconventional III-IV d Nonlinear Response History Nonlinear Response History
type
Operational, PL2 I C3 Elastic Dynamic Analysis Demand Capacity Ratio Method
• Nonlinear soils
• Liquefaction II D2 Nonlinear Static Procedure
hazard
• High value of III-IV d Nonlinear Response History Nonlinear Response History
construction Fully Operational, PL3 I-IV d Linear Elastic Response Demand Capacity Ratio Method
History
a, b, c
See Steps 9 and 10 of the AASHTO guidelines for definitions of terms and explanation of methods.
d Design requirements selected by owner on a case-by-case basis.
The designer is directed to Articles 6.2 and 6.8 of the AASHTO Guide Specifications for the
geoseismic hazard evaluation and liquefaction assessment, respectively.
Earthquake Resisting Systems

It was found necessary to augment the list of earthquake resisting systems (ERS) currently
identified in the Seismic Guide Specifications in order to account for the type of systems that may
be employed to ensure the fully operational performance level. Type 0 was added to cover
those systems where essentially all of the structure is restricted to the elastic range of behavior.
Additionally, newly emerging systems such as those that utilize shape memory alloys are
grouped into ERS Type 4. By creating these two new ERS types, the guidelines will be better able
to ensure adequate requirements are specified, and unconservative results are avoided.

Capacity Design
There is an underlying assumption in the displacement-based seismic design methodology
utilized in the Seismic Guide Specifications that seismic loadings will control the design of the
main elements of the ERS and that inelastic behavior up to and beyond plastic hinge formation
will occur. This forms the basis of the capacity design philosophy, wherein the remaining
elements of the structure are proportioned to resist the maximum loads that can be developed
by the ERS. However, when the ERS is expected to remain essentially elastic even at the upper
level ground motions, proportioning the remainder of the structure for the full plastic capacity
of the ERS may require an impractically large set of design loads and a resulting design that
is excessively costly. This would seem to argue for the abandonment of capacity protection
principles when the structure is designed for elastic performance during the upper level ground
motions. However, a critical look at the performance of bridges during past earthquakes would
indicate that a certain amount of humility regarding the ability to predict the magnitude of
future events and the performance of the built environment when subjected to seismic motions
is in order.
This leads to two options: one, require at least some form of capacity protection even when
elastic performance is provided or, two, include an additional factor to account for uncertainties
that are normally covered by conservatism in the displacement capacities calculated and the
over-strength material factors used. The approach taken in the Guidelines is to strongly
encourage the adoption of the capacity protection philosophy and requirements of the Seismic
Guide Specifications even when elastic performance is targeted. If the designer chooses not to
utilize capacity protection design, then an additional factor of 1.5 is applied to the loads from
the demand analysis.
This factor is largely based on judgment. However, some rational basis should perhaps be
provided that could account for bridge size, importance, or some other attribute. Because many
major or significant bridges are often designed for project-specific criteria that may require
elastic response for a 2500 year return period ground motion, perhaps the factor should be
the ratio of the 2500 year site-adjusted 1-second spectral acceleration to that of the 1000 year
site-adjusted 1-second spectral acceleration. This will vary according to tectonic, geologic,
and topographic settings, but the intent would be to have enough capacity to withstand the
2500 year ground motion elastically if capacity protection is not used.
Design Examples
The proposed design examples were developed under Task 9. Because PBSD is an iterative
process and many of the key decisions can involve owner input and conflicting goals and priori-
ties, they were developed as if an actual design for a bridge were being conducted. The proposed
design examples include some nonlinear directionality to exhibit the expected path that PBSD
projects may take.
In addition to the design examples, a comparative study of a simple SDOF bridge structure
was undertaken to explore the reasonableness of the proposed methodology at sites across the
country, for representative column dimensions and loadings, and using traditional as well as
DDBD methods of analysis. This study is included with this report and titled Appendix A.

CHAPTER 4
AASHTO Seismic Map Update
Background Information
The current versions of both the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and the AASHTO
Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design use maps that are based on the 2002
U.S. Geological Survey seismic hazard modeling efforts, which are now considered out of date.
As detailed in the two specifications, both versions use a standard spectral shape and site
coefficients keyed to three mapped accelerations at 0.0 s (for PGA), 0.2 s, and 1.0 s to develop
the design spectrum for any location, as illustrated in Figure 27. The original scope for the
work in this phase was based on the use of the 2014 U.S. Geological Survey hazard model for
the new maps and the 2015 NEHRP site factors to account for the effects of soil on the seismic
hazards. However, there are some challenges associated with this approach. A new hazard
model, the 2018 model, has been developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and represents the
best understanding of the seismic hazard.
Based on a better understanding of site effects across the country, application of the 2015
NEHRP site factors would likely involve more sites that will require site-specific ground response
analyses than the previous site factors. Specifically, the updated NEHRP factors require perfor-
mance of site-specific analyses for higher spectral accelerations in Site Classes D and E, as well
as the previous requirement to conduct site-specific analyses for Site Class F. This represents a
significant increase in the amount of site-specific analysis over what was previously required.
The 2018 hazard model uses the current state of knowledge and includes significant advances
that have occurred in earthquake hazard modeling since the 2014 efforts. The advances involve
significant differences in the approach taken to the 2018 hazard model that will require consid-
eration by AASHTO before deciding on a path forward. These include
• A multi-period spectrum (22 periods) from 0 to 10 seconds is provided, rather than just
3 spectral periods. This allows direct application of the mapped values, rather than as input
to a pre-determined spectrum shape.
• Soil effects are directly included in the modeling, with input of the time-averaged shear wave
velocity in the upper 30 meters (Vs30), resulting in the appropriately modified spectrum
being supplied. The existing Site Classes A through E are further refined into a total of eight,
including three additional Site Classes BC, CD, and DE, plus Site Class F.
• Deep sedimentary basin effects are included for key areas that are strongly influenced by
these effects. This is especially important in the Pacific Northwest and Southern California.
• Updated attenuation models are included using the results of the NGA–East initiative, which
will be especially important in the central and eastern United States.
Figure 28 shows multi-period spectra for Salt Lake City for the refined site classes contained
in the 2018 hazard model. As opposed to the flat-topped spectra currently used and shown in
58

AASHTO Seismic Map Update 59
Figure 27. Current 3-period spectrum construction.
Figure 27, these spectra do not truncate the acceleration values in the region of peak spectral
accelerations.
Three main options were investigated for implementing updated mapping in the AASHTO
specifications. The first option would be to proceed as scoped and utilize the 2014 mapping
data and 2015 NEHRP site factors, including additional requirements for site-specific ground
response analyses. The second option would be to utilize the 2018 mapping data but keep the
3-period spectrum construction and the separate soil factors based on the 2015 NEHRP site
Figure 28. Multi-period spectra from the 2018 hazard model

for Salt Lake City.

classes. The third option would be to utilize the 2018 data with the multi-period spectra and
the soil effects built into the mapping data. Each option is more fully described as follows.
Option 1—2014 Hazard Model 3-Period Spectrum

Option 1 is a straightforward implementation of the 2014 hazard model, with updated site
factors based on the 2015 NEHRP efforts. The overall spectrum construction method remains
the same, and minimum updates to the specifications would be required. Figure 27 shows the
current 3-point spectrum method. However, the updated site coefficients come with increased
requirements for site-specific analyses due to an improved understanding that the coefficients
themselves can be unconservative for poorer soils. No basin effects are included and no NGA–
East attenuation models are included.
Option 2—2018 Hazard Model 3-Period Spectrum

Option 2 uses the 2018 hazard model, but only utilizes the same 3 periods of the spectrum as
current methods to construct the design response spectrum. The remainder of the 22 spectral
periods are not used. Otherwise, this option is the same as Option 1, using the 2015 NEHRP site
coefficients or site-specific ground response analyses to include the effects of local soil conditions.
Note that both Options 1 and 2 would need to be augmented with site-specific site response
analyses for many Site Class D and E sites. This is because the site coefficients do not appropri-
ately capture the response of poorer soils.
Option 3—2018 Hazard Model Multi-Period Spectra

Option 3 is to fully implement the multi-period spectra from the 2018 hazard model, as well
as the refined site classes. Providing maps for all 22 periods of the spectrum is not practical, so
the values would be only available electronically. The user would enter location, as well as the site
class (or the shear wave velocity Vs30, the same value needed now to determine site class), and
the multi-period spectrum adjusted for soil effects would be provided. Consideration needs to
be given as to how the seismic zone (load and resistance factor design), seismic design criteria,
and short period displacement magnification (guide specs) would be determined. There has
been a method developed for the 2020 NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions, which results
in equivalent Ss and S1 values, which can be used. Another option might include using the ratio
of the 0.2 second and 1.0 second values from the multi-period spectrum.
Hazard Models Considered

Table 22 shows the pros and cons for each of the options considered. Given that it may be
years before another update to the AASHTO specifications is undertaken and the significant
advances represented by the 2018 hazard model, the best option for updating the seismic hazard
contained in the AASHTO specifications is Option 3, a full implementation of the 2018 hazard
model. There are challenges associated with this option, but this option provides AASHTO with
the most accurate representation of the seismic hazard currently available.
Map Development and Comparison Effort

Based on the preceding analysis, Option 3 was determined to be the most appropriate for
updating the hazard mapping in AASHTO. The 2018 U.S. Geological Survey hazard model was
used to develop AASHTO-specific gridded data for the 22 periods on the response spectrum for

Table 22. Comparison of options.
Option Pros Cons

Option 1 – 2014 Hazard Model, • Easiest to implement • Would require site-specific
3-Period Spectrum and Table of • Familiar to owners and ground response analyses
2015 NEHRP Site Factors with engineers to determine Fa for Ss > 1
More Site-Specific Ground sec in Site Class E and for
Response Analyses Required S 1 > 0.2 sec in Site Classes
D and E
• Does not utilize latest
advances
• Does not include basin
effects or NGA–East
Option 2 – 2018 Hazard Model, • Relatively easy to • Would require site specific
3-Period Spectrum and Table of implement ground response analyses
2015 NEHRP Site Factors with • Maintains 3-period to determine Fa for S s > 1
More Site-Specific Ground spectrum sec in Site Class E and for
Response Analyses Required • Uses updated hazard S 1 > 0.2 sec in Site Classes
modeling D and E
• Includes basin effects, • 3-period spectrum does not
although not for periods result in truly uniform
>1.0 seconds hazard
• Includes NGA–East • Justification for use of
approximate 3-period
spectrum is no longer valid
Option 3 – 2018 Hazard Model, • Utilizes most accurate • Requires more extensive
Multi-period Spectra hazard model and changes to the
estimation of soil effects specifications to implement
• Avoids need for site-specific • Will be unfamiliar to
ground response analysis engineers and owners
for Site Classes D and E (although this should be a
• Includes basin effects minor point since actual
• Includes NGA–East ground motion spectral
• Provides a more accurate shapes are more similar to
spectrum, without the need the 22-period construction)
for approximations, which is • Paper maps not practical to
more consistent with actual fully define hazard model
ground motion spectral
shapes
Soil Classes A, B, BC, C, CD, D, DE, and E. These data are contained in Guidelines for Performance-
Based Seismic Bridge Design (to be published by AASHTO) and fully define the seismic hazard
for a return period of 1000 years (actually, 7% probability of exceedance in 75 years).
A comparison of design spectra from the current AASHTO provisions (based on the 2002
U.S. Geological Survey hazard model and 1997 NEHRP site factors) and the multi-period spectra
from the 2018 U.S. Geological Survey hazard model has been made for 17 cities across the
continental United States and is shown in Appendix B to this report. Comparisons for the cities
listed in Table 23 were developed in terms of acceleration response spectra, which is typically
used in seismic design, as well as the displacement response spectra, which has application when
utilizing a nonlinear or pseudo nonlinear approach, such as the DDBD method. Comparisons
of the PGA values are also presented, as these are often used in geotechnical evaluations of
seismic slope stability and liquefaction triggering.
The 2018 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model eliminates the need to use a classical Newmark
spectrum shape and separate site coefficients and thus results in a design spectrum that is more
closely associated with the site-specific uniform hazard spectrum. This is evident for both the
acceleration and displacement spectra. For example, the slope of the displacement spectra
reduces as the period increases (which is consistent with actual ground motion records), as
opposed to constant-slope displacement spectra without a corner period.

Table 23. Cities used in comparison effort.
Location Latitude Longitude

Portland, OR 45.5 –122.65
San Francisco, CA 37.75 –122.4
Seattle, WA 47.6 –122.3
Reno, NV 39.55 –119.8
Los Angeles, CA 34.05 –118.25
Boise, ID 43.6 –116.2
Las Vegas, NV 36.2 –115.15
Missoula, MT 46.9 –114
Salt Lake City, UT 40.75 –111.9
St. Louis, MO 38.6 –90.2
Memphis, TN 35.15 –90.05
Paducah, KY 37.1 –88.6
Chicago, IL 41.85 –87.65
Evansville, IN 38 –87.6
Charleston, SC 32.8 –79.95
New York City, NY 40.75 –74
Boston, MA 42.35 –71.05
Alaska and Hawaii were not included in the 2018 hazard model; however, approximate data
sufficient to develop the 22-period spectra are being developed by the U.S. Geological Survey
based on the latest hazard models available for these states and generic spectral shapes developed
using the 2018 hazard model for the conterminous (or contiguous) United States.
When evaluating the comparisons presented, it is useful to first compare the current AASHTO
spectrum and the 2018 hazard model spectrum for Soil Class B. This is the reference spectrum,
with no soil effects included. It has been referred to in the past as the “B-C boundary” hazard,
and is intended to represent the level of motion at the top of a bedrock layer (i.e., bedrock
outcrop at the ground surface) with a Vs30 of 760 m/s, without any amplification or damping of
the motions that might occur as the motions are affected by overlying soil layers. By comparing
these spectra, the differences in the reference hazard can be evaluated, separate from soil effects.
Two trends become apparent in reviewing the acceleration spectra for Soil Class B:
• For the locations examined in the western portion of the country, the hazard has generally
(but not everywhere) decreased at the B-C boundary.
• For the locations examined in the eastern portion of the country, the hazard levels are very
similar between current AASHTO and the 2018 hazard model, although reductions in the
long period spectral displacements are observed.
The 2018 hazard model uses updated ground motion models (e.g., Next Generation Attenu-
ation Relationships) and updated source models (e.g., UCERF3 and CEUS-SCC) for both the
western and eastern United States. Differences in the Site Class B hazard are primarily due to
the effect of using these models, which vary geographically and can compound or offset each
other. Other factors contributing to the difference include updates to methods for handling of
uncertainty and basin effects for four urban areas.
Comparing the spectra for increasingly soft soils, from Soil Classes C through E, shows more
dramatic changes with respect to the current AASHTO provisions. The method normally used

in AASHTO to account for soil effects is to modify the reference hazard at the B-C boundary
using site factors based on the properties of the soil in the top 30 meters at the three spectral
periods that define the standard curve. The factors used in AASHTO are the original site factors
developed in the early 1990s as a result of efforts at NEHRP agencies and are given in tables
depending on the site class as well as the values of the spectral acceleration at 0.0, 0.2, and
1.0 seconds. These site factors were developed for soils in the western United States, but they are
used nationwide. Furthermore, with recent work of the seismic community, it was found that
both the 1997 and 2015 NEHRP site factors can be inaccurate relative to direct consideration of
soil effects through the ground motion models.
In contrast, the 2018 hazard model includes the effects of soil directly via the ground motion
models for all 22 periods of the design spectrum, and this allows the site effects to be considered
separately for each seismic source and its distance. Furthermore, the soil effects are now based
on the specific regions of the country, and the differences between the western versus central and
eastern United States are significant. Additionally, U.S. Geological Survey has included inter-
mediate shear wave velocities, Vs30s, for use in developing a site-adjusted design spectrum, and
this provides improved choices for the site input data, almost doubling the number of site
classifications that can be used.
Sedimentary basin effects, which are a deeper form of soil effects, have been included in the
2018 hazard model for four key regions: Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Salt Lake City.
Inclusion of basin effects elsewhere is not yet complete and will continue into future U.S.
Geological Survey hazard update cycles.
As a result, there are marked changes from the current AASHTO provisions, depending on
which part of the country is considered. For the western locations, there is in general an increase
in the design spectra for significant portions of the period range for Site Classes D and E. The
shapes of the 2018 hazard model spectra are more consistent with what has been seen when
performing site-specific analyses, in that short-period motions tend to be damped by the non
linear behavior of the soil, while motions at longer periods show amplification. This has not
always been the case with the current methods in AASHTO.
In the eastern portion of the country, there are dramatic reductions in design spectra for
the softer soil sites, especially in the longer period (T > 3 s) displacement spectra. Generally
speaking, this is due to the use of relationships for soil effects that are more representative of
soils found in the eastern portion of the country, rather than relationships originally developed
for the western United States.
Comparing the PGA charts for the various locations, a similar trend is seen with lower
Site Class B PGA values in the West for the 2018 hazard model but larger Site Classes D and E
PGA values. For sites in the East, the PGA values for Site Classes D and E are often less than the
current AASHTO values.
In summary, locations in the western United States would see reductions (but not everywhere)
in the hazard for firm soil and rock sites but increases in the hazard on softer soil sites. For the
eastern United States, the hazard for firm soil and rock sites would be similar to what is currently
specified but for softer soil sites, especially Site Class E, there could be dramatic reductions in
the design spectrum.
Summary of Comparisons and Recommendations

The 2018 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model represents the latest advancements in hazard
modeling. It includes the latest Next Generation Attenuation Relationships for both the
western and eastern United States, the effects of site soil on the hazard (which were previously

approximated by applying 1997 NEHRP site coefficients), and basin effects for several high-
population areas. The soil effects included account for the differences in soil behavior across the
nation. Additionally, a 22-period construction is used to define a unique spectral shape for each
site. In short, the 2018 hazard model is the best current science on defining the hazard posed by
earthquake ground motions at the national level.
A comparison with the current AASHTO-prescribed hazard, as defined by the mapping and
design spectrum construction methods contained in the latest versions of both the AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications as well as the Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge
Design, indicates several generalizations can be made. First, the base hazard level, as defined by
the design spectrum for Site Class B, is relatively similar for sites in the western United States.
Second, the soil effects in the western United States tend to increase the hazard significantly over
current AASHTO hazard, especially for the softer soil classifications of D and E. Third, some
sites in the western United States, such as Seattle, experience a significant increase in hazard at
longer spectral periods, due to the inclusion of basin amplifications. Finally, and most trouble-
some, the hazard in the central and especially eastern United States is dramatically lower with
the 2018 hazard model for softer soil sites.
The current level of awareness related to seismic design in the central and eastern
United States and the level of design that has resulted have taken many years of effort to develop.
There is a concern that this would be negatively impacted by the adoption of a hazard model
with substantially lower base seismic hazards for this area of the country. Merely adopting the
2018 hazard model, without other potential updates, would result in a substantial decrease in
the ability of bridges designed using this model to resist seismic motions.
A number of methods can be considered to attempt to alleviate this apparent problem.
The adoption of a 1000 year return period for bridges, as opposed to the 2500 year return
period for buildings, may be partially responsible for the situation. A short study of the 2018
hazard model results for a 2500 year return period did indicate an increase in the hazard for
the central and eastern United States to a more reasonable level, but also resulted in excessive
ground motion levels in the western United States. A simple increase in the return period does
not appear to be a solution to the current issue.
The building industry has transitioned from a pure hazard evaluation to a risk-targeted
design methodology, wherein the probability of collapse when a structure is subjected to
a given level of ground motion is included in the definition of the hazard. The differences
between the hazard in the central and eastern United States versus the western United States
were the main drivers for the adoption of this methodology. This is exactly what is seen in the
comparison of the 2018 hazard model previously presented. It may be that with the exploration
of the updated hazard model for AASHTO, the same conditions that prompted this action in the
building community are now present for the bridge community. Consideration of a risk-targeted
approach may be necessary in order to bring AASHTO in line with the latest developments in
seismic design.
The current AASHTO definition of seismic hazard is based on the uniform hazard approach,
in which the mapped motions have an equal probability of exceedance at any location in the
country. This is a rational, easily understandable approach and has served the bridge community
well over the years it has been utilized. However, there are some shortcomings to this approach.
The uniformity of exceedance probability is only assured at the specific return period selected.
In reality, the variation in seismic hazard with return period differs substantially across the
nation, with the intensity of motion at western sites rising quickly with return period then
leveling out, while in the central and eastern United States, the intensity remains low until
longer return periods, where it grows more rapidly. Since the choice of return period is arbitrary,

the differences in design motion across the country based on this choice, and arising from the
differences in hazard with return period, also become somewhat arbitrary. A risk-targeted
approach takes into account the full hazard curve and is based on the idea of an equal prob-
ability of collapse or some other damage state, rather than simply the equal probability of a
certain motion occurring during a specified time period (e.g., 75 years).
Based on the information developed and compared as part of this project, it appears the best
course of action is for AASHTO to consider a risk-targeted approach and develop the approach
for bridges to a consistent level with the uniform hazard approach, make comparisons similar
to what was done in this project to evaluate the effects on various locations across the country,
and then decide which approach is best suited to the bridge community.

CHAPTER 5
Conclusions and
Suggested Research
Conclusions
The preceding chapters detailed the development of the proposed AASHTO Guidelines for
Performance-Based Seismic Bridge Design.
A comprehensive literature review was conducted that focused on developments subsequent
to the work contained in NCHRP Synthesis 440. Based on these findings, a methodology was
developed that implements performance-based seismic design using three main performance
levels and two seismic hazard levels. The heart of the methodology is a set of EDPs that relate
design parameters to the desired performance levels and are primarily based on limiting strains
in structural members. A robust matrix of required analysis methods and capacity determination
methods is specified consistent with the desired performance levels. Appendices are included to
provide more detailed guidance on the level of assumed damping and the DDBD method for
seismic analysis and design consistent with PBSD. Case studies are included in an appendix
to demonstrate how the guidelines can be applied to the design of a reinforced concrete
bridge column.
Suggested Research
During the creation of the proposed AASHTO guidelines, it became apparent that there were
significant differences between the results of elastic analyses and results from the use of the
substitute structure method. The main source of the differences is thought to be the estimates
of damping that were used in the original development of the equal displacement assumption.
Resolution of this issue requires additional research, which is strongly recommended.
The approach implemented in these guidelines is not fully probabilistic; the tie between
desired performance level and the resulting loss estimates has yet to be made. Sufficient research
exists to make this connection for earthquake resistance systems that utilize reinforced concrete
columns, but only for a relatively narrow class of column designs, and not for other elements
that may be used to resist seismic motions in the inelastic range. Further research is needed in
this area to develop fully probabilistic PBSD.
66

References and Bibliography
References
AASHTO. 2011. AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (Second Edition), with 2012,
2014, and 2015 Interim Revisions. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Washington, D.C.
AASHTO. 2014. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Customary U.S. Units (Seventh Edition), with
2015 and 2016 Interim Revisions. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Washington, D.C.
Andrus, R.D., N. Ravichandran, S.A. Aboye, A.H. Bhuiyan, and J.R. Martin, II. 2014. Seismic Site Coefficients
and Acceleration Design Response Spectra Based on Conditions in South Carolina. FHWA-SC-14-02.
South Carolina Department of Transportation. Columbia.
Antonellis, G., and M. Panagiotou. 2013. Seismic Design and Performance of Bridges with Columns on Rocking
Foundations. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). Berkeley, CA.
ATC/MCEER (Joint Venture). 2002. NCHRP Report 472: Comprehensive Specification for the Seismic Design of
Bridges. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Washington, D.C.
Babazadeh, A., R. Burgeño, and P. Silva. 2015. Use of 3D Finite-Element Models for Predicting Intermediate
Damage Limit States in RC Bridge Columns. Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol. 141, No. 10.
Baker, J.W. 2013. Introduction to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis. White Paper Version 2.0.1, 79 pp.
Bensi, M.T., A.D. Kiureghian, and D. Straub. 2011. A Bayesian Network Methodology for Infrastructure Seismic
Risk Assessment and Decision Support. PEER Report 2011/02. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center (PEER). Berkeley, CA.
Bertero, R.D. 2014. Great 2010 American Earthquakes: Lessons for Seismic Design and Construction. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management. Vol. 140, No. 4.
Bignell, J.L., J.M. LaFave, and N. Hawkins. 2006. Assessment of the Seismic Vulnerability of Wall Pier Supported
Highway Bridges on Priority Emergency Routes in Southern Illinois. Report No. FHWA-ICT-07-004.
Illinois Center of Transportation. Urbana, IL.
Boore, D.M., W.B. Joyner, and T.E. Fumal. 1997. Equations for Estimating Horizontal Response Spectra and
Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A Summary of Recent Work. Seismological
Research Letters. Vol. 68, pp. 128–153.
Boore, D.M., J. Watson-Lamprey, and N.A. Abrahamson. 2006. Orientation-Independent Measures of Ground
Motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. Vol. 96, pp. 1502–1511.
Boore, D.M. 2010. Orientation-Independent, Nongeometric-Mean Measures of Seismic Intensity from
Two Horizontal Components of Motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. Vol. 100,
pp. 1830–1835.
Brown, N.R, M.J. Kowalsky, and J. Nau. 2015. Impact of D/T on Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Filled Steel Tubes. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. Vol. 109, April, pp. 111–123. DOI:10.1016/
j.jcsr.2015.01.013.
Buckle, I., I. Friedland, J. Mander, G. Martin, R. Nutt, and M. Power. 2006. Seismic Retrofitting Manual for
Highway Structures: Part 1—Bridges. Report No. FHWA-HRT-06-032, Office of Infrastructure Research
and Development, Turner–Fairbank Highway Research Center, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, McLean, VA.
Campbell, K.W., and Y. Bozorgnia. 2003. Updated Near-Source Ground-motion (attenuation) Relations for
the Horizontal and Vertical Components of Peak Ground Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectra.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. Vol. 93, pp. 314–331.
67

CEMP. 2015. City of Seattle—Disaster Recovery Framework. Seattle Office of Emergency Management Program
(CEMP).
Chiou, J.-S., and Y.-C. Tsai. 2014. Displacement Ductility Capacity Assessment for a Fixed-Head Pile in
Cohesionless Soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Vol. 140, No. 3.
CSA. 2006. CAN/CSA-S6-06: Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. CSA International, Ontario, Canada.
Delavaud, E., F. Cotton, S. Akkar, F. Scherbaum, L. Danciu, C. Beauval, S. Drouet, J. Douglas, R. Basili, M.A.
Sandikkaya, E. Faccioli, and N. Theodoulidis. 2012. Toward a Ground-motion Logic Tree for Probabilistic
Seismic Hazard Assessment in Europe. Journal of Seismology. Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 451–473.
FEMA. 2005. Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures. FEMA-440. Washington, D.C.
FEMA. 2012a. FEMA P-58-1 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Volume 1—Methodology. Federal
Emergency Management Agency. Washington, D.C.
FEMA. 2012b. FEMA P-58-2 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Volume 2—Implementation Guide.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington, D.C.
FEMA. 2012c. FEMA 58-4 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Volume 4—Methodology for Assessing
Environmental Impacts. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington, D.C.
Feng, Y., M.J. Kowalsky, and J. Nau. 2014a. Fiber-Based Modeling of Circular Reinforced Concrete Bridge
Columns. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 714–734.
Feng, Y., M.J. Kowalsky, and J. Nau. 2014b. Finite Element Method to Predict Bar Buckling in RC
Structures. Journal of Structural Engineering. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001048, Vol. 141,
issue 5(May 20).
Feng, Y., M.J. Kowalsky, and J. Nau. 2014c. Effect of Seismic Load History on Deformation Limit States for
Longitudinal Bar Buckling in RC Columns. Journal of Structural Engineering. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
ST.1943-541X.0001153, Vol. 141, issue 8 (August 2015).
Franke, K.W., L.T. Ekstrom, and K.J. Ulmer. 2014a. Simplified SPT Performance-Based Assessment of Liquefaction
and Effects: Year 1 (Tasks 1 and 2). Utah Department of Transportation. Salt Lake City.
Franke, K.W., L.T. Ekstrom, and K.J. Ulmer. 2014b. Simplified SPT Performance-Based Assessment of Liquefaction
and Effects: Tasks 5 and 6 (Year 1). Utah Department of Transportation. Salt Lake City.
Franke, K.W., L.T. Ekstrom, and K.J. Ulmer. 2015a. Simplified SPT Performance-Based Assessment of Liquefaction
and Effects: Year 1 (Tasks 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8). Utah Department of Transportation. Salt Lake City.
Franke, K.W., L.T. Ekstrom, and K.J. Ulmer. 2015b. Simplified SPT Performance-Based Assessment of Liquefaction
and Effects: Tasks 7 and 8. Utah Department of Transportation. Salt Lake City.
Franke, K.W., L.T. Ekstrom, and K.J. Ulmer. 2015c. Simplified SPT Performance-Based Assessment of Liquefaction
and Effects: Tasks 5 and 6 (Year 2). Utah Department of Transportation. Salt Lake City.
Franke, K.W., L. Astorga, and B. Error. 2016. Simplified SPT Performance-Based Assessment of Liquefaction and
Effects: Tasks 7 and 8. Utah Department of Transportation. Salt Lake City.
Fulmer, S.J., M.J. Kowalsky, and J.M. Nau. 2013. Seismic Performance of Steel Pipe Pile to Cap Beam Moment
Resisting Connections. Final Report FHWA-AK-RD-13-02 to AUTC/AKDOT January.
Goodnight, J.C., M.J. Kowalsky, and J. Nau. 2016a. Strain Limit State for Circular RC Bridge Columns. Earthquake
Spectra. Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 1627–1652.
Goodnight, J.C., M.J. Kowalsky, and J. Nau. 2016b. Modified Plastic Hinge Method for Circular RC Bridge
Columns. Journal of Structural Engineering. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001570.
Goodnight, J.C., M.J. Kowalsky, and J.M. Nau. 2017a. Seismic Load Path Effects in Reinforced Concrete Bridge
Columns and Wall Piers—Volume 1: Strain Limit States for RC Bridge Columns. Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, Juneau, AK.
Goodnight, J.C., M.J. Kowalsky, and J.M. Nau. 2017b. Closure to “Modified Plastic-Hinge Method for Circular
RC Bridge Columns.” Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol. 143, No. 9.
Hajihashemi, A., S. Pezeshk, and T. Huff. 2017. Comparison of Nonlinear Static Procedures and Modeling
Assumptions for the Seismic Design of Ordinary Bridges. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and
Construction. Vol. 22(2), pp. 1–10.
Hose, Y.D., and F. Seible. 1999. Performance Evaluation Database for Concrete Bridge Components and Systems
under Simulated Seismic Loads. PEER Report 1999/11. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center
(PEER). Berkeley, CA.
Huff, T. 2016a. Issues in the Prediction of Inelastic Behavior in Bridges during Earthquakes. Practice Periodical
on Structural Design and Construction. Vol. 21(3), pp. 1–11.
Huff, T., and S. Pezeshk. 2016. Inelastic Displacement Spectra for Bridges Using the Substitute-Structure Method.
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction. Vol. 21(2), pp. 1–13.
Ishihara, K., and M. Yoshimine. 1992. Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits following Liquefaction during
Earthquakes. Soils and Foundations, Japanese Society for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Vol. 32,
No. 1, March, pp. 173–188.

References and Bibliography 69
Kramer, S.L., and M. Greenfield. 2016. Research Project Highlight. Project No. NCTRKA: Next Generation
Liquefaction: Japan Data Collection. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). Berkeley, CA.
Kuwabara, T., T. Tamakoshi, J. Murakoshi, Y. Kimura, T. Nanazawa, and J.I. Hoshikuma. 2013. Outline of Japanese
Design Specifications for Highway Bridges in 2012. The 44th UJNR Panel Meeting, Joint Panel on Wind and
Seismic Effects (UJNR), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
Kwong, N.S., and A.K. Chopra. 2015. Selection and Scaling of Ground Motions for Nonlinear Response History
Analysis of Buildings in Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering. Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center (PEER). Berkeley, CA.
LaFave, J., L. Fahnestock, D. Foutch, J. Steelman, J. Revell, E. Filipov, and J. Hajjar. 2013a. Experimental Inves-
tigation of the Seismic Response of Bridge Bearings. Illinois Center of Transportation. Urbana, IL.
LATBSDC. 2014. An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings Located in the
Los Angeles Region. Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council, 2014 Edition.
Liang, Z., and G.C. Lee. 2013. Towards Establishing Practical Multi-Hazard Bridge Design Limit States. Earthquake
Engineering and Engineering Vibration. Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 333–340.
Mackie, K., K. Cronin, and B. Nielson. 2011. Response Sensitivity of Highway Bridges to Randomly Oriented
Multi-Component Earthquake Excitation. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 850–876,
DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2010.551706.
Mackie, K.R., and B. Stojadinovic. 2015. Fragility Basis for California Highway Overpass Bridge Seismic Decision
Making. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). Berkeley, CA.
Mander, J., W. Priestley, and R. Park. 1988. Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for Confined Concrete. Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 114, No. 8, pp. 1804–1826. (Cited in Appendix A)
Marsh, M.L., and S.J. Stringer. 2013. NCHRP Synthesis 440: Performance-Based Seismic Bridge Design.
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.
Marsh, M.L., I.G. Buckle, and E. Kavazanjian, Jr. 2014. LRFD Seismic Analysis and Design of Bridges Reference
Manual. National Highway Institute, Washington, D.C.
Moon, F., N. Romano, D. Masceri, J. Braley, N. Samtani, T. Murphy, M. Lopez de Murphy, and D.R. Mertz. 2017.
Web-Only Document 245: Bridge Superstructure Tolerance to Total and Differential Foundation Movements.
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Nako, A.C., C. Shlke, J. Six, B. Johnson, P. Dusicka, and M. Selamawit. 2009. Seismic Vulnerability of Oregon State
Highway Bridges: Mitigation Strategies to Reduce Major Mobility Risks. ODOT Bridge Seismic Committee/
Portland State University.
Oregon DOT. 2016a. Bridge Design and Drafting Manual—Section 1, Design. Oregon Department of Transportation.
Salem.
Oregon DOT. 2016b. Geotechnical Design Manual. Chapter 6: Seismic Design. Oregon Department of Trans-
portation. Salem.
OSSPAC. 2013. The Oregon Resiliency Plan–Executive Summary: Reducing Risk and Improving Recovery for
the Next Cascadia Earthquake and Tsunami. Report to the 77th Legislative Assembly from Oregon Seismic
Safety Policy Advisory Commission (OSSPAC).
Overby, D., M. Kowalsky, and R. Seracino. 2015a. Final Research Report No. RD-15-15 on A706 Grade 80
Reinforcement for Seismic Applications. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA, and
Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Overby, D.T., M. Kowalsky, and R. Seracino. 2015b. A706 Grade 80 Reinforcement for Seismic Applications.
North Carolina State Research Report No. RD-15-15. Raleigh, NC.
Palma, A.L. 2019. Influence of Response Spectra Definitions on the Bidirectional Seismic Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Bridge Columns. Master’s Thesis. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Paulay, T., and M.J.N. Priestley. 1992. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
Priestley, M.J.N, G.M. Calvi, and M.J. Kowalsky. 2007. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures.
IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy. (Cited in Appendix A)
Pyke, R., H.B. Seed, and C.K. Chan. 1975. Settlement of Sands under Multidirectional Shaking. Journal of Geo-
technical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Vol. 101, No. GT4, pp. 279–398.
Rahman, J., N. Jagielo, and S. Miles. 2014. Resilient King County. White Paper. King County Emergency Manage-
ment. Redmond, WA.
REDi. 2013. REDi Rating System. Resilience-based Earthquake Design Initiative for the Next Generation of
Buildings. Version 1, Oct. 2013.
Roberts, L.A., D. Fick, and A. Misra. 2011. Performance-Based Design of Drilled Shaft Bridge Foundations.
Journal of Bridge Engineering. Vol. 16, No. 6.

Sadigh, K., C.-Y. Chang, J.A. Egan, F. Makdisi, and R.R. Youngs. 1997. Attenuation Relationships for Shallow
Crustal Earthquakes Based on California Strong Motion Data. Seismological Research Letters. Vol. 68,
pp. 180–189.
Saiidi, M.S., M. Tazarv, S. Varela, S. Bennion, M.L. Marsh, I. Ghorbani, and T.P. Murphy. 2017. NCHRP Research
Report 864: Seismic Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms, Volume 1: Research
Overview and Volume 2: Guidelines. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Saiidi, M.S., M. Mehraein, G. Shrestha, E. Jordan, A. Itani, M. Tazary, D. Sanders, T.P. Murphy, M.L. Reno, and
M.N. Pohll. 2020. NCHRP Research Report 935: Proposed AASHTO Seismic Specifications for ABC Column
Connections. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Saini, A., and M.S. Saiidi. 2014. Probabilistic Damage Control of Approach for Seismic Design of Bridge Columns.
Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research (CCEER). CCEER 14-02. Reno, NV.
Shantz. T. 2017. Lateral Spreading Analysis of New and Existing Bridges. Memo to Designers 20-15. California
Department of Transportation, Sacramento.
Silver, M.L., and H.B. Seed. 1971. Volume Changes in Sand during Cyclic Loading. Journal of Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division. Vol. 97, No. 9, pp. 1171–1182.
South Carolina DOT (SC DOT). 2015. Bridge Design Memorandum–DM0115, Re: SCDOT Seismic Design
Specifications for Highway Bridges, Version 2.0. Revisions to Sections 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9. South Carolina
Department of Transportation, Columbia.
South Carolina DOT. 2019. Geotechnical Design Manual. South Carolina Department of Transportation,
Columbia.
Stephens, M., D. Lehman, and C. Roeder. 2015. Concrete Filled Tube Bridge Pier Connections for Accelerated Bridge
Construction. Technical Report CA15-2417. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento.
Stephens, M., D. Lehman, and C. Roeder. 2016. Design of CFST Column-to-Foundation/Cap Beam Connections
for Moderate and High Seismic Regions. Engineering Structures. Vol. 122, pp. 323–337.
Stewart, J., N. Abrahamson, G. Atkinson, J. Baker, D. Boore, Y. Bozorgnia, K. Campbell, C. Comartin, I.M.
Idriss, M. Lew, M. Mehrain, J. Moehle, F. Naeim, and T. Sabol. 2011. Representation of Bidirectional Ground
Motions for Design Spectra in Building Codes. Earthquake Spectra. Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 927–937. DOI:
10.1193/1.3608001.
Tazarv, M., and M.S. Saiidi. 2014. Next Generation of Bridge Columns for Accelerated Bridge Construction in High
Seismic Zones. CCEER 14-06. Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research (CCEER). Reno, NV.
Tehrani, P., and D. Mitchell. 2014. Seismic Risk Assessment of Four-Span Bridges in Montreal Designed Using
the Canadian Bridge Design Code. Journal of Bridge Engineering. Vol. 19, No. 8.
Tokimatsu, K., and H.B. Seed. 1987. Evaluation of Settlement in Sand Due to Earthquake Shaking. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering. Vol. 113, No. 8, August.
Trono, W., J. Gabriel, C.P. Ostertag, and M. Panagiotou. 2015. Seismic Response of a Damage-Resistant Recentering
Post-tensioned-HYFRC Bridge Column. Journal of Bridge Engineering. Vol. 20, No. 7.
Vosooghi, A., and M.S. Saiidi. 2010. Post-Earthquake Evaluation and Emergency Repair of Damaged RC Bridge
Columns Using CFRP Materials. Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research (CCEER). CCEER 10-05.
Reno, NV.
Wang, Z., W.-C. Xie, and M.D. Pandey. 2016. Computationally Efficient Vector-Valued Seismic Risk Analysis of
Engineering Structures. Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol. 142, No. 9.
Washington State Emergency Management Council–Seismic Safety Committee. 2012. Resilient Washington
State–A Framework for Minimizing Loss and Improving Statewide Recovery after an Earthquake. Washington
Division of Geology and Earth Resources Information Circular. Vol. 114. Available at https://www.dnr.wa.gov/
Publications/ger_ic114_resilient_washington_state.pdf
Worden, C.B., M.C. Gerstenberger, D.A. Rhoades, and D.J. Wald. 2012. Probabilistic Relationships Between
Ground-Motion Parameters and Modified Mercalli Intensity in California. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America. Vol. 102, No. 1, pp. 204–221.
Xie, Y., and J. Zhiang. 2016. Optimal Design of Seismic Protective Devices for Highway Bridges Using Performance-
Based Methodology and Multiobjective Genetic Optimization. Journal of Bridge Engineering. Vol. 22, No. 3.
Youd, T.L. 1972. Compaction of Sands by Repeated Straining. Journal of the Soils Mechanics and Foundations
Division. Vol. 98, No. SM7, pp. 709–725.
Zhang, G., P.K. Robertson, and R.W.I. Brachman. 2004. Estimating Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Displacements
Using the Standard Penetration Test or Cone Penetration Test. Journal of Geotechnical and Environmental
Engineering. Vol. 139, No. 8, pp. 861–871.
Zimmerman, R.B., M. Panagiotou, and S.A. Mahin. 2013. Numerical Modeling and Seismic Retrofit for Shear
Failure in Reinforced Concrete Columns. National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering (NISEE)/
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). Berkeley, CA.

Bibliography
Abrahamson, N.A., W.J. Silva, and R. Kamai. 2013. Update of the AS08 Ground-Motion Prediction Equations
Based on the NGA–West2 Data Set. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). Berkeley, CA.
Abrahamson, C., H.-J. M. Shi, and B. Yang. 2016. Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for Arias Intensity
Consistent with the NGA–West2 Ground-Motion Models. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center
ACI. 2014. ACI 341.2R-14 Analysis and Design of Seismic-Resistant Concrete Bridge Systems. American
Concrete Institute. Farmington Hills, MI.
ACI. 2016. ACI 341.4R-16 Report on the Seismic Design of Bridge Columns Based on Drift. American Concrete
Institute. Farmington Hills, MI.
AmirHormozaki, E., G. Pekcan, and A. Itani. 2013. Analytical Fragility Curves for Horizontally Curved Steel Girder
Highway Bridges. CCEER 13-3. Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research (CCEER). Reno, NV.
ASCE. 2014. ASCE 41-13 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. American Society of Civil
Engineers. Reston, VA.
ASCE. 2017. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (7-16). 2 vols. American Society of
Civil Engineers. Reston, VA.
Ashford, S.A., M.H. Scott, and D. Rayamajhi. 2013. Report SRS 500-300 on Reducing Seismic Risk to Highway
Mobility: Assessment and Design for Pile Foundations Affected by Lateral Spreading. Oregon Department
of Transportation, Salem, and Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, D.C.
Astorga, L., B. Error, B. Peterson, and K.W. Franke. 2015. Simplified SPT Performance-Based Assessment of
Liquefaction and Effects: Tasks 3 and 4. Utah Department of Transportation. Salt Lake City, UT.
Baker, J.W., T. Lin, S.K. Shahi, and N. Jayaram. 2011. New Ground Motion Selection Procedures and Selected
Motions for the PEER Transportation Research Program. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Barbosa, A.R., T. Link, and D. Trejo. (2015). Seismic Performance of High-Strength Steel RC Bridge Columns.
Journal of Bridge Engineering. 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000769, 04015044.
Bebamzadeh, A., A. Rahmani, M. Taiebat, C.E. Ventura, and W.D.L. Finn. 2014. Performance-based Seismic
Design of Bridges using High Performance Computing Tools. Proceedings of the 10th U.S. National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering. Anchorage, AK.
Beyer, K., and J.J. Bommer. 2006. Relationships Between Median Values and Between Aleatory Variabilities
for Different Definitions of the Horizontal Component of Motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America. Vol. 96, pp. 1512–1522.
Beyer, K., and J. Bommer. 2007. Selection and Scaling of Real Accelerograms for Bi-Directional Loading:
A Review of Current Practice and Code Provisions. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. Vol. 11:S1, pp. 13–45.
Brandenberg, S.J., J. Zhang, P. Kashghandi, Y. Huo, and M. Zhao. 2011. Demand Fragility Surfaces for Bridges
in Liquefied and Laterally Spreading Ground. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER).
Berkeley, CA.
Caltrans. 2017. Lateral Spreading Analyses for New and Existing Bridges. Memo to Designers 20-15, May, 16p.
Conte, J.P., and Y. Li. 2015. Probabilistic Performance-Based Optimal Seismic Design of Isolated Bridge
Structures. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability
in Civil Engineering. Vancouver, Canada.
Doolen, T., A. Saeedi, and S. Emami. 2011. Final Report TPF-5(221) on Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC)
Decision Making and Economic Modeling Tool. Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, and Federal
Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Douglas, J. 2011. Ground-Motion Prediction Equations 1964-2010. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center (PEER). Berkeley, CA.
Dusicka, P., R. Bazaez, and S. Knoles. 2015. Final Report SPR 741 on Bridge Seismic Retrofit Measures Consid-
ering Subduction Zone Earthquakes. Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, and Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Dusicka, P., and A. Lopez. 2016. Technical Report SPR 770 on Impact of Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake
on the Evaluation Criteria of Bridges. Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, and Federal Highway
Espinoza, A.O., and S.A. Mahin. 2012. Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Bridges Allowed to Uplift
during Multi-Directional Excitation. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). Berkeley, CA.
Field, E.H., G.P. Biasi, P. Bird, T.E. Dawson, K.R. Felzer, D.D. Jackson, K.M. Johnson, T.H. Jordan, C. Madden,
A.J. Michael, K.R. Milner, and M.T. Zeng. 2013. Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3
(UCERF3)—The Time-Independent Model. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, VA.

Gheitasi, A., and D.K. Harris. 2014. A Performance-Based Framework for Bridge Preservation Based on Damage-
Integrated System-Level Behavior. Presented at 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C.
Ghosh, S.K. 2014. Significant Changes from ASCE 7-05 to ASCE 7-10, Part 1: Seismic Design Provisions. PCI
Journal. p. 60.
Goodnight, J.C., M.J. Kowalsky, and J.M. Nau. 2013. The Effect of Load History on Performance Limit States of
Circular Bridge Columns. Journal of Bridge Engineering. Vol 18, No. 12, pp. 1383–1396.
Horton, Jr., J.W., and R.A. Williams.2012. The 2011 Virginia Earthquake: What are Scientists Learning?
Eos, Transactions. American Geophysical Union. Vol. 93, No. 33, pp. 317–324.
Huff, T. 2016b. Structural Demand on Bridges Subjected to Bidirectional Ground Motions. Practice Periodical on
Structural Design and Construction. Vol. 22(1), pp. 1–13.
Huang, Y., S. Whittaker, and N. Luco. 2008. Maximum Spectral Demands in the Near-Fault Region. Earthquake
Spectra. Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 319–341.
ICC. 2014. International Building Code. International Code Council, Country Club Hills, IL.
International Code Council. 2014. International Code Council Performance Code 2015.
Johnson, L.A., and S.A. Mahin. 2016. The Mw 6.0 South Napa Earthquake of August 24, 2014: A Wake-up
Call for Renewed Investment in Seismic Resilience Across California. Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center (PEER). Mather, CA.
Johnson, L.A., S. Rabinovici, G.S. King, and S.A. Mahin. 2016. California Earthquake Early Warning System
Benefit Study. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). Mather, CA.
Konakli, K., and A.D. Kiureghian. 2011. Stochastic Dynamic Analysis of Bridges Subjected to Spatially Varying
Ground Motions. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). Berkeley, CA.
Konstantinidis, D., J.M. Kelly, and N. Makris. 2011. In-Situ Monitoring of the Force Output of Fluid Dampers:
Experimental Investigation. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). Berkeley, CA.
Kramer, S.L. 2013. Performance-Based Design Methodologies. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. Vol. 12,
pp. 1049–1070.
LaFave, J., L. Fahnestock, D. Foutch, J, Steelman, J. Revell, E. Filipov, and J. Hajjar. 2013. Seismic Performance of
Quasi-Isolated Highway Bridges in Illinois. Illinois Center of Transportation. Urbana, IL.
Lee, G.C., Z. Liang, J.J. Shen, and J.S. O’Connor. 2011. Extreme Load Combinations: A Survey of State Bridge
Engineers. Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER). Buffalo, NY.
Lee, G.C., S.B. Mohan, C. Huang, and B.N. Fard. 2013. A Study of U.S. Bridge Failures (1980-2012). Multi
disciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER). Buffalo, NY.
Lee, G.C., C. Huang, J. Song, and J.S. O’Connor. 2014. Seismic Performance Evaluation of Precast Girders
with Field-Cast Ultra High Performance Concrete (UHPC) Connections. Multidisciplinary Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER). Buffalo, NY.
Li, Q., and A. Belarbi. 2012. Performance Based Design Approach for RC Square Bridge Columns under
Combined Loading Including Torsion. Proceedings of the Structures Congress 2012. Chicago, IL.
Link, T. 2014. Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns Constructed with Grade 80
Reinforcement. Master’s Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Malushte, S. 2016. Comparison of ASCE 7 and ASCE 43 for Informed Adoption of ASCE 7 for Seismic Design
of SDC-1 SSCs. Proceedings at the Department of Energy Natural Phenomena Hazards (NPH) Meeting.
Germantown, MD.
Mehary, S.T., and P. Dusicka. 2015. Final Report SRS 500-480 on Seismic Retrofit Benefit Considering State-
wide Transportation Assessment. Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, and Federal Highway
Mehrsoroush, A., and M.S. Saiidi. 2017. Probabilistic Seismic Damage Assessment for Sub-Standard Bridge
Columns. Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research (CCEER). CCEER 16-06. Reno, NV.
Missouri DOT. 2016. Bridge Seismic Design Process. Missouri Department of Transportation, Jefferson City.
Monzon, E.V., I.G. Buckle, and A.I. Itani. 2013. Seismic Performance of Curved Steel Plate Girder Bridges with
Seismic Isolation. Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research (CCEER). CCEER 13-6. Reno, NV.
Morgan, T.A., S.A. Mahin. 2011. The Use of Base Isolation Systems to Achieve Complex Seismic Performance
Objectives. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). Berkeley, CA.
Motaref, S., M.S. Saiidi, and D.H. Sanders. 2011. Seismic Response of Precast Bridge Columns with Energy
Dissipating Joints. Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research (CCEER). CCEER 11-01. Reno, NV.
Muntasir Billah, A.H.M., and M.S. Alam. 2014. Performance-Based Prioritisation for Seismic Retrofitting of
Reinforced Concrete Bridge Bent. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering. Vol. 10, No. 8.
Olsen, M.J., S.A. Ashford, R. Mahlingam, M. Sharifi-Mood, M. O’Banion, and D.T. Gillins. 2015. Final Report
SPR 740 on Impacts of Potential Seismic Landslides on Lifeline Corridors. Oregon Department of
Transportation, Salem, and Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, D.C.

Oregon DOT. 2012. US 26: West Fork Dairy Creek, MP 46.30, Sunset Highway, No. 047, MP 46.20-46.40,
Washington County, Key 14838. Oregon Department of Transportation. Salem.
Oregon DOT. 2013a. I-84 @ Troutdale Interchange, Hwy 2 over Marine Drive, Structure No. 21816, Columbia
River Highway, MP 16.58-17.35, Multnomah County, Key 17541. Oregon Department of Transportation.
Salem.
Oregon DOT. 2013b. Task 8.7.1.8 Report: I-5 Columbia River Crossing Soft Rock Ground Motion. Oregon
Department of Transportation. Salem.
Overby, D.T. 2016. Stress-Strain Behavior of ASTM A706 Grade 80 Reinforcement. Master’s Thesis, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh.
Petersen, M.D., Y. Zeng, K.M. Haller, R. McCaffrey, W.C. Hammond, P. Bird, M. Moschetti, Z. Shen, J. Bormann,
and W. Thatcher. 2013. Geodesy- and Geology-Based Slip-Rate Models for the Western United States
(Excluding California) National Seismic Hazard Maps. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, VA.
Petersen, M.D., M.P. Moschetti, P.M. Powers, C.S. Mueller, K.M. Haller, A.D. Frankel, Y. Zeng, S. Rezaeian, S.C.
Harmsen, O.S. Boyd, et al. 2014. Documentation for the 2014 Update of the United States National Seismic
Hazard Maps. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, VA.
Petersen, M.D., C.S. Mueller, M.P. Moschetti, S.M. Hoover, J.L. Rubinstein, A.L. Llenos, A.J. Michael, W.L.
Ellsworth, A.F. McGarr, A.A. Holland, and J.G. Anderson. 2015. Incorporating Induced Seismicity in
the 2014 United States National Seismic Hazard Model–Results of 2014 Workshop and Sensitivity Studies.
U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, VA.
Petersen, M.D., C.S. Mueller, M.P. Moschetti, S.M. Hoover, A.L. Llenos, W.L. Ellsworth, A.J. Michael,
J.L. Rubinstein, A.F. McGarr, and K.S. Rukstales. 2016. 2016 One-Year Seismic Hazard Forecast for the
Central and Eastern United States from Induced and Natural Earthquakes. U.S. Geological Survey.
Reston, VA.
Ramanathan, K., R. DesRoches, and J.E. Padgett. 2012. A Comparison of Pre- and Post-Seismic Design
Considerations in Moderate Seismic Zones Through the Fragility Assessment of Multispan Bridge Classes.
Engineering Structures. Vol. 45, pp. 559–573.
Rautenberg, J.M., S. Pujol, H. Tavallali, and A. Lepage. 2013. Drift Capacity of Concrete Columns Reinforced with
High-Strength Steel. ACI Structural Journal. Vol. 110 (2), pp. 307–317.
Restrepo, J. I., F. Seible, B. Stephan, and M.J. Schoettle. 2006. Seismic Testing of Bridge Columns Incorporating
High-Performance Materials. ACI Structural Journal. Vol. 103 (4), pp. 496–504.
Schlechter, S., J. Gordon, and S. Dickenson. 2012. Site Response, Liquefaction, and Preliminary Seismic Hazard
Assessment (GRI Task 1.3) ODOT OR18: Newberg-Dundee Bypass (Phase 1) Project. Oregon Department
of Transportation. Salem.
Serinaldi, F. 2015. Dismissing Return Periods! Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment. Vol. 29,
No. 4, pp. 1179–1189.
Shahi, J., and J. Baker. 2014. NGA–West2 Models for Ground Motion Directionality. Earthquake Spectra. Vol. 30,
No. 3, pp. 1285–1300.
Shahrooz, B.M., J.M. Reis, E.L. Wells, R.A. Miller, K.A. Harries, and H.G. Russell. 2014. Flexural Members with
High-Strength Reinforcement: Behavior and Code Implications. Journal of Bridge Engineering. ASCE.
04014003. pp. 1–7.
Shantz, T. 2012. Guidelines on Foundation Loading and Deformation Due to Liquefaction Induced Lateral
Spreading. California Department of Transportation, Interim Guidelines, January. California Department
of Transportation, Sacramento.
Sheikh, M.N., and F. Legeron. 2014. Performance Based Seismic Assessment of Bridges Designed According to
Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. Vol. 41, No. 9, pp. 777–787.
Slavin, C.M., and W.M. Ghannoum. 2015. Defining Structurally Acceptable Properties of High-Strength
Steel Bars through Material and Column Testing, Part 1: Materials Testing Report. CPF Research Grant
Agreement #05-14. Charles Pankow Foundation. McLean, VA.
Sokoli, D. 2014. Seismic Performance of Concrete Columns Reinforced with High Strength Steel. Master’s
Thesis. University of Texas at Austin.
Sokoli, D., and W.M. Ghannoum. 2016. High-Strength Reinforcement in Columns under High Shear Stresses.
ACI Structural Journal. Vol. 113 (3), pp. 605–614.
Soules, J.G. 2016. Changes to the 2016 Edition of ASCE 7. Presented at the 61st Annual Structural Engineering
Conference in Lawrence, KS.
South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT). 2008. Seismic Design Specifications for Highway
Bridges. Available at https://www.scdot.org/business/pdf/structural-design/specs_2008.pdf.
Stuedlein, A.W., A.R. Barbosa, and Q. Li. 2016. Final Report SPR 304-701 on Evaluation of Torsional Load
Transfer for Drilled Shaft Foundations. Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, and Federal Highway

Sun, Y., G. Cai, and T. Takeshi. 2013. Seismic Behavior and Performance-based Design of Resilient Concrete
Columns. Applied Mechanics and Materials. Vols. 438–439, pp. 1453–1460.
Trejo, D., A.R. Barbosa, and T. Link. 2014. Technical Report SRS 500-610 on Seismic Performance of Circular
Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns Constructed with Grade 80 Reinforcement. Oregon Department of
Transportation, Salem, and Pacific Northwest Transportation Consortium (PacTrans), Seattle, WA.
Unjoh, S., S. Nakatani, K. Tamura, J. Fukui, and J.-I. Hoshikuma. 2002. Design Specifications for Highway
Bridges. Proceedings of the 34th Joint Meeting of U.S.-Japan Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects, UJNR,
NSIT Special Publication. Vol. 987, pp. 231–240 (in English).
Washington State DOT. 2013. Design Memorandum: Seismic Isolation Bearings Requirements. Washington
State Department of Transportation. Seattle, WA.
Zhang, G., P.K. Robertson, and R.W.I. Brachman. 2002. Estimating Liquefaction-Induced Ground Settlements
from CPT for Level Ground. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Vol. 39, pp. 1168–1180.

Appendices
Two appendices are available on TRB’s website at www.trb.org by searching on NCHRP

Research Report 949. The appendices are titled Appendix A: SDOF Column Investigation Sample
Calculations and Results and Appendix B: Hazard Comparison.
75


Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TDC Transit Development Corporation
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
Washington, DC 20001
500 Fifth Street, NW
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
NON-PROFIT ORG.
ISBN 978-0-309-48177-9
COLUMBIA, MD
PERMIT NO. 88
90000
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
9 780309 481779

Proposed AASHTO Guidelines For Performance-Based Seismic Bridge Design (2020)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proposed AASHTO Guidelines For Performance-Based Seismic Bridge Design (2020)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proposed AASHTO Guidelines For Performance-Based Seismic Bridge Design (2020)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This PDF is available at http://nap.nationalacademies.

Proposed AASHTO Guidelines for

NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 949

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 949

Published research reports of the

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

Transportation Research Board

and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 949

NCHRP PROJECT 12-106 PANEL

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NCHRP Research Report 949: Proposed AASHTO Guidelines for Performance-Based

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

4 Chapter 2 Literature Review and Synthesis

37 Chapter 3 Development of the AASHTO Guidelines for

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

58 Chapter 4 AASHTO Seismic Map Update

66 Chapter 5 Conclusions and Suggested Research

67 References and Bibliography

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Proposed AASHTO Guidelines

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2 Proposed AASHTO Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Bridge Design

overestimated and result in nonconservative estimates of bridge performance. A discussion

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Literature Review and Synthesis

Literature Review Process

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Literature Review and Synthesis 5

Table 1. List of state DOT offices and

The following e-mail was sent to the owners and researchers.

Synthesis of PBSD (2012–2016)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

6 Proposed AASHTO Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Bridge Design

• Seismic hazard analysis

Public and Engineering Expectations of Seismic Design

The California DOT

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Literature Review and Synthesis 7

Figure 1. PBSD decision-making process

The State of Washington

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

8 Proposed AASHTO Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Bridge Design

The Oregon DOT

Other Resilience Documents

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Literature Review and Synthesis 9

Table 2. Washington State’s targets of recovery.

Time needed for recovery to 80 to 90 percent operational given current conditions.

Source: Washington State Emergency Management Council–Seismic Safety Committee (2012).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

10 Proposed AASHTO Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Bridge Design

37 Chapter 3 Development of the AASHTO Guidelines for