Overall Conceptual Seismic Design and Local Seismic Capacity Design for Components of Bridges - Structural Seismic Design Optimization and Earthquake Engineering - page 276

Figure 3. Conceptual design strategy for bridge pier in soil type I condition

Table 2. Seismic demands of the upgraded bridge for soil type I condition

Pier No. Pier type Bending stiffness

(×10 3 kN/m)

Disp. (m) Shear stress (MPa) Normal stress (MPa)

1 STP 521.0 0.022 4.340 4.070

2 STP 52.60 0.044 0.910 1.100

3 CTP 4.170 0.066 0.210 2.460

4 HSP 3.170 0.065 0.066 4.850

5 HSP 2.800 0.063 0.065 4.030

6 HSP 2.490 0.060 0.080 4.410

7 HSP 2.800 0.059 0.063 3.760

8 CTP 3.450 0.058 0.270 2.740

9 CTP 61.30 0.056 0.200 2.310

10 CTP 16.00 0.054 0.370 4.110

Conceptual Seismic Design
Strategies for Soil Type III

of China, 1989). Specially, the seismic demand
variations along these piers decrease and this
conceptual design strategy specifically makes the
seismic demands more uniform and rational along
the structural components and enhances the seis-
mic performance in the transverse direction ef-
ficiently.

Compared with the soil Type I, the specific pe-
riod T g = 0 4. s for soil Type III is relatively large.
It is obvious that the large deformation becomes
the critical problem for long span bridges in this
soil type. So the above proposed upgrading mea-
sures for soil Type I would not be applicable.