Cost Savings of Implementing Site-Specific Ground Motion Response Analysis in the Design of Short-Period Mississippi Embayment Bridges

Abstract

Deep dynamic site characterization and a site-specific ground motion response analysis (SSGMRA) were conducted for a bridge site in Monette, Arkansas. The SSGMRA indicated the design acceleration response spectrum determined using the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) general seismic procedure could be reduced by one third for the short-period range due to attenuation of the short-period ground motions. The steel girder pile-bent bridge, originally designed using the AASHTO general seismic design procedure, was redesigned using the updated seismic demands estimated from SSGMRA. A cost-savings analysis was then conducted to determine the potential savings associated with conducting the SSGMRA. By designing based on the results of the SSGMRA, a potential gross savings of $205,000, or 7% of the original bridge construction cost, could be achieved for the study bridge. Items that contributed most to the cost savings were the pile and embankment construction.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2011. Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, 2nd Ed., Washington, D.C.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2014. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 7th Ed., Washington, D.C.

Arkansas Geological Survey, 2017. Three Centuries of Earthquakes in Arkansas from 1699 through 2016, available at http://www.geology.ar.gov/maps_pdf/geohazards/Arkansas_Seismicity_Map.pdf.

Bettig

Bard

P. Y.

Scherbaum

Riepl

Cotton

Cornou

and Hatzfield

2001. Analysis of dense array noise measurements using the modified spatial auto correlation method (SPAC): Application to the Grenoble area, Bollettino de Geofisica Teoria e Applicata 42(3–4), 281–304.

Capon

1969. High resolution frequency-wavenumber spectrum analysis, Proceedings of IEEE 57(8), 1408–1418.

Cetin

K. O.

Seed

R. B.

Kiureghain

A. D.

Tokimatsu

Harder

L. F.

Kayen

R. E.

and Moss

R. E. S.

2004. Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 130(12), 1314–1340.

Coduto

D. P.

1999. Geotechnical Engineering: Principles and Practices, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458, 320.

Cox

B. R.

Ellis

T. B.

and Griffiths

S. C.

2012. Site-Specific Seismic Ground Motion Analyses for Transportation Infrastructure in the New Madrid Seismic Zone, Mack-Blackwell Rural Transportation Center, available at http://ww2.mackblackwell.org/web/research/ALL_RESEARCH_PROJECTS/3000s/3032/MBTC-3032FinalReport.pdf (last accessed July 2016).

Cox

and Wood

2011. Surface wave benchmarking exercise: methodologies, results, and uncertainties, GeoRisk 2011: Geotechnical Risk Assessment and Management, 845–852.

10.

Cramer

C. H.

Gomberg

J. S.

Schweig

E. S.

Waldron

B. A.

and Tucker

2004. The Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee, Seismic Hazard Maps, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2004-1294.

11.

Darendeli

2001. Development of a New Family of Normalized Modulus Reduction and Material Damping Curves, Ph.D. Dissertation, Civil Engineering Dept., University of Texas, Austin, TX.

12.

Deschenes

Wood

Wotherspoon

Bradley

and Thomson

2018. Development of deep shear wave velocity profiles in the Canterbury Plains, New Zealand, Earthquake Spectra (in review).

13.

DRIVEN (1.2), 2001. Computer software. Logan, UT: Blue-Six Software, Inc. Federal Highway Administration.

14.

Dunkin

J. W.

1965. Computation of modal solutions in layered, elastic media at high frequencies, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 55, 335–358.

15.

Griffiths

S. C.

Cox

B. R.

and Rathje

E. M.

2016a. Challenges associated with site response analyses for soft soils subjected to high-intensity input ground motions, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 85, 1–10.

16.

Griffiths

S. C.

Cox

B. R.

Rathje

E. M.

and Teague

D. P.

2016b. Mapping dispersion misfit and uncertainty in V_S profiles to variability in site response estimates, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 142(11), 04016062 1–12.

17.

Groholski

D. R.

Hashash

Y. M. A

Kim

Musgrove

Harmon

and Stewart

2016. Simplified model for small-strain nonlinearity and strength in 1D seismic site response Analysis, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 142(9), 04016042 1–14.

18.

Hancock

Watson-Lamprey

Abrahamson

Bommer

J. J.

Markatis

McCoy

and Mendis

2006. An improved method of matching response spectra of recorded earthquake ground motion using wavelets, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 10(1), 67–89.

19.

Harris

J. B.

Street

R. L.

Kiefer

J. D.

Allen

D. L.

and Wang

Z. M.

1994. Modeling site response in the Paducha, Kentucky, area, Earthquake Spectra 10(3), 519–538.

20.

Hashash

Phillips

and Groholski

2010. Recent Advances in Non-Linear Site Response Analysis, Proc. of the Fifth International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, San Diego, CA, OSP 4. 22 pp.

21.

Hashash

Y. M. A.

Musgrove

M. I.

Harmon

J. A.

Groholski

D. R.

Phillips

C. A.

and Park

2016. “DEEPSOIL 6.1, User Manual.” Urbana, IL, Board of Trustees of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

22.

Hashash

M. A.

and Park

2001. Non-linear one-dimensional seismic ground motion propagation in the Mississippi Embayment, Engineering Geology 62, 185–206.

23.

Haskell

N. A.

1953. The dispersion of surface waves on multilayered media, Bulletin of Seismological Society of America 43, 17–34.

24.

Idriss

I. M.

and Boulanger

R. W.

2008. Soil Liquefaction during Earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, MNO-12.

25.

Kim

Hashash

Y. M. A.

Stewart

J. P.

Rathje

E. M.

Harmon

J. A.

Musgrove

M. I.

Campbell

K. W.

and Silva

W. J.

2016. Relative differences between nonlinear and eqivalent-linear 1-D site response analyses, Earthquake Spectra 32(3), 1845–1865.

26.

Knopoff

1964. A matrix method for elastic wave problems, Bulletin of Seismological Society of America 54, 431–438.

27.

Kramer

S. L.

Arduino

and Sideras

S. S.

2012. Earthquake Ground Motion Selection, Washington State Transportation Center, available at https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/791.1.pdf (last accessed July 2016).

28.

Ketchum

Chang

and Shantz

2004. Influence of Design Ground Motion Level on Highway Bridge Costs, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center, Report No. Lifelines 6D01, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.

29.

Lin

Y. C.

Joh

S. H

and Stokoe

K. H.

2014. Analyst J: Analysis of the UTexas 1 surface wave dataset using the SASW methodology, Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers: Geo-Characterization and Modeling for Sustainability, GSP 234. 2014.

30.

Liu

and Stephenson

2004. Seismic response of two specific sites in the New Madrid Seismic Zone, Geotechnical Engineering for Transportation Projects (GeoTrans), Los Angeles, CA, pp. 1682–1690.

31.

Malekmohammadi

and Pezeshk

2015. Ground motion site amplification factors for sites located within the Mississippi Embayment with consideration of deep soil deposits, Earthquake Spectra 31(2), 699–722.

32.

McGuire

R. K.

Silva

W. J.

and Costantino

C. J.

2001. Technical Basis for Revision of Regulatory Guidance on Design Ground Motions: Hazard- and Risk-consistent Ground Motion Spectra Guidelings, NUREG/CR-6728, available at https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0131/ML013100012.pdf (last accessed July 2016).

33.

Mento

D. J.

Ervin

C. P.

and McGinnis

L. D.

1986. Periodic energy release in the New Madrid seismic zone, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 76, 1001–1009.

34.

NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, 2011. Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing Response-History Analyses, NIST GCR 11-917-15.

35.

Park

C. B.

Miller

R. D.

and Xia

1999. Multichannel analysis of surface waves, Geophysics 64(3), 800–808.

36.

Peyton

2017. Personal Communication, ARDOT Main Office, Little Rock, AR, June 28, 2017.

37.

Phillips

and Hashash

Y. M. A.

2009. Damping formulation for nonlinear 1D site response analyses, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29(7), 1143–1158.

38.

Ramírez-Guzmán

Boyd

Hartzell

and Williams

2012. Seismic velocity model of the central United States (Version 1): Description and simulation of the 18 April 2008 Mt. Carmel, Illinois, Earthquake, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2622–2645, available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70045157 (last accessed July 2016).

39.

Rathje

E. M.

Kottke

A. R.

and Trent

W. L.

2010. Influence of input motion and site property variabilities on seismic site response analysis, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 136(4), 607–619.

40.

Rodriguez-Marek

Rathje

E. M.

Bommer

J. J.

Scherbaum

and Stafford

P. J.

2014. Application of single-station sigma and site response characterization in a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for a new nuclear site, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 104, 1601–1619.

41.

Rogers

D. J.

Karadeniz

and Kaibel

C. K.

2007. Seismic site response modeling for three Missouri River highway bridges, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 11, 400–424.

42.

Romero

S. M.

and Rix

G. J.

2001. Ground Motion Amplification of Soil in the Upper Mississippi Embayment, National Science Foundation Mid America Center, GIT-CEE/GEO-01-1, Atlanta, GA.

43.

Rosenblad

Bailey

Csontos

and Van Arsdale

2010. Shear wave velocities of Mississippi Embayment soils from low frequency surface wave measurements, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30, 691–701.

44.

Site EffectS assessment using AMbient Excitations (SESAME), 2004. Guidelines for the implementation of the H/V spectral ratio technique on ambient vibrations: measurements, processing and interpretation, available at http://sesamefp5.obs.ujfgrenoble.fr/Delivrables/Del-D2 (last accessed July 2016).

45.

Stewart

J. P.

Kioumars

and Goulet

C. A.

2017. Non-ergodic site response in seismic hazard analysis, Earthquake Spectra 33(4), 1385–1414.

46.

Stewart

J. P.

Kwok

A. O.-L.

Hashash

Y. M. A.

Matasovic

Pyke

Wang

and Yang

2008. Benchmarking of Nonlinear Geotechnical Ground Response Analysis Procedures, PEER Report 2008/04, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 186 pp.

47.

Thomson

W. T.

1950. Transmission of elastic waves through a stratified solid medium, Journal of Applied Physics 21, 89–93.

48.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2017, Unified Hazard Tool, available at https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ (last accessed July 2016).

49.

Van Arsdale

R. B.

and TenBrink

R. K.

2000. Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic geology of the New Madrid seismic zone, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 90, 345–356.

50.

Wang

Zeng

Woolery

Street

and Ni

1996. A comprehensive geological and geotechnical study on site response at selected sites in the New Madrid seismic zone, Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 1631.

51.

Wathelet

Jongmans

Ohrnberger

and Bonnefoy-Claudet

2008. Array performances for ambient vibrations on a shallow structure and consequences over V_S inversion, Journal of Seismology 12, 1–19.

52.

WINSEISAB (v5.0.8), 2009. Computer software. Rancho Cordova, CA: TRC Companies, Inc.

53.

Wood

Ellis

Teague

and Cox

2014. Analyst I: Comprehensive analysis of the UTexas1 surface wave dataset, ASCE Geo-Congress 2014: Geo-Characterization and Modeling for Sustainability, Atlanta, GA, 23–26 February 2014.

54.

Youd

T. L.

Idriss

I. M.

Andrus

R. D.

Arango

Castro

Christian

J. T.

Dobry

Finn

W. D. L.

Harder

L. F.

Hynes

M. E.

Ishihara

Koester

J. P.

Liao

S. S. C.

Marcuson

W. F.

Martin

G. R.

Mitchell

J. K.

Moriwaki

Power

M. S.

Robertson

P. K.

Seed

R. B.

and Stokoe

K. H.

2001. Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 127(10), 817–833.

55.

Zheng

Hashash

Petersen

M. M.

and Whittaker

A. S.

2010. Site-Specific Response Analysis in the New Madrid Seismic Zone, International Conferences on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, 13 pp.

56.

Zywicki

D. J.

1999. Advanced Signal Processing Methods Applied to Engineering Analysis of Seismic Surface Waves, Ph.D. Dissertation, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.