EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
i
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1
2. General Earthquake Fundamentals and Effects ....................................................................................... 2
2.1 Earthquake Related Hazards ............................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Earthquake Size .................................................................................................................................. 5
2.3 Structural Design/Analysis Parameters ............................................................................................... 7
3. Seismicity of Oklahoma ............................................................................................................................ 8
3.1 Recent Seismic Events ........................................................................................................................ 8
3.2 Seismic Hazard Map of Oklahoma ................................................................................................... 11
3.3 Oklahoma Fault Map ........................................................................................................................ 12
4. Bridge Performance and Vulnerabilities ................................................................................................. 13
4.1 Seismic Performance of Bridges in Oklahoma ................................................................................. 14
5. Earthquake Response .............................................................................................................................. 16
5.1 Earthquake Response Accountability ............................................................................................... 16
5.2 Response Protocol ............................................................................................................................. 16
5.3 Post-Earthquake Bridge Inspection Stages ....................................................................................... 20
5.4 Reporting Procedures ........................................................................................................................ 21
6. Response Team Qualifications and Training .......................................................................................... 22
6.1 Stage 1 Inspection – Visual Assessment ........................................................................................... 22
6.2 Stage 2 Inspection – Detailed Assessment ........................................................................................ 23
6.3 Stage 3 Inspection – Specialized Assessment ................................................................................... 24
6.4 Management Training ....................................................................................................................... 25
7. Corrective Actions .................................................................................................................................. 26
7.1 Bridge Closure .................................................................................................................................. 26
7.2 Temporary Repairs ............................................................................................................................ 26
7.3 Structure Monitoring ......................................................................................................................... 35
8. Additional Sources of Information ......................................................................................................... 36
9. References ............................................................................................................................................... 38
Appendix A - Seismic Retrofitting of Bridges .......................................................................................... A-1
Appendix B - Post-Earthquake Radius Based Protocol ............................................................................ B-1
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
1
1. Introduction
Recent studies and data collected by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and Oklahoma
Geological Survey (OGS) show that Oklahoma has seen a tremendous increase in the frequency
of earthquakes since 2009. From 1978 through 2008, approximately 50 magnitude 3.0 and greater
earthquakes were recorded. From 2009 through 2013, 270 magnitude 3.0 and greater earthquakes
were recorded, including three magnitude 4.0 to 4.8 earthquakes, and a magnitude 5.6 earthquake
that occurred near Prague, OK on November 5, 2011. From 2014 through 2016, there were 2,111
magnitude 3.0 and greater earthquakes recorded, including 42 magnitude 4.0 to 4.8 earthquakes,
and the largest earthquake in Oklahoma’s history – a magnitude 5.8 earthquake that occurred in
Pawnee, OK on September 3, 2016.
Earthquakes can cause immense and irreversible damage to highway structures, a reality that is
very concerning given that bridges are a critical link in the highway network. The Oklahoma
Department of Transportation (ODOT) is responsible for assessing bridge conditions and
serviceability in the aftermath of significant earthquakes, and has taken a proactive approach in
putting a response plan in place to do so. The top priority of the response plan is to ensure the
safety of the traveling public.
Bridge structures are most likely to experience significant damage when located near the epicenter
of an earthquake and when the magnitude of the event is significantly high. This plan describes
the response levels for different magnitudes and provides clear guidance to ODOT’s personnel on
how to deploy its resources effectively and efficiently. Guidance is also provided on basic shoring
techniques that allow earthquake damaged structures to remain in service temporarily.
Specifically, this response plan is intended to:
• Educate personnel on earthquake fundamentals and Oklahoma specific seismicity
• Provide a clear and concise earthquake response protocol for Oklahoma bridges
• Define the levels of response and stages of inspection
• Outline minimum qualifications and training for post-earthquake inspection personnel
• Provide guidance on temporary shoring and repair techniques
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
2
2. General Earthquake Fundamentals and Effects
An effective response plan for post-earthquake bridge inspections requires ODOT’s key personnel
to be familiar with earthquake principles and potential effects. This section describes basic
earthquake concepts and terminology.
The earth is roughly spherical, with an equatorial diameter of 7,918 miles, and is formed by an
internal structure consisting of the crust, upper mantle, lower mantle, outer core and inner core.
Naturally occurring earthquakes are the result of movement along faults in the earth’s crust and
have a locatable point of origin. Large earthquakes produce enough energy to cause measurable
shaking and produce seismic waves which travel through the earth, being reflected and refracted
at boundaries between the earth’s layers, reaching different points on the surface by alternative
paths. The point at which rupture begins and the first seismic waves originate is called the focus,
or hypocenter. The epicenter, which is the commonly used term to locate an earthquake, is the
point on the ground surface directly above the hypocenter. Seismic waves provide data for
determining the preliminary location of an earthquake based on the recording of at least three
seismographs.
During an earthquake, two types of seismic waves are produced: body waves and surface waves.
Body waves can travel through the interior of the earth and are of two types: P-waves and S-waves.
P-waves (primary or compressional) involve successive compressions and dilations of the
materials through which they pass. Like sound waves, P-waves can travel through solids and fluids.
S-waves (secondary or shear) cause shearing deformations as they travel through a material.
Unlike P-waves, S-waves cannot travel through fluids, which have no shear stiffness.
Surface waves result from the interaction between body waves and the surface layers of the earth.
They travel along the earth’s surface with amplitudes that decrease roughly exponentially with
depth. Surface waves are more prominent at distances farther from the source of the earthquake.
2.1 Earthquake Related Hazards
Earthquakes alone do not pose a major threat to people; the resulting ground movements can
damage critical infrastructure, consequently posing a threat to people. Major earthquake hazards
are described in the following pages.
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
3
Ground Motion
When seismic waves reach the ground surface, they produce shaking that may last from seconds
to minutes. The strength and duration of the shaking at a particular site depends on the size and
location of the earthquake and the geological characteristics of the site. When high intensity ground
shaking takes place, structure damage or collapse may occur.
Aftershocks:
Aftershocks are typically smaller (or secondary) earthquakes that follow the main shock of an
earthquake, but can be strong enough to cause additional damage to a weakened structure.
Structural Hazards
Earthquakes have been the cause of numerous collapses and other significant damage to bridge
structures in the United States and other parts of the world. Structural damage is the leading cause
of death and economic loss resulting from earthquakes. It is not necessary for a structure to fully
collapse to pose a threat. Other forms of damage, such as severe spalling or utility dislodgment,
have caused fatalities and traffic obstructions. Considerable advances have been made in
earthquake-resistant bridge design, significantly reducing the potential for earthquake damage on
newer bridges.
Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction is a condition in which saturated, granular, non-plastic or low-plasticity fine-
grained soils undergo a substantial loss of their stiffness and strength and transform into a liquefied
state due to the build-up of excess pore pressure during cyclic loading, such as that induced by
earthquakes. The primary factors affecting the liquefaction potential of a soil deposit are: 1)
intensity and duration of earthquake shaking, 2) soil type and relative density, 3) overburden
pressures, and 4) depth to ground water. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are saturated loose
sands and low- to non-plastic silts (Cetin et al., 2004). The potential consequences of liquefaction
to engineered structures include loss of bearing capacity, buoyancy forces on underground
structures and utilities, ground oscillations or “cyclic mobility,” increased lateral earth pressures
on retaining walls, post liquefaction settlement, lateral spreading, and “flow failures” in slopes.
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
4
Lateral Spreading
Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading is defined as the mostly horizontal movement of sloping
ground (less than 5% surface slope) due to elevated pore pressures or liquefaction in underlying,
saturated soils. Structures at the head of the slide are sometimes pulled apart while those at the toe
are subjected to buckling or compression of the foundation soil. Linear infrastructure components,
such as utility lines and roadways, are particularly susceptible to damage in earthquake from lateral
spreads at multiple locations. Lateral spreading movements typically are greatest near a free-face
(such as the bridge abutment embankment slope) and diminish with distance from the free-face.
Landslides
A landslide, or landslip, is a geological phenomenon that involves a wide range of ground
movements, deep failure of slopes and shallow debris flows. A natural or fill slope can become
unstable and fail, especially if the soil is saturated with water. These events are common when
heavy rains or rapid snowmelt are present during an earthquake. A slope underlain by potentially
liquefiable soils has higher chance of experiencing flow failure or large deformations during a
seismic event.
Flooding and Fires
Earthquakes have the potential to cause further threats during shaking or after it ceases. Floods
and fires can be easily triggered in earthquakes by structural collapses, broken hydraulic systems
(e.g., piping), roadway accidents and broken gas or power lines. These hazards can cause serious
damage if not attended to immediately.
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
5
2.2 Earthquake Size
The “size” of an earthquake is a significant parameter and has been described in numerous
manners. In the past, characterizing earthquakes (how individuals described the shaking) was the
most common method, but as research in earthquake engineering has progressed, field
instrumentation has evolved. Although several methods for measuring earthquakes are available,
this section will be limited to describing them by Magnitude (Richter and Moment Magnitude
Scales) and Intensity (Modified Mercalli scale) and will also provide a brief explanation on ground
motion measuring.
Earthquakes are typically measured by magnitude and intensity. Magnitude aims to measure the
amount of energy released in an event. Intensity is a qualitative description of the effects of the
earthquake at a particular location, as evidenced by observed damage and human reactions at that
location.
Earthquake Magnitude
Magnitudes are commonly measured using the Richter Scale or the Moment Magnitude Scale. The
Richter Scale uses the amplitude of the largest wave recorded by a seismometer and the distance
between the earthquake and seismometer. The scale is fairly accurate when measuring low to
moderate earthquakes, but lacks accuracy when measuring large earthquakes. The Moment
Magnitude Scale (Mw) has gained preference as it provides for a wider range of earthquakes. This
scale is based on the seismic moment (a product of the shear modulus of the rocks involved, area
of the rupture along the fault, and the average displacement within the rupture) of an earthquake.
Earthquake Intensity
Intensity is a simple and practical method of measurement and relates to the descriptions of the
effects generally felt by people after an earthquake. A well-known intensity scale is known as the
Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI). This method allows an individual to compare and match a
specific earthquake experience to the descriptions defined in the scale. Refer to Figure 1.
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
6
I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances
II Felt by only a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings; delicately suspended
objects may swing
III Felt quite noticeable indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings, but many people do not
recognize it as an earthquake; standing motor cars may rock slightly; vibration like passing of truck;
duration estimated
IV During the day felt indoors by many, outdoors by few; at night some awakened; dishes, windows,
doors disturbed, walls make cracking sound; sensation like heavy truck striking building; standing
motor cars rocked noticeably
V Felt by nearly everyone, many awakened; some dishes, windows, etc. broken; a few instances of
cracked plaster; unstable objects overturned; disturbances of trees
VI Felt by all, many frightened and run outdoors; some heavy furniture moved or overturned; a few
instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys; slight damage
VII Everybody runs outdoors; damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction, slight to
moderate in well-built ordinary structures, considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed
structures; some chimneys broken; noticed by persons driving motor cars; waves created on ponds
VIII Slight damage in specially designed structures, considerable damage in ordinary substantial
buildings, with partial collapse, great in poorly built structures; panel walls thrown out of frame
structures; fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls; heavy furniture overturned;
changes in well water; Unbolted wood framed buildings moved off of foundations; steering of cars
is affected
IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out
of plumb; great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse; wood buildings racked or shifted off
foundations; ground cracked conspicuously; underground pipes broken
X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with
foundations; ground badly cracked; rails bent; landslides considerable from river banks and steep
slopes; shifted sand and mud; water splashed over banks
XI Few, if any (masonry) structures remain standing, bridges destroyed; broad fissures in ground;
underground pipelines completely out of service; earth slumps and land slips in soft ground rails
bent greatly
XII Total damage; practically all works of construction are damaged greatly or destroyed; waves seen
on ground surface; lines of sight and level are distorted; objects thrown into the air
Figure 1: Modified Mercalli Intensity
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
7
2.3 Structural Design/Analysis Parameters
The following terms and associated definitions are essential to how bridges and other structures
respond to an earthquake, and are used in the design and analysis of structures:
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA)
PGA is the maximum ground surface acceleration at a given location; it is considered an
indispensable parameter for designing earthquake-resistant structures. This concept can also be
expressed as the acceleration experienced by a particle sitting on the ground during a seismic event.
Spectral Acceleration
Spectral acceleration (Sa) is approximately the maximum acceleration that is experienced, during
a given earthquake, by a building or a bridge, as modeled by a single-degree-of-freedom oscillator
having the same natural period of vibration and damping as the structure. Spectral acceleration is
the most commonly used ground-motion intensity measure in practice today for analysis of
buildings and bridges.
Response Spectrum
The acceleration response spectrum of a given ground motion is the plot of the the maximum
accelerations (spectral accelerations) versus the natural periods of an infinite set of single degree
of freedom systems with a specified damping. This is primarily used for designing earthquake
resistant structures.
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
8
3. Seismicity of Oklahoma
Seismicity refers to the relative rate and distribution of earthquakes. The number of earthquakes
felt in Oklahoma from 2011 through 2016 is unusual when compared to historical seismicity trends
in the state. A brief summary of historical seismic events is provided below.
The first recorded earthquake in the State of Oklahoma occurred in September 1918. A series of
tremors in the El Reno area produced only minor effects. The reported shakings reached an
intensity of V on the MMI Scale. Lateral movements caused objects to shift in position resulting
in minor structural damage. The next day, aftershocks were reported with no casualties or reported
major damages to structures.
On April 9, 1952 one of the most significant earthquakes felt in Oklahoma took place in the center
of the El Reno area. The M5.5 earthquake caused the general public to feel alarmed and concerned
about the shaking event. Fortunately, the damage from the earthquake was not extensive. Referring
to the MMI scale, the public assessed the tremors at an intensity of VII, meaning there was damage
to masonry and chimneys. Aftershocks were felt on April 11, 15, and 16, July 16, and August 14
with no significant structural damage reported.
Approximately five more noteworthy seismic events happened throughout the state during the
coming decades with intensities no more than VII, with no casualties and only minor to moderate
damage reported.
3.1 Recent Seismic Events
The largest earthquake in Oklahoma of M5.8 occurred on September 3, 2016. The epicenter, as
reported by the USGS, was located approximately 9 miles northwest of the town of Pawnee,
Oklahoma. Subsequently, bridges were inspected for damage (see Section 4). Prior to this event,
two events larger than M5.0 occurred in Oklahoma within 5 years: the November 5, 2011 M5.6
earthquake in Prague, Oklahoma and the February 13, 2016 M5.1 earthquake in Fairview,
Oklahoma. Following the M5.8 Pawnee earthquake, only superficial damage was observed on a
few bridges.
In 2013 the OGS documented two M3.0 and higher (based on the Richter scale) earthquakes each
week on average, and this rate continued to increase during 2014 and 2015, when the OGS reported
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
9
approximately 2.5 daily tremors of M3.0 and higher. Oklahoma has historically experienced some
level of seismicity (Figure 2), but the recent rise in earthquakes cannot be entirely attributed to
natural causes. Seismologists have documented the relationship between produced water (water
pumped from wells and separated from the oil and gas produced) disposal and triggered seismic
activity. The OGS has determined that the majority of recent earthquakes in central and north-
central Oklahoma were likely triggered by the injection of produced waters (sometimes referred
to as wastewater) in disposal wells.
The OGS documented the following geological and geophysical characteristics related to the
recent earthquake activity within Oklahoma:
• The seismicity rate in 2013 was 70 times greater than the background seismicity rate
observed in Oklahoma prior to 2008.
• The seismicity rate in 2016 was about 600 times greater than the background seismicity
rate, and was unlikely to be the result of a natural process.
• The majority of earthquakes in central and north-central Oklahoma occur as earthquake
swarms (sequences of many earthquakes striking in a relatively short period of time) and
not in the typical foreshock-mainshock-aftershock sequences. However, it is recognized
that naturally occurring earthquake swarms do occur and have occurred within the region.
• Earthquake swarms are occurring over a large area, about 15 percent of the area of
Oklahoma, which experienced significant increases in produced water disposal volumes
from 2011 through 2016.
• Because of the increased number of small and moderate shocks, the likelihood of future
damaging earthquakes has increased for central and north-central Oklahoma.
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
10
Figure 2: Earthquake activity in Oklahoma
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
11
3.2 Seismic Hazard Map of Oklahoma
The intensities of earthquake motions are highly dependent on the geotechnical properties of a
specific location. The hazard map is based on the probability of exceeding a certain amount of
ground shaking in a given period of time for a specific location. These maps are used to predict
potential earthquake activity and provide site information to engineers to design adequate
earthquake-resisting structures or evaluate retrofitting options to withstand earthquake loads. They
also increase awareness and provide valuable information to the public.
The seismic hazard map of Oklahoma illustrated in Figure 3 is primarily influenced by Meers fault
in Southwest Oklahoma. The map shows that the maximum PGA associated with ground motions
having 2% probability of exceedance within 50 years is about 40% of the acceleration due to
gravity (0.4g) at a location near the City of Lawton. It can also be seen that Interstate-44 crosses
this seismic hazard zone.
The area delimited with the hexagon-shaped black line indicates zones where induced
(nontectonic) earthquakes have been detected, but Figure 3 does not include the seismic hazard
associated with these induced earthquakes.
Figure 3: Oklahoma Hazard Map -Two-percent probability of exceedance in 50 years map of peak
ground acceleration (USGS -2014)
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
12
3.3 Oklahoma Fault Map
OGS continues to update the preliminary fault map shown below. This map is compiled from the
Oklahoma fault database, and includes input from oil and gas industry data and published
literature. The map identifies surface and subsurface faults in the state, and currently includes
3,418 fault segments from industry contributions and more than 6,000 fault segments from
published literature. Identifying fault orientations is important for determining the potential
earthquake hazard of both naturally occurring and triggered seismicity.
Figure 4: Oklahoma preliminary fault map
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
13
4. Bridge Performance and Vulnerabilities
The first bridges in Oklahoma were designed without consideration of seismic forces and it was
not until the mid-1970’s that AASHTO’s Bridge Design Specifications included provisions for
seismic design in the United States. Consequently, bridges designed and constructed prior to this
time are more vulnerable to earthquake induced damage. With the recent rise in seismic activity
in the state, awareness of the vulnerabilities of existing structures will aid ODOT in mitigating the
possibility of damage to structures due to seismic activity.
The performance of a bridge structure under dynamic excitation is dependent on the magnitude,
direction of waves and proximity of an earthquake, the site conditions (i.e. geotechnical properties)
and the response factors of a structure. Damage in bridge elements occurs when the seismic
demand exceeds their capacity. The most common vulnerability factors for bridges are shown in
Figure 5. A bridge must also be able to endure displacements or deflections without losing stability.
High displacements in bridge elements such as bearings may lead to a partial or full span collapse.
Vulnerability Cause
Bridge Geometry
Bent configurations
Degree of skew or angle, curved structures
Short bearing seat widths
Multi-level systems
Multiple superstructure types
No Structural Redundancy No multiple-load-paths or continuous structures
Age of Design
Columns
Inadequate confinement
Inadequate shear strength
Location and strength of lap splices
Cap Beams
Reduced flexural strength
Insufficient bar anchorage
Inadequate shear strength
Inadequate strength in torsion
Joints
Insufficient bar anchorage
Inadequate shear strength
Inadequate joint steel
Foundations Insufficient flexural strength
Inadequate shear strength
Inadequate anchorage
Bearings Insufficient seat length
Bearing instability
Superstructure
Lack of transverse shear keys
Damage from skewed bridges
Settlement
Structural Condition Shear/Flexural cracks, corrosion, fracture, loss of net area in
superstructure.
Geotechnical Properties
Soft soils (soft clays and organic material) amplify the effects of an
earthquake. Liquefaction, landslides and lateral spreading are some of the
typical potential threats to structures.
Figure 5: Bridge seismic vulnerabilities
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
14
Vulnerable Structure Types and Details
Bridges must include seismic design or lateral resisting elements for satisfactory performance
during earthquakes. Bridges that were built before AASHTO’s code provisions were redefined in
the 1970’s may include lateral resisting elements or bracing for wind loads, but did not consider
details for resisting ground motions. Bridges built after 1980 are more likely to perform better and
can be considered more seismically resistant. The age of construction of bridges is available in the
National Bridge Inventory (NBI).
Simply supported bridges were found to be vulnerable during earthquakes because of their lack of
structural continuity and inadequate bearing seat lengths. These types of structures have
experienced significant damage and collapse in past earthquakes. Skewed and curved structures
were also found problematic and vulnerable to ground motions.
4.1 Seismic Performance of Bridges in Oklahoma
Aware of the damages that can be caused by the rise of seismic activity in the state, ODOT
strategically selected three bridge structures to be analyzed and assessed for seismic performance.
These seismic studies considered critical variables for Oklahoma bridges based on bridge design
characteristics, site specific geology, ground motions and typical site conditions, and concluded
that the potential for structural damage is low for typical bridges and can reach slight damage for
unconventional bridges under both the 7% probability of exceedance (PE) in 75 years and 2% PE
in 50 years level events considered.
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
15
Figure 6: Typical bridge structure in Oklahoma used to study bridge vulnerability
Additionally, assessments completed by ODOT and Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance
(GEER) after the M5.8 earthquake in Pawnee, Oklahoma on September 3, 2016 indicated only a
few of the bridge structures presented signs of slight earthquake damage, including a dislodged
roller bearing, spalled concrete cover on the abutments (Figure 7), cracks up to ¾-in wide, and
gapping between the backfill soil and abutment backwall.
Figure 7: Earthquake related slight damage to bridge structure
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
16
5. Earthquake Response
5.1 Earthquake Response Accountability
Each field division will assign an Earthquake Response Lead (ERL). The ERL is the Division
Engineer until designated otherwise by the Division Engineer. The ERL is responsible for
initiating and overseeing a response and assigning resources as needed, as well as coordinating
with ODOT Central office and other field divisions as needed. The ERL is the primary point of
contact for all assigned inspection teams.
5.2 Response Protocol
The Oklahoma Department of Transportation relies on two protocols to determine which bridges
are most likely impacted by an earthquake: (1) ShakeCast-OK (primary) and (2) Radius Based
Protocol (secondary, but recommended as primary for local governments). A copy of the Radius
Based Protocol is provided in Appendix B.
(1) ShakeCast-OK
ShakeCast (short for ShakeMap Broadcast) is a situational awareness application developed by the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that automatically retrieves a ShakeMap from a USGS server,
compares shaking intensities against bridge fragility curves, and sends email notifications of
potential impacts to bridges. ShakeMap is a product of the USGS Earthquake Hazard Program
that generates maps showing the intensity of ground shaking in the area following an earthquake.
These maps incorporate both attenuation models and recorded seismic station data. Fragility
curves define the probability of exceeding a given damage state as a function of the ground-motion
intensity.
Within 10 – 20 minutes after an earthquake that triggers a response, each Division’s ERL, and
other designated ODOT personnel, will receive an email (Figure 8). Each email has two parts: the
body and an attached .pdf report. The body of the email includes a ShakeMap of the earthquake
(Figure 9) and a list of all potentially impacted on-system bridges in the state (Figure 10). As
shown in Figure 10, bridges have four levels of impact potential: low, medium, medium-high, and
high. These levels correspond to the potential for slight, moderate, extensive, and complete
damage states, respectively, to the bridge. When practical, high potential for impact bridges should
be inspected first, medium-high second, medium third, and low last. The bridge information under
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
17
the column heading DIV# is the facility carried and the feature intersected. Facility ID includes
each bridge’s ODOT structure number and the first five digits of its National Bridge Inventory
(NBI) number. Location gives the latitude and longitude of the bridge. The information from
these emails can be copied and pasted into a spreadsheet to be sorted such that the ERL can best
organize a route to inspect bridges.
Figure 8: Automated email created and delivered by ShakeCast
Each affected Division will locate the available resources and determine if they possess sufficient
inspection personnel or require additional inspection crews. The main objective of these
inspections is to evaluate the extent of damage and conclude whether a structure is safe and
functional, or poses a potential safety risk. Equipment, tools, forms, and checklists should be
prepared in advance in anticipation of an event and be available for immediate use.
A typical earthquake response would proceed as follows:
1. An earthquake response is triggered by ShakeCast; automated email is sent within 10 to 20
minutes.
2. The ERL in each affected division checks the list for bridges to be inspected and organizes
the inspections for efficiency. Critical bridges or high impact potential bridges are to be
inspected first if practical.
3. The ERL assigns bridges to Stage 1 inspectors and monitors their progress. The inspections
are to be started as soon as possible after the earthquake and continue until all assigned
bridges are inspected. The ERL may add bridges to the inspection list at his/her discretion
based on special circumstances or knowledge.
4. If Stage 1 inspectors find damage or a bridge that needs to be closed, the inspectors notify
the ERL immediately. The ERL notifies appropriate personnel and coordinates Stage 2
Inspections, Stage 3 Inspections, and closures as necessary. If damage is found, the ERL
should have all bridges within 5 miles of damaged bridge inspected if they are not already
on the list.
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
18
5. Upon completion of Stage 1 inspections, the ERL notifies the Division Engineer, Director
of Operations, Media and Public Relations, and State Bridge Engineer of the results for
their Division.
Figure 9: Example ShakeCast email body – ShakeMap
Scott Harvey <[email protected]>
POTENTIAL IMPACTS: DIV4, OKLAHOMA (us10006jxs Version 9)
ShakeCast V3 <[email protected]> Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:00 AMTo: ShakeCast V3 <[email protected]>
Potential Impacts: DIV4
This report supersedes any earlier reports about this event. This is a computergenerated message and has not yet beenreviewed by an Engineer or Seismologist. Epicenter and magnitude are published by the USGS. Reported magnitudemay be revised and will not be reported through ShakeCast. The USGS website should be referenced for the most uptodate information. Inspection prioritization emails will be sent shortly if ShakeCast determines significant shaking occurredat user's infrastructure. An interactive version of this report is accessible on the ShakeCast internet/intranet website.
Earthquake Details
Name: (not assigned at this time) Magnitude: 5.8 ShakeMap ID: us10006jxs9 Location: OKLAHOMA LatitudeLongitude: 36.4251, 96.9291 Local Time: 20160903 12:02:44
Summary of Potential Impacts: DIV4
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
19
Figure 10: Example ShakeCast email body – Impact potential and bridge information
Name: (not assigned at this time) Magnitude: 5.8 ShakeMap ID: us10006jxs9 Location: OKLAHOMA LatitudeLongitude: 36.4251, 96.9291 Local Time: 20160903 12:02:44
Summary of Potential Impacts: DIV4
Total number of facilities analyzed: 32 Summary by impact rank:
High 0 High impact potential
MediumHigh 0 MediumHigh impact potential
Medium 0 Medium impact potential
Low 32 Low impact potential
Below Threshold 0 No impact potential
List of Potentially Impacted Facilities: DIV4
DIV4 presented in the table below are sorted in order of impact potential. The list includes the top 200 facilities in the areaof shaking. The complete list is available on the web server.
DIV4Facility ID
LocationImpact
PotentialPSA10
U.S. 177 / CIMARRON TP GATE UNDER5238 1470 X/ 19078
36.3833, 97.0678 Low 13.04
U.S. 177 / BNSF R.R. UNDER5224 1150 X /19350
36.4572, 97.0678 Low 12.27
U.S. 64 / LONG BRANCH CREEK5204 1619 X/ 21610
36.2965, 96.9952 Low 12.75
S.H. 108 / CIMARRON TP UNDER6034 0210 X/ 19063
36.2374, 96.9258 Low 11.19
U.S. 64 / OAK CREEK5204 1904 X/ 21540
36.3065, 96.9457 Low 9.74
U.S. 177 / LONG BRANCH CREEK6031 0920 X/ 22013
36.2349, 97.0699 Low 9.09
U.S. 177 / BLACK BEAR CREEK5224 0223 X/ 28201
36.3227, 97.0676 Low 13.26
U.S. 177 / BLACK BEAR CREEK N O'FLO5224 0241 X/ 28202
36.3252, 97.0676 Low 13.26
U.S. 177 / BLACK BEAR CREEK S O'FLO5224 0201 X/ 28200
36.3192, 97.0676 Low 13.26
S.H. 108 / SLWC R.R. UNDER6028 0801 X/ 26054
36.2334, 96.9261 Low 11.19
U.S. 177 / RED ROCK CREEK5228 0215 X/ 25020
36.4941, 97.0736 Low 11.2
U.S. 177 / RED ROCK CREEK O'FLOW5228 0231 X/ 25021
36.4965, 97.0737 Low 11.2
S.H. 15 / LONG BRANCH CREEK5220 1062 X/ 26443
36.4637, 97.0927 Low 10.44
S.H. 15 / RED ROCK CREEK5220 0503 X/ 12846
36.4649, 97.1934 Low 7.39
U.S. 177 / SALT FORK ARKANSAS RIVER5228 0778 X/ 24475
36.5774, 97.0773 Low 9.76
U.S. 177 / SALT FK ARK RVR O'FLOW5228 0878 X/ 24477
36.5899, 97.0773 Low 9.76
U.S. 177 / SALT FK ARK RVR O'FLOW5228 0824 X/ 24476
36.5826, 97.0773 Low 9.76
S.H. 66 / DEEP FORK RIVER5510 1326 X/ 19618
35.6664, 97.2017 Low 6.3
S.H. 15 / LEGEND CREEK5220 0632 X/ 26444
36.4637, 97.1703 Low 7.44
U.S. 177 / STILLWATER CREEK6016 0760 X/ 20320
36.0989, 97.0513 Low 5.98
S.H. 66 / SLWC R.R. UNDER5510 1378 X/ 22647
35.6671, 97.1916 Low 6.3
S.H. 156 / U.S. 60 UNDER3630 0823 X/ 17545
36.6881, 97.1387 Low 6.29
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
20
5.3 Post-Earthquake Bridge Inspection Stages
Stage 1 Inspections
The objective of the Stage 1 Inspections is to efficiently assess the extent of the earthquake-related
damage and take appropriate action, including the closure of unsafe bridges. Refer to the ODOT’s
Post-Earthquake Bridge Inspection Manual for a detailed description of the Stage 1 Inspection
process.
Stage 2 Inspections
The ERL will initiate Stage 2 Inspections on bridges flagged with “Further Evaluation Required”
during the Stage 1 Inspection. The Stage 2 Inspection teams will normally be deployed within 8
hours of the event and continue until a comprehensive picture of the damage is obtained. Special
access equipment, maintenance, and traffic control personnel may be needed for these teams, as
described in the Post-Earthquake Bridge Inspection Manual. The ERL will prioritize the Stage 2
Inspections based on findings from the Stage 1 Inspections. ShakeCast reports and Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) maps will facilitate the efficient management of these inspections.
Additional inspection teams will be brought in, as necessary, from consulting firms and other DOT
divisions.
The Stage 2 Inspection team leader will determine if critical findings are present at each bridge.
Critical findings will be communicated immediately to the ERL to facilitate a timely decision in
closing (or reopening) a bridge, restricting traffic, writing a repair request, suggesting more
substantial remedial work, or requesting further investigation.
Stage 3 Inspections
Stage 3 Inspections may be requested by the ERL to the State Bridge Engineer when a bridge has
been closed, partially closed, or requires specialized repair expertise. The purpose of the Stage 3
Inspection is to assess the damage and determine the safest and most efficient means of restoring
service to the bridge. The Stage 3 Inspection team will be comprised of, at a minimum, a structural
engineer, a geotechnical engineer, and a certified bridge inspector, all meeting the qualifications
and training requirements outlined in Section 6 of this response plan.
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
21
5.4 Reporting Procedures
Stage 1 and 2 Inspection teams will use the inspection forms provided in the Post-Earthquake
Bridge Inspection Manual to report their findings to the ERL. These forms will be submitted at
the end of each inspection day along with photographic documentation when appropriate. The
inspection teams will immediately notify the ERL when a bridge has been closed and/or has critical
earthquake related damage that requires immediate corrective action. The ERL is responsible to
coordinate with and report relevant information to the Division Engineer, the Director of
Operations, the Chief of Media & Public Relations, the State Bridge Engineer, and other ODOT
and external authorities as appropriate.
Post-Earthquake inspection documentation (completed Stage 1 and 2 Inspection forms, ShakeCast
reports, photos, etc.) will be filed in the applicable field division office for a period of at least 12-
months from the date of the inspection, at which time the ERL has the discretion to discard them.
When earthquake related damage has been reported on a bridge, the Stage 1 and/or 2 Inspection
form(s) will be filed in the official bridge inspection file, along with any documentation related to
closure of the bridge and/or earthquake damage repair activities.
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
22
6. Response Team Qualifications and Training
The Oklahoma Department of Transportation relies on appropriately qualified and trained
personnel to conduct post-earthquake bridge inspections. The qualifications and training
requirements increase with each successive inspection stage. These inspection stages are listed
below:
1. Stage 1 Inspection – Visual Assessment
2. Stage 2 Inspection – Detailed Assessment
3. Stage 3 Inspection – Specialized Assessment
The qualifications and training requirements for each inspection stage are as follows:
6.1 Stage 1 Inspection – Visual Assessment
The recommended qualifications for a Stage 1 Inspection are intentionally kept to a minimum.
Stage 1 Inspections will often be performed, out of necessity, by individuals not fully qualified or
trained in bridge inspection (i.e. maintenance personnel and other capable first responders). The
members of the inspection team should satisfy at least one of the following conditions: 1) has
successfully completed a Stage 1 bridge inspection training program or 2) has experience and/or a
technical background related to bridges or other types of structures.
The Stage 1 Inspection training program is anticipated to take 3 ½ to 4 hours of classroom time
(with breaks), and is intended to thoroughly familiarize the participants with the Post-Earthquake
Bridge Inspection Manual and prepare them to properly identify earthquake related bridge
inspection damage and take appropriate action. Classroom team exercises will be used to reinforce
the desired learning outcomes (objectives), which are outlined below:
• Understand ODOT’s Post-Earthquake Bridge Inspection Manual
• Define the qualifications and role of the Stage 1 inspector
• Define basic bridge terminology and identify Oklahoma common bridge types and
components
• Describe ODOT’s Stage 1 Inspection process
• List safety concerns for post-earthquake inspections
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
23
6.2 Stage 2 Inspection – Detailed Assessment
Stage 2 Inspections are intended to provide detailed, and in some cases in-depth (hands-on),
evaluations of structures; these inspections therefore require additional training. These inspections
are carried out by a team leader qualified under the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS)
and assistant inspectors meeting the minimum qualifications for a Stage 1 Inspection as described
in Section 6.1. An inspection team leader is the individual in charge of an inspection team and is
responsible for planning, preparing, and performing post-earthquake inspections of bridges. A
qualified inspection team leader will be present at the bridge at all times during a Stage 2
Inspection. Minimum qualifications for a Stage 2 post-earthquake bridge inspection team leader
are identical to the NBIS team leader qualifications, and include completion of the ODOT QC/QA
training (annually) and completion of a FHWA-approved comprehensive bridge inspection
training course, as well as meeting one of the following qualifications:
1) Be a registered Professional Engineer, or
2) Have five (5) years of bridge inspection experience, or
3) Be certified as a Level III or IV Bridge Safety Inspector under the National Society of
Professional Engineers program for the National Institute for Certification in Engineering
Technologies (NICET), or
4) Have all of the following:
• A bachelor’s degree in engineering from a college or university accredited by or
determined as substantially equivalent by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology (ABET)
• Successfully passed the NICET Fundamentals of Engineering Examination
• Two (2) years of bridge inspection experience in a responsible capacity, or
5) Have all of the following:
• An associate's degree in engineering or engineering technology from a college or
university accredited by or determined as substantially equivalent by ABET
• Four (4) years of bridge inspection experience in a responsible capacity
The Stage 2 Inspection training program is anticipated to take 1 to 1 ½ hours of classroom time
and is intended to familiarize the participants with ODOT’s Post-Earthquake Bridge Inspection
Manual and prepare them to properly identify earthquake related bridge inspection damage and
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
24
take appropriate action. The primary difference between the Stage 1 and Stage 2 training is that
the Stage 2 training does not include an overview of bridge components and common Oklahoma
bridges, recognizing that participants are experienced bridge inspectors.
The desired learning outcomes (objectives) are outlined below:
• Understand ODOT’s Post-Earthquake Bridge Inspection Manual
• Define the qualifications and role of the Stage 2 inspector
• Describe ODOT’s Stage 2 Inspection process
• List safety concerns for post-earthquake inspections
6.3 Stage 3 Inspection – Specialized Assessment
The purpose of the Stage 3 Inspection is to assess the damage and determine the safest and most
efficient means of restoring service to a bridge. The Stage 3 Inspection team will be comprised
of, at a minimum, a structural engineer, a geotechnical engineer, and a certified bridge inspector,
all meeting the qualifications and training requirements outlined below:
Structural Engineer Qualifications
Oklahoma licensed Professional Engineer (PE) with minimum of 15-years of relevant bridge
experience. Relevant bridge experience can be combination of bridge design, rehabilitation, safety
inspection, load rating, construction, and academic experience. Seismic bridge retrofitting
experience and/or emergency bridge shoring/repair experience is preferred. The State Bridge
Engineer is ultimately responsible to qualify structural engineers for Stage 3 Inspections.
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
25
Geotechnical Engineer Qualifications
Oklahoma licensed Professional Engineer (PE) with minimum of 15-years of relevant bridge
experience. Relevant bridge experience can be combination of bridge seismic analysis,
geotechnical evaluation in support of bridge design or construction, and academic experience.
Seismic bridge retrofitting experience and/or emergency bridge shoring/repair experience is
preferred. The State Bridge Engineer is ultimately responsible to qualify geotechnical engineers
for Stage 3 inspections.
Certified Bridge Inspector Qualifications
NBIS and ODOT qualified bridge inspector with fracture critical and complex bridge inspection
experience. Seismic bridge retrofitting experience and/or emergency bridge shoring/repair
experience is preferred. The State Bridge Engineer is ultimately responsible to qualify Certified
Bridge Inspectors for Stage 3 inspections.
6.4 Management Training
In addition to the qualification and training requirements outlined above, ODOT is committed to
providing management level training on this response plan. This training should familiarize
ODOT’s executive staff, division managers, and other key personnel on their role and
responsibilities in effectively managing the Earthquake Response Plan. The training should also
educate and familiarize ODOT’s personnel with ShakeCast-OK, and include an explanation of its
benefits, how to interpret reports, and how to establish an earthquake response based on specific
earthquake events. The training is intended for any personnel who will participate in the following
activities:
1. Planning
2. Coordination
3. Making decisions based on inspection findings
4. Communication/Dissemination of information to the media and public
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
26
7. Corrective Actions
This section focuses on corrective actions for earthquake-induced bridge damage. Activities that
ensure the safety of the traveling public and/or restore serviceability to a bridge after an earthquake
are considered corrective actions. These actions include closing damaged bridges, providing
temporary or permanent repairs, and monitoring structures.
7.1 Bridge Closure
Inspection team leaders are responsible to close a bridge (and/or a route under the bridge) when
conditions are observed that make the bridge unsafe to the traveling public. When a bridge requires
closure, the team leader is responsible to contact the ERL immediately. The ERL will coordinate
traffic control and assistance for the inspectors as needed. The inspection team is to remain on site
until the bridge is properly closed.
At the discretion of the ERL, and in coordination with the State Bridge Engineer, traffic restrictions
may be imposed in lieu of complete closure. Traffic restrictions may include any combination of
the following actions:
• Weight limit reduction
• Speed reduction
• Traffic shifts (removing loads from unsafe members)
7.2 Temporary Repairs
Bridges that have sustained earthquake damage can be restored with temporary repairs while
permanent repairs are planned and implemented. Temporary repairs can be made in order to
provide full, emergency or limited access to vehicles. Temporary repairs are to be treated as such
and should not remain long term as permanent repairs. This section provides typical solutions for
several types of earthquake damage found on bridges.
Assessing the condition of a bridge is the first step to identifying if temporary repairs are feasible.
This assessment should be performed by a qualified Stage 3 Inspection team. Characterizing the
bridge damage will narrow the approach engineers take when considering repairs. Temporary
repairs can be as simple as adding sand or stone fill to the deck to smoothen riding surface or as
complicated as installation of shoring systems.
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
27
Since the Stage 3 Inspection team is assumed to have extensive experience with bridge repair and
rehabilitation, and since the variety of repair options is quite extensive, this section focuses purely
on span transition repairs, approach/bridge transition repairs and temporary shoring concepts.
Transition Repairs
Roadways, approaches and bridge spans can sustain significant earthquake damage and may no
longer provide safe riding surfaces for vehicles. Solutions to typical observed problems are listed
below:
• Steel plates are used as a quick solution to connect earthquake-induced gaps between
expansion or construction joints. These elements will improve transition and promote a
smooth riding surface.
• Asphalt mixtures are the most common method for providing smooth transitions when
vertical offsets are present.
• Sand and stone fill are used as an alternative solution to address offsets and are less costly
when compared to asphalt mixtures, but provide less quality and durability in the overall
repair.
• Jacking may be used when bearings sustain considerable damage; the use of hydraulic jacks
to reset or replace the bearings to fix vertical offsets is a viable option.
Shoring
Shoring refers to the action of providing additional support elements to assist damaged or
weakened superstructure or substructure elements. This temporary repair is used to provide
alternate load paths to decrease load demands on weakened elements. The main objective of
shoring is to temporarily restore the serviceability of a bridge while more permanent repairs are
planned and implemented. Various shoring concepts, including common configurations and
materials, are shown on the following pages.
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
28
Figure 11: Typical temporary shoring photographs
Temporary wooden shoring of Bent after the
Northridge earthquake (NISEE)
Installing temporary wooden shoring at the La Cienaga
- Venice highway undercrossing following the
Northridge earthquake (NISEE)
View of temporary support to prevent total
collapse of steel girder bridge (INDOT)
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
29
Figure 12: Typical wood shoring - front
Figure 13: Typical wood shoring – side
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
30
Figure 14: Typical wood shoring
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
31
Figure 15: Typical steel shoring configuration Figure 16: Typical column to support beam
connection
Figure 17: Typical diagonal to column
connection
Figure 18: Installed stiffeners in existing steel
girders
Figure 19: Typical horizontal steel channel
connections
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
32
Figure 20: Steel shoring configuration - front
Figure 21: Steel shoring configuration – side
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
33
Shoring Manufacturers:
The Oklahoma Department of Transportation has used temporary shoring for repair, rehabilitation
and stability projects. Shoring provides additional support to damaged bridges and can allow a
structure to remain open to the traveling public. Below are potential manufacturers that can be
contacted if needed by the department:
• SuperProp Shores from Acrow Bridge
• XPS-60 from Scaffolding and Shoring Services
SuperProp
SuperProp has been used by ODOT to provide temporary shoring for the concrete girders and deck
of an existing bridge in the rehabilitation of a vital traffic corridor surrounding downtown Tulsa.
A single Superprop® Shore, assembled from Acrow bridge components, can support up to 270
tons. By bracing Acrow shores with Acrow panels, this system can be used in any vertical,
horizontal or knee-bracing application.
Contact information:
ACROW Bridge, 181 New Road Parsippany, NJ 07054-5625, USA
Phone: (973) 244-0080
Email: [email protected]
Web: http://acrow.com/products-services/shoring-systems
Figure 22: SuperProp from Acrow used in bridge rehabilitation in downtown Tulsa
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
34
XPS-60
The XPS-60 Shoring System is a relatively a new scaffolding and shoring system with the
following design specifications:
• Maximum load per leg of 60,000 lbs. for towers up to 40 feet.
• Maximum frame spacing, 8 feet (2.4 meters) unsupported length.
• All towers with a height greater than four times the base must be stabilized to prevent
overturning.
• When two frames are used to support a work platform the total load must not exceed 4,800
lbs.
• When used as a single post shore, height must not exceed twenty-three feet and load must
not exceed 19,200 lbs.
• Maximum screw jack extension not to exceed 30 inches.
• Minimum screw jack extension, 9 inches.
• Maximum sand jack height, 12 inches.
• Two corner braces are required for each lift of frames.
• All post and frame dimensions are metric: 4 feet = 1.2 meters, 6 feet = 1.8 meters, 8 feet =
2.4 meters, 10 feet = 3 meters.
• Loads greater than 20,000 lbs. per leg require the use of Sand Jacks.
Figure 23: XPS-60 Shoring system
Contact information:
Scaffolding & Shoring Services (A member of the Brock Group)
5900 W. Baker Rd, Baytown, TX 77520
Phone: (832) 323-5419
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
35
7.3 Structure Monitoring
Structure monitoring offers engineers an alternative solution when a bridge is found to be slightly
damaged after an earthquake and requires no repairs. Monitoring is used to verify the performance
of a bridge after a seismic event and can indicate if the structure is no longer deteriorating or is
experiencing further damage. The primary measurements that need to be considered for quick
structure monitoring are the following:
• Deflections: When a bridge experiences deflections after an earthquake and continues
deflecting over time, a loss of stiffness in the bridge can be expected. This measurement
can provide information as to whether the structure should remain operational or not.
• Cracks: Monitoring cracks is typically used to determine if damage overtime is
accumulating or increasing. This measurement can provide evidence of unstable crack
growth that may be an indication of unstable structural damage. Simple crack monitoring
techniques that are available are presented below:
o Plaster Cracks: To determine if cracks are moving, applying plaster or mortar over
the cracks is adequate. If cracks are present in the new layers applied, further
cracking has occurred.
o Crack Width: Measuring crack widths over time will provide evidence of crack
growth
• Strains: Measuring strains can be very useful, but may be more challenging to acquire since
special equipment needs to be setup. The strain measurements provide engineers with
information regarding the overall structural performance or performance of specific
components.
• Rotation: Tiltmeters are instruments used to measure rotations of various bridge
components such as abutments.
Structural monitoring is not limited to these measurements and each structure may require a
different type of approach. Quick assessments may be required when previously damaged elements
such as bearings or other bridge elements are suspected or prone to experiencing further damage.
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
36
8. Additional Sources of Information
Figure 24: Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway
Structures: Part 1 – Bridges
Figure 25: Bridge Engineering Handbook –
Chapter 43
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
37
Figure 26: Seismic Retrofit of Bridges in the Central
and Southeastern United States by Dr. Reginald
DesRoches and Dr. Jamie E. Padgett
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
38
9. References
American Concrete Institute. (2007). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit Techniques for Concrete Bridges.
Ansuman, k., Vikash , K., Maiti, P., & Singh4, P. (2012). Study on Effect of Skew Angle in Skew
Bridges. International Journal of Engineering Research and Development , 13-18.
Flesch, R. G. (2001). Advaned methods for assessing the seismic vulnerability of existing motorway
bridges.
Kramer, S. (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. N.J.: Prentice Hall.
National Highway Institute. (n.d.). Bridge Inspection Refresher Training.
National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering (NISEE). (2015). Berkeley,
http://nisee.berkeley.edu.
O'Connor, J. (2012). Post-Earthquake Bridge Inspection Guidelines. Buffalo, New York: New York
Department of Transportation.
PONTIS. (2014). Pontis Bridge Inspection Field Manual for Oklahoma Bridges. Oklahoma City:
Oklahoma Department of Transportation.
Ramirez, J., Frosch, R., Sozen, M., & Turk, A. (2000). Handbook for the post-earthquake safety
evaluation of bridges and roads. West Lafayette, Indiana: Indiana Department of Transportation.
Reginal, D., & Jamie E., P. (2011). Seismic Retrofit of Bridges in the Central and Southeastern United
States.
Ryan, T., Mann, E., Chill, Z., & Ott, B. (2006). Bridge inspector's reference manual BIRM (Rev. Feb.
2012 ed.). Washington D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
Sardo, A., Sardo, T., & Harik, I. (2006). Post-earthquake investigation field manual for the state of
Kentucky. Lexington, Kentucky: Kentucky Department of Transportation.
Timothy, W., DesRoches, R., & Padgett, J. E. (2011). Bridge Seismic Retrofitting Practices in the Central
and. Journal of Bridge Engineering.
U.S. Department of Transportation,. (2006). Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Structures: Part 1 -
Bridges. Virginia: Federal Highway Administration.
U.S. Department of Transportation, F. (2015). Seismic Bridge Design & Retrofit Workshop for
Low/Moderate Seismic Locations. Oklahoma City: Federal Highway Administration.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). (2014). Lower 48 Maps and Data. Retrieved from USGS -
Science for a changing world: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/conterminous/
United States Geological Survey. (n.d.). Earthquake history of Oklahoma. Oklahoma:
http://www.usgs.gov/.
UPSeis. (n.d.). UPSeis. Retrieved from http://www.geo.mtu.edu/UPSeis/hazards.html
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
A-1
Appendix A - Seismic Retrofitting of Bridges
Seismic Retrofitting Techniques
Bridge seismic retrofitting is the practice of modifying bridges or adding supplementary elements
to reduce vulnerability and improve the performance of structures during earthquakes. The main
goal is to avoid excessive damage to members and prevent structural collapse of the bridge.
Seismic retrofitting has been commonly practiced in the west coast for several decades; however,
the sudden rise in earthquake activity recently observed in Oklahoma suggests the possible need
of retrofitting techniques for vulnerable bridges. Besides earthquakes, retrofitting improves bridge
performance when exposed to natural hazards such as tornadoes and severe winds from
thunderstorms. Seismic retrofitting is typically used for two main reasons:
• When a structure is damaged after an earthquake
• When a structure is vulnerable and is prone to experience significant damage when exposed
to an earthquake
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
A-2
Essentially, there are two ways to retrofit a structure: increase the capacity of the bridge or decrease
the seismic demand. To increase the capacity of a bridge, techniques such as jacketing and
reinforcing are the most common, while the addition of dissipation devices and isolators are used
to decrease seismic demand.
In the central and southeastern regions of the United States, five primary retrofitting measures are
used:
1. Seismic isolation
2. Longitudinal and transverse restraining
3. Seat extenders
4. Pier column strengthening
5. Pier cap strengthening
These measures are used to address the vulnerable elements of a structure. These methods can be
applied individually or combined to reduce the potential of damage to a structure. Seismic
retrofitting is typically used when a bridge has yet to fulfill its service life (i.e. has more than 15
years of service remaining).
Seismic Isolation
This method is used to decrease the load demand caused by earthquakes. Current research indicates
that isolation significantly enhances the seismic performance capabilities of a bridge. There are
three main objectives of adding seismic isolation bearings:
• Shift or alter the natural frequency of the structure out of the region of dominant earthquake
energy (reduces load demand)
• Increase damping in the structure
• Reduce dynamic reactions between superstructure and substructure components
Isolation bearings are used to decrease the forces that could be sustained by bridge piers not
designed for earthquakes. This strategy provides a solution to avoid costly retrofitting of piers or
foundations. The most commonly used type of isolation devices are the isolation bearings.
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
A-3
The exterior of an isolation bearing is made up
of rubber while its interior is formed with
alternating layers of steel reinforcing plates and
rubber and includes a lead core to dissipate
energy. Isolation bearings typically include
steel plates on the top and bottom faces to allow
a fixed connection between the superstructure
and substructure.
Although isolation bearings provide an
excellent way to alter the natural period of structures, they can also have a negative impact by
allowing excessive longitudinal displacements and may allow for impacts between the
superstructure and abutment. This effect can be fixed by adding a damping system to the structure
within the bearing (lead core) or in parallel with the isolators, using viscous dampers (hydraulic
devices that dissipate the kinetic energy of seismic events and cushion the impact between
structures).
Sliding bearings allow motion between the bearing and the bridge. These mechanisms provide
compressive resistance, but lack lateral resistance. The advantage of sliding bearings is the
dissipation of energy through friction caused by longitudinal movement. Usually sliding bearings
are used in conjunction with elastomeric bearings.
Longitudinal Retrofitting
Monitored performance of bridges during earthquakes has shown that one of the most common
causes of span collapse is inadequate seat lengths. The displacement caused by the lateral forces
exerted by earthquakes can result in unseating of the spans which can lead to partial or full collapse
of the superstructure. To address these problems, two potential retrofitting approaches are
applicable:
1. Seat extenders and catcher blocks
2. Longitudinal bumper blocks, restrainer bars and cables, and shock transmission units
These approaches have been shown to be effective and not costly, but have proven to fulfill their
objectives by preventing unseating of spans.
Steel Plate
Lead Core
Steel Load
PlatesInterior
RubberLayers Steel Reinforcing
Plates
Elastomeric Isolation Bearing
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
A-4
Seat extenders:
Increasing seat widths increases the displacement capacity at an expansion joint, often without
affecting the dynamic properties of a bridge. Extenders are attached on the sides of abutments or
piers and are commonly made of concrete corbels or structural steel. The purpose of extenders is
to increase the bearing seat length and decrease the vulnerability to unseating of a bridge span in
the event that a bridge span slides off the pier cap. This method has been proven to have one of
the highest cost-benefit ratios when compared to other retrofitting techniques. Typical practice
tends to utilize seat extenders that provide approximately 12 inches of additional seat width per
side.
Typical seat extenders
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
A-5
Catcher Blocks:
These elements are placed on the top face of abutments or piers where vulnerable tall bearings
are located. The primary function of these elements is to support girders in the event that a span
falls or a bearing fails. Catcher blocks are implemented when the superstructure is supported by
tall bearings, such as fixed or rocker bearings. When there is insufficient room to anchor seat
extenders, catcher blocks tend to be a reliable option for retrofitting.
Bumper Blocks:
An alternative method for restricting longitudinal
movement of the superstructure is to use bumper
blocks. The blocks are usually made from structural
steel beams and attached to the bottom flanges of
girders and protrude downward to engage the
substructure and restrict excessive movement. A 2 –
6 inch gap is typically provided to allow limited
movement of the bridge spans due to thermal
expansion and contraction.
Existing Multiple Steel
Girders
Existing
Bearing
Assembly
SteelBumper
Block
Steel bumper block
Pier Cap
Catcher Block
(Typical)
Shear Dowels
High friction
support to catchsuperstructure
(Typical)
Catcher block retrofitting
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
A-6
Restrainers:
The primary function of this type of retrofitting is to prevent excessive longitudinal movement of
bridge spans by attaching steel bars or cables to adjacent spans, abutments or piers. This method
of minimizing the risk of unseating has been effectively used on numerous bridges and is
recognized as a simple and inexpensive way of improving bridge performance during seismic
events. In the central and southeastern United States, restrainer cables are considered a popular
retrofit procedure and usually consist of galvanized 0.75 inches diameter steel cables with
lengths varying from 5 – 10 feet. In the state of Tennessee over 200 bridges have been retrofitted
with this technique.
Existing Multiple Steel
Girders
Existing
Bearing
Assembly
Restrainer Cable
Typical Bracket Unit
Typical
Bracket Unit
Restraining
Cable
Pier Cap
Existing
Bearing
Assembly
Restraining cable configurations
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
A-7
Shock Transmission Unit (STU):
STUs are fabricated devices that allow slow movement to occur, such as thermal contraction
without significant resistance. These devices become rigid under rapid motion (such as
earthquakes) and provide resistance to longitudinal movement. STU’s are usually custom
manufactured for each application, and therefore not as common as restraining cables.
Alternative restraining cable configurations
Shock transmission units (STU)
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
A-8
Transverse Retrofitting
Similar to longitudinal restraining techniques, transverse retrofitting restricts excessive transverse
movement of the bridge deck during earthquakes in the event of bearing failure. The two most
common ways to address these displacements is by adding shear keys or keeper brackets. Shear
keys are typically constructed with reinforced concrete and are attached to the pier cap between
girders that support the bridge deck and serve to transmit lateral forces from the superstructure to
the substructure. Occasionally, shear keys are designed to fail at a given force level to limit the
lateral force transmitted by the shear keys. In the same manner, keeper brackets transmit lateral
loads from the superstructure to the substructure. Keeper brackets are made up of structural steel
and located on the top of the pier cap and on both sides of a girder to restrict lateral displacements.
Pier/Bent Cap Retrofitting
Shear Key
Vertical and
Horizontal
Reinforcement
Existing Bearing
Assembly
Existing
Multiple Steel
Girders
Shear keys; transverse retrofitting
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
A-9
Bent caps serve the purpose of transferring loads from the superstructure to the columns. A
common deficiency regarding bent caps is the inadequate reinforcing required to handle shear and
flexure forces due to earthquakes. The flexural strength of a pier cap is usually less than that of the
columns supporting it due to the small amount of bottom reinforcement anchored in the joint
between the cap and the columns. Negative moments may also be limited to force plastic hinging
into the columns. Both cases result from design specifications used for older bridges without
seismic provisions. The typical retrofitting approach is to increase the capacity of the bent,
especially at the joints between bent cap and columns, to allow the formation of hinges in the top
of the columns. The most common practices for retrofitting a bent cap are listed below:
1. Post-tensioning rods
2. External shear reinforcement
3. Addition of a reinforced concrete bolster
4. Addition of link beam elements
Post-tension rods attached along the outside of bent are used to increase the strength of the bent
cap by applying an initial compressive strength. This can also be accomplished by placing
prestressing tendons in ducts that are cored through the length of the cap.
Another practice for increasing the strength of a bent is to apply reinforcement externally on the
bent cap. Steel plates are placed along the top and bottom of the cap and are connected by steel
rods along the sides to increase the shear capacity of the bent. Encasing the existing bent cap with
concrete, steel, or fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) is another way to increase flexural and shear
Post-tensioning rods attached along the longitudinal faces of the pier caps
Courtesy of UCSD –ACI PPT
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
A-10
strength. The addition of these elements has been verified to significantly increase energy
dissipation in bridge bent caps.
A solution to reduce bent cap forces caused by earthquakes is to attach a link beam. The beam is
cast around the existing piers and creates a new critical section in the column below the link beam.
This method can be very effective in retrofitting tall piers by increasing lateral strength and
stiffness of the bent. Link beams can also be used near ground levels to alleviate ground problems.
The beam must be designed according to capacity design principles to ensure that plastic hinges
form in the column and not in the link.
Pier Column Retrofitting
Observations from previous earthquakes have shown that piers are vulnerable to lateral loads due
to inadequate reinforcing steel and seismic detailing. As a result, these issues lead to low ductile
capacity and shear strengths for columns. Retrofitting strategies often aim to enhance the
confinement for existing concrete columns and/or an improve lap splice performance. There are
four common methods for retrofitting reinforced concrete columns:
• Complete or partial replacement
• Increasing the flexural capacity and shear strength of columns
• Addition of supplemental columns
• Improvement of column ductility
Link beam retrofit
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
A-11
The most common method for retrofitting columns is by ductility improvement. Some of the
common practices for this method include:
• Steel/Concrete jacketing (steel is more common)
• Active confinement by prestressing wire
• Active or passive confinement by a composite fiber/epoxy (FRP) jacket
Jacketing is typically used to:
• Increase concrete confinement
• Increase shear strength
• Increase flexural strength
Concrete Jacketing: This technique consists of placing longitudinal and transverse reinforcement
(spirals, hoops) around the full height of the column before casting a thick concrete shell around
the existing face of the column. This is applicable to reinforced concrete piers and columns and is
used to increase the ductility and shear/flexural capacities. Concrete jacketing is a relatively low
cost retrofitting technique.
Steel Jacketing: This method is one of the most effective methods for the seismic retrofitting of
columns. For circular columns, two steel half shells of plate are placed over the column faces and
field-welded together. For rectangular columns, plates are field-welded around the face of the
columns. The cost of this technique is relatively high when compared to concrete jacketing. The
average stiffness increases between 10 and 15 percent for a partial height retrofit and 30 percent
for a full height retrofit can be expected.
Full steel jacketing (left). Partial concrete jacketing (right)
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
A-12
Steel jacket retrofitting
Steel Jacket
5/8" Typical
ExistingConfined
Concrete Column
Typical Gap 2"
Existing Reinforcement
Grout Gap
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
A-13
Determining Seismic Retrofitting Needs
This section is based on the Federal Highway Administration’s “Seismic Retrofitting Manual for
Highway Structures: Part 1 – Bridges” and its objective is to determine the Seismic Retrofitting
Category (SRC) of a bridge. SRC consists on determining the extent and depth of the processes
involved in retrofitting, such as:
• Screening
• Evaluation
• Retrofitting types and measures.
SRC are based on labels A, B, C, and D, with “A” establishing a process is not required or is
minimal and “D” suggesting an extensive process, up to running complex non-linear analysis of a
specific structure. The main steps are based on simple, but key parameters such as: age and
importance of the bridge, recommended performance levels, earthquake characteristics and
geotechnical data.
Exempt Bridges
The first step is to determine if a bridge is considered exempt from retrofitting. Bridges can be
exempt when they meet any of the following conditions:
• The structure is near the end of its service life (i.e. when a bridge has 15 years or less
service life remaining)
• Is considered a temporary structure
• Is located in the lowest seismic zone
IS BRIDGEEXEMPT?
Screen/Prioritize
Evaluate
Retrofit
Yes
NEXT BRIDGE
No
Fail
Fail
Pass
Pass
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
A-14
Bridge Importance:
A broad classification based on engineering judgment is preferred with two classes recommended
to promote simplicity: essential and standard. An essential bridge is expected to function after an
earthquake or which crosses routes that are expected to remain open immediately following an
earthquake. All other bridges are classified as standard.
An essential bridge needs to satisfy the following conditions:
• A bridge that is required to provide access to local emergency services such as hospitals.
• A bridge whose loss would create a major economic impact, e.g., one that serves as a
critical link in a transportation system.
• A bridge that is formally defined by a local emergency plan; e.g., one that provides access
for civil defense, fire departments, and public health agencies.
Anticipated Service Life (ASL):
An important factor in deciding the extent to which a bridge should be retrofitted is the anticipated
service life. Retrofitting a bridge with a short expected service life is difficult to justify for two
reasons:
1. Not economical
2. The design earthquake is unlikely to occur during the remaining life of the structure.
On the other hand, a recent or new bridge should be rehabilitated to withstand earthquake loading
and extend it service life.
Estimating remaining life is not an exact science and depends on many factors such as age,
structural condition, specification used for design, and capacity to handle current and future traffic.
Estimates can be made, at least within broad ranges, for the purpose of determining a bridge’s
remaining service life and, subsequently, a retrofit categroy. Three categroies are proposed by the
FHWA: Retrofitting manual for Highway Structures:
SERVICE LIFE
CATEGORY
ANTICIPATED
SERVICE LIFE
ASL 1 0 – 15 years
ASL 2 16 – 50 years
ASL 3 50+ years
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
A-15
Performance Level
Performance Level 0 (PL0): No minimum level of performance is recommended.
Performance Level 1 (PL1): Life Safety – Significant damage is sustained during an earthquake
and service is significantly disrupted, but life safety is assured. The
bridge may need to be replaced after a large earthquake.
Performance Level 2 (PL2): Operational – Damage sustained is minimal and full service for
emergency vehicles should be available after inspection and
clearance of debris. Bridge should be repairable with or without
restrictions on traffic flow.
Performance Level 3 (PL3): Fully Operational – Damage sustained is negligible and full service
isavailable for all vehicles after inspection and clearance of debris.
Any damage is repairable without interruption to traffic.
Minimal damage is defined by:
• Minor inelastic response and narrow flexural cracking in concrete
• No permanent deformations
• Repairs can be made under non-emergency conditions
Significant damage is defined by:
• Permanent offsets and cracking
• Yielded reinforcement and major spalling of concrete
• Partial or complete replacement of columns may be required
• Beams may be unseated from bearings but no span should collapse.
Bridge ImportanceAnticipated
Service Life, ASL
PERFORMANCELEVEL, PL
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
A-16
Upper and Lower Level Earthquakes
Lower level (LL) earthquake ground motion has a reasonable likelihood of occurrence during the
life of the bridge (assumed to be 75 years) and can be relatively compared to small but probable
ground motions. A 50% probability of exceedance in 75 years corresponds to a return period of
about 100 years.
Upper Level (UL) earthquake ground motion has a 1000-year return period and are less likely to
occur during the life of the bridge. A 7% probability of exceedance in 75 years corresponds to a
return period of 1000 years.
* Based on the bridge importance (standard or essential) and the anticipated service life, different
performance levels are desired depending on the earthquake level (lower or upper).
Earthquake
Bridge Importance and Service Life*
Standard Essential
ASL1 ASL2 ASL3 ASL1 ASL2 ASL3
Lower Level PL0 PL3 PL3 PL0 PL3 PL3
Upper Level PL0 PL1 PL1 PL0 PL1 PL2
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
A-17
PERFORMANCE LEVEL EXAMPLE:
Given specific bridge data as follows, determine its performance level (PL) for both upper and
lower level earthquakes.
Data:
1. The bridge is considered essential and located in the city.
2. The data collected suggests a 30 year service life remaining.
Steps:
1. Identify the Anticipated Service Life (ASL):
A: The data indicates a 30 year service life remaining which indicates that ASL2 category
is in the correct range.
SERVICE LIFE
CATEGORY
ANTICIPATED
SERVICE LIFE
ASL 1 0 – 15 years
ASL 2 16 – 50 years
ASL 3 50+ years
2. Determine the performance level for both the lower and upper level earthquakes.
A: Once the service life category has been identified, proceed to the “Bridge Importance
and Service Life” table and locate the performance level for each of the earthquakes. For
this, the performance level for the lower level earthquake is PL3 and for the upper level
PL1.
Earthquake
Bridge Importance and Service Life
Standard Essential
ASL1 ASL2 ASL3 ASL1 ASL2 ASL3
Lower Level PL0 PL3 PL3 PL0 PL3 PL3
Upper Level PL0 PL1 PL1 PL0 PL1 PL2
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
A-18
Seismic Hazard Level
The seismic hazard level (SHL) is determined by the intensity of ground shaking in the rock below
the site and the amplification of this motion by the overlying soils. Motions at the surface may be
considerably greater than in the rock below. These two factors are treated separately below and
are combined to define the SHL.
Soil Amplification of Ground Motion
The behavior of a bridge during an earthquake is correlated to the soil conditions at the site. Soils
can amplify ground motions in the underlying rock. Sites are classified by type and profile for the
purpose of defining the overall seismic hazard.
Site
Class Description
A Hard rock with measured shear wave velocity, 𝑣s > 1500 m/sec (5000 ft./s)
B Rock with 760 m/sec < 𝑣s ≤ 1500 m/sec (2500 ft./sec < 𝑣s ≤ 5000 ft./sec)
C Very dense soil and soil rock with 360 m/sec < 𝑣s ≤ 760 m/sec (1200 ft./sec < 𝑣s ≤ 2500
ft./sec) or with either 𝑁 > 50 blows/0.30 m (50 blow/ft.) or 𝑠u > 100 kPa (2000 psf)
D
Stiff soil with 180 m/sec ≤ 𝑣s ≤ 360 m/sec (600 ft./sec ≤ 𝑣s ≤ 1200 ft./sec) or with either
15< 𝑁 < 50 blows/0.30 m (15 ≤ 𝑁 ≤ 50 blows/ft.) or 50 kPa ≤ 𝑠u ≤ 100 kPa (1000 ≤ 𝑠u ≤
2000 psf)
E
Soil profile with 𝑣s < 180 m/sec (600 ft./sec)
or with either 𝑁 < 15 blows/ 0.30 m (𝑁 <15 blows /ft)
or 𝑠u < 150 kPa (1000 psf) or any profile with more than 3m (10 ft.) of soft clay defined as
soil with PI >20, w ≥40 percent and 𝑠u <25 kPa (500 psf)
F
Soils requiring site-specific evaluations
1. Peats or highly organic clays (H.3 [10ft] of peat or highly organic clay where H =
thickness of soil
2. Very high plasticity clays (H >8 m [25ft] with PI > 75)
3. Very thick soft/medium stiff clays (H >36 m [120 ft.])
Spectral
Accelerations (Ss/S1)
SEISMIC HAZARDLEVEL, SHL
Soil Factors,
Fa and Fv
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
A-19
Where:
𝑣s is the average shear wave velocity for the upper 30 m (100 ft.) of the soil profile
𝑁 is the average Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count (blows/0.30m or blows/ft) (ASTM D1586)
for the upper 30 m (100 ft) of the soil profile
𝑠u is the average undrained shear strength in kPa (psf) (ASTM d2166 or d2850) for the upper 30 m (100 ft.)
of the soil profile
PI is plasticity index (ASTM D4218)
w is moisture content (ASTM D2216)
Exception: When the soil properties are not known in the sufficient detail to determine the site class, site
class D may be used.
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
A-20
Site factors Fa and Fv
Values of Fa as a function of site class and short-period
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php?
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
A-21
Values of Fa as a function of site class and short-period (0.2-sec) spectral
acceleration Ss
Site Class Spectral Acceleration at Short-Period (0.2 sec), Ss
Ss ≤ 0.25 Ss = 0.50 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.00 Ss ≥ 1.25
A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0
D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0
E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9
F - - - - -
Values of Fv as a function of site class and long-period (1.0-sec) spectral
acceleration S1
Site Class Spectral Acceleration at Long-Period 1.0 sec), S1
S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 ≥.5
A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
C 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3
D 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5
E 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.4
F - - - - -
Notes:
• Use straight line interpolation for intermediate values of Ss and S1.
• For Class F soils, site-specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response
analysis should be performed.
For Site Class D, Ss =0.176g and S1 = 0.042g:
Fa= 1.6; Fv= 2.4
SDS = FaSs = 1.6 * 0.176g = 0.2816g
SD1 = FvS1 = 2.4 * 0.042g = 0.1008g
HAZARD LEVEL SD1 = FvS1 SDS = FaSs
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
A-22
I SD1 ≤ 0.15 SDS ≤ 0.15
II 0.15 < SD1 ≤ 0.25 0.15 < SDS ≤ 0.35
III 0.25 < SD1 ≤ 0.40 0.35 < SDS ≤ 0.60
IV 0.40 < SD1 0.60 < SDS
*Limitation for Class E and F soils exist, refer to the FHWA manual for further information.
SEISMIC HAZARD LEVEL (SHL)
HAZARD
LEVEL
PERFORMANCE LEVEL
During Upper Level Earthquake During Lower Level Earthquake
PL0 PL1 PL2 PL0 PL3
No minimum Level Life-Safety Operational No minimum Level Fully Operational
I A A B A C
II A B B A C
III A B C A C
IV A C D A D
Bridge ImportanceAnticipated
Service Life, ASL
PERFORMANCELEVEL, PL
Spectral
Accelerations (Ss, S1)
SEISMIC HAZARDLEVEL, SHL
Soil Factors,
Fa and Fv
SEISMIC RETROFITCATEGORY, SRC
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
23
Seismic Retrofitting - Minimum requirements
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
24
Following the process from the flow chart at the beginning of this section, the case bridge is not
exempt and is required to go through the retrofitting process for highway bridges (screen, evaluate,
retrofit). Table “Seismic Retrofitting – Minimum Requirements” table suggests that a Seismic
Retrofit Category (SRC) “C” is suggested for the lower level (LL) earthquake and SRC “A” for
the upper level (UL) earthquake. The process needs to be followed for both the LL and UL
earthquakes, but for this case, the upper level earthquake suggests a SRC “A”, which requires no
action. For the lower level earthquake, screening is recommended for the seat widths, connections,
columns, walls, footings and liquefaction. Rating methods are used for screening the components
of a bridge and include the following:
1. Indices Method
2. Expected Damage Method
3. Seismic Risk Assessment Method
If the all the elements pass the screening process, no further steps are necessary in the process and
it is safe to proceed to another bridge. If an element fails screening, evaluation methods need to be
engaged. Detailed information about screening and evaluation methods can be located in the
FHWA -Seismic Retrofitting Manual. If the bridge fails an evaluation, engineers can choose the
adequate retrofitting measures the bridge requires to remain or restore its service; however, if the
structure passes the evaluation, no retrofitting is required. The most common retrofitting
techniques are described in the previous section.
Earthquake Design Philosophy:
1. When minor frequent shakings occur, main members of the structure that carry vertical and
horizontal forces (deck, girders, and piers) should not be damaged, however, elements that
do not carry load may be damaged.
2. When moderate but occasional shakings occur, main members may sustain repairable
damage, while other nonstructural elements may be damaged to the extent that they may
have to be replaced.
3. When strong but rare shaking occurs, the main members may sustain severe or even
irreparable damage, but the structure should not collapse.
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
A-25
References:
American Concrete Institute. (2007). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit Techniques for Concrete Bridges.
National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering (NISEE). (2015). Berkeley,
http://nisee.berkeley.edu.
Reginal, D., & Jamie E., P. (2011). Seismic Retrofit of Bridges in the Central and Southeastern United
States.
Timothy, W., DesRoches, R., & Padgett, J. E. (2011). Bridge Seismic Retrofitting Practices in the Central
and. Journal of Bridge Engineering.
U.S. Department of Transportation,. (2006). Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Structures: Part 1 -
Bridges. Virginia: Federal Highway Administration.
U.S. Department of Transportation, F. (2015). Seismic Bridge Design & Retrofit Workshop for
Low/Moderate Seismic Locations. Oklahoma City: Federal Highway Administration.
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
B-1
Appendix B - Post-Earthquake Radius Based Protocol
Inspection radii are set to be the largest distance from the epicenter at which the ground motion
intensity exceeds the bridge structural capacity characterized by bridge fragility curves. Fragility
curves define the probability of exceeding a given damage state as a function of the ground-motion
intensity. Based on studies conducted by the University of Oklahoma, ODOT came to the decision
on using radii based on a 25% probability of observing slight damage. The table below suggests
the inspection radius for given earthquake magnitude ranges; however, the ERL has complete
discretion to adjust these radii when deemed appropriate:
Magnitude
Range
Inspection
Radius (miles)
4.4 to 4.7 5
4.8 to 5.3 15
5.4 to 5.8 30
5.9 to 6.2 60
6.3 + 120
Radius Length
120 miles
60 miles
30 miles
15 miles
Inspection Radii based on Magnitude range
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
B-2
The following response levels are provided as a tool for managing the response process:
The Oklahoma Department of Transportation is participating in a free subscription to the
Earthquake Notification Service (ENS) provided by the USGS. The Earthquake Response Plan is
activated upon receipt of an ENS alert. A Preliminary Earthquake Report (PER) with detailed
information, including the date, time, magnitude and location (coordinates), is usually available
within minutes of an earthquake. A sample PER is illustrated on the following page.
LEVEL
EARTHQUAKE
MAGNITUDE
INSPECTION
RADIUS ACTION
I M<4.4 ERL’s discretion when
applicable
No action is required unless otherwise
specified directly by the ERL. If damage has
occurred, proceed Stage 1 inspections within
a 5 mile radius.
II 4.4 ≤ M < 5.3 M(4.4 - 4.7) = 5 miles
M(4.8 - 5.3) = 15 miles
The ERL will begin the Stage 1 Inspection
protocol based on the radius immediately
after the event. Inspectors should close
unsafe bridges and, if necessary or
uncertain, request a Stage 2 Inspection.
Report and document findings accordingly.
If damage has occurred within the specified
radius, the radius should be increased by 5
miles
.
III M ≥ 5.4 M(5.4 - 5.8) = 30 miles
M(5.9 - 6.2) = 60 miles
M(6.3+) = 120 miles
Commence Stage 1 inspections
immediately as per a Level II Response. If
necessary, arrange for additional personnel
resources (personnel from other field
divisions and/or consultants) to assist with
Stage 1 inspections, and place Stage 2 and 3
inspection teams on standby status.
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
B-3
Typical ENS Report
A post-earthquake response is dependent on the reported magnitude and the coordinates of the
epicenter as detailed by the USGS ENS report. Earthquakes with a reported magnitude of 4.3 or
less will not trigger a response. For earthquake magnitudes equal to or greater than 4.4, the
applicable inspection radius (based on magnitude) and location (coordinates) will be used to
determine the inspection area.
There is inherently some uncertainty in the location of the earthquake epicenter. This uncertainty
is generally included in the PER, but it should be noted that the distance is provided in kilometers.
To account for this uncertainty, there are buffers built into the inspection protocol radii; however,
as previously stated, the ERL has complete discretion to expand the applicable radius as
appropriate. Additionally, the inspection radius should be expanded by five miles if damage is
found within the original inspection radius.
Earthquake ground motions are inherently uncertain, and observations of strong ground motions
are limited in Oklahoma. Predictions for strong ground motions are based on available data and
EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE PLAN
B-4
generally accepted attenuation models. The fragility functions presented in this report are based
on standard bridge models and adjusted for certain bridge characteristics. As a result, actual bridge
fragilities may be different than those represented by the models and other interpretations. Input
parameters for the fragility functions should be further calibrated following any earthquake event
that results in reported bridge damage.