See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269144972

Specifications for Highway Bridges, V Seismic Design

Conference Paper · December 2003

DOI: 10.1142/9789812704252_0014

CITATIONS READS

31 973

4 authors, including:

Masahiro Shirato
National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management
43 PUBLICATIONS   505 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Masahiro Shirato on 05 August 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 LSD2003: International Workshop on Limit State design in Geotechnical Engineering practice
Cambridge, Massachusetts. 26 June, 2003

Japanese seismic design specifications for highway bridges

M. Shirato
Public Works Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan

J. Fukui
Public Works Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan

S. Unjoh
Public Works Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan

J. Hoshikuma
Public Works Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan

ABSTRACT: The Japanese Specifications for Highway Bridges were revised in 2002 and a performance-
based design code concept was introduced. This paper describes the major points of revision in seismic
design of the Specifications from the perspective of performance-based design, i.e. the principles of
seismic design, seismic performance level, design seismic motion, limit state, and performance verifica-
tion. Then, typical seismic design procedures for pier foundations are summarized considering both the
strength and ductility of a foundation system consisting of foundation structural members and ground.

1 INTRODUCTION

Seismic design specifications have been historically developed and improved based on lessons learned
from damage caused by past earthquakes. The previous Japanese Specifications for Highway Bridges
of the Japan Road Association was implemented in 1996, which provided significant revisions based on
the 1995 Hyogo-Ken Nanbu (Kobe) earthquake (Public Works Research Institute 1996). Performance-
based design and limit state design concepts were first introduced in order to directly account for the
nonlinear behavior of structural members and soils using realistic descriptions and considering realistic
earthquake motions, based on the disastrous damage in the Hyogo-Ken Nanbu earthquake. For example,
the Specifications speculated that the response to very strong seismic motions of low probability during
the service lifetime should be such that no excessive repair work is necessary, thus enabling a quick
return to service, and that sufficient horizontal capacity and ductility are maintained in order to facilitate
repair of damage to foundations if necessary. In addition, foundations are required to behave elastically
under level 1 earthquake motions, which are earthquakes of small to medium magnitude (or frequent
scale), same as the past seismic design. However, the 1996 Specifications were still fully prescriptive.
The latest revision of the Specifications for Highway Bridges was implemented in 2002. The target
of the revision with respect to seismic design was to be clearly based on performance-based design. In
addition, improved or advanced knowledge of bridge seismic design has been included. According to
performance-based design, the design requirements are clearly specified, while the existing detailed de-
sign methods, including the computational methods and the acceptable limits, are specified as typical
acceptable solutions. Thus, the introduction of performance-based design encourages designers to apply
advanced or better solutions in practice, even if these solutions are not presented in the Specifications.
Designers now can employ new verification methods, earthquake resistance structure details, and ad-
vanced materials more easily, if the assurance of the performance of a new verification method used is
done appropriately.

1
 The present paper presents the major revisions to the 2002 Seismic Design Specifications (Japan
Road Association 2002b) with respect to performance-based design and code drafting. In addition, the
ductility design method for pier foundations which is dealt with as the typical verification method in the
Specifications is summarized.

2 CODE PACKAGE OF THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGHWAY BRIDGES

The Specifications for Highway Bridges is composed of the following five parts:
• Part I: Common design principles,
• Part II: Steel structures,
• Part III: Concrete structures,
• Part IV: Substructures,
• Part V: Seismic design.
Part I, Common design principles, prescribes principle design philosophies, loads, and structural
materials. Part V, Seismic design, prescribes seismic design philosophies, earthquake effects including
seismic loads, seismic instabilities of soils like liquefaction and liquefaction-induced lateral spreading,
and unseating preventions.
Part IV, Substructures (Japan Road Association 2002a), specifies the basis of design of foundations.
With respect to seismic design, Part IV also describes specific modeling for ground resistances, for ex-
ample, formulas on the ultimate bearing capacity of a spread foundation and the shaft and bottom resis-
tances of a pile, as well as structural resistance and earthquake-resistant structural details of foundation
members, for the case in which the typical verification method is employed.
Parts II and III deal with design for superstructures.
Note that Honjo et al. (2000) summarized major structural design codes in Japan including the Speci-
fications for Highway Bridges, with respect to legal background, application areas, code drafting bodies,
design methods, loads and load combinations for example.

3 PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS

3.1 Motivation
The vigorous evolution of the Specifications for Highway Bridges commenced in the 1960’s by the
old Ministry of Construction in order to smoothly implement the construction of a highway network in
response to the rapid economic growth at the time. The shortage of engineers experienced in bridge
design necessitated a practical design code. Since then, the Specifications have been revised along with
advances in the research of structural behavior and in the research and development of new types of
structures, materials, and construction technologies, as well as lessons learned from earthquake damage.
As such, the Specifications have traditionally tended toward a compilation of mature or empirical design
methods and structural details which were considered to be the national de facto standard. The Specifica-
tions achieved great success in the rapid development of the highway networks with the rapid economic
growth of Japan.
However, the situation has changed. There now exist numerous experienced designers, and the speed
and breadth of research and development of technologies on bridge design and construction have ac-
celerated. More than ever, people now desire cost effective construction. Under these conditions, the
authorities for the construction of highways hope to more aggressively adopt creative suggestions from
experienced engineers with regard to innovative design and construction technologies in order to meet
the public demand for more cost effective and reasonable design. However, previously, the Specifications
for Highway Bridges did not clearly display the requirements for the case of employing an alternative or
innovative design and construction method or structural material. Hence, the Specifications were often
regarded as a kind of barrier to the introduction of alternative or innovative methods.
Consequently, revision of the Specifications was desired in order to accommodate recent develop-
ments, that is, to encourage the smooth introduction of new technologies and the experience of engineers
into new projects and to accelerate the innovation and improvement of existing technologies, while main-

2
 Overall Goals
Objectives
of Codes Mandatory
Principles of Specifications
Functional Requirements
Seismic Design
of Bridges
Importance, Loads,
Performance Design Ground Motions,
Requirement Level Limit States of Bridge,
Principles of Performance Verification

Verification Methods Verification of Seismic Performance Can be Modified or

Evaluation of Limit State of Members May be Selected
and
RC and Steel Columns,
Acceptable Solutions after an Appropiate
Foundations,
Bearings, and Superstructures Verification
Unseating Prevention Systems

Figure 1. Code structure of the Specifications, Part V: Seismic Design

taining existing standards for quality in design. One of the methods to improve the present situation is to
separate clearly and rebuild the specifications into mandatory performance requirements, some of which
may be newly drafted, and standard methods and solutions with an appropriate hierarchy structure of the
levels of requirement. This is performance-based design.

3.2 Code structure of the seismic design Specifications

The code structure of the seismic design Specifications is illustrated in Figure 1. The design require-
ments and the existing detailed design methods are clearly separated into two parts: requirements for
which compliance is mandatory and detailed typical verification methods that offer acceptable solutions.
Principle requirements on the seismic performance of highway bridges, design earthquake ground mo-
tions, and principles to verify seismic performance are specified as the upper level in the code structure.
These are mandatory and may not be altered. On the other hand, detailed verification methods are re-
placed as a typical acceptable solution and are not mandatory. These methods are ranked at the lower
level in the code structure. Designers can use other methods, if desired, given reliable verification.
Some believe that only the mandatory performance requirements should be mentioned in design codes
and that verification methods should be the responsibility of the engineer. Nevertheless, the performance
requirements and detailed verification methods are combined in the Specifications for Highway Bridges.
There are two reasons for this. First, the Specifications should provide a fundamental background by
showing the widely-accepted standards in practice. Second, designating quantitatively assessed require-
ments in the Specifications is difficult without specific values. Accordingly, presenting standard methods
in the specifications package is essential so that engineers can confirm the performance of other accept-
able solutions by means of comparison with the conventional methods of the Specifications. In other
words, the performance of an alternative solution is ascertained by whether the alternative method offers
equivalent or greater than equivalent performance.
In addition, data for the typical design methods and related information are added at the end of the
seismic specifications book (Japan Road Association 2002b) or are available in references listed at the
end of every chapter in the substructure specification book (Japan Road Association 2002a). These
references have been greatly expanded. The open back-data helps engineers understand and improve the
typical design methods.

3
 Table 1. Seismic performance matrix
Standard bridges Important bridges
Type of design ground motion (Type-A) (Type-B)
Level 1 earthquake: high-probability ground motion SPL 1: Prevent damage
Level 2 earthquake: Interplate earthquakes
low-probability (Type-I) SPL 3: Prevent critical SPL2: Limited damage
ground motions Inland earthquakes damage for function recovery
(Type-II)

4 BASIC PRINCIPLES OF SEISMIC DESIGN OF BRIDGES

A two-level design method is employed in the 2002 Specifications as was the case in the 1996 Spec-
ifications. The first level is the seismic design against small-to-medium earthquakes which have been
traditionally considered. The second level is the seismic design against large earthquakes based on the
disastrous damage in the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake (Kobe earthquake). The latter was intro-
duced in order to use a design methodology involving realistic description, which directly represents the
nonlinear behavior of bridges during a large earthquake.
Table 1 shows the basic principles in seismic design in the Specifications for Highway Bridges
through a performance matrix of design earthquake ground motion and Seismic Performance Level
(SPL). This performance matrix illustrates the combinations of the two levels of earthquake motions and
the corresponding requirements of structural performance level required by the Specifications. These
basic principles have already been tabulated in the 1996 version of the Specifications and there is no
revision from the 1996 version, while the terms “Seismic Performance Level”, “Level 1 earthquake” and
“Level 2 earthquake” are newly defined in the 2002 Specifications.

4.1 Ground motion

Level 1 earthquakes are of small to medium magnitude, and their Acceleration Response Spectrum
(ARS) amplitudes are around 0.2 G to 0.3 G in the usual characteristic periods of highway bridges.
Level 2 earthquakes are extremely strong, but are very unlikely to strike a structure during its service
period. The characteristics of inelastic behavior of both structures and soils during an earthquake are
greatly affected by not only the intensity but also the duration (or phase patterns) of the earthquake,
for example, the ultimate compressive strain of concrete and the liquefaction resistance of sandy soils.
Accordingly, Level 2 earthquakes involve two types of motion, i.e. Type I and Type II motions. The
ground motion in Tokyo during the 1923 Kanto Earthquake, is a typical target of Type I motion. This
ground motion is associated with the interplate-type earthquake having a magnitude of approximately
eight and is generated at plate boundaries in the ocean. The peak amplitudes associated with Type I
motion are smaller than those of Type II motion, but earthquakes exhibiting Type I motion have longer
durations. The ARS amplitudes of earthquakes exhibiting Type I motion are approximately 0.7 G to 1.0
G for the usual characteristic periods of highway bridges.
The ground motion in Kobe during the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake is a typical target of Type
II motion. This motion is that of an inland-strike-type earthquake having a magnitude of approximately
seven and is caused by faults located at very short distances from a site. Type II motions have high
intensities but short durations. The ARS amplitudes of earthquakes exhibiting Type II motion are ap-
proximately 1.5 G to 2.0 G for the usual characteristic periods of highway bridges. The return period of
Type II ground motion may be longer than that of the Type I ground motion, although estimation is very
difficult.
The 2002 Specifications also mention that the site-specific design ground motions shall be considered
if the ground motion can be appropriately estimated based on sufficient information of the following
type:
• historical data on past earthquakes,
• location and detailed conditions of the active faults,

4
 Table 2. Key issues of seismic performance
Repairability
SPL Safety Functionality Short-term Long-term
SPL 1: Safety against Same function Repair
Prevent damage unseating of as that before not necessary for Simple repairs
superstructure earthquake function recovery
SPL 2: Safety against Early function Function recovery Full recovery can
Limited damage unseating of recovery possible possible by be completed via
for function superstructure temporary repair relatively easy
recovery repair works
SPL 3: Safety against
Prevent critical unseating of – – –
damage superstructure

• ground conditions of the transmitting area of the earthquake from the specified faults to the con-
struction sites.
Areas for which such detailed information is obtained are very limited in Japan. The government of Japan
and various local governments in Japan are now examining their hazard scenarios, and recent exploration
of fault locations and their activity histories and study on the prediction of seismic motion in Japan are
aggressive. As a result, the Specifications stipulate requirements to be considered when the prediction of
the scenario earthquake motion on a site is employed in design for bridges.

4.2 Performance Level of Bridges

The Seismic Performance Level (SPL) depends on the importance of the bridge. Bridge importance are
classified into two groups: standard bridges (Type-A bridges) and important bridges (Type-B bridges).
Both Type-A and Type-B bridges shall resist Level 1 earthquakes to achieve SPL 1, where SPL 1 pre-
scribes that the bridge performs elastically, without significant damage during an earthquake. Type-A
bridges shall resist Level 2 earthquakes to achieve SPL 3, where SPL 3 prescribes that the bridge per-
forms so to prevent critical failure which would lead to the collapse of the bridge during an earthquake.
Type-B bridges shall resist Level 2 earthquakes to satisfy SPL 2, where SPL 2 prescribes that the bridge
is functional even after sustaining a limited degree of damage.
Table 2 summarizes the required performance for bridges in order to continue to function as bridge
systems. SPLs 1 to 3 are described from the viewpoints of “Safety,” “Functionality (i.e. function re-
covery)”, and “Repairability (i.e. repair work difficulty)” levels during and after an earthquake. The
relationship between the SPLs and the corresponding levels of Safety, Functionality, and Repairability is
described in Table 2, which is also given in the Specifications as a commentary. Note that Repairability is
comprised of the short-term Repairability and the long-term Repairability. The short-term Repairability
represents the difficulty of repair work required in order to recover bridge function. For example, suffi-
cient short-term Repairability can be said to exist when the emergency access of a bridge is possible after
temporary repair works shortly after the earthquake, and some damaged members or devices may remain
unrepaired. Long-term Repairability is a measure of the difficulty involved in quickly repairing damaged
members or devices; however, repair is possible. Repair work may begin after the full resumption of
bridge service. As will be mentioned later, distinction between short-term and long-term Repairability is
important in foundation design.

5 PRINCIPLES OF PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION

5.1 Limit states of bridges as systems

In order to check the performance requirements, design will be carried out such that the bridge will not be
damaged beyond specific limit states which are described from the perspective of mechanics, depending
on the performance levels. The limit state for SPL 1 is specified such that the behavior of the bridge as
a system shall be within the elastic limit. The limit state for SPL 2 is specified such that possible plastic

5
hinges (in other words, inelastic sections) shall be developed only at expected sections and devices of the
bridge system and their plastic deformation shall be within the repairable limit. The limit state for SPL 3
is specified such that possible plastic hinges shall be developed only at expected sections and devices of
the bridge system and their plastic deformation shall not be beyond the onset of strength capacity loss.
Therefore, designers have to perform the following steps at the beginning of verification of the seismic
performance of a bridge for SPL 2 and SPL 3:
• select expected sections of plastic hinge and expected devices for energy dissipation,
• determine the limit state of each member such that it is assured that the bridge will not reach its
limit state when a member reaches its limit state and such that plastic hinges appear only at the
expected locations selected above.

5.2 Verification
Performance verification is carried out by checking whether both the strength and ductility capacities of
members satisfy the requirements by limit states of members specified above in the response to design
seismic motions. As mentioned earlier, any acceptable verification method to assess seismic response
can be selected by the designer, although the designer usually uses a typical method elucidated in the
Specifications. For example, a typical estimation method of strength and ductility capacities of struc-
tural members can be altered if the alternative method is confirmed to offer equivalent or greater than
equivalent performance. In the future, the number of approved acceptable solutions will increase. Some
of these will be introduced into the Specifications as standard acceptable solutions when such methods
have accumulated case histories and are widely-accepted as reliable by engineers.

6 FACTORS OF SAFETY IN SEISMIC DESIGN AGAINST LEVEL 2 EARTHQUAKES

Most of the Specifications are not based on a probabilistic background. Rather, the specifications are
based on the safety factor method in principle. The partial factors are not clearly elucidated in the Speci-
fications: some are included in design formulas of structural member strength, and some are included in
the global safety factors. For example, the allowable ductility factors of members including foundation
systems consisting of ground and structural members are derived by dividing the values of the ultimate
displacement by safety factors depending on the SPLs, while the values of the specific return period for
the design earthquake motions are not elucidated. Hence, it is essential to clarify specific safety margins
in various uncertainties in order to realize fully performance-based design.
On the other hand, the capacity design concept is clearly employed in order to control the failure
mode of bridges. An increasing factor for design loads is provided in the design of foundations as will
be mentioned later. In addition, the ratio of bending and shear strengths is based on capacity design.

7 DUCTILITY DESIGN OF PIER FOUNDATIONS — A STANDARD VERIFICATION

METHOD AGAINST LEVEL 2 EARTHQUAKES

Before the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake (Kobe earthquake), the elastic design methodology in-
volving small-to-medium scale earthquakes was employed in foundation design. However, following
the Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake, structural engineers were eager to develop a design methodology that
can provide a realistic description of the ultimate behavior of a foundation as a system. The earthquake
caused significant cracking and yielding in many foundations, although the damage was less serious than
in the severely damaged piers. The design seismic load was increased compared to those before the
1996 revision. Based on this background, the Specifications for Highway Bridges recommend a ductility
design method to verify the seismic performance, in which both the capacity and ductility of the foun-
dations are taken into account. Although it is widely recognized that a design philosophy considering
the ductility of structures as well as the capacity are important, its application to the seismic design of
foundations is rare. The Japanese Specifications for Highway Bridges are one of the leading design codes
with respect to the application of ductility design to foundation systems.

6
 Figure 2. Ductility design of pier foundations for verification in usual cases

kh1, kh2
khe

khp
khg

kh1
kh2

Start Finish
Loading step

Figure 3. An example of the loading procedure in the ductility design of pier foundations (khe is obtained based
on the ARS curves of the design seismic motions with the assumption of the initial elastic behavior of
the pier-foundation system.)

7.1 Limit states and verification items against Level 2 earthquakes and the verification model
Since foundations are placed underground, it is time-consuming to examine and repair damaged portions
before restarting the service of a bridge after an earthquake. This is a crucial problem in SPL 2, in which
early function recovery is demanded. As a consequence, the plasticizing behavior of the foundation
system should be avoided even in a severe earthquake. However, it is unavoidable to consider inelastic
behavior in rare scale earthquakes, especially, when liquefaction of subsoil layers occurs or when a
pier ends up possessing a large capacity due to factors outside the seismic design process. Above all, the
salient point is the necessity in seismic design to consider the relationship between possible damage states
and the stability of the foundation system in order to achieve an appropriate damage control design. It is
essential to restrict the damage to foundations such that it is easy to restart bridge service immediately
after an earthquake without any repair work to foundations.
The Specifications specify that the clear inelastic behavior of foundations as systems is not expected in
principle, and that seismic energy dissipation should be expected at other structural sections and devices,
such as the bottoms of piers or seismic energy absorption bearings. We now check the behavior of a
foundation by pushover analysis using the model shown in Figures 2 and 3, where Figure 3 represents a
procedure to apply design seismic actions.
We first carry out the pushover analysis for a pier with the fixed based boundary condition and then

7
Figure 4. Ductility design of pier foundations for verification in the case in which foundations have sufficient
ductility capacity

repeat the procedure for the foundation. As for pile foundations, nonlinear properties in terms of the
bending of foundation members are considered by evaluating their moment-curvature relations. The
vertical bearing resistance of a pile is modeled by an elastic-perfectly plastic bilinear spring by setting its
yield points at the ultimate bearing capacity and the ultimate pull-out capacity, respectively, with respect
to the compression and pull-out forces. The horizontal subgrade reaction is modeled using a Winkler
type distributed spring having a bilinear property. Finally, it is verified that the maximum displacement
at the foundation top does not reach the range in which the behavior of the foundation system is clearly
nonlinear when the foundation reaches a factored maximum plastic moment strength of the pier.
The factored maximum plastic moment strength of the pier is given by multiplying the pier plastic mo-
ment strength considered in the pier design by an overstrength factor which is larger than one, since pier
moment capacities are greater than the idealized plastic moment capacity employed in pier design. khp
is the factored maximum strength of piers although khp is the corresponding lateral seismic coefficient.
The overstrength factor value, 1.1, shown in the Specifications considers material strength variations of
piers, foundation members, and soils, neglecting covering concrete contribution when obtaining pier ca-
pacities, and so on, based on engineering judgment. Note that the average bias of pier strength compared
to design strength is estimated to be approximately 1.14 and the variation of the strength is estimated to
be approximately 6% for several typical Japanese RC highway bridge piers, according to a Monte Carlo
simulation performed by Adachi and Unjoh (2000), considering the variation of material strengths and
rigidities. The average bias plus 1σ eventually reaches approximately 1.2.
Some parts lateral ground resistance elements mobilize the maximum resistances and, in the case
of a group-pile foundation, some piles undergo initial yield, even when verification is satisfied and the
foundation behaves in elastic manner as an overall system.
The Specifications allow the plasticizing behavior of a foundation system when the foundation is in
an inevitable situation, such as that mentioned above. In this case, the foundation is regarded to be the
main location of seismic energy dissipation due to its inelastic hysteresis. It is verified that the foundation
does not reach the limit state point at which the damage to foundation cannot be fixed, as illustrated in
Figure 4. Moreover, the Specifications require confirmation that the large residual displacement of the
foundation does not result in difficulty in re-using the bridge. Ultimately, the Specifications assume that
the damage to foundation members and the residual displacement of foundation systems does not make
it impossible to perform early restart of the service of bridges and that any damage will be fixed after the
restart of full-operation of the bridge. These assumptions correspond to the short-term Repairability and
the long-term Repairability, respectively.
The nonlinear response is estimated by the energy conservation method and the verification is per-
formed by use of the response and allowable ductility factors, µFR and µFL respectively, where the ductil-
ity factor, µ, is defined in the following equation by dividing the displacement δ by the yield displacement

8
δy at the point of seismic lateral load in the upper structure.
δ
µ=
δy
The yield point of the system behavior of foundation is obtained by the so-called ‘log kh -log δ analysis’
with the relationship between seismic coefficient, kh , and horizontal displacement, δ, at the point of
seismic lateral load in the upper structure. Based on this procedure, the yield point in the system behavior
of pile foundation of usual dimension in highway bridges is generally characterized by:
• when a compressive reaction force at a pile top reaches the bearing capacity of the pile, or
• when all piles yield.
The allowable ductility factor, µFL , is recommended based on previous large scale experimental studies
such as experiments of group-piles subjected to lateral and overturning moment cyclic loads, as shown
in Figure 5 and the allowable ductility factor of piers (Kimura et al. 1998; Fukui et al. 1997a; Fukui
et al. 1997b; Fukui et al. 1998). Regarding group-pile foundations, the allowable ductility factor, µFL ,
itself is deterministically specified to be four, because conventional numerical analyses cannot predict
the onset of the postpeak behavior of group-pile foundations, i.e. the ultimate limit state. Note that this
value of the allowable ductility factor, four, is also applied in practice when the foundation reaches the
yield point due to mobilizing the ultimate compression bearing capacity of the leading piles. Regarding
column type foundations such as caisson foundations, a safety factor α is considered in the determination
of the value of the allowable ductility factor, µFL , in order not to reach the ultimate displacement, δu ,
when a foundation sustains an ultimate curvature for maintaining bending strength, which is regarded as
the onset of spalling of cover concrete in practice, as shown in the following equation:
δu − δy
µFL = 1 + ,
αδy
where δy is the displacement of the yield point of the foundation system.
When there is a possibility of liquefaction occurring on a construction site, the Specifications require
seismic performance verifications in both of the two cases described above:
• The foundation has sufficient strength capacity not to enter the clear nonlinear behavior region
without the consideration of liquefaction effects, in principle, as a system, and
• The foundation has a sufficient ductility capacity when liquefaction occurs,
because liquefaction is a progressive phenomenon during an earthquake and the worse case seismic
effects on a foundation cannot be determined without carrying out both verifications.
The seismic performance of bridges, limit states of foundations, and verification items are summa-
rized as Table 3. In Table 3, the verification items are specified corresponding to the stability of the
foundation, the Repairability of foundation members, and the influence of foundation displacement on
the bridge system.

8 STRUCTURAL DETAILS FOR KINEMATIC FORCES IN PILES

Recent reports of earthquake damage such as those concerning the Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake (Kobe
Earthquake) of 1995 reveal that pile foundations are likely to sustain damage near boundaries between
soft and hard subsoil layers due to kinematic interactions during a large earthquake (Public Works Re-
search Institute 1996). The special structural details in piles for the kinematic force were added in the
1996 revision of the Specifications for Highway Bridges, Substructures, in order to have a higher duc-
tility and a higher shear strength. The minimum hoop distance of cast-in-place RC piles were specified
to be less than in the previous Specifications. A certain degree of spiral reinforcement which is similar
to that needed around the pile top should be applied to the sections of PHC piles and RC piles; these are
precast piles, near the boundaries between soft and hard subsoil layers.
Many studies are carried with the aim of developing prediction methods for such damage that are
suitable for practical design. However, engineering judgment was provided in the Specifications for
Highway Bridges based on practical considerations. Study on a quantitative assessment for the effects of
such local damage or local capacity loss of piles on the foundation system are expected.

9
 2 34 5 6
300 7
Y
8
200 9

Horizonal Load (tf)

100

−100

−200

−300
−120 −80 −40 0 40 80 120
Horizontal Displacement (mm)

Load-displacement curve of the horizontal

Test set-up (units: mm) jack

Side view of the model group pile at 4δy cycles Side view of the model ground pile at 7δy cycles

Figure 5. A large scale experiment of a 3 × 2 model cast-in-place RC group-pile subjected to cyclic horizontal and
overturning moment loads at the top of the foundation performed by Kimura et al. (Kimura et al. 1998;
Fukui et al. 1997a; Fukui et al. 1997b; Fukui et al. 1998): (A horizontal jack and two vertical side jacks
were simultaneously controlled to maintain the ratio of the horizontal and overturning moment loads
during the experiment. 1δy is defined as the displacement when all the piles yield.)

10
 Table 3. Limit state of foundation
Related seismic
performance of bridge Limit state of foundation Verification items
Repairability, Func- The state remains in a limited non-The local plasticization of structural mem-
tionality linear region which seems to be bers of the foundation and ground resistances
linear when viewed as a system. does not lead to clear inelastic behavior of the
foundation system.
(Verification of residual displacement of the
foundation can be negligible for this degree
of damage.)
Safety (Naturally satisfied in the case of satisfying
the above verification items)
Repairability, Func- The state remains in a region in The foundation does not lose strength as a
tionality which the foundation retains system.
sufficient strength and the damage The damage to foundation members can be
can be repaired. repaired or reuse of the damaged foundation
is possible by reinforcement.
The residual displacement of the foundation
does not cause an excessive inclination to
cause the replacement of the piers.
Safety (Naturally satisfied in the case of the satisfac-
tion for the above verification items)
Note: The response displacement of the foundation is also considered in the verification of unseating of
the girders.

9 SEISMIC LATERAL SPREADING OF THE GROUND DUE TO LIQUEFACTION AFTER A

LEVEL 2 EARTHQUAKE

When the possibility of seismic lateral spreading of the ground due to liquefaction exists on a construction
site following a Level 2 earthquake, the strength of foundations as systems shall be checked for this
special case in addition to the fundamental ductility design. In addition to the Specifications, a description
of a standard verification method and its background are given by Yokoyama et al. (1997).

10 CONCLUDING REMARKS AND EXPECTATIONS OF RELIABILITY DESIGN

This paper presents the 2002 Japanese seismic design Specifications for Highway Bridges. The latest
Specifications newly introduce performance-based design code. The structure of the specifications was
rebuilt based on this concept. The performance requirements of bridges and detailed design methods of
members are clearly separated in the code structure. As upper level Specifications, the performance re-
quirements are mandated, whereas the detailed design methods are placed as typical or standard methods
or examples of acceptable solutions, including structural details, calculation methods and corresponding
allowable limits.
The motivation for the introduction of performance-based design is the encouragement of the smooth
adoption of innovative technologies developed by engineers and researchers in association with various
projects. This revision can provide designers an incentive to employ new ideas on the structures, mate-
rials, and construction methods in order to lead to more cost-effective and sufficient earthquake-resistant
bridges.
However, only the concept of performance-based design is available at this moment. No official pro-
cedure for the conformity assessment of designs that differ from the specifications has been prepared
until now, which is one of many tasks to be solved for the implementation of performance-based design,
while conformity assessment is the counterpart of performance-based design. At present, the adoption of
alternative verification methods, structures, and materials is implemented in the same way as in previous
revisions. It is conducted in a discretionary administration of the authorities, often with the technical

11
support of the NILIM (National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management) and PWRI (Public
Works Research Institute), which are national institutes established by the Japanese Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure and Transport. When high-level technical judgment is required, an authority establishes
an advisory technical committee on the specific project, and implements the project with the approval
of the committee in a step-by-step manner. The committee usually consists of researchers at universi-
ties, the NILIM, and the PWRI, and experienced practitioners and researchers in private construction or
consultant companies.
We have to make efforts to establish a general verification system in the future for assessing innovative
technologies, although it is not easy to establish rules on how it should be done, with regards to designs
that differ from the specifications. In order to realize a fully performance-based design code, structural
performance has to be measured by specific parameter values as completely as possible. Therefore,
reliability design can achieve great success in design codes, standards, and specifications, if reliability
design is able to greatly contribute to the evolution of the performance-based design concept.
We have already started the research on the introduction of reliability-based design by LRFD or par-
tial factor design format into the Specifications. In the process of developing the reliability-based design
Specifications, we should pay attention to applying reliability-based design in order to establish better
performance-based design including a general verification system for assessing innovative technologies.
By doing this, we might attract support from engineers with respect to the transition of the Specifica-
tions into reliability-based design, since engineers would also obtain benefit through implementation of
performance-based design.

Adachi, Y. and S. Unjoh (2000). Reliability-based evaluation of seismic performance of reinforced con-
crete bridge column designed in accordance with ductility design method. J. of Struct. Eng., JSCE 46A,
777–788. In Japanese.

Fukui, J., Y. Kimura, and M. Okoshi (1997a). Strength and ductility characteristics of highway bridge
foundations. Proc. of the 29th joint meeting of U.S.-Japan panel on wind and seismic effects, UJNR,
Technical Memorandum of PWRI (3524), 567–582.

Fukui, J., Y. Kimura, and M. Okoshi (1997b). Strength and ductility characteristics of pile foundations.
Proc. of the second Italy-Japan workshop on seismic design and retrofit of bridges, Technical Memoran-
dum of PWRI (3503), 255–274.

Fukui, J., M. Nakano, Y. Kimura, M. Ishida, M. Ookoshi, and A. Banno (1998). Experiments on the
ductility of pile foundations subjected to cyclic loading. Technical Memorandum of PWRI (3553). In
Japanese.

Honjo, Y. et al. (2000). National report on limit state design in geotechnical engineering: Japan. In
Ovesen and Day (Eds.), LSD2000: International workshop on Limit State design in Geotech. Eng.,
Melbourne, Australia, pp. 217–240. TC23, ISSMGE.

Japan Road Association (2002a). Specifications for Highway Bridges, Part IV, Substructures. Tokyo:
Maruzen. In Japanese. An English translation has been privately performed by the Foundation Engi-
neering Research Team of Public Works Research Institute, Japan, and will be published as a part of
‘Technical Memorandum of Foundation Engineering Research Team, PWRI’ (Ed. by Fukui, J., Shirato,
M., and Matsui, K.), No. 2003-01, 2003.

Japan Road Association (2002b). Specifications for Highway Bridges, Part V, Seismic Design. Tokyo:
Maruzen. In Japanese.

Kimura, Y., M. Ookoshi, M. Nakano, J. Fukui, and K. Yokoyama (1998). An experimental study on the
ductility of pile foundations. J. of Struct. Eng., JSCE 44A, 1597–1606. In Japanese.

12
 Public Works Research Institute (1996). Report on the disaster caused by the 1995 Hyogoken Nanbu
Earthquake. J. of Research, PWRI 33.

Yokoyama, K., K. Tamura, and O. Matsuo (1997). Design methods of bridge foundations against soil
liquefaction and liquefaction-induced ground flow. Proc. of the second Italy-Japan workshop on seismic
design and retrofit of bridges, Technical Memorandum of PWRI (3503), 297–319.

13

View publication stats