Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1139–1156 www.elsevier.

com/locate/engstruct

Seismic retrofitting of highway bridges in Illinois using friction pendulum seismic isolation bearings and modeling procedures
M. Dicleli a,∗, M.Y. Mansour b
a

Department of Civil Engineering and Construction, Bradley University, Peoria, Il 61625-0114, USA b Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Received 15 November 2002; received in revised form 24 February 2003; accepted 26 February 2003

Abstract In this paper, the economical and structural efficiency of friction pendulum bearings (FPB) for retrofitting typical seismically vulnerable bridges in the State of Illinois is studied. For this purpose, a bridge was carefully selected by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) to represent typical seismically vulnerable bridges commonly used in the State of Illinois. A comprehensive structural model of the bridge was first constructed for seismic analysis. An iterative multi-mode response spectrum (MMRS) analysis of the bridge was then conducted to account for the nonlinear behavior of the bridge components and soil–bridge interaction. The calculated seismic demands were compared with the estimated capacities of the bridge components to determine those that need to be retrofitted. It was found that the bearings, wingwalls and pier foundations of the considered typical bridge need to be retrofitted. A conventional retrofitting strategy was developed for the bridge and the cost of retrofit was estimated. Next, the bridge was further studied to develop appropriate techniques for upgrading its seismic capacity using FPB to eliminate the need for seismic retrofitting of its vulnerable substructure components. It was observed that the use of FPB mitigated the seismic forces and eliminated the need for retrofitting of the substructure components of the bridge. An average retrofitting cost using FPB was calculated and found to be less than the cost of conventional retrofitting considered in this study. Thus, FPB may successfully be used for economical seismic retrofitting of typical bridges in the State of Illinois or in regions of low to moderate risk of seismic activity. © 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Bridge; Friction pendulum bearing; Seismic isolation; Soil–structure interaction; Nonlinear analysis; Seismic retrofitting; Cost

1. Introduction According to United States Geological Survey [1], the Central United States is a region of moderate to high risk of seismic activity and it is anticipated that the probability of a Richter magnitude 6–7 earthquake occurring in Central United States within the next 50 years is higher than 90%. Recognizing the threat of seismic activity, in the early 1990s, Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) made a statewide assessment of the seismic vulnerabilities of its over 6000 highway bridges. Many of these bridges were found to be vulnerable as they were built in the late 1960s and early 1970s during

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-309-677-2942; fax: +1-309-6772867. E-mail address: mdicleli@bradley.edu (M. Dicleli).

a rapid expansion of the highway system and before there were any seismic design regulations in American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) [2] bridge design specifications. The assessment of the vulnerability of these bridges identified deficiencies [3] that are; brittle fixed steel bearings, rocker bearings with stability problem, short seat widths, columns with insufficient transverse reinforcement and lap splices and foundations with inadequate lateral and bearing resistance. Conventional seismic retrofitting methods [4–9] may be used to mitigate the risk that currently exists for seismically vulnerable bridges in Illinois. Some of these methods are; replacing old steel bearings with modern conventional bearings such as elastomeric, pot or spherical bearings, widening the pier cap and abutment seat to accommodate seismic lateral movements of the superstructure, strengthening and enhancing the ductility

0141-0296/03/$ - see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(03)00062-2

which is produced by design earthquake loading. Fd. as given by Eq. The main components of the FPB are. Dd. Methods based on linear elastic theories are commonly used for the analysis of seismic isolated bridges.13] ze ϭ hysteretic energy dissipated 2πkeD2 d (3) Substituting the area under the hysteresis loop of Fig. The tangential component of the weight of the bridge also acts as a restoring force opposing the seismic forces as shown in Fig. which produces the same amount of viscous energy dissipation for each cyclic motion of the bearing. ze. Furthermore. 1 representing the hysteretic energy dissipated and the equivalent elastic bearing stiffness. The side of the articulated slider in contact with the concave spherical surface is coated with a low-friction composite material. a bridge was carefully selected by IDOT to represent typical seismically vulnerable bridges in the State of Illinois. Mobilization and traffic control during substructure retrofitting over an extended period of time constitutes an additional hidden cost that need to be considered. For this purpose. The elevation of a typical FPB [10] is shown in Fig. acting on the bearing. W/R in Eq. the economical and structural efficiency of FPB for retrofitting typical seismically vulnerable bridges in the State of Illinois is studied. retrofitting a component of the bridge may overstress some other components and result in additional retrofitting cost. 1 and is defined by the following equation [10]: F ϭ mW sgn(V) ϩ W D R (1) where R is the radius of the concave surface. W. Friction pendulum bearings FPBs are sliding-based seismic isolators. Thus. 1. The force–displacement hysteresis loop [11] of the FPB is illustrated in Fig. Since the behavior of FPB is nonlinear in nature. D is the isolator displacement and V is the isolator velocity. The equivalent viscous damping ratio. and the weight. thus. FPB uses the characteristic of a pendulum motion to lengthen the natural period of the isolated structure. A pendulum motion for the supported structure is achieved as the articulated slider rides on the concave surface as illustrated in Fig. ke ϭ mW W ϩ Dd R (2) 2. Iterative multi-mode response spectrum (MMRS) analysis of the bridge is conducted considering the nonlinear behavior of the bridge components and soil–bridge interaction effects to assess its seismic vulnerability. the number of piles and providing dead man anchors to improve the lateral resistance of the footings. an articulated slider and a housing plate. However. deflects the earthquake input energy to mitigate the seismic forces. is obtained from the following equation [12. the bridge is further studied to develop appropriate techniques for upgrading its seismic capacity using FPB to eliminate the need for retrofitting of its vulnerable components. advanced composite fiber reinforced polymer or prestressed wire wrapping and increasing the size of the footings. Thus. In this paper. ke. This may be achieved by replacing the already vulnerable existing bearings by friction pendulum bearing (FPB) to reduce the seismic forces in the bridge substructures and eliminate the need for their costly retrofitting. (2). is illustrated graphically in Fig. The equivalent linear stiffness. most of these retrofitting methods are expensive and difficult to implement.1140 M. Finally an average retrofitting cost using FPB is calculated and compared with the cost of conventional retrofitting to assess the economical efficiency of FPB. by the corresponding design bearing displacement.Y. It is obtained by dividing the design horizontal bearing force. m. 1. A conventional retrofitting strategy is then developed for the seismically vulnerable components of the bridge and the cost of retrofit is estimated. a stainless steel concave spherical plate. equivalent linear elastic properties need to be defined for the elastic analysis of bridges with such bearings. The other side of the slider is coated with stainless steel and sits in a spherical cavity coated with low-friction composite material. Dicleli. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1139–1156 capacity of the columns using concrete and steel jackets. 1. This force is equal to the product of the dynamic friction coefficient. an economical and innovative method for mitigating the seismic forces on the bridges in Illinois by response modification may provide an efficient solution to the above problems. which are installed between the superstructure and the substructure in application to bridges. M. The movement of the slider generates a friction force that results in hysteretic energy dissipation and further mitigation of the seismic forces. AASHTO’s Guide specifications for seismic isolation design [12] recommends various seismic analysis methods based on linear elastic and nonlinear theories. the equivalent viscous damping ratio is expressed as ze ϭ 2 m π m ϩ (Dd / R) ͩ ͪ (4) A response spectrum obtained for a viscous damping . 1. The linear elastic properties of the FPB can be expressed in terms of an equivalent linear stiffness and an equivalent viscous damping to account for the effect of the hysteretic energy dissipation of the bearings. in the above equation. (1) represents the lateral stiffness produced by the tangential component of the weight. Next.

2 m at the south abutments. The bridge has three spans carrying two traffic lanes and a slab-on-prestressed-concrete-girder deck as shown in Fig. The bridge deck is continuous from one abutment to the other and is supported by two multi-column piers in between. Both abutments are seat type as illustrated in Fig. 3(a). 2. 3(b). respectively. Dicleli.1 and 25. 2. Details.4 mm. 3.1. The thin bearing pads at pier 2 are assumed to provide fixed support conditions.Y. plan and deck cross-section (all dimensions are in mm). The strength of concrete used in the prestressed concrete girders is 34.2. Both piers support two sets of girders from each adjacent span and therefore accommodate two sets of bearings. equal to that produced by the bearings is then used in the analyzes to account for the hysteretic energy dissipated by the bearings. The strengths of concrete and the steel reinforcement used for the rest of the bridge are 24 and 275 MPa. Fig. Substructures The piers of the bridge are reinforced concrete multicolumn bents typically used in Illinois bridges. in Illinois and was constructed in 1970 to carry the westbound lane traffic over a roadway.5 MPa. 3. The H piles are made of 248 MPa steel. thus. The average length of the piles is 4. .M. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1139–1156 1141 Fig. Bearings Laminated elastomeric bearings with 203 × 356 × 67 mm3 dimensions are provided underneath each girder at both abutments and pier 1. The abutment and the wingwalls are directly supported on nine HP200X54 steel end-bearing piles. 1. Description of the bridge The bridge is located on route 24 in Johnson County. seven of which are placed underneath the abutment. whereas plain elastomeric bearing pads with 152 × 356 × 13 mm3 dimensions are provided at pier 2. operation and force–displacement hysteresis of friction pendulum bearing.2 m at the north and 6. M. 3. The expansion joint widths at the north and south abutments are 38. respectively. Three of the abutment piles are battered with a slope of 1:6. A circular reinforced concrete encasement of 457 mm diameter is provided for the upper 914 mm length of the abutment piles for corrosion protection. The geometric details of piers 1 and 2 are presented in Fig. Bridge elevation. allowing the rest of the superstructure to expand or contract on both sides of pier 2 under temperature variations.

(ii) the longitudinal displacement of the bridge superstructure is expected to be smaller than the expansion joint widths. The south abutment is placed approximately 1. All six static DOF were used in the analysis. 4.35 hb (5) Fig. The analysis results revealed that (i) the pier columns may crack but not to reach their ultimate capacities. (iii) the piles’ initial elastic lateral load limit may be exceeded. Superstructure modeling 3. Bearings modeling As the stiffness of elastomeric bearings is temperature dependent. Structural model A 3D structural model of the bridge is built and analyzed using the program sap2000 [15]. Dicleli. The large in-plane translational stiffness of the bridge deck is modeled as a transverse rigid bar [14] connected to the deck at the substructure locations as illustrated in Fig. The superstructure is divided into a number of segments and its mass (13. Next. 4. thus no impacting between the superstructure and backwall is anticipated. The normalized acceleration response spectrum of AASHTO [2] is used in the analyzes. and (v) sliding may occur at the abutment–backfill interface in the transverse direction. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1139–1156 wingwalls are expected. Detailed information about the selection of dynamic DOF is presented elsewhere [14].7 m above the natural ground level. For the plain elastomeric bearings at pier 2.1142 M.17].35x(Kmin). (iv) flexural yielding of the . a static analysis of the bridge is conducted to determine the effect of the dead loads on the seismic capacity and performance of bridge components. 5.14. Full composite action between the slab and the girders is assumed in the model [16. an effective shear stiffness. In the model. Following this.1. 4. is used for the elastomeric bearings [18]. The bridge superstructure is modeled using 3D beam elements. a preliminary seismic analysis of the bridge is performed to obtain information about the expected level of nonlinear seismic behavior of the structural components. The structural model is capable of simulating the nonlinear behavior of the structural components and soil–bridge interaction effects when used in combination with iterative MMRS analyzes.3. the effective shear stiffness is obtained as 3517 kN/m using the following equation GbAb Kb ϭ 1. M. The standard penetration and unconfined compressive strength test results at each substructure location were provided by IDOT and are presented elsewhere [14].2. For the site’s stiff soil (AASHTO soil type II). Bridge abutments and piers. The base of the north abutment is placed approximately at the natural ground level. iterative MMRS analyzes of the bridge are conducted considering the effects of the observed nonlinear behavior and soil–bridge interaction. the zonal acceleration ratio is obtained as 0. translations in the X and Y directions and rotations about the X and Z axes as shown in Fig.20. the effective shear stiffness is obtained as 1512 kN/m from the manufacturer’s catalog [19]. Each mass is assigned four dynamic degrees of freedom (DOF). equivalent elastic stiffness properties are used for the components exhibiting nonlinear behavior. These stiffness properties are updated at each iteration step to simulate the nonlinear behavior of the components. 3. 5.7 and 3. Kb = 1. The footings of piers 1 and 2 are placed respectively at 4. where Kmin is the shear stiffness of the bearing at 20 °C. For the bridge site. 5. Types of analyzes conducted First. Site properties The site soil is composed of layers of stiff silty clay extending down to the hard sandstone.4 m below the natural ground surface. For the laminated elastomeric bearings at pier 1. the site coefficient is obtained as 1.40 ton/m) is lumped at each nodal point connecting the segments. The fill material above the ground level is medium moist silty clay.Y.

backfill and the piles as shown in Fig. The interaction between the pier footing and the soil is modeled using three translational and three rotational springs. The columns are connected to a horizontal rigid bar at their lower end to simulate the interaction between their axial deformation and wall’s flexural rotation assuming that the cross-section of the wall always remains plane. the effect of soil–bridge interaction is included in the analysis of the bridge considered in this study using boundary springs at the interface nodes between the bridge and the soil. Thus. The soil–bridge interaction at the abutment may have a significant effect on the dynamic response characteristics of particularly shorter bridges [21] and is included in the model using boundary springs attached at the interface nodes between the abutment. Pin connection is assumed at the joints linking the bearings to the substructures as shown in Fig. 4. The bearings are idealized as 3D beam elements connected between the superstructure and the substructures at girder locations. The abutments are modeled using a grid 3D beam elements as illustrated in Fig. rocking and torsional modes. For the vertical mode. The beam–columns joints are modeled as rigid beam elements. The length of the vertical rigid bar is set equal to the footing depth to estimate accurately the effect of seismic forces transferred to the soil [20]. where Gb is the shear modulus of the bearing material at 20 °C (1830 kPa). 4. horizontal. The method proposed by Dorby and Gazetas [26] is employed in the calculation of the stiffness of the boundary springs for the vertical. A 3D beam element representing .1. the stiffness of the boundary spring is expressed as LfG K Z ϭ SZ 1Ϫn For the horizontal mode in X and Y directions LfG K Y ϭ SY 2Ϫn (7) (6) Fig.3. The calculations of the stiffness of the springs are described in the subsequent sections. 5. 4. Ab the plan area of the bearings (152 × 356 mm2). In the following subsections the procedures followed to model soil–bridge interaction effects at the abutments and piers are described.M. Modeling spread footings–soil interaction at piers 1 and 2 The soil–footing interaction effect at the piers is included in the model using three translational and three rotational uncoupled boundary springs connected at the interface nodes of soil and rectangular spread footings. 4. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1139–1156 1143 the wall is then connected between this horizontal rigid bar and a vertical rigid bar representing the pier’s rigid footing. 6. The horizontal beam elements are placed at the top and bottom of the abutment and at the intersection of abutment back-wall and breast wall. Structural model of the bridge at the piers and abutments. The tributary masses of the abutment and wingwalls are lumped to each node and are assigned translational dynamic DOF in three orthogonal directions of the bridge. The tributary masses of the pier elements are lumped at the joints connecting them.27–29]. M. 4. The vertical beam elements are placed at the pile locations. and hb is the bearing thickness (13 mm). Substructures modeling The pies are modeled using 3D beam elements as illustrated in Fig. 6. Dicleli.Y. Procedures for modeling soil–bridge interaction The importance of including the flexibility and strength of supports at abutments and piers in seismic analysis of highway bridges is well recognized by various researchers [22–26] and transportation agencies [2. Detailed information about bearings’ modeling is presented elsewhere [14].

the effect of the cyclic loading on the foundation soil is incorporated in the analysis using an equivalent shear modulus. The stiffness of the boundary springs are also modified to account for the effect of the embedment depth of the footing [29]. St. The stiffnesses of the boundary springs at the base of both piers are presented in Table 1. 5(a) and (b).36 × 106 324762 315915 220000 214000 KqX (kN m/rad) KqY (kN m/rad) KqZ (kN m/rad) 292 × 106 156 ×106 0 0 0 0 40. Dicleli.8 (12) where N represents the standard penetration test blows per foot and Gmax is expressed in kPa.75 (11) ͩͪ (9) (10) In the above equations.62 × 106 4. The boundary spring is then assigned the calculated secant stiffness and a second For the rocking mode about the X and Y axes G Bf (I )0.105LfG KX ϭ SY 1Ϫ Ϫ 2Ϫn 0. Gmax. In the second step. Table 1 Stiffness of boundary springs at pier footings and abutment piles Substructure Pier 1 footing Pier 2 footing North abutment North abutment South abutment South abutment KX (kN/m) 8. M. Stiffness of horizontal boundary springs A two-step procedure is adopted to include the lateral pile–soil interaction effects in the seismic analyzes of the bridge.1144 M. obtained by reducing Gmax using a reduction factor of 0. respectively.04 × 106 5. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1139–1156 Bf LfG 0.2. Modeling details is presented elsewhere [14]. G. a Poisson ratio of 0. The static pushover analyzes results for the piles at the north and south abutments of the bridge are presented in Fig.75 KqX ϭ SqX 1Ϫn qX Lf G KqY ϭ SqY (I )0. MMRS analysis of the bridge is conducted and the force in the horizontal boundary springs is calculated. Using the nonlinear lateral force–displacement curve of the piles. 4. are constants that depend on the dimensions of the footing as defined by Dorby and Gazetas [26]. More detailed information about the modeling procedure is presented elsewhere [14]. SqY. J is the polar moment of inertia of the footing. first the initial shear modulus of elasticity. SqX. the secant stiffness is then calculated as the slope of the line connecting the origin to the point of the calculated boundary spring force on the curve. Next.4 × 106 21. first an initial equivalent linear stiffness is assumed for the horizontal boundary springs. 5(a) and (b).6 × 106 0 0 0 0 729 × 106 532 × 106 0 0 0 0 vertical piles battered piles vertical piles battered piles .75Ϫn Lf ͩ ͪ Ϫ0. (the initial slope of the backbone curve in the stress–strain diagram of the soil) is obtained using the following equation [28] Gmax ϭ 11.60 × 106 2750 25725 3600 12375 KY (kN/m) 10. The equivalent linear stiffness is defined as the secant slope of the line from the origin of the curve to the point representing pile’s seismic lateral load on the curve.25 (8) 6. Pile failure is assumed when the pile reaches its ultimate flexural capacity. SY.2.700N0.75 1Ϫn qY For the torsional mode KqZ ϭ SqZG(IZ)0.8 as recommended by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) [29] considering the seismicity of the site. In the first step.52 × 106 2500 2500 2700 2700 KZ (kN/m) 10.45 is used for the site soil [29]. Furthermore. Static pushover analyzes of the model are conducted to determine the nonlinear lateral force– displacement relationship at the top of the pile (interface node). These analyzes are performed until failure is observed either in the piles or the soil. Next. Iqx and Iqy are the moment of inertia of the footing about the local X and Y axes.Y.28 × 106 5. For the site soil. Since the seismic lateral load on the pile is not initially known to calculate this slope. Modeling pile–soil interaction at abutments The flexibility of the pile foundations at both abutments is modeled using a vertical and two horizontal boundary springs at the pile–abutment interface nodes as shown in Fig.1. The soil failure is assumed when a very small increase in the lateral load transferred by the pile causes an additional large soil deformation. a 2D structural model of the pile–soil system without the bridge is constructed using the program sap2000 [15]. the horizontal boundary springs connected at the pile–abutment interface nodes are assigned an equivalent linear stiffness obtained from the lateral force–displacement curves of the piles illustrated in Fig. G and n are the equivalent shear modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio of the soil taking into account the effect of cyclic loading and SX. The formulation of spring stiffnesses is explained below. 6. Bf and Lf are respectively the short and long dimensions of the footing.

Using the relationship defined by Clough and Duncan [31] for the variation of the earth pressure coefficient as a function of the abutment movement. For the steel H piles bearing on hard sandstone. ksh. MMRS analysis is conducted. an alternative procedure is developed as part of this study to model the interaction between the abutment and backfill. The stiffness of the boundary springs in three orthogonal directions at the pile locations is tabulated in Table 1. to model backfill– abutment interaction are more biased towards accounting for the behavior of the abutment–backfill system under translational mode. from the abutment top as follows [14] ksh ϭ ͩ ͪ 14500 z H (13) where H is the abutment height. Translational springs are also attached at each node of the abutment to model the shear stiffness of the backfill until sliding between the abutment and backfill occurs. Longitudinal direction response Generally. Transverse direction response Translational springs are attached to the nodes of only one of the wingwalls at each abutment to simulate the effect of the backfill’s passive resistance in the transverse direction as illustrated in Fig. some of these methods are specific to the type of the abutment they are developed for and use soil properties that are difficult to estimate accurately.3.2.3. Furthermore.2. 7.3.1. 6. 6. 6. The iteration is continued until the difference between the load obtained in the current and previous steps is negligible. the horizontal subgrade constant. Modeling soil–abutment interaction 6. The stiffness of these springs is again calculated by multiplying ksh by the area tributary to the node on the wingwall. M. their vertical stiffness is assumed to be independent of the soil properties and equal to their axial stiffness [14. 4. The stiffness of the transverse boundary springs at the abutment is obtained by equally distributing the calculated shear stiffness to the interface nodes. Static pushover analysis results for the piles at north and south abutments. 4. procedures such as those specified by CALTRANS [27] and FHWA [28]. for the backfill is obtained as a function of the depth. Stiffness of vertical boundary springs An elastic vertical force–deformation behavior is considered adequate for defining the vertical or axial flexibility of the piles [28]. z. 5. Iterative analysis procedure The iterative MMRS analysis procedures to simulate the nonlinear behavior of the bridge components that . In the longitudinal direction. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1139–1156 1145 Fig.2.30].Y. a series of translational springs are attached to the nodes of only one of the abutments to model the passive resistance of the backfill as shown in Fig. two separate structural models are built with springs attached to the north abutment only and to the south abutment only to obtain the seismic response of the bridge. B the width of the abutment and G is the equivalent shear modulus of the backfill. Although complicated methods are available to define the shear force–deformation behavior of backfill [32].M. The stiffness of the boundary springs at the abutment–backfill interface nodes are then calculated by multiplying ksh by the area tributary to the node. a simple elastic approach is developed to calculate the shear stiffness of the backfill as follows [14] Ksb ϭ GBH Lw (14) where Lw is the length of the wingwall. Dicleli. No springs are attached to the other abutment since under seismic loading in the longitudinal direction only one abutment is pushed towards the backfill while the other is pulled away. No springs are attached to the leading wingwalls since they are displaced away from the backfill. Thus. Thus.

the calculated passive resistance is distributed to the wingwall nodes in opposite direction to that of the seismic forces and static analysis of the bridge is conducted. 7. ⌬c. which are obtained using the column analysis program cola [33]. Dynamic and static backfill pressure at the abutments At the abutment pushed towards the backfill. Mode shapes and periods of vibration A total of 100 modes of vibration are considered in the seismic analysis of the bridge to accomplish full par- where Mcs is the column’s seismic moment. Using the new seismic moments. The maximum of the results obtained from the two analyzes is considered for assessing the seismic vulnerability of the bridge. 7. as [14] Icr ϭ Mcsh2 c 3Ec⌬c (15) bridge is repeated. the generated active earth pressure is calculated using Mononobe–Okabe method [28.29]. M. These deflections are then set equal to the elastic top deflection of the idealized cantilever columns to obtain their cracked moment of inertia. The sum of the spring forces is then calculated and compared with the friction resistance at the abutment–backfill interface to check if sliding will occur. First. MMRS analysis of the bridge is conducted to obtain the seismically induced moment in the wingwall.1. This normal force multiplied by the friction coefficient between the backfill and the concrete abutment surface produces a friction resistance. This moment is then compared with wingwall’s ultimate flexural capacity to determine whether flexural yielding has occurred. of the cantilever columns are obtained from their moment– deflection curves using the columns’ preliminary seismic moments calculated earlier. the springs are removed from the wingwall and MMRS analysis of the bridge is conducted. This sliding behavior is considered in the analysis [14]. 8. this friction resistance is mobilized and sliding occurs between the abutment and backfill. 7. Yielding of wingwalls The flexural yielding of the wingwalls is considered under transverse direction seismic loading. Then. The iteration is continued until the cracked moments of inertia obtained in the current iteration step are equal to those obtained in the previous step. This procedure requires the nonlinear moment– deflection diagrams of the columns. two different analyzes are conducted. first the backfill passive resistance that produces a moment equal to the ultimate flexural capacity of the wingwall is calculated. The columns are idealized as cantilevers with an equivalent length measured from the support to their point of inflection. the results from the MMRS and static analyzes are combined to incorporate the yielding of the wingwall in the analysis. The results from the MMRS analyzes of the bridge are combined with the static analyzes results under the aforementioned at-rest and active earth pressures to incorporate the total effect of the backfill pressures in the analysis. This is done by multiplying the calculated forces in the wingwall springs by the ratio of the wingwall’s ultimate flexural capacity to the seismically induced moment in the wingwall. First. At the abutment pulled away from the backfill. Finally. MMRS analysis of the bridge is conducted and the forces in the springs defining the shear stiffness of the backfill are obtained. the total earth pressure is taken as the sum of the static at-rest earth pressure and the additional pressure arising from the longitudinal displacement of the abutment under seismic forces [28. The analysis of the bridge is then repeated using the calculated cracked moments of inertia and new seismic moments are obtained. the moment–deflection curves and Eq.Y. Then. hc the length of the idealized cantilever and Ec is the elastic modulus of concrete. Cracking of substructure members The effect cracking in the pier columns is included in the analysis using cracked moments of inertia. the results from the MMRS and static analyzes are combined to incorporate the effect of sliding in the bridge response.29]. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1139–1156 were identified by the preliminary seismic analysis of the bridge are defined in the following subsections. First. First.1146 M.2. To include the effect of the sliding behavior on the bridge response. As the bridge tries to move in the transverse direction. more improved cracked moments of inertia are obtained as defined before. 7. To incorporate wingwall’s flexural yielding in the analysis. (15). Icr. Next. the springs defining the shear stiffness of the backfill are removed from the model and MMRS analysis of the . Analysis results 8. The analysis is repeated for the movement of the bridge in the opposite direction. the nonlinear top deflections.4. the calculated friction force is equally distributed to the abutment nodes in opposite direction to that of the seismic forces and static analysis of the bridge is conducted. Friction between abutment and backfill The lateral earth pressure produced by the backfill exerts a normal force on the abutment. Lastly.1. An iterative analysis procedure is followed for an accurate estimation of the cracked moments of inertia of the pier columns. Dicleli.3.

2. The battered piles helped to reduce the lateral seismic force and displacement demand on all other abutment piles. Therefore. This limitation is imposed to prevent delamination of the bearings or rollover at the bearing edges.3. . AASHTO [2] requires that Fig. The bearings at pier 2 attract the largest seismically induced forces due to their larger lateral stiffness. respectively. The fundamental period of the bridge is 0. Consequently. The piers carry 67% of the total seismic force. 7. 9. the transverse direction mode is coupled with the torsional mode of the bridge. respectively. Seismic forces in substructures Table 3. in conjunction with Fig. The bearing relative displacements at all substructure locations are almost identical due to large in-plane stiffness of the deck in the longitudinal direction and is equal to 24. third and fourth modal periods of the bridge are 0. Moreover. At the abutments. 8.395 and 0.54%.049 s.2. 8. Additionally.1. the splices are only overlapped by 305 mm.541. the superstructure is not anticipated to impact the abutment back-wall. Table 4 presents the seismically induced forces in the wingwalls and abutments. Fig. the spiral may unwind and the columns may loose their transverse confinement. presents the substructure reactions for the abutment piles and base of the pier foundations. M. larger seismically induced forces are anticipated at the north abutment due to the effect of the torsion. For the pier columns. if the spalling of concrete cover occurs during a seismic event. respectively.13 and 80. 0. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1139–1156 1147 ticipation of the structure mass including the mass of the substructures. Consequently. Maximum bearing forces and displacements Table 2 displays the bearing lateral forces and displacements. The torsional rotation occurs about pier 2 due to the larger stiffness of the bearings. Capacity of pier elements Careful examination of the structural drawings of the bridge revealed that the transverse spiral reinforcement for the pier columns is not extended sufficiently into the cap beam and footing in compliance with AASHTO [2]. whereas Tables 5 and 6 present the seismically induced forces in pier 1 and 2 members. 9. The cumulative percentages of modal mass participation for the first 20 modes in the longitudinal and transverse directions are 84. The displacements are less than the width of the expansion joint. 6(b).Y.1 mm. The seismic force in the transverse direction includes the contribution of friction and passive resistance of the backfill and the embankment soil and in the longitudinal direction includes the effect of static and dynamic backfill pressures. the maximum longitudinal direction lateral force is 99 kN for the battered piles and 28 kN for the vertical piles. The periods for the first 20 modes vary between 0. Dicleli. 6(a) and (b) display the shapes of the first two vibration modes of the bridge. Bridge first and second modes of vibrations. walking of the bearings under seismic loads is not anticipated since the friction coefficient between the bearing pads and the concrete is much larger than the ratio of the seismically induced forces to unfactored dead loads.308 s. 6. Capacities of structure components 9.584 s and corresponds to its modal vibration in the longitudinal direction.M. full welding or mechanical connection is required for the splices in spiral reinforcement. within the potential plastic hinge zones.5 mm for those at pier 2. Capacity of elastomeric bearings The displacement capacity of elastomeric bearings is limited to 50% of the bearing height as per AASHTO [2] and is calculated as 33 mm for the bearings at both abutments and pier 1 and as 12. The second. The total seismic force acting on the structure is 1594 kN in the longitudinal and 1776 kN in the transverse direction.584 and 0. As noted from Fig.

00171 0. Additionally. 7. This is much larger than the provided splice length of 787 mm. the splices are provided at their lower ends contradicting AASHTO [2] requirements.00142 0. The shear and flexural capacities of the columns are calculated considering the deficiencies in their reinforcement detailing. M.02584 Bottom 0. The ultimate flexural capacities of Fig.01300 Bottom 0.02597 0.01660 0. AASHTO requires a minimum splice length of 60 times the bar diameter (2100 mm in this case) for the longitudinal reinforcement in the pier columns. respectively based on the level of factored axial load applied on the columns.03290 0.02584 0. Pile numbers at the abutments in reference to Tables 3 and 9. The flexural and shear capacities of the pier columns varies between 703 and 801 kNm and between 670 and 833 kN.00171 31 76 106 12 Transverse direction Force (kN) Displacement (m) Top 0. For the pier columns.00111 0. Thus. Capacity of abutment components The ultimate shear and flexural capacities of abutment components are calculated based on AASHTO [2] bridge design specifications. Dicleli.Y.1148 M.00753 0.02574 0. .02602 0. ductile behavior of the columns is not expected due to the inadequate detailing of their reinforcement.00701 Table 3 Seismic substructure reactions (at foundation base for piers) Substructure Longitudinal direction Axial (kN) North abutment piles 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 16 Ϫ64 17 44 10 11 12 16 Ϫ64 Shear (kN) 99 24 99 24 21 407 651 96 28 96 28 21 Moment (kN m) 0 0 0 0 0 2075 3354 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse direction Axial (kN) 0 11 22 37 13 0 0 0 4 7 13 14 Shear (kN) 36 36 36 36 39 510 671 14 14 14 14 16 Moment (kN m) 0 0 0 0 3067 4089 0 0 0 0 0 Pier South abutment piles splices in longitudinal reinforcement shall be provided away from the location of potential plastic flexural hinges at the column ends. 9.3. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1139–1156 Table 2 Bearing seismic lateral displacements and forces Location Longitudinal direction Force (kN) Displacement (m) Top North abutment Pier 1 Pier 2 South abutment 38 56 97 38 0.01537 0.01184 0.

The lateral capacities of the abutment piles corresponding to a displacement of 38 mm are obtained from the lateral force– deformation curves presented in Fig. 9. the lateral displacements of the piles need to be limited to 38 mm per AASHTO [2] bridge design specifications. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1139–1156 1149 Table 4 Seismic forces in abutment and wingwalls Location Longitudinal direction Shear (kN/m) Moment (kN m/m) Transverse direction Shear (kN/m) Moment (kN m/m) 110 N/A N/A 106 N/A N/A North abutment South abutment Wingwall Back-wall Breast-wall Wingwall Back-wall Breast-wall N/A 6 26 N/A 6 26 N/A 8 15 N/A 8 15 68 N/A N/A 68 N/A N/A Table 5 Seismic forces in pier 1 members Location Member end Longitudinal direction Axial force (kN) Shear (kN) Cap 1 Cap 2 Column 1 Column 2 Wall Left Right Left Right Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom 0 0 0 0 4.4.Y. respectively and their shear capacities are calculated as 180 and 307 kN/m. Accordingly. Accordingly.M. Dicleli. the bridge is assumed to remain serviceable after a potential earthquake. respectively. 5(a) and (b).2 4 4 12 12 57 57 57 57 123 123 122 122 378 378 Transverse direction Moment (kN m) Axial Force (kN) Shear (kN) 0 26 26 26 55 372 56 370 1112 1844 0 74 74 74 126 126 0 0 0 0 0 47 184 98 150 150 150 150 456 456 Moment (kN m) 0 41 136 95 189 200 189 200 1795 2685 Table 6 Seismic forces in pier 2 members Location Member end Longitudinal direction Axial Force (kN) Shear (kN) Cap 1 Cap 2 Column 1 Column 2 Wall Left Right Left Right Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom 0 0 0 0 13 13 14 14 40 40 0 97 97 97 205 205 206 206 626 626 Transverse direction Moment (kN m) Axial Force (kN) Shear (kN) 0 43 43 43 95 573 95 574 1724 2958 0 98 98 98 175 175 0 0 0 0 0 32 223 100 199 199 205 205 608 607 Moment (kN m) 0 28 216 141 221 243 231 248 2251 3440 the wingwall and back-wall are calculated as 57 and 89 kNm/m. M.2 4. Capacity of abutment piles For the calculation of the lateral capacities of the abutment piles. the lateral capacity of a typical north abutment pile is obtained as 82 kN for the strong and 68 kN .

the flexural capacities of the footings at both the piers need to be increased. Foundation retrofit at piers 1 and 2 10. The pile’s axial compression capacity is obtained as 845 kN based on pile driving data provided by IDOT.52.2. This will ensure the stability of the piers. Although. The ultimate bearing resistances of the soil at the foundations of piers 1 and 2 are calculated as 1200 and 1100 kPa. failure of the wingwalls is not expected to result in any structural failure other than settlements under the approach slab. Thus. The C/D ratio for the wingwalls is calculated as 0.5. the ultimate shear and flexural capacities of the footings are calculated as 423 kN/m and 120 kNm/m. Wingwall retrofit The wingwalls at both abutments need to be retrofitted to enhance their flexural capacities for bending in the transverse direction. The eccentricity limits for the pier foundations in the longitudinal and transverse directions of the bridge are thus calculated as 571 and 2400 mm. This involves casting of an overlay of reinforced concrete doweled to the existing footing. respectively to obtain a vertical load eccentricity smaller than 25% of the footing width as specified by AASHTO [2]. Capacity/demand (C/D) ratios for vulnerable components The factored elastic seismic demands for each bridge component are calculated following the procedures outlined by AASHTO [2]. their retrofit is recommended due to their low estimated retrofitting cost. respectively using the Alpha Method [34]. AASHTO [2] allows the design and evaluation of properly detailed ductile structural members using a seismic force smaller than that obtained from elastic seismic analysis of the bridge. Conventional seismic retrofitting 11. Thus. The retrofitting of wingwalls includes the addition of cleats at the joints between the wingwalls and the abutment to enhance their flexural capacities as shown in Fig.1. the calculated elastic seismic demands are directly used to evaluate their seismic vulnerability since a ductile behavior is not expected due to poor reinforcement detailing. it is anticipated that the failure of such shallow bearings may not cause a major damage. respectively.82. as shown in Fig. The dowels are designed using a shear friction approach and a . 11. the depths of the footings at piers 1 and 2 are increased from 610 to 1100 and 1200 mm. The seismically induced displacements at pier 2 bearings are found to be larger than their 12. Dicleli. For a typical south abutment pile. for the members of the bridge considered in this study. respectively. Increasing the footing width results in larger seismically induced flexural moments in the footing at the face of the wall. Under transverse direction earthquake loading. 9. The seismically induced moments at the foundations of both piers resulted in vertical load eccentricities in excess of the maximum limits specified by AASHTO [2].39. it is obtained as 95 kN for the strong and 75 kN for the weak axis bending.1150 M. The bottom reinforcement is not bent up at the faces of the footings to provide sufficient development length for the steel bars to reach their full yield strength. The C/D ratio for the displacement of the bearings at pier 2 is calculated as 0. The dowels between the new and existing concrete should be capable of transferring the shear stress on the interface. ment capacity. overturning of the piers and/or bearing failure of their foundation is anticipated. 11. Structural and geotechnical capacities of pier foundations Careful examination of the structural drawings of the bridge revealed that the reinforcement in the footings of the piers is not detailed in compliance with AASHTO [2] bridge design specifications. ductile behavior of the pier footings is not expected. AASHTO [2] limits the eccentricity of the applied vertical loads to one forth of the dimension in the direction of interest to prevent overturning of the footing and/or bearing failure of the foundation soil. However. The vertical uplift capacities of the piles at the north and south abutments are calculated as 80 and 200 kN.Y. 11. respectively [14]. For this purpose. The sliding resistance of the pier foundations is calculated as 1500 kN following the procedure recommended by AASHTO [2]. The C/D ratios for the eccentricities at pier 1 and 2 foundations are calculated as 0. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1139–1156 for the weak axis bending. Therefore. M. The capacity demand ratios for the vulnerable bridge components are presented below. 8(b). any repair may be done after the occurrence of a major earthquake. Based on the provided reinforcement detail. Bearing replacement Although the seismically induced displacement exceeds the displacement capacity of the bearings at pier 2. 8(a). the passive resistance of the backfill is found to induce transverse seismic moments in the wingwalls in excess of their ultimate flexural capacities.3. Thus.62 and 0. respectively. and no reinforcement is provided at the footing top to resist the tensile stresses introduced by the reversed seismic loading.5 mm displace- The widths of the footings at piers 1 and 2 need to be increased from 2286 to 3800 and 4800 mm.

The AASHTO [2] design response spectrum used in the analyzes is obtained for 5% viscous damping ratio.670. 11. The total cost of retrofitting the bridge ranges from US$111. it needs to be modified to incorporate the effect of the 30% equivalent viscous damping generated by the isolation system. 12. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1139–1156 1151 estimate. holes need to be drilled in the existing footings to overlap the new steel bars with the existing steel bars. Dicleli. Retrofit details for wingwalls and pier foundations. The assumed displacement. 8. The ranges of unit prices are provided by IDOT.4. Iterative analysis procedure An iterative MMRS analysis technique is used to obtain the isolation bearing displacements and other structural responses. while for the bottom transverse layer of reinforcement. a maximum displacement.7 for 30% damping. In seismically active zones. R (1020 mm). (2) to calculate the equivalent stiffness for each bearing. 12. Therefore.Y. However. More details about the cost estimate is provided elsewhere [14]. the bearing reactions due to the self-weight of the bridge. it is recommended to provide reinforcement at the top of the footings to accommodate for seismic moment reversal [2].0 for 5% and 1. For this purpose. Accordingly. coefficient of friction of 1. M.273 to US$161. The calculated equivalent stiffness is then used to obtain the stiffness of the beam elements used in the model. the amplitudes of the design response spectrum corresponding to the periods of the modes involving the movement of the isolation system are reduced by dividing them by a damping factor. is assumed for the FPB. the friction coefficient (4%) and the radius. The equivalent linear stiffness (Eq. This assumes that the surface of the existing footing has been roughened prior to casting the new concrete. otherwise. The equivalent viscous damping ratio is also calculated by substituting the bearing properties and the assumed displacement in Eq. The walls at both piers needs to be drilled to ensure the placement of the additional transverse layers of steel. Conventional retrofitting cost Details for the conventional retrofitting cost of the bridge are presented in Table 7. (4). If the difference is smaller than an assumed level of accuracy. This was not required at pier 1. Seismic retrofitting of the bridge using FPB 12. an iterative analysis procedure is performed as the equivalent bearing stiffness and hysteretic damping is function of the bearing displacement.2. For the modes not involving the movement of the isolation system 5% structural damping is used. The damping factor is obtained from AASHTO guide specifications for seismic isolation design [12] and is equal to 1. (2)) of the FPB is used to estimate the stiffness properties of the beam elements. Structural model with FPB The structural model used for the detailed seismic analysis of the bridge is slightly modified to incorporate the FPB instead of the elastomeric bearings—the FPB are also modeled using 3D vertical beam elements. Mobilization and traffic control cost is not included in the cost . the iteration is continued with the new displacements until the desired convergence is achieved. The iterative analysis procedure is described in detail below. the iteration is stopped. Fig. The MMRS analysis of the bridge is then conducted using the modified design spectrum and new bearing displacements are obtained. of the bearings are substituted in Eq.1. Additional steel is provided at the interface of the existing and new concrete overlay to minimize the footing depth requirement at pier 2 and to increase the flexural strength without the need for adding extra reinforcement at the bottom of the footing.0. The obtained displacements are compared with the initially assumed bearing displacements. minimum reinforcement is provided at the top of both footings. First.M. Dd.

the superstructure is expected to impact the abutment back-walls.3.00 Quantity 311 92 5.423 s and corresponds to the modal vibration of the structure in the longitudinal direction.1.84 and 2.00 0.95–1. The C/D ratios for the Fig.3. which is the total mass of the substructure elements. Bridge first and second modes of vibrations with friction pendulum bearings.3. Dicleli.2. The FPB eliminated the in-plane torsional rotation of the bridge and resulted in a more uniform distribution of seismic forces among substructures as observed from Tables 9 to 12.273–161.95–1. Analysis results using FPB 12. This displacement is larger than the width of the expansion joints at both abutments. respectively.4 m long bridge superstructure transferred to the FPB. displays the substructure reactions at the piles and base of the pier foundations. This is a result of energy dissipation and lower equivalent linear stiffness of FPB compared to that of the elastomeric bearings and even other rubber-based seismic isolation systems for this particular application. 12. The seismically induced forces in the abutments and wingwalls are displayed in Table 10 and those for the members at piers 1 and 2 are displayed in Tables 11 and 12.0 after replacing the existing bearings with FPB. respectively. 9(a) and (b) display the shapes of the first two vibration modes of the isolated bridge in the longitudinal and transverse directions. Seismic forces in substructures Table 9. M. The C/D ratios for the north and south abutment wingwalls in flexure are 1. The rest are the nonisolated modes of vibration with 53% mass contribution. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1139–1156 Table 7 Cost estimate for the conventional retrofit scheme Item Soil excavation New concrete Concrete removal Shear dowels Reinforcing bars Total cost Unit cu yd cu yd cu yd Pound Pound Cost range (in US$) 25–30 1000–1500 1000–1500 0. Thus.000 5000–7500 513–540 5985–6300 111.3.670 12.11. 7. The bearings at pier 1 have larger seismically induced forces due to the larger dead load reactions that produce larger friction forces. while the second period of vibration is 1.000–138. 9.Y. The first two modes of vibrations are those mainly involving the isolation system. respectively.3.0 540 6300 Total cost range (in US$) 7775–9330 92. 12. Mode shapes and periods of vibration A total of 100 modes of vibration are considered in the seismic analysis of the bridge with FPB. (2) mainly results from the relatively smaller weight of the only 32. C/D ratios The C/D ratios for the previously determined vulnerable structural members are now all larger than 1.1152 M.4. 12. .395 s and corresponds to the modal vibration of the structure in the transverse direction. The forces are generally reduced by a factor ranging between 3 and 4 due to the presence of FPB when compared to those of the same bridge with elastomeric bearings. The bearing displacements at all substructure locations are almost identical and equal to 50 mm due to the large in-plane stiffness of the bridge deck relative to the equivalent stiffness of the FPB. Fig. The lower equivalent linear stiffness expressed in Eq. FPB forces and displacements Table 8 displays the maximum bearing lateral forces and displacements. The fundamental period of the bridge is 1. in conjunction with Fig.

00339 0.4 N/A 2.9 5.00040 0. the use of FPB effectively mitigated the seismically induced forces such that seismic retrofitting of the pier foundations and wingwalls is no more required. respectively.04972 0.2 9.2 9.5.13.00248 0. 12.00272 Table 9 Seismic substructure reactions of the bridge with FPB (at foundation base for piers) Substructure Longitudinal direction Axial force (kN) Shear force (kN) Moment (kN m) North abutment piles 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 14 14 15 21 Ϫ58 1. Effect of superstructure impacting the back-wall For the back-wall to fail in shear.3 14 14 15 21 Ϫ58 36 11 36 11 8 260 262 36 11 36 11 8 0 0 0 0 0 1088 1018 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse direction Axial force (kN) Shear force (kN) 0 2 3 5 5 0 0 0 2 3 5 5 7 7 7 7 9 292 244 7 7 7 7 9 Moment (kN m) Pier South abutment piles 0 0 0 0 1289 1179 0 0 0 0 0 Table 10 Seismic forces in abutment and wingwalls of the bridge with FPB Location Longitudinal direction Shear (kN/m) North abutment Wingwall Back-wall Breast-wall Wingwall Back-wall Breast-wall N/A 2. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1139–1156 1153 Table 8 FPB seismic lateral displacements and forces Location Longitudinal direction Lateral force (kN) Displacement (m) Top North abutment Pier 1 Pier 2 South abutment 7 28 27 5 0. The consequences of this need to be addressed before a decision is made to use FPB for seismic retrofitting.0004.04976 Bottom 0.7 2.04969 0. Thus.05204 Bottom 0.05196 0.05195 0. Dicleli.04969 0. This force is calculated [14] as 3970 kN.08 and 1.00301 7 28 27 5 Transverse direction Lateral force (kN) Displacement (m) Top 0. a force equal to 3970 kN may potentially be transferred to the breast wall and the piles.05203 0.4 N/A 2.00373 0.4 Transverse direction Shear (kN/m) 24 N/A N/A 20 N/A N/A Moment (kN m/m) 31 N/A N/A 27 N/A N/A South abutment vertical load eccentricities at piers 1 and 2 are 1.Y. M. since the calculated 50-mm bearing displacement under seismic excitation exceeds the expansion joint widths. The sum of the lateral capacities of the abutment piles and passive resist- . the magnitude of the impact force must be at least equal to the shear capacity of the back-wall plus the force required for mobilizing the passive resistance of the soil behind the back-wall only.00124 0. the bridge superstructure is expected to impact the abutment back-walls.9 5.4 Moment (kN m/m) N/A 2.M.7 0. Thus. However.

Considering a maximum thermal movement of 10 mm in each end of the bridge. the width of the expansion joint at the north and south abutments needs to be increased by 22 and 35 mm. the minimum required expansion joint width at the abutments is calcu- lated as 60 mm. in seismic design of bridges. The estimated range of cost for the seismic retrofitting of the bridge using FPB is calculated as US$107. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1139–1156 Table 11 Seismic forces in pier 1 members of the bridge with FPB Location Member end Longitudinal direction Axial force (kN) Shear (kN) Cap 1 Cap 2 Column 1 Column 2 Wall Left Right Left Right Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 3 28 28 28 28 65 65 65 65 215 215 Transverse direction Moment (kN m) Axial force (kN) Shear (kN) 0 10 10 10 29 195 29 195 586 983 0 29 29 29 61 61 0 0 0 0 0 23 80 44 66 66 66 66 210 210 Moment (kN m) 0 20 58 41 83 88 83 88 776 1163 Table 12 Seismic forces in pier 2 members of the bridge with FPB Location Member end Longitudinal direction Axial force (kN) Shear (kN) Cap 1 Cap 2 Column 1 Column 2 Wall Left Right Left Right Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 3 27 27 27 27 63 63 63 63 205 205 Transverse direction Moment (kN m) Axial force (kN) Shear (kN) 0 10 10 10 29 174 29 174 525 910 0 27 27 27 75 75 0 0 0 0 0 15 60 28 61 61 63 63 190 190 Moment (kN m) 0 13 60 40 68 76 67 74 700 1058 ance of the portion of the backfill behind the breast wall is 1407 kN. This is only 88% of the cost of conventional retrofitting.515–US$133. Furthermore. it is recommended [7] to use such a mode of damage as a ‘fuse’ as it is much easier to repair the upper portion of the abutment after a seismic event. This is smaller than the anticipated 3970 kN force transferred by the back-wall.1154 M. M. Essentially. This damage may be prevented if the back-wall is modified to fail in shear. adjusting the elevation of bearing pedestals and erection and cost of FPB. The elevations of existing bearing pedestals also need adjustment to prepare the bridge for the installation of FPB. The lower profile of FPB compared to most other isolation bearings required only minor modifications to adjust the bearing seat elevations. Retrofitting scheme and cost The isolated bridge must be free to move in any horizontal direction for the seismic isolation system to perform as desired.Y. damage to the abutment piles may occur. Dicleli. the minimum required displacement capacity of the bearings including a tolerance for thermal movements needs to be 60 mm.170. Furthermore. for instance by providing a knock-off device [7]. This has a considerable impact on the state economy considering the large number of bridges that require seismic retrofitting.6. Therefore. Therefore. Details for the cost estimate are presented in Table 13. respectively. retrofitting with FPB requires shorter construction time than that required for conven- . jacking and removing the bearings. either the abutment may need to be modified to fail in shear by providing a knock-off device or the expansion joints may be widened to accommodate the required displacements if the backwall damage is not desired. Thus. The retrofitting cost includes expansion joint widening. 12.

This has a considerable impact on the state economy considering the large number of bridges that require seismic retrofitting. [4] Tseng WS.4 m long bridge superstructure transferred to the FPB.. a complete detour of the traffic for roadways under the bridges may not be required when retrofitting with FPB. California: Earthquake Engineering Research Center.800 4800–12. The following observations are made: ț FPB eliminated the in-plane torsional rotation of the bridge and resulted in a more uniform distribution of seismic forces among substructures. Seismic retrofitting manual for highway bridges. Additionally. DC: Federal Highway Administration.. 48–55. Seismic isolation of bridges in Midwest. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 1994. Cahill JA. 1998. Part I. FPB resulted in large superstructure displacements in excess of the expansion joint widths.M. FHWA-RD-86-102].wr. ț Thus. Illinois: ASCE. Seismic retrofitting techniques for bridges—a state-of-the-art report. which was carefully selected by IDOT to represent typical seismically vulnerable bridges commonly used in the State of Illinois. the low profile of FPB required only minor modifications to adjust the bearing seat elevations.95–1. McLean DI. Berkeley. [5] Penzien J. Washington. [9] Priestley MJN. 1476. 66-1. retrofitting with FPB may become much more economical when the additional cost of construction time and cost of traffic mobilization is considered. 1995.gov/prepare/ factsheets/NewMadrid/. Seismic retrofitting of bridge substructures. retrofitting with FPB may become much more economical when the additional cost of construction time and cost of traffic mobilization is considered.000 64.00 60–70 800–1200 200–500 2700 Quantity 5 5 900 1500 81 24 24 24 Total cost range (in US$) 5000–7500 5000–7500 855–900 3000–6000 4860–5670 19. Tinawi R. However. Marsh ML. Furthermore.21(5):823–35. Report no.00 2. DC: AASHTO. Thus. Seismic response of highway bridges. US Department of Transportation. Chicago. It is worth mentioning that retrofitting with FPB may require shorter construction time than that required for conventional retrofitting and may cause less interruption to the traffic over and under the bridge. ț An average retrofitting cost using FPB is calculated as only 88% of that using conventional retrofitting method. Consequently. The lower equivalent linear stiffness mainly results from the relatively smaller weight of the only 32. LRFD bridge design specifications. Reducing earthquake losses throughout United States. [3] Capron MR. [2] AASHTO.800 107.200–28. In: Proceedings of the Structures Congress. Dicleli. Conclusions The economical and structural efficiency of FPB for retrofitting typical seismically vulnerable bridges in the State of Illinois is investigated by studying a bridge. 13. Seible F. This required either providing knock-off devices at the abutments or increasing the widths of the expansion joints to eliminate the possibility of the superstructure impacting the abutment back-wall and a potential damage to the abutment piles. p. DC: Transportation Research Board. University of California. Washington. [8] Saunders TD. Ho C. 1998. Transportation research record no.Y. M. Availabale from: http://quake. p. UCB/EERC 73/12. ț A three to four times reduction in the seismically induced forces in the structure components is achieved with the FPB. Ann Arbor. Chen M. Sexsmith R. Penzien J. FPB may be effectively used to retrofit typical bridges in the State of Illinois or in regions of low to moderate risk of seismic activity.515–133. p. References [1] USGS. 1973. 1975. 2nd ed. 1996. Consequently.usgs. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1139–1156 1155 Table 13 Retrofitting cost of the bridge with FPB Item Concrete removal Concrete superstructures Reinforcing bars Steel plates Preformed joint seal Jack and remove bearings Bearing erection Bearing cost Total cost Unit cu yd cu yd Pound Pounds Foot Each Each Each Cost range (in US$) 1000–1500 1000–1500 0. 1995 [Publication no. 37–47. This is a result of: (i) energy dissipation and (ii) lower equivalent linear stiffness of FPB compared to that of the elastomeric bearings and even other rubber-based seismic isolation bearings for this particular application. [7] FHWA. FPB effectively mitigated the seismic forces and eliminated the need for costly retrofitting of the bridge substructure components.170 tional retrofitting. [6] Mitchell D. Analytical investigations of the seismic response of long multiple span highway bridges. In: Proceeding of US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Michigan: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. Washington. Design of retrofit measures for concrete .00–3.

Peoria. p. NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Integrated finite element analysis and design of structures. UK: Wiley. Seismic design of highway bridges using multiple types of isolation bearings. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2000. Watson-Bowman-Acme. Friction pendulum seismic isolation bearing. Ger JJF. Saadeghvaziri MA. Saatcioglu M. Mclean DI. 1991. Computers and Structures 2000. CALTRANS. Naeim F. Pinto PE. FHWA-SA-97-076]. NY: Watson-Bowman-Acme. WABO-FYFE structural bearing product data. UK: Wiley. DC: Federal Highway Administration. Experimental dynamic response investigations of existing highway bridges. Dicleli M. Washington. California: Computers and Structures Inc. California: Earthquake Protection Systems Inc. 1991. Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. Effects of soil–structure interaction on longitudinal seismic response of MSSS bridges. DC: AASHTO. 2nd ed. 543–52. USA. 197–234. Amhrest. In: Proceeding of a Workshop on Earthquake Resistance of Highway Bridges. quality and standards. Earthquake Protection Systems Inc. Structural manual. Yalcin C. Conference on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering: Optimizing Post-Earthquake Lifeline System Reliability. Gazetas G. 1979. Dicleli. 1996. Burdette EG. Bridge design aids 14-1. 1997 [Publication no. St Catharines. DC: Transportation Research Board. In: Seattle. Bradley University. 497–523. Arounpradith A. Mansour MY. 80–92. Transportation research record no. Rashidi S. Washington. Siddharthan RV. Seismic response of bridges with soil-foundation flexibilities and skew effects. Bridge–column footings: an improved design procedure. 1989.112(2):109–35. New York. 1476. FHWA. . 2002. Geotechnical engineering circular no 3—design guidance: geotechnical earthquake engineering for highways—Volume I—design principles. Design of seismic isolated structures. 1999. 1995. 1994. 2001. p. Report SSRP 91/03. Dobry R. Soils and Foundations 1998. DC: Transportation Research Board. Palo Alto. Japanese Geotechnical Society. 1999. principles and practices. US Department of Transportation. Ciampoli M. ASCE Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction 1996. New York. Marsh ML. Cofer WF. 1999. Transportation research record no. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Nop M. Ontario. Effect of [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] varying foundation stiffness on seismically induced loads in bridge bents: a sensitivity study. Seismic retrofitting of highway bridges using friction pendulum seismic isolation bearings. WA. In: Como. Chichester. Effects of soil–structure interaction on inelastic response of bridge piers..S. Washington. Stiffnesses of abutments on piles in seismic bridge analyses. DC: Federal Highway Administration. Technical report no. Cook TL. Washington. 2nd ed. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1139–1156 [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] bridges. Richmond.121(5):806–14. p. p. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 1995. Coduto DP. San Diago: University of California. 1996 [Publication no. editor. Goodpasture DW. Ontario. AASHTO. Seible F.38(1):77–87. Duan L. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 1986. Yazdani-Motlagh AR. Calvi GM. Analytical modeling of spread footing foundations for seismic analysis of bridges.Y. 1998. Ministry of Transportation. p.77(5):539–55. California: Applied Technology Council. Seismic assessment and retrofit of bridges. 1999. New York: Wiley.1156 M. Douglas MB. ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering 2002. McGuire JW. VA: ASCE. Foundation engineering handbook. FHWA. Dicleli M. Proceedings of Third World Conference on Structural Control. IL: Department of Civil Engineering and Construction. Berkeley. Kelly JM. 84–97. Graves RL..20(1–4):231–42. Chichester. 1992. Duncan JM. 1447. Clough GW. Italy. details and specifications for bridges. Priestley MJN.. Washington. Dicleli M. BU-CEC-02-01. Seismic design of highway bridge foundations—Volume II: Design procedures and guidelines. FHWA-RD-94-052]. Sacramento. Dynamic response of arbitrary shaped foundations. Canada: Transportation Engineering Branch. 2002. M.1(1):20–4. sap2000. Inelastic analysis of reinforced concrete columns. Proceedings of the Fifth U. California: California Department of Transportation. Foundation design. Bridge Office.7(2):94– 103. 1996. Reston. US Department of Transportation. from theory to practice. El-Gamal M. Guide specifications for seismic isolation design. 223–35. p. Seismic design of lifeline bridge using hybrid seismic isolation. In: Fang HY.