EngineeringStructures,Vol. 18, No. 7, pp.

528-536, 1996
Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0141-0296(95)00132-8 0141~0296/96 $15.00 + 0.00
ELSEVIER

An equivalent linear model of

lead-rubber seismic isolation
bearings
J. S. Hwang
Department of Construction Engineering, National Taiwan Institute of Technology, Taipei,
Taiwan, Republic of China

J. M. Chiou
Department of Construction Engineering, National Taiwan Institute of Technology, Taipei,
Taiwan, Republic of China
(Received December 1994; revised version accepted April 1995)

An equivalent linear model for the seismic analysis of base-isolated

bridges with lead-rubber bearings (LRB) is established in this
paper using an identification method. Recognizing that the inelastic
displacement spectra with constant ductility ratios of an earthquake
ground motion can be approximated by the equivalent elastic spec-
tra with appropriate effective period shifts (or effective stiffness)
and equivalent damping ratios, the effective stiffness and equival-
ent damping ratio of lead-rubber isolation bearings are determined
based on the identification of the inelastic displacement response
spectra of 20 earthquake ground motions. In the identification for-
mulation, a nominal strain hardening ratio of the LRB is used. The
proposed equivalent linear model is characterized as a modification
of the current equivalent linear model provided by the AASHTO
isolation guide specifications so that the proposed model can be
readily applied to the practical analysis and design. Numerical com-
parisons indicate that the proposed model in general can predict
comparably accurately with the current practical methods. Copy-
right © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords:base isolation, seismic isolation, equivalent linear

model, bridge structures, lead-rubber bearings

A variety of building and bridge structures have been con-
structed around the world using base isolation techniques
since the early 1970s, particularly during the 1980s and
1990s. Among others, lead-rubber bearings (LRB) have
been adopted extensively as the isolation bearings for those
structures. Corresponding to the needs for practical appli-
cations of the base isolation technique, various design
specifications have recently been provided by the Structural
Engineer Association of California (SEAOC) t'2, Inter-
national Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) 3, Amer-
ican Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) 4, California Department of Transpor-
tation (CALTRANS) 5'6, California Office of Statewide
Health Planning and Development (COSHPD) 7, Japanese
Public Works Research Institute (JPWRI) 8'9, New Zealand
Ministry of Works and Development (NZMWD) t° and
Dynamic Isolation Systems (DIS) 1~'~2. In these specifi-
cations, the analysis of maximum seismic inelastic
responses of a base-isolated structure relies primarily .on an
equivalent linear analysis rather than an inelastic analysis.
The reason for so specifying is to be compatible with most
of the existing earthquake-resistant design specifications in
which linear elastic analysis methods are specified for the
determination of force demand by intensity-reduced design
earthquakes, in conjunction with the confidence of the esti-
mate of structural ductility ratios and overstrengths ~3.j4,
even though the concept of base isolation design is not
necessarily identical to that of the traditional earthquake-
resistant design.
Various equivalent linear models for the seismic analysis
of traditional earthquake-resistant structures have been pro-
posed in the past ~5 ts. These equivalent linear models are
derived based on a possible maximum structural ductility
ratio of 10 or less due to the fact that for most traditional

528
Lead-rubber seismic isolation bearings: J. S. Hwang and J. M. Chiou 529

earthquake-resistant structures a structural ductility ratio of I Aesume Design Displacement of Isolator

10 or less could be the maximum that the structures can
sustain without severe damage or collapse. However, a
I etermine Effective Pedod and Equivalent
LRB installed in a base-isolated structure may experience Damping Ratio of isolator
very large deformations during a major quake. The
expected maximum ductility ratio of a LRB during a major
quake may be as large as 20-50 ]9. Therefore, the equivalent r etermine Effective Stiffness and Equivalent
Damping Ratio of Base-Isolated Bridge
linear models of base isolators may not necessarily be
identical to those which have been proposed for traditional
earthquake-resistant structures. In addition, in the tra- Calculate Maximum Displacement of Isolator
ditional earthquake-resistant design the equivalent linear
analysis is not directly applied to the practical design, Check Assumed Design Displacement ~lP
because the design earthquake is usually reduced by a fac- = Calculated Displacement I.o
tor 3 to the elastic level or elastic limit level of the structures. J ~ Yes
However, in the base isolation applications, the design l Calculate Other Structural Responses
earthquake is directly applied to the base-isolated structure
without reduction. The design displacements and forces Figure 1 An iteration procedure for equivalent linear analysis
determined corresponding to the design earthquake are used of base-isolated bridges
to design the isolation bearings while other structural
components may be designed using the forces reduced by
smaller response modification factors than those specified Force
for the traditional earthquake-resistant structures. As a
consequence, the equivalent linear analysis is necessary for
the design of a base-isolated structure if a three-dimen-
sional inelastic analysis is considered unnecessary, or too
complicated for most practical engineers.
The equivalent linear models in various base isolation
specifications are composed of the effective stiffness (or
effective period) and equivalent damping ratio of base iso- ",; / /I ) d;
lators. The effective stiffness and equivalent damping ratio
are determined corresponding to the design displacements
,J/
calculated with respect to design earthquakes. In this paper,
an equivalent linear model for LRB is established using a
system identification method. It should be noted that a nom-
inal strain hardening ratio of the LRB is used for the identi- Figure2 Idealized bi-linear hysteresis model of lead-rubber
fication formulation. For the isolators with other strain bearings
hardening ratios the equivalent linear models can also be
determined through the same identification process. The
applications discussed in this paper are primarily confined isolation units as shown in Figure 2. For a LRB the effec-
to the bridge structures. Analysis results from the proposed tive stiffness and equivalent damping ratio are expressed as
method and various specified equivalent linear models are
compared with those from the inelastic analysis of an exam- Pm--Fm
ple base-isolated bridge. Keff- m

Specified equivalent linear models of L R B
In the currently available seismic isolation specifications
including those of AASHTO, CALTRANS, JPWRI and
NZMWD, equivalent linear models are used for the design
purpose to approximate the maximum inelastic seismic
response rather than the response time history of an isolated
bridge subjected to a design earthquake. An iteration pro-
cedure, as shown in Figure I, is therefore explicitly or
implicitly adopted by various isolation design specifi-
cations. Based on the figure it can be realized that the accu-
racy of the equivalent linear model characterized by the
effective stiffness and equivalent damping ratio of a base
isolator plays an important role in predicting the maximum
seismic responses of a base-isolated bridge. The equivalent
linear models provided by various isolation specifications
are briefly summarized in the following.
AASHTO guide specifications
The AASHTO isolation guide specifications4 give an ideal-
ized bi-linear model to describe the hysteretic behavior of
1 +cK/x-l)K,
/z
(1)
and
~= area of hysteresis loop of an isolation unit
2 7r Keff d],
2Qd[d~ - dy]
(2)
where/x is the shear displacement ductility ratio defined as
the design displacement d/divided by the yielding displace-
ment dy of the LRB; a is the strain hardening ratio of the
inelastic stiffness Kd tO the elastic stiffness K,. The strain
hardening ratio of an LRB is nominally equal to 1/6.5 or
0.159; F+m and ~m are the maximum and minimum shear
forces corresponding to the positive and negative design
displacements d~/and d?/, respectively. Based on Figure 2
with a -- 0.15, equation (2) applied to a LRB can be rewrit-
ten 5 in a form of
530 Lead-rubber seismic isolation bearings: J. S. Hwang and J. M. Chiou

( 1) 1 + 0.15(0.7p~- 1)
1.7 1 - Kerr= 0.7g K,. (10)
~h = (3)
7r[ 1 + 0.15(/z- 1)] The equivalent damping ratio to the hysteretic damping
Note that ~e is the equivalent damping ratio to the hyster- is specified by
etic damping of the LRB. The inherent viscous damping
ratio ~o should be considered as' an addition. 2Qd[ue~ + (20 ]
1(2 - KtJ
CAL TRANS method hB - (11)
~r u.~(gd + uBcK2)
In the CALTRANS method, an empirical modeP .6 is used
to determine the effective stiffness and equivalent damping Recognizing that K2 = Kd, KI = K, and UBe = cBdi, equ-
ratio of an isolation bearing. The effective period shift and ation (11) can be expressed as a form similar to equation
equivalent damping ratio of a lead-rubber bearing are (3) as
given by

Teff -~- 1 + ln[1 + 0.13(/.t - 1 ) 1"137] (4)

h8 = (12)
To 7r[1 + 0.15(0.7/z)] '

and Note that the iteration procedure as shown in Figure 1 is

performed for the convergence to the design displacement,
~e = 0.0587(/X - 1 )0.371 . (5) rather than the effective design displacement.

Again, the equivalent damping ratio given in equation NZMWD publications

(5) includes only the hysteretic damping. Based on equ- The NZMWD design provisions 1° do not adopt an analysis
ation (4) the effective stiffness of the isolator is determ- procedure similar to that illustrated in Figure 1. The con-
ined by cept of equivalent damping ratio is not used. Nevertheless,
the same definition of effective stiffness as the AASHTO
K. isolation specifications is applied. Therefore, an equivalent
g~rf = {1 + ln[1 + 0.13(/~ - 1)1137]} 2" (6) linear analysis can be performed only if the inelastic spectra
of some specific design earthquakes with respect to differ-
ent effective periods are provided.
JPWRI manual
In the Japanese bridge isolation manual 8,9 the effective stiff- A refined model for lead-rubber bearings
ness and equivalent damping ratio of a LRB are determined
based on Following the same concept as the CALTRANS method6.2°
and by recognizing that the inelastic displacement spectra
with constant ductility ratios can be approximated by the
FUB e -- F_UB e
K8 - (7) equivalent elastic displacement spectra if the period shift
2UBe and equivalent damping ratio are determined TM, an equival-
ent linear model for LRB is derived as follows.
and The inelastic displacement spectra of constant ductility
ratios of a single degree of freedom (SDOF) system shown
AW in Figure 3 is calculated TM for 20 earthquake ground
hB - 2~-W' (8) motions listed in Table 1. An inherent viscous damping
ratio ~o of 5% and a nominal strain hardening ratio of 0.151o
where KB is the effective stiffness; hB is the equivalent are assumed for the computation. The error function of
damping ratio to the hysteretic damping of the LRB; uB~ is identification is expressed as
the effective design displacement whose relationship with
the design displacement uB is given by
J(~, Uk, EQ,) = (13)
j=l
uBe = CBUB,

where cB = 0.7. The design displacement uB is identical to

(9)
[Sd([~,Toj,EQI) -_ S~( Toj, _~k, EQt)] 2
S~,(Toj, tzk, EQt)
the design displacement dl of AASHTO; F,Be and F_,B° are
the maximum and minimum shear forces corresponding to
positive and negative use and are similar to (F+m)i and
(/~)~ of AASHTO, respectively; AW and W are, respect- Rigid Block
ively, the dissipated energy and elastic strain energy per
cycle of the hysteresis loop of an isolation unit subjected isolator isolator
to the effective design displacement. Using equations (7)
and (9), the effective stiffness of the LRB can be expressed
as a form similar to that of AASHTO given in equations Figure 3 A single degree of freedom system for identification
(1). The effective stiffness is then written as of equivalent linear model of lead-rubber bearing
Lead-rubber seismic isolation bearings: J. S. H w a n g and J. M. Chiou 531

Table I Earthquake ground motions used for identification

Year Earthquake station PGA (g)

1940 Imperial Valley, El (2entro, Irrigation District, S00E 0.34

1949 Olympia, Washington Highway Test Laboratory, N86E 0.26
1952 Kern County, Taft, Lincoln School Tunnel, $69E 0.17
1954 Eureka, Eureka Federal Building, N79E 0.26
1966 Parkfield, (2holame, Shandon, California Array 2, N65E 0.49
1971 San Fernando, Pacoima Dam, $16E 1.17
1978 Miyagi-Ken-Oki, Sendal City, Kokutetsu Building, N90W 0.44
1979 Imperial Valley, El (2entro Array SMA 2761, 92 Degree 0.24
1983 (2oalinga, (2antua Creek School, 360 Degree 0.29
1987 Whittier-Narrows, Los Angeles, Obregon Park, 360 Degree 0.44
1987 Whittier-Narrows, Los Angeles, 116th St. School, 360 Degree 0.40
1987 Whittier-Narrows, Tarzana, Ceder Hill Nursery, 90 Degree 0.63
1989 Loma Prieta, Corralitos, Eureka Canyon Road, 360 Degree 0.62
1989 Loma Preita, Oakland, Two-Story Office Building, 290 Degree 0.24
1994 Northridge, (2astaic, Old Ridge Route, 90 Degree 0.59
1994 Northridge, Newhall, LA County Fire Station, 360 Degree 0.61
1994 Northridge, Pcoima, Kagel Canyon, 360 Degree 0.44
1994 Northridge, Santa Monica, City Hall Grounds, 90 Degree 0.90
1994 Northridge Sylmar County Hospital Parking Lot, 90 Degree 0.61
1994 Northridge, Los Angeles, US(2 Hospital Grounds, 5 Degree 0.49

where S, is the inelastic displacement spectra of the SDOF
system with the jth fundamental period Toj and the kth duc-
tility ratio/Xk to the/th earthquake EQz. Sd is the equivalent
elastic displacement spectra with the fundamental period
Tot and parameter/3 to the earthquake EQt. The parameter
/3 is the identified equivalent linear model which is com-
posed of two components, one is the period shift
Teff/To(tz~,EQt) and the other is the equivalent viscous
damping ratio ~e(IXk,EQ~), both are functions of ductility
ratios and earthquake ground motions. The parameter/3 is
then defined by
/3 = [/31,/3~]
I~- (m, EQ,), ~(t~,, EQ,) .
= Llol-Lf' ] (14)
maximum inelastic displacement of 4.0 cm as shown in
Figure 4, the solution of an equivalent linear system is not
unique. Therefore, the inclusion of 28 periods up to 3.0 s
may increase the possibility of obtaining a unique equival-
ent elastic solution with respect to a specific ductility ratio,
strain hardening ratio and earthquake ground motion when
minimizing the error function.
As mentioned previously, the ductility ratio demanded
by an earthquake ground motion on an LRB may be up to
20 and higher. Therefore, a total of 15 ductility ratios, /xk
= 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, 10.0, 12.0, 16.0, 20.0, 24.0, 28.0, 32.0,
36.0, 40.0, 45.0 and 50.0, are assigned in this study.
Since the modified Gauss-Newton method w is used, the
Hessian matrix corresponding to equation (14) is ob-
tained as

OrJ(~3, iXk, EQt)

In the base isolation applications, the interesting struc- [H] =
0/3
tural fundamental (natural) period range may be below
1.7 s. However, in this study a total of 28 fundamental
(natural) period Tot ranging from 0.3 to 3.0 s with an
__ Eo_,)]
increment of 0.1 s are used to calculate the error function.
The reason for including the period range up to 3.0 s is that
for a maximum inelastic displacement d; corresponding to [ ro , Eo_,)]/t s,Xrot, EQ,)]2
t~/3q (15)
an earthquake there exists an infinite number of elastic
spectral displacements, with respect to different period
where p, q = 1,2 with respect to components 1 and 2 of/3.
shifts and equivalent damping ratios, equal to the inelastic
The direction vector or parameter increment is then
maximum displacement. For example, in the corresponding
obtained as
&O0

/3r+l -- /3r = -- [ H I -1 M ( / 3 . /~,, EQI) (16)

S, t0, IS, 20, 2~ 30 % 0/3
~00-- m~mum

i 4.00 "/

- i
i
i
i
Based on the aforementioned formulations, typical
inelastic spectra are compared with the identified equivalent,'
elastic responses in Figures 5-7. These figures are shown
for three ground motions measured during the 1966 Park-
I
l I I I
I I I I
-
I I
i i
I
i
I
i
field, 1987 Whittier-Narrows and 1994 Northridge earth-
quakes with respect to four ductility ratios of 8.0, 16.0, 28.0
#" , " I'--" 1 I '
and 40.0. The period shifts and equivalent damping ratios
FundlnmMPMod(mc) with respect to the 15 constant ductility ratios and 20 earth-
Figure4 Aninfinitenumberofequivalentlinearsolutionstoa quake ground motions are summarized in Figure 8a, b. Each
maximum inelastic displacement data point represents the identified result corresponding to
532 Lead-rubber seismic isolation bearings: J. S. Hwang and J. M. Chiou
a a
~000O 10.00
- - InelaMJc Spectrum Inelastic Spec~um
Equlvalmt Bast~c ,Spect~cn -- EqtdvalentBastic Spectrum
~ 40.00 - 8.00

0O.0O It= &o

T.ntTo=l.= 1 .... i &0O
lX=&O
T ~ / T o : 1.67
~e= 23.70'/* 4.0O
~e = 22.99%
D 20.111

•~ 10.00 | ZOO

0.0O 0.0O I J ] i I I I ; ] t I
0.0O 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0O 1.25 1.50 1.75 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0O 1.25 1.50 1.75
F ~ Period (sec) Fundarnm~ Period (sec)

b =.0O b 10.0O
-- maa~c Smcnum Inelastic Spectrum
.... F-qu~ent E~sUc Sl~m~rum ..... Equivalent Bas'dc
~ 4000O &0O

20.00
I 6.00

4.00
T,~JTo=Z0O
~e = 23.74%

~ 7 ~ - ~ .......
j 1000O
| ZOO
/i
0.0O 0.0O I i I i I i I i I i I ~
0.0O 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0O 1.25 1.50 1.75 0.0O 0.25 0.50 0075 1.0O 1.25 1.50 1.75
~ ~ (~) F ~ Period (sec)
C 50.00
- - Inan~c Slmclmm
C 10.00
..... Equivalent BaMIc Speclra~ - - Inaas'ac Spectrum
~ 40.0O
- Equiv~ent Bastic Spectrum
8.OO
It= 28.0
i 30.0O T,~tTo=Z3S .ff" g=~,o

"~ 20.0O I- 4,00 ~e[] 20.34*/, 1

~ 10.0O
t ~ ZOO ......
000O I I I i I i I i I i I i
o.0O 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0O 1.25 1.50 1.75 0.00 I ~ I i I i I J L i L i
F B x l a m ~ Period (sac)
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0O 1,25 1.50 1.75
F ~ Period (sec)
d 5o.o0
- - Inelastic ~__°,pe.':~um_ d lO.0O
Equ~lent Bastlc Spec~um Inamtic Spectrum
~ 40.00 - - ~ent Bastlc Spectrum
&0O
It=4000 ~ .....
~ 0O.0O Tar I TO= 2"43 . f i p= 40.0
6.00 T~lTo=Z46
~ 20.0O ~e = 18.19'/,
4.00

| 10.00
~ zoo ......... I
000o I i I I I i I I ) I I I
o.0O 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0O 1.25 1.50 1.75 000O I I I I t I I I I I I I I
F~,,d~i,,,,ad I~rlod (sec) 0.0O 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0O 1.20 1.50 1.;'5
Fta-,,~.Tm,-,;~d Period (sec)
Figure5 Comparison between inelastic spectrum and ident-
ified equivalent elastic spectrum - - 1966 Parkfield earth- Figure6 Comparison between inelastic spectrum and iden-
quake - - - Cholame, Shandon, N65E. (a)/~ = 8.0. (b)/x = 16.0. tified e q u i v a l e n t e l a s t i c s p e c t r u m 1987 W h i t t i e r - N a r r o w s
(c)/x : 28.0. (d)/~ = 40.0 e a r t h q u a k e - - - L o s A n g e l e s , 116th St. S c h o o l , 360 °. ( a ) / x = 8.0.
( b ) / x = 16.0. ( c ) / x = 28.0. ( d ) / x = 40.0

a specific ground motion and a constant ductility ratio.

From the figures it can be seen that the effective period To - 1 +0.15(~- 1) 1 -0.737 (17)
shifts and equivalent damping ratios are more scattered cor-
responding to small ductility ratios and are more gathered
and
with respect to large ductility ratios. Note that the equival-
ent damping ratios shown in Figure 8b are calculated with
the presence of a nominal viscous damping ratio of 5%.
The fitted curves for the mean values of the scattered are
~e--~o = (18)
also shown in the figures. These fitted curves are rep- 7r[1 + 0 . 1 5 ( / x - 1)] 4.5 '
resented by equations (17) and (18), which are equal to
the equations provided by the A A S H T O isolation guide where ~o = 5%. Based on equation (17), the effective stiff-
specifications multiplied by two modification functions. ness is obtained by
Lead-rubber seismic isolation bearings: J. S. Hwang and J. M. Chiou 533
a ~0.00 a
Jn~ 10.00
- - ~VdUlB
..... Sq.~ S ~ n c Smamm
40.00 .... Idodlr~/u~sl,rro cu~e

30.00
It= 6.0 ] 5
t~=l To.---1.70 |
~,.=,171.,. ~ 3
20.00
|,
j 10.011

0.~
0.~ 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.~ 1.75 1.00
0,00 10,00 20.00 30.00 40.00 60.00 60.00
Fu~,]-.i,~t~ Period (sec)
Shear ~isl~ac~nu.t Duc~lity
b 50.00
___ tn~ s~ec~
40.00

3O.OO
I P-= 16.0
T ~ I To = 2.03
] J
Z
100.00

] 20.00
~e = 21.86"/,

10.00
J 10,00
-L

- - MI1 Vim
6.OO
6.OO 0.25 0.50 0.76 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 .... ModifiedA~SHTOCurve
F u , , d a i u , ~ Period (sec)
1.110 k I ~ J i I I I i I I
C 50.00 0,00 10,00 20.00 30,00 410,00 50.00 60.00

-- Equhtak~ Basnc Speamm

40.OO
Figure8 (a) Summary of identified effective period shift;

1 30.00

20.00
g= 28.0
t~/To =2.37j

~.==~.~ J
fl (b) summary of identified equivalent damping ratios. Both com-
pare mean values with fitted curve

a
1.00
c Ak~ITO
10.00 ------4 . . . . JPIRA
| . . . . -~. . . . C~11~NS

6.00 .... 1 _ J I I I_ I I I I I I I ~
0,rs
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75
Fundammta ~ (sec)
d 50.00
I __ t n m ~ S~-num
~ ~o.0o ..... Equ~a~ntBa~¢ Speamm

0.00 P I J I J J i i .....
30.00 TaflT0=2.4 9
0,O0 10,00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00
i ~,=16.1r'~ Stmr D I ~ [Xctllty I~o
2000~
b
50.00
t 10.1111 o AASHIO
_-~ .... ¢-JV,.'IRN~S
40.00

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 tOO 1.25 1.50 1.75

Ft~,d~iu;-' Period (sec) 30.00

Figure 7 Comparison between inelastic spectrum and iden-

tified equivalent elastic spectrum - - 1994 Northridge earth- 20.00 . " -. " "~'1"7" ~ - - - - - - - x - - - - - - - x - . . . . -x- x

quake - - - Santa Monica, City Hall ground, 90 °. ( a ) / z = 8.0.

( b ) / z = 16.0. ( c ) / z = 28,0. ( d ) / x = 40.0 i 10,00

0.00 i I J I J I = I i
0,00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00
K.. - 1 + 0.15(/x- 1) 1 - 0.737 /x 2 j , star D~0~a~m~t Uuc.~y Ra~o
(19) Figure 9 (a) Summary of effective stiffness predicted by vari-
ous isolation specifications and proposed model. (b) Summary
where the functions [1 - 0.737(/z- 1)/t~2] - 2 and/x°'58/4.5 of equivalent damping ratios predicted by various isolation
specifications and the proposed model
are the modification functions to the AASHTO equations
given in equations (1) and (3).
Based on the aforementioned, all t h e e q u i v a l e n t l i n e a r models predict a more flexible system for a larger ductility
models are compared in Figure 9a, b. From Figure 9a it can ratio. However, discrepancies exist in the equivalent damp-
be seen that the effective stiffness of the proposed model is ing ratios of all equivalent linear models. The AASHTO
similar to those of JPWRI and CALTRANS at low ductility and JPWRI equivalent damping ratios build up and decay
ratios and is comparable with those of AASHTO and rapidly with respect to the increasing ductility ratios, while
JPWRI at high ductility ratios. All the effective stiffness the CALTRANS equivalent damping ratio increases gradu-
534 Lead-rubber seismic isolation bearings: J. S. Hwang and J. M. Chiou
ally corresponding to the increasing ductility ratios. For the
proposed equivalent damping ratio, it increases with respect
to the increasing ductility ratio and decays very slowly in
the range of high ductility ratios. Note that a 5% nominal
viscous damping ratio is included in Figure 9b.
Equivalent linear model for base-isolated bridge
Assuming that the bridge components other than the iso-
lation bearings remain elastic during earthquake exci-
tations, the equivalent linear model of a complete base-iso-
lated bridge can be obtained by combining the effective
stiffness and equivalent damping ratios of base isolators
with the stiffness and viscous damping ratios of other
bridge components. The combination of stiffness is simple
and straightforward. However, for the combination of the
system damping ratio, the direct summation, as was perfor-
med by Turkington et al. 23, of the equivalent damping
ratios of isolators with the viscous damping ratios of other
bridge components such as piers and abutment will over
estimate the system damping ratio. This is because the iso-
lators are connected with other bridge components in series,
rather than in parallel, as shown in Figure 1020 . Therefore,
the composite damping formulation as presented by Hwang
et al. 6"2° is used to formulate the equivalent damping ratio
of the entire isolated bridge. The concept of the composite
damping ratio is that the contribution of the damping ratio
of a structural component to the overall system damping
ratio is equal to the damping ratio of each structural compo-
nent weighted by its strain energy ratio. The strain energy
ratio of each structural component is defined as the strain
energy of a structural component divided by the total strain
energy of the complete system24,25. Based on this concept,
the equivalent viscous damping ratio of the jth vibration
mode of a base isolated bridge can be obtained by
¢,(6/), K, (6~)i
(~:e)j- '
where ~bj is the jth mode shape vector; ((~j)i is the defor-
mation vector of isolator unit or other bridge component i
corresponding to mode shape j; ~ is the equivalent damping
ratio of isolation unit i given in equation (18) or the viscous
damping ratio of the other bridge component i; K i is the
structural matrix attributed to isolation unit or bridge
component i; and KB is the stiffness matrix of the entire
base-isolated bridge.
If the superstructure of a regular bridge is assumed to be
relatively rigid compared to the stiffness of isolators and
I ~'~ml 3g.62ml 4&72m i 38.12ml 38.S2m 1
~ 1 Pier2 Pier3 Pier4
I AI=~,,=-~- 1&6 : ]
~ 1 , s = 4(127~.$ I~llm ( K ~ 4 =43"~1.7 kin-
1,S= 12686.2 leNInm ( K ~ 4 = 32610.$kl~k'm
(Ka)l, s = 1~4,4 kNtrn (KdK4= 5001.e k~ m
(Fy)l,S = 145.9 kN (Fv)a,4= 291"8kN
IT== W~htdS.l=.=a=~: I
~ s=~lkN/m
s = 32510.5 kN/m
W= 22018.7kN
(Kd)zs = S001.Skl~m
o=,)z,=~.8 ~
Figure 10 An example base-isolated bridge
piers in the direction of consideration, and a fixed-base con-
dition is presumed for the piers and abutments, the equival-
ent damping ratio of the isolated bridge given in equation
(20) can be rewritten as
E ( Keff)id~i[ ( ~e)i .4-( ~p)i (Keff)/]
(Kp)i]
~e : [ (Keff)i] , (21)
E(Keff)/d~/ I + (g~-p)iJ
where (gp)i, (~p)i are the lateral stiffness and viscous damp-
ing ratio of pier or abutment i, respectively; (Kcff)~and (~e)i
are the effective stiffness and equivalent damping ratio of
the ith isolator. It should be noted that (~e)i should include
the viscous damping ratio of the ith isolator if there is any.
Numerical validation
In order to compare the predicted maximum responses by
the equivalent linear models and an inelastic anlaysis, an
example base-isolated bridge shown in Figure 102° is used
where Kp is the elastic lateral stiffness of the piers or abut-
ments, and K,, Kd and Fy are, respectively, the elastic lateral
stiffness, inelastic lateral stiffness and yielding force of the
LRB. The piers and abutments are assumed to remain elas-
tic under earthquake excitations. The inelastic analysis is
carried out using DRAIN-2D 26. The maximum seismic
responses of the bridge subjected to various bridge design
spectra and measured ground motions in the longitudinal
direction are summarized in Table 2. Note that the design
spectra and five of the six measured ground motions of
Table 2 were not used for the identification of the equival-
ent linear model in the preceding section. The maximum
displacements are determined at the bridge deck. The total
shear force transmitted through all base isolators is calcu-
lated using two different methods. In the CALTRANS
(20) method and the proposed linear model, the total shear force
is determined based on the hysteresis curve of the isolator
as given in Figure 2. The total shear force is obtained by
F = ~ (Fy)i[l + ai(tx~- 1)l , (22)
i
where (Fy)i, ai are, respectively, the yielding force and
strain hardening ratio of the ith LRB. In the AASHTO and
JPWRI methods, the total shear force is obtained from the
multiplication of the design displacement and the effective
stiffness. This direct multiplication seems reasonable by
examining the bi-linear model shown in Figure 2. How-
ever, this direct multiplication also implies that the relation-
ship between the inelastic acceleration spectrum and inelas-
tic displacement spectrum is the same as the relationship
between the elastic pseudo-acceleration spectrum and elas-
tic displacement spectrum. Recognizing this may not be
true, the CALTRANS and the proposed model use equation
(22) as a substitute for the determination of total shear
force. As can be seen from Table 2, the proposed model
predicts the maximum inelastic responses of the base-iso-
lated bridge in general better than the practical analysis
models. Particularly, the predictions by the equivalent lin-
ear models of various specifications are far from accurate
when the bridge is subjected to a harmonic type earthquake
ground motion, the 1985 Mexico City earthquake.
Lead-rubber seismic isolation bearings: J. S. Hwang and J. M. Chiou 535

Table 2 Comparison between equivalent elastic and inelastic solutions

DRAIN-2D AASHTO PROPOSED CALTRANS JPWRI

Earthquake ground motions D(cm) F(KN) D(cm) F(KN) D(cm) F(KN) D(cm) F(KN) D(cm) F(KN)

AASHTO design earthquake 8.7 3035.4 9.3 3183.8 9.3 3179.9 10.2 3344.7 8.7 3500.5
A = 0.4, Soil -- $1 (USA)
CALTRANS ARS S.7GA51 CURVE 19.1 5318.8 22.2 6027.5 18.0 5088.1 21.6 5894.2 21.4 6319.9
design curve (California)
CALTRANS ARS S.6GB51 22.4 6066.3 30.4 7821.8 22.0 5977.6 23.4 6287.0 26.9 7523.8
design curve (California)
JPWRI design earthquake 31.4 8028.0 36.9 9252.7 31.1 7973.3 37.1 9303.8 31.5 8543.3
$20, Soil = 1
1966 Parkfield earthquake 19.0 5317.8 26.39 6946.7 20.6 5675.7 25.1 6667.3 24.2 6928.8
Cholame, Shandon, N65E
1979 Imperial Valley earthquake 12.6 3909.4 16.3 4735.6 14.2 4273.1 16.2 4674.5 14.4 4779.9
Meloland Bridge, Free Field CH15
1989 Loma Prieta earthquake 10.9 3537.3 14.0 4217.6 13.0 3991.5 13.2 4044.1 15.8 5084.7
Capitola, Fire Station, 360 D
1992 Petrolia earthquake Painter 10.6 3472.9 9.4 3215.1 10.2 3371.8 10.9 3542.0 9.9 3770.2
Street Overpass FF, E-W
1994 Northridge earthquake 12.6 3896.7 16.2 4700.5 14.0 4209.1 15.4 4536.2 16.7 5290.0
Newhall, LA County Fire Sta, 360 D
1985 Mexico City earthquake SCT, 27.2 7102.2 67.4 15968.8 31.4 8038.9 38.5 9612.8 50.7 12769.2
N90W

Conclusions base-isolated bridges with bi-linear hysteresis characteristics', Earth-

An equivalent linear model for the seismic analysis of base-
isolated bridges with LRB is proposed in this study through
an identification method. A nominal strain hardening ratio
of the LRB is used in the identification. The procedure may
be extended to the isolation bearings with different strain
hardening ratios. The model is derived in modified forms
from the AASHTO isolation guide specifications so that the
model can be readily applied by practical engineers without
complicated formulations. Validated by the comparison of
the equivalent linear solutions with the results from inelas-
tic analyses, it is concluded that in general the proposed
model predicts comparably accurately with the models pro-
vided by various isolation design specifications.
Acknowledgments
The study presented in this paper was supported by the
National Science Council of Taiwan, Republic of China
under Grants no. NSC-83-0410-E011-011 and NSC-84-
221 l-E011-32. The support is gratefully acknowledged.
References
1 Blue book commental~v--isolated structures, Partial Draft of the 1994
SEAOC Blue Book, Kircher and Associates, Consulting Engineers,
Mountain View, California, June 1994
2 Tentative seismic isolation design requirements, Base Isolation Sub-
committee of the Seismic Committee, Structural Engineers Associ-
ation of Northern California, September 1986
3 Uniform Building Code--Vol. II, Int. Conf. of Building Officials,
Whittier, CA, 1994
4 Guide specifications for seismic isolation design, American Associ-
ation of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington,
D.C., 1991
5 Hwang, J. S. and Sheng, L. H. 'Equivalent elastic seismic analysis
of base-isolated bridges with lead-rubber bearings', Engng Struct.
1994, 16, 201-209
6 Hwang, J. S., Sheng, L. H. and Gates, J. H. 'Practical analysis of
quake Spectra, 1994, 10, 705-727
7 'An acceptable procedure for the design and review of California
hospital buildings using base isolation', California Office of State-
wide Health Planning and Development, Building Safety Board, 1989
8 Manual for Menshin design of highway bridges, Public Works
Research Institute, Tsukuba City, Japan, 1992
9 Kawashima, K. 'Manual for Menshin design of highway bridges',
The second U.S.-Japan Workshop on Earthquake Protective Systems
for Bridges, Public Works Research Institute, Tsukuba City, Japan,
1992 pp. 195-220
10 Design of lead-rubber bridge bearings, Civil Division Publication
818/A, New Zeland Ministry of Works and Development, Welling-
ton, New Zealand, 1983
11 Seismic base isolation using lead-rubber bearings, Dynamic Iso-
lation Systems, Berkeley, California, 1983
12 Design of force control bearings for bridges, Dynamic Isolation Sys-
tems, Berkeley, California, 1990
13 Uang, C. M. 'Establishing R (or Rw) and Cd factors for building
seismic provisions', J. Struct. Engng ASCE, 1991, 117, 19-28
14 Uang, C. M. 'Comparison of seismic force reduction factors used in
U.S.A. and Japan', Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn., 1991, 20, 389-
397
15 Guikan, P. and Sozen, A. 'Inelastic responses of reinforced concrete
structures to earthquake motions', ACI J. 1974, 71, 604-610
16 Iwan, W. D. 'Estimating inelastic response spectra from elastic spec-
tra', Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn., 1980, 8, 375-388
17 Hadjian, A. H. 'A re-evaluation of equivalent linear models for sim-
ple yielding systems', Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn., 1982, 10,
759-767
18 Bonacci, J. F. 'Design forces for drift and damage control: a second
look at the substitute structure approach', Earthquake Spectra, Prof.
J. Earthquake Engng Res. Inst. 1994, 10, 319-331
19 Pemeroy, E. G., 'Sierra point overhead seismic isolation retrofit',
Proc. ATC 17, Base Isolation and Passive Energy Dissipation, San
Francisco, 1986, Applied Technology Council, pp. 123-132
20 Hwang, J. S., Sheng, L. H. and Gates, J. H. 'A comparison of equival-
ent elastic analysis methods of bridge isolation', 5th U.S. National
Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Chicago, 1994, Earthquake Engin-
eering Research Institute, Vol. l, pp. 891-900
21 Mahin, S. A. and Lin, J. 'Construction of inelastic response spectra
for single-degree-of-freedom systems', Report no. UCB/EERC-
83/17, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of Cali-
fornia, Berkeley, 1983
22 Hartley, H. O. 'The modified Gauss-Newton method for the fitting
536 Lead-rubber seismic isolation bearings: J. S. Hwang and J. M. Chiou

of non-linear regression functions by least squares', Technometrics,
1961, 3, 269-280
23 Turkington, D. H., Carr, A. J., Cooke, N. and Moss, P. J. 'Seismic
design of bridges on lead-rubber bearings', J. Struct. Engng, ASCE,
1989, 115, 3000-3016
24 Raggett, J. D. 'Estimating damping of real structures', J. Struct. Div.
ASCE, 1975, 101, 1823-1835
25 Johnson, C. D. and Kienholz, D. A. 'Finite element prediction of
damping in structures with constrained viscoelastic layers', AIAA J..
1982, 20, 1284-1290
26 Kanaan, A. E. and Powell, G. H. 'DRAIN-2D, a general purpose
computer program for dynamic analysis on inelastic plane structures',
Reports no. UCB/EERC-73/6 and 73/22, Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 1973