Seismic Modeling of Skewed Bridges with Elastomeric

Bearings and Side Retainers

Shervin Maleki, P.E., M.ASCE1

Abstract: Elastomeric expansion bearings are often restrained laterally by retainers on each side. The retainers are in the form of a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARIZONA,UNIVERSITY OF on 12/14/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

concrete shear block, rolled steel angles, or welded plates. To allow for longitudinal temperature movements, the retainers are placed with
a slight clearance 共gap兲 from the elastomer. The gap introduces nonlinearity in the seismic analysis of the bridge and, therefore, is often
ignored by designers for the sake of simplicity. This paper compares the seismic response of straight and skewed slab-girder single-span
bridges under the conditions of zero gap and standard gap for the retainers. Nonlinear time-history analysis is employed to measure the
seismic demand on retainers, elastomers, and pinned bearings in each case. The stiffness of end-diaphragms and elastomeric bearings is
included in the analysis. It is shown that these relationships are nonlinear in nature and depend on the frequency content of the input
motion. It is also proved that ignoring the nonlinearity in the seismic bridge model can lead to erroneous results that are unsafe to use.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1084-0702共2005兲10:4共442兲
CE Database subject headings: Bridges, skew; Seismic effects; Nonlinear analysis; Elastomer.

Introduction
This paper investigates the adequacy of modeling assumptions for
the side retainers of slab-girder skewed bridges supported on elas-
tomeric bearings. A typical plan view of a single-span skewed
slab-girder bridge is shown in Fig. 1. Fig. 2 depicts the elevation
view of the same bridge over the abutments. The end cross-frame
or diaphragm is also shown in this figure. It is assumed that each
girder is supported on elastomeric bearings on one end that is free
to move longitudinally. The other end of the girder is assumed to
have a pinned elastomeric bearing with no longitudinal transla-
tion. A typical detail of an elastomeric bearing and its side retain-
ers is shown in Fig. 3. The details for the end cross-frame and
bearings are standard in the state of Illinois and are taken from the
Illinois Department of Transportation 共IDOT兲 Bridge Manual
共IDOT 1999兲.
Seismic forces in the longitudinal direction displace the elas-
tomeric bearings in that direction. The motion is restrained by the
pinned bearings on the other side of the girder or, in an extreme
event, by the abutment’s backwall after the closing of the expan-
sion joints. In the transverse or skew direction, the displacement
of the elastomer is tolerated via the use of side retainers. In steel
girder bridges, the retainer is usually made with two stiffened
angles or welded plates placed on each side of the bearings 共Fig.
3兲. For concrete girders, the retainer is in the form of a shear
block 共Fig. 4兲. To allow for longitudinal movement, the retainers
are placed with a slight clearance 共usually 3.2 mm= 1 / 8 in.兲 from
the elastomer. The concepts discussed herein apply to both steel
1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sharif Univ.,
Tehran, Iran.
Note. Discussion open until December 1, 2005. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on July 8, 2003; approved on July 13, 2004. This paper
is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 4, July 1,
2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2005/4-442–449/$25.00.
and concrete slab-girder bridges, although steel girders are used
in modeling examples.
In seismic modeling of the superstructure, most designers ig-
nore the gap between the retainer and the elastomer. This makes
the analysis simpler and eliminates the source of nonlinearity;
however, it ignores the pounding effect of the superstructure on
the retainers. In this study, a nonlinear time-history analysis is
used to prove the importance of considering the gap in the seismic
modeling of bridges. The bulk of the mass in a slab-girder bridge
is at the deck level. Hence, in the event of an earthquake, the
inertial loads generated at the deck have to pass through the end
cross-frames, the elastomer, and the retainer to reach the substruc-
ture. As a result, the stiffness of all these components affects the
dynamic behavior of a bridge and is considered in the models.
The effects of the elastomer, end-diaphragm, and deck stiff-
ness on the seismic response of slab-girder straight and skewed
bridges have been investigated before by Zahrai and Bruneau
共1998兲 and Maleki 共2000, 2001a,b, 2002a,b兲. The effect of the
retainer’s gap distance on the transverse vibration of slab-girder
straight bridges has been studied by Maleki 共2004兲. This is an
extension of that work to cover skewed bridges.
This study uses analysis models in which the only nonlinearity
is due to the retainer gap distance. In each case, two conditions
are examined: zero gap and a standard gap of 3.2 mm. Parameters
such as retainer force, elastomer shear, and pinned support reac-
tion are measured for short to long span bridges. It is shown that
these relationships are nonlinear in nature and depend on the fre-
quency content of the input motion. It is proved that ignoring the
retainer’s gap in the seismic analysis model can be very unsafe. In
addition, it is the objective of this paper to provide recommenda-
tions for retainer design, such that the retainer can stay elastic
under a typical design-level earthquake 共DLE兲 and not fail under
a typical maximum considered earthquake 共MCE兲.
Selection of Ground Motions
The 1940 El Centro ground motion, with a peak ground accelera-
tion of 0.34g, is widely accepted as a typical DLE, and it is used

442 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2005

J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:442-449.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARIZONA,UNIVERSITY OF on 12/14/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Bridge plan view

Fig. 5. Response spectra for considered earthquakes

as such in this study. Except for very short periods, this ground
motion, with 5% damping, agrees well with the American Asso-
ciation of State Highway and Transportation Officials 共AASHTO
1998兲 design response spectrum for seismic zone 4 共A = 0.4兲 and
soil type II 共S = 1.2兲. This is shown graphically in Fig. 5. To con-
sider other earthquakes with different frequency contents and in-
tensity, the 1994 Northridge 共Sylmar County兲 time history, with a
peak ground acceleration of 0.84g, and the 1966 Parkfield
共Cholame兲 time history, with a peak ground acceleration of 0.47g,
Fig. 2. End-diaphragm detail are also used in subsequent analyses. The 5% damped response
spectra for these earthquakes are also shown in Fig. 5. Note that
the Sylmar and Parkfield ground motions, unlike El Centro, are
more impulsive and have their greatest effects on structures with
periods in the range between 0.3 and 0.8 s. Most seismic codes
define the maximum considered earthquake to be at least 1.5
times stronger than the design earthquake. On this basis, it can be
seen from Fig. 6 that the response spectrum for Sylmar qualifies
as an MCE in the 0.24–0.80 s period range. The Parkfield ground
motion falls in between the two ground motions, and only for
periods in the range of 0.3–0.8 s can it be considered an MCE.
Note that the conclusions of this paper are not changed by con-
sidering more earthquake records here. This proves the necessity
of nonlinear analysis for all bridges based on these demonstrative
ground motions.

Fig. 3. Elastomeric bearing with steel retainer Analytical Modeling and Assumptions

A typical single-span slab-girder skewed bridge, as shown in Fig.

1, is considered for analysis. Note that due to symmetry the cen-

Fig. 4. Concrete shear block Fig. 6. Spring-mass bridge analysis model

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2005 / 443

J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:442-449.

 Table 1. Retainer Properties Used in Analyses
Plate A 共Fig. 7兲 T ⫻ W ⫻ L Plate B 共Fig. 7兲 T ⫻ W ⫻ L Steel yield stress Stiffness, Kr Yield force Plastification force
Model number 共mm兲 共mm兲 共kN/ mm2兲 共kN/ mm兲 共kN兲 共kN兲
1 14⫻ 150⫻ 200 14⫻ 108⫻ 150 0.345 93 192 288
2 16⫻ 150⫻ 200 16⫻ 140⫻ 150 0.345 153 216 324
3 20⫻ 150⫻ 200 20⫻ 140⫻ 150 0.345 246 345 518
4 25⫻ 150⫻ 200 25⫻ 140⫻ 150 0.345 382 432 648
5 40⫻ 150⫻ 200 40⫻ 140⫻ 150 0.345 909 690 1,035
6 50⫻ 150⫻ 200 50⫻ 140⫻ 150 0.345 1,364 863 1,295
7 50⫻ 150⫻ 200 75⫻ 140⫻ 150 0.345 1,725 1,150 1,725
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARIZONA,UNIVERSITY OF on 12/14/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ters of mass and stiffness coincide, and the torsional vibration is
independent of the translational vibrations. Hence, the bridge will
not experience torsion unless the base motion is torsional. Maleki
共2002a,b兲 shows that, in slab-girder bridges, the in-plane stiffness
of the deck and its supporting girders are very high in comparison
with the end-diaphragms and elastomers. In this study, the deck is
assumed to be rigid in its own plane. This means that all the
points on the deck will displace equally, and the girders—being
connected to the deck—will follow. Furthermore, for single-span
bridges the abutment stiffness is ignored for transverse vibration.
The justification for this assumption is that the abutments, acting
like shear walls, are in general much stiffer than the cross-frames
and retainers in the transverse direction. Because these elements
are modeled as springs in a series, the abutment will not contrib-
ute to the overall stiffness, so only the effects of the cross-frame,
elastomer, and retainer stiffnesses are considered. Note that this
statement is not true for longitudinal vibration, but we are only
concerned with a transverse earthquake here. In the longitudinal
direction, the soil stiffness contribution due to passive resistance
can not be ignored. The condition gets more complicated when
the gap is introduced into the model, due to the expansion joint at
the sliding end of the span.
With these assumptions, a simplified lumped-mass seismic
analysis model for the bridge can be constructed as shown in Fig.
6. The model has two translational degrees of freedom in the X-Y
plane. In the model, M represents the total mass of the bridge
superstructure concentrated at the center of mass. Springs Kc and
Ke represent the total end-diaphragm and elastomer stiffness, re-
spectively, for the entire bridge in the transverse direction. These
capable of nonlinear time-history analysis, and it has gap and
hook link elements with internal springs. For the nonlinear analy-
ses, the internal springs of the gap/hook elements are given the
value of Kr, as explained previously. However, the gap/hook ele-
ments can also have an assigned stiffness for the linear analysis.
This linear stiffness is used in the calculation of mode shapes and
periods prior to nonlinear analysis. A value of zero for the linear
stiffness of Kr will result in modal periods that are correct for the
open gap condition. Conversely, a value of Kr assigned to the
gap/hook linear springs results in the correct modal periods for
the closed gap condition. During a seismic event, due to closing
and opening of the gap, the actual modal periods are somewhere
in between the two aforementioned cases. Hence, in this study,
the analyses are performed twice, with the effective linear stiff-
ness set equal to zero and set equal to Kr.
Parametric Study
Considering the model shown in Fig. 6, the variables involved in
the transverse vibration of a bridge are: stiffness of the end-
diaphragms, stiffness of the elastomers and retainers, bridge mass,
and retainer gap distance. Mass is a function of the geometry and
the material of the bridge. The main parameters of interest in this
study are the retainer stiffness and the gap distance. Instead of
varying the geometry and mass of the bridge, only the period of
free vibration is chosen as a variable parameter. The period of free
vibration for a single-degree-of-freedom system is obtained from
the well-known equation

冑
springs are attached in series to each other. Inertial loads, after
passing through the end-diaphragm spring, will arrive at the top M
T = 2␲ 共1兲
of the elastomer. Once the gap in the retainer is closed, the re- Keq
tainer’s stiffness will act in parallel with the elastomer’s stiffness.
Note that, at each instant in time, only one of the side retainers where Keq=equivalent spring stiffness for the model. Note that the
gets engaged. Hence, the spring Kr represents the summation of value of Keq involves the spring Kr when the gap is closed and
all retainers’ stiffness on one side of the elastomers for the entire excludes that when the gap is open. Unless otherwise noted,
bridge. To model this behavior properly, a gap element and a herein, all periods refer to the initial condition of the system with
hook element with internal springs are attached in parallel to the gap open. Hence, the equation for Keq is
spring Ke, as shown in Fig. 6. The gap element engages when the
displacement is in the positive Y-direction; conversely, the hook
element engages for negative Y-direction displacements. Mean-
while, to ensure equal displacements, joints 1–3 in the model are
constrained together in the Y-direction. Knowing that one end of
the bridge is always pin supported, the total longitudinal spring
stiffness is assumed to be infinite. Hence, the mass M is restrained
in the X-direction in the analysis model.
The program SAP2000 共SAP2000 2000兲 is used in the model-
ing and analysis. This program uses the Ritz vector method to
determine the mode shapes. Subsequently, the nonlinear equilib-
rium equation in modal form is solved by iteration. SAP2000 is Fig. 7. Retainer detail; 共a兲 geometry; 共b兲 finite-element model

444 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2005

J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:442-449.

 Table 2. Bridge Properties Used in Analyses
Span Width Deck thickness Total elastomer, Ke Total cross-frame, Kc Mass Period
Bridge model number 共m兲 共m兲 共m兲 Girder size 共U.S standard兲 共kN/mm兲 共kN/mm兲 共kg兲 共s兲
1 13 12 0.19 W30⫻ 99 10 1,620 86,500 0.59
2 18 12 0.19 W40⫻ 221 10 1,620 130,000 0.72
3 21 12 0.19 W40⫻ 268 10 1,620 180,000 0.85
4 30 12 0.19 W40⫻ 268 10 1,620 260,000 1.02

1 shown in Table 1. In all cases, the yielding occurs in Plate A

冉 冊
Keq = 共2兲 midway between the two stiffeners at the loaded joints. The force
1 1
+ that causes full plastification of the plate section is also shown in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARIZONA,UNIVERSITY OF on 12/14/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Kc Ke the table. The plastification force is assumed to be 1.5 times the

The actual bending stiffness of the retainers, Kr, is not easily
established. This is because the section is nonprismatic and has a
short length in bending. To use realistic values in this study, a
series of finite-element analyses were performed on common re-
tainer details. The properties for these retainers are shown in
Table 1. A typical retainer detail with its finite-element model is
shown in Fig. 7. In each case, a concentrated load of 0.0909 kN is
applied at each of the 11 joints in the model for Plate A. Hence,
the total applied load is 1 kN. These loads are applied at the
midheight of Plate A, as shown in Fig. 7. This is assumed to be
the contact point between the sole plate and the retainer. The
retainer’s stiffness is obtained by inverting the average displace-
ment at the loaded joints. The total stiffness, Kr, used in the analy-
ses is 10 times the values in the table. This is because five girders
共as shown in Fig. 1兲 are present and a total of 10 retainers exist on
each side of the girders. Based on the finite-element analysis, the
minimum force applied across the midheight of the retainer that
causes substantial yielding in the retainer plate is obtained and
yield force, where 1.5 is the shape factor for a rectangular plate.
A wide range of periods corresponding to a variety of bridge
masses and spans are considered in this study. However, the pa-
rameters used in the calculation of four main periods that corre-
spond to the practical span ranges for slab-girder bridges are
shown in Table 2. These periods represent short, medium, and
long span slab-girder bridges and are used throughout this study.
In this table, the stiffness of the cross-frames is obtained by mod-
eling the truss members as shown in Fig. 2 and constraining all
the top joints for lateral loading. This captures the rigid dia-
phragm behavior of the bridge deck.
Structural Responses
To demonstrate the effect of period on seismic demand for sup-
porting elements, the models are excited with the 1940 El Centro
and the 1994 Northridge Sylmar County time histories. The con-

Fig. 8. Transverse period versus retainer force: 共a兲 El Centro, Keff = 0; 共b兲 Sylmar, Keff = 0; 共c兲 El Centro, Keff = 930 kN/ mm; 共d兲 Sylmar,
Keff = 930 kN/ mm

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2005 / 445

J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:442-449.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARIZONA,UNIVERSITY OF on 12/14/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Transverse period versus retainer force, linear analysis with no gap: 共a兲 El Centro; 共b兲 Sylmar

clusions drawn here for the Sylmar earthquake are similar to the
Parkfield earthquake; hence, for brevity, the results for Parkfield
are not shown in the figures to follow.
Figs. 8共a and b兲 show the variation of maximum retainer force
with periods for the El Centro and Sylmar time histories, respec-
tively. Note that, in developing these figures, a standard gap of 3.2
mm 共1 / 8 in.兲 and a retainer stiffness of 930 kN/mm, correspond-
ing to the first row in Table 1 共multiplied by 10 for all retainers of
the bridge兲, is employed. In addition, a linear effective stiffness of
zero was assumed for the retainer. As explained earlier, this will
affect the computation of modal periods that are used in subse-
quent nonlinear analyses. In effect, in these figures, the modal
periods are based on an open gap condition. To examine the effect
of modal periods based on a closed gap condition, the same
analyses are performed with linear effective stiffness set to 930
kN/mm, and the results are shown in Figs. 8共c and d兲.
Figs. 9共a and b兲 show the retainer force versus period based on
a zero gap condition for the retainers. These are the results that
engineers commonly obtain by ignoring the gap and using a linear
analysis. Note that the force in the retainer equals the displace-
ment of the retainer times its stiffness. Therefore, displacements
are not shown separately.
Referring to Figs. 8 and 9, it is seen that the force demand on
retainers depends on the frequency content of the input motion
but, in general, increases with increasing natural periods of vibra-
tion. Considering the retainer’s gap in the analysis increases the
retainer force substantially. This is due to inertia loads that de-
velop in the mass of the bridge and the pounding of this mass on

Fig. 10. Transverse period versus elastomer shear force: 共a兲 El Centro, Keff = 0; 共b兲 Sylmar, Keff = 0; 共c兲 El Centro, Keff = 930 kN/ mm; 共d兲 Sylmar,
Keff = 930 kN/ mm

446 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2005

J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:442-449.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARIZONA,UNIVERSITY OF on 12/14/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Transverse period versus elastomer shear force, linear analysis with no gap: 共a兲 El Centro; 共b兲 Sylmar

the retainer. It is also obvious that the demand increases when the
modal periods are based on the open gap condition with the ef-
fective retainer stiffness being zero. The increase in force is as
high as 500% for the El Centro and 250% for the Sylmar time
histories, when the nonlinear analysis uses modal periods based
on zero effective stiffness. The increase in retainer force is as high
as 280% for El Centro and 196% for Sylmar, when modal periods
are based on an effective stiffness equal to retainer’s stiffness, Kr.
Therefore, by considering the gap in the analysis, on the average,
the force in the retainer can be 3.85 times higher for El Centro
and 2.23 times higher for Sylmar ground motions. It should be
noted that the discrepancy reduces as the skew angle increases.
The preceding maximum values are mainly for 0° skew 共straight兲
bridges.
According to AASHTO 共1998兲, Article 4.6.2.8.2, the end-
diaphragms and retainers, as a part of the seismic load path, have
to remain elastic under the prescribed design seismic forces. As a
result, a response modification factor of unity 共R = 1兲 is assigned
to such support elements connecting the superstructure to the sub-
structure. To verify whether the retainer remains elastic under the
design earthquake forces, the demand on the retainer due to El
Centro ground motion is compared with the elastic capacity of the
retainer plates. In addition, to check against failure, the retainer
forces due to the Sylmar and Parkfield ground motions are com-
pared with the plastic capacity of the retainers. The types of re-
tainer used in the analyses correspond to the first row of Table 1
and have a yield capacity of 1,920 kN and a plastic capacity of
2,880 kN 共for a total of 10 retainers兲. Fig. 9 shows that, by ignor-

Fig. 12. Transverse period versus horizontal reaction at pinned support: 共a兲 El Centro, Keff = 0; 共b兲 Sylmar, Keff = 0; 共c兲 El Centro, Keff
= 930 kN/ mm; 共d兲 Sylmar, Keff = 930 kN/ mm

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2005 / 447

J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:442-449.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARIZONA,UNIVERSITY OF on 12/14/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 13. Transverse period versus horizontal reaction at pinned support, linear analysis with no gap: 共a兲 El Centro; 共b兲 Sylmar
ing the gap in the analysis, the retainer will not yield under the
typical design earthquake 共El Centro兲, except for very long span
bridges with skews equal to 45° and above. Fig. 8 shows that, by
considering the gap in the analysis, only short span bridges can
survive a typical design earthquake without yielding. The retainer
yields and even collapses under the Sylmar earthquake in all
cases. Therefore, it is recommended that nonlinear analysis be
performed on these bridges. The nonlinear analysis model must
consider the retainer gap and should capture the material nonlin-
earity for the retainer.
Fig. 10 shows the variation of maximum shear force in the
elastomer versus the natural period of vibration of the bridge.
This is the transverse shear force due to transverse vibration, cor-
responding to the force in the spring Ke of Fig. 6. Similar to Fig.
8, in Figs. 10共a and b兲, the results based on the effective stiffness
of zero and a gap of 3.2 mm are shown for the El Centro and
Sylmar input motions, respectively. In Figs. 10共c and d兲, the same
results based on an effective stiffness of 930 kN/mm are depicted.
Fig. 11 shows the results for linear analysis with zero gap for the
elastomer. It is seen that ignoring the gap in the analysis can cause
substantial error in the elastomer force due to the pounding effect.
By considering the 3.2 mm gap, the elastomer shear can be on the
average 11 and 5 times higher for the El Centro and Sylmar input
motions, respectively. This discrepancy decreases with increasing
skew angle.
Fig. 12 shows the variation of longitudinal reaction at the
pinned support versus the period of the bridge. All bridges con-
Fig. 14. Retainer force versus retainer stiffness: 共a兲 El Centro; 共b兲 Sylmar
448 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2005
J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:442-449.
sidered here are assumed to be pin-supported at one end. For
straight bridges, the longitudinal reaction is always equal to zero
when considering transverse vibration. However, skewed bridges
move in both the longitudinal and transverse directions when sub-
jected to transverse vibrations 共Maleki 2001b兲. As a result, hori-
zontal reaction increases with increasing skew angle. Fig. 13
shows the reaction when no gap is considered in the analysis.
Comparison of Figs. 12 and 13 indicates that, on the average, the
reaction increases 3.6 and 2.3 times for the El Centro and Sylmar
time histories, respectively, when the gap is considered in the
analysis. The discrepancy seems to be higher for lower skew
angles.
In developing Figs. 8–13 a retainer stiffness of 930 kN/mm
was used. To examine the effect of retainer stiffness on the force
demand, Fig. 14 is provided. The figure shows the variation of
maximum retainer force versus retainer stiffness for the range of
stiffness shown in Table 1 for a straight bridge. Figs. 14共a and b兲
show the response due to the El Centro and Sylmar earthquakes,
respectively. The figures confirm that the stiffness of the retainer
does not affect the force demand on the retainer to a great extent.
For further information on straight bridges, the reader is referred
to Maleki 共2004兲. The writer has found that the conclusions made
earlier based on Figs. 8–13 are true for a variety of retainers with
different stiffnesses.
 Conclusions
A parametric study of a nonlinear spring-mass model, represent-
ing straight and skewed slab-girder bridges, was conducted to
investigate the pounding effect of the superstructure on the bear-
ing retainers when a gap is present. The transverse free vibration
period of the bridge and the stiffness of the elastomer, retainer,
and end-diaphragms were considered in the analysis. The force
demand on the retainer, elastomer, and pinned supports, obtained
from a nonlinear time-history analysis with retainer gap included,
were compared with a linear analysis model with no gap for the
retainer. The latter assumption is widely used by practicing engi-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARIZONA,UNIVERSITY OF on 12/14/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
neers due to its simplicity. In addition, the retainer’s force under
the hypothetical design and maximum considered earthquakes
was compared with the elastic and plastic capacities of the re-
tainer.
It is concluded that ignoring the gap in the analysis can cause
erroneous nonconservative results. Under a typical design earth-
quake, such as El Centro, the actual forces applied to a retainer or
to a pinned support when the gap is included in the analysis
model are 3–4 times larger than the forces obtained from a linear
analysis with the gap ignored. Under similar conditions, the force
demand on the elastomer can be as much as 10–12 times higher
than the no gap condition. The errors involved are true regardless
of the type and stiffness of the retainers used. It has also been
found that a typical retainer yields under a typical design earth-
quake, such as El Centro, and collapses under a strong earth-
quake, such as Sylmar, in the majority of cases. Hence, to achieve
realistic results for the design of bearings and substructure, a non-
linear time-history analysis must be performed on all bridges sup-
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2005 / 449
J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:442-449.
ported on elastomeric bearings with gapped side retainers. Due to
yielding of retainers, the use of nonlinear material modeling for
the retainer is also recommended for important bridges.
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
共AASHTO兲. 共1998兲. LRFD bridge design specification, Washington,
D.C.
Illinois Department of Transportation 共IDOT兲. 共1999兲. Bridge manual,
Springfield, Ill.
Maleki, S. 共2000兲. “Effect of elastomeric bearings on seismic response of
skewed bridges.” Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Computational Structures
Technology, Civil-Comp Press, Stirling, U.K., 177–82.
Maleki, S. 共2001a兲. “Effects of diaphragms on seismic response of
skewed bridges.” Proc., 1st MIT Conf. on Computational Solid and
Fluid Mechanics, Elsevier, Oxford, U.K., 681–84.
Maleki, S. 共2001b兲. “Free vibration of skewed bridges.” J. Vib. Control,
8共8兲, 935–952.
Maleki, S. 共2002a兲. “Effect of deck and support stiffness on seismic re-
sponse of slab-girder bridges.” Eng. Struct., 24共2兲, 219–226.
Maleki, S. 共2002b兲. “Deck modeling for seismic analysis of skewed slab-
girder bridges.” Eng. Struct., 24共10兲, 1315–1326.
Maleki, S. 共2004兲. “Effect of side retainers on seismic response of bridges
with elastomeric bearings.” J. Bridge Eng., 9共1兲, 95–100.
SAP2000, version 7.4: Integrated structural analysis and design soft-
ware. 共2000兲. Computers and Structures, Berkeley, Calif.
Zahrai, S. M., and Bruneau, M. 共1998兲. “Impact of diaphragms on seis-
mic response of straight slab-on-girder bridges.” J. Struct. Eng.,
124共8兲, 938–947.