Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EFFECT OF ISOLATION ON BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN AND RESPONSE - Dissertation2007-Dimitriadou PDF
EFFECT OF ISOLATION ON BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN AND RESPONSE - Dissertation2007-Dimitriadou PDF
ROSE SCHOOL
EFFECT OF ISOLATION
ON BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN AND RESPONSE
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
by
OLYMPIA DIMITRIADOU
May, 2007
The dissertation entitled “Effect of isolation on bridge seismic design and response”, by
Olympia Dimitriadou, has been approved in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering.
ABSTRACT
The aim of this document is to evaluate the seismic performance of an existing bridge after the
implementation of lead-rubber bearings on top of its piers. In order to achieve this, a computational
capability, developed in the University of Patras, was used for the seismic assessment of the bridge
and the response -nonlinear dynamic- analyses. Based on these results and the performance levels of
the bridge in different PGA’s, a detailed design and modeling of the seismic isolation was performed
as to upgrade the seismic performance in a certain level.
The dynamic response of the bridge is presented before and after the implementation of the lead-
rubber bearings as well as comparative results.
Finally, some conclusions are given regarding the analytical results, the modeling issues, the
effectiveness of seismic isolation and some practical issues.
Keywords: bridge; lead-rubber bearings, isolation, seismic assessment, performance level, damage
index.
i
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Vassilis Bardakis, PhD student of the
University of Patras, the person who helped me more in the fulfilment of this work. His suggestions
and advices, his continuous support and most of all his giving character gave me both knowledge and
confidence to proceed.
My gratitude to my professor M.N. Fardis for his trust and the opportunity given to work on
something I really wanted.
Also, I would like to thank all the staff of the University of Pavia, the ROSE and MEEES students, my
friends. I am also thankful for the MEEES scholarship that made the effort much easier.
Finally, I thank my family and the people I love for their constant support, gaiety and guidance.
ii
Index
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................................ii
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................................xi
1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................15
2 MODELING....................................................................................................................................19
iii
Index
4.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................55
iv
Index
5.3 Shear force in connection to the PGA level and direction .......................................................75
5.4 Influence of the isolation in the Imperial Valey (1879), California eartquake ........................78
5.5 Influence of the PGA level n the Imperial Valley (1879), California earthquake ...................82
5.6 Influence of the isolation for the 0.35g PGA level related to the time-history realized ..........83
5.7 Influence of the isolation on the shear forces for the 0.35g PGA level in the Kalamata (1986),
Greece earthquake.................................................................................................................................90
6 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................95
7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................97
v
Index
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1.3. Reinforcement details of the deck section at the midspan .....................................17
Figure 3.1. Time histories used for the analysis modified to conform to the 5% damped EC8
spectrum............................................................................................................................28
Figure 3.2. Bridge response in the longitudinal (x) direction in the 0.25g PGA level .............30
Figure 3.3. Bridge response in the transverse (z) direction in the 0.25g PGA level.................31
Figure 3.4. Energy dissipation in the Loma Prieta (1989) earthquake (Ca) – 0.25g(x)...........33
Figure 3.5. Energy dissipation in the Loma Prieta (1989) earthquake (Ca) – 0.25g (z)..........34
Figure 3.6. Moment variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- x direction (0.25g).34
Figure 3.7. Moment variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- z direction (0.25g).35
Figure 3.8. Bridge response in the longitudinal (x) direction in the 0.35g PGA level .............36
Figure 3.9. Bridge response in the transverse (z) direction in the 0.35g PGA level.................36
vi
Index
Figure 3.10. Energy dissipation in the Loma Prieta (1989) Earthquake (Ca) – 0.35g (x) .......38
Figure 3.11. Energy dissipation in the Loma Prieta (1989) Earthquake (Ca) – 0.35g (z) .......39
Figure 3.12. Moment variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- x direction (0.35g)
...........................................................................................................................................40
Figure 3.13. Moment variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- z direction (0.35g)
...........................................................................................................................................40
Figure 3.14. Bridge response in the longitudinal (x) direction in the 0.45g PGA level ...........41
Figure 3.15. Bridge response in the transverse (z) direction in the 0.45g PGA level...............42
Figure 3.16. Energy dissipation in the Loma Prieta (1989) Earthquake (Ca) - 0.45g (x)........44
Figure 3.17. Energy dissipation in the Loma Prieta (1989) Earthquake (Ca) - 0.45g (z)........44
Figure 3.18. Moment variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- x direction (0.45g)
...........................................................................................................................................45
Figure 3.19. Moment variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- z direction (0.45g)
...........................................................................................................................................45
Figure 3.20. Damage indices in flexure (a) 0.25g, (b) 0.35g, (c) 0.45g ...................................47
Figure 3.22. Damage indices in shear (a) 0.25g, (b) 0.25g, (c) 0.45g .....................................50
Figure 3.23. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- x direction
(0.25g)...............................................................................................................................51
Figure 3.24. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- z direction
(0.25g)...............................................................................................................................51
Figure 3.25. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- x direction
(0.35g)...............................................................................................................................52
Figure 3.26. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- z direction
(0.35g)...............................................................................................................................52
Figure 3.27. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- x direction
(0.45g)...............................................................................................................................53
Figure 3.28. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- z direction
(0.45g)...............................................................................................................................53
vii
Index
Figure 5.1. Analyzed structure after the implementation of seismic isolation .........................68
Figure 5.6. Detail of the bearings’ modeling in the two transverse directions- restrains .........71
Figure 5.7. Detail of the shear springs that model the LRB’s in the two directions.................71
Figure 5.8. Damage indices of the isolated bridge in flexure in a) 0.25g, b) 0.35g and c) 0.45g
PGA level..........................................................................................................................73
Figure 5.9. Damage indices of the isolated bridge in shear in a) 0.25g, b) 0.35g and c) 0.45g
PGA level..........................................................................................................................74
Figure 5.10. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- x direction
(0.25g)...............................................................................................................................75
Figure 5.11. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- z direction
(0.25g)...............................................................................................................................76
Figure 5.12. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- x direction
(0.35g)...............................................................................................................................76
Figure 5.13. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- z direction
(0.35g)...............................................................................................................................77
Figure 5.14. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- x direction
(0.45g)...............................................................................................................................77
Figure 5.15. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- z direction
(0.45g)...............................................................................................................................78
Figure 5.16. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Imperial
Valley (1879) earthquake, Ca – 0.25g (x).........................................................................79
viii
Index
Figure 5.17. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Imperial
Valley (1879) earthquake, Ca – 0.35g (x).........................................................................79
Figure 5.18. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Imperial
Valley (1879) earthquake, Ca – 0.45g (x).........................................................................80
Figure 5.19. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Imperial
Valley (1879) earthquake, Ca – 0.25g (z).........................................................................80
Figure 5.20. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Imperial
Valley (1879) earthquake, Ca – 0.35g (z).........................................................................81
Figure 5.21. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Imperial
Valley (1879) earthquake, Ca – 0.45g (z).........................................................................81
Figure 5.22. Influence of the ground acceleration on the isolation displacement in the x
direction ............................................................................................................................82
Figure 5.23. Influence of the ground acceleration on the isolation displacement in the z
direction ............................................................................................................................82
Figure 5.24. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Loma
Prieta (1989) earthquake, Ca – 0.35g (x)..........................................................................83
Figure 5.25. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Loma
Prieta (1989) earthquake, Ca – 0.35g (z) ..........................................................................84
Figure 5.26. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Kalamata
(1986) earthquake, Greece – 0.35g (x) .............................................................................84
Figure 5.27. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Kalamata
(1986) earthquake, Greece – 0.35g (z)..............................................................................85
Figure 5.28. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the
Montenegro (1979) earthquake – 0.35g (x) ......................................................................85
Figure 5.29. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the
Montenegro (1979) earthquake – 0.35g (z) ......................................................................86
Figure 5.30. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Friuli
(1976) earthquake – 0.35g (x)...........................................................................................86
Figure 5.31. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Friuli
(1976) earthquake – 0.35g (z)...........................................................................................87
Figure 5.32. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the
Montenegro (1979) earthquake – 0.35g (x) ......................................................................87
ix
Index
Figure 5.33. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the
Montenegro (1979) earthquake – 0.35g (z) ......................................................................88
Figure 5.34. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Imperial
Valley (1940) earthquake, Ca – 0.35g (x).........................................................................88
Figure 5.35. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Imperial
Valley (1940) earthquake, Ca – 0.35g (z).........................................................................89
Figure 5.36. Response of the isolated bridge to various earthquakes in 0.45g PGA................89
Figure 5.37. Isolation influence on shear force at the top of the left pier in the Kalamata
(1986) earthquake, Greece – 0.35g (x) .............................................................................90
Figure 5.38. Isolation influence on shear force at the top of the left pier in the Kalamata
(1986) earthquake, Greece – 0.35g (z)..............................................................................90
Figure 5.39. Energy dissipation by the isolated bridge at the 0.25g PGA level of the Loma
Prieta (1989) earthquake in the longitudinal direction .....................................................91
Figure 5.40. Energy dissipation by the isolated bridge at the 0.35g PGA level of the Loma
Prieta (1989) earthquake in the longitudinal direction .....................................................92
Figure 5.41. Energy dissipation by the isolated bridge at the 0.45g PGA level in the Loma
Prieta (1989) earthquake in the longitudinal direction .....................................................92
Figure 5.42. Comparison of the energy dissipation between the monolithic and the isolated
model at 0.25g PGA..........................................................................................................93
Figure 5.43. Comparison of the energy dissipation between the monolithic and the isolated
model at 0.35g PGA..........................................................................................................93
Figure 5.44. Comparison of the energy dissipation between the monolithic and the isolated
model at 0.45g PGA..........................................................................................................94
x
Index
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1. Typical sections and corresponding moment-curvature diagrams (a) deck near the
support to the pier, (b) deck near mid-span, (c) the base of pier ......................................23
Table 3.1. Relationship between the Park and Ang damage index and pier damage state.......30
Table 3.2. Moment vs end-chord rotations diagrams and failure surfaces of the left pier and
the right-side central span deck in the longitudinal and transverse direction ...................32
Table 3.3. Moment vs end-chord rotations diagrams and failure surfaces of the left pier and
the middle of the central span deck in the longitudinal and transverse direction .............37
Table 3.4. Moment vs end-chord rotations diagrams and failure surfaces of the left pier and
the middle of the central span deck in the longitudinal and transverse direction .............43
Table 4.1. Spectral acceleration Se and displacement dcd (Table 7.1 EC8)..............................61
Table 4.2. Values of the parameters describing the elastic response spectra of EC8 ...............61
Table 5.1. Typical diagrams of moment vs end-chord rotations and failure surfaces of the left
pier in the longitudinal and transverse direction...............................................................72
xi
Index
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Ac = Cross-sectional area
ay = Yield displacement
dy = Yield displacement
ED = Dissipated energy
fc = Concrete strength
Fy = Yield force
xii
Index
Gb = Shear modulus
Ke = Elastic stiffness
Kp = Post-yield stiffness
Ls = Shear span
My = Yield moment
N = Axial Force
p = Post-yield ratio
Se = Spectral acceleration
T = Fundamental period
t = Thickness
VR = Shear strength
Vy = Flexural yielding
xiii
Index
φy = Yield curvature
xiv
Chapter 1. Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Assessment of seismic performance of RC bridges
Bridges are the most vulnerable components of the transportation system and a vital
component, the disruption of which would pose a threat to emergency response and recovery
as well as serious economic losses after a strong earthquake.
Many of the bridges constructed during the last decades in Greece were designed with little
seismic consideration. Awareness of the potential hazard has increased in the past years. This
coupled with the recommendation of a design spectrum based on a longer return period
characteristic earthquake has initiated seismic evaluations, as well as prompted concern over
the cost of the large number of bridges that may need to be retrofitted.
There are several levels and approaches for assessment of structural systems, ranging from
physical inspection or using a code expression to compare ‘supply’ and ‘demand’. The
assessment of any bridge analyzed involves a detailed structural analysis.
2. Damage limitation requirement. In general the criteria, while aiming explicitly at satisfying
the non-collapse requirement, implicitly cover the damage requirement as well.
When these requirements are not fulfilled, retrofit activities should take place in order to
satisfy the performance criteria regarding the safety and the serviceability.
15
Chapter 1. Introduction
bridge deck and piers. Therefore, the use of aseismic devices is very simple in bridges,
because these can be easily placed replacing conventional bearings, adopted to accommodate
thermal variations. So, apart from its use in new bridges, it can help in upgrading the seismic
performance and improve the response of existing bridges as well.
The main feature of the seismic isolation is the reduction of seismic forces to or near the
elastic limit capacity of structural elements so as to avoid or limit inelastic deformations and
related damage phenomena. In bridges, by using seismic isolation, shear forces transmitted
from the superstructure to the piers are reduced by shifting the natural period of the bridge
away from the frequency range where the energy content of earthquakes is high. As a result,
the superstructure motion is decoupled from the piers motion during the earthquake, thus,
producing an effect of the reduction of inertia forces. At the same time, the seismic energy
demand of the bridge is also reduced as a consequence of dissipation energy concentrated in
isolators that are suitably designed for this purpose. The main characteristic of isolation
devices, whose constitutive law is approximately of a linear type, is exactly the augmentation
of the natural period of the protected system. Damping, mainly of a hysteretic kind, may be
small or large.
The superstructure consists of a prestressed concrete box girder deck, with 12.0m width at the
top and 5.5m at the bottom or 8.44m above the abutments. Its depth is 2.5m, constant over the
length of the bridge. The deck section is solid above the abutments and base of the piers and
reduces into a hollow one soon after and along the span (Figure 1.3). The two piers are short,
with heights 7.08m and 6.39m respectively, ending in a pile- foundation as shown in Figure
1.3. The pier section is circular with 2.4m diameter (Figure 1.4).
16
Chapter 1. Introduction
The bridge has been designed for the 5%-damped Type 1 elastic spectrum of soil type C
(medium-stiff soil) in Eurocode 8 and a peak ground acceleration (PGA) on rock of 0.16g,
which, according to Eurocode 8, produces a PGA on top of soil type C equal to
1.15x0.16g=0.184g. For the design, the 5%-damped elastic spectrum was reduced by a
behavior factor q equal to 1.54 for the x direction and 2.05 for the y direction.
17
Chapter 1. Introduction
In Chapter 2, the modeling issues and the assumptions made for the assessment of the
earthquake performance of the bridge are developed. In Chapter 3, analytical results from the
analyses are presented and conclusions are made for the seismic performance of the bridge as
designed. In Chapter 4, general features of seismic isolation are briefly presented to the
reader, as well as the procedure of selecting the isolation devices to be used. There is an
extended presentation of the modeling of the devices and their mechanical characteristics. In
Chapter 5, analytical results from the analyses of the retrofitted bridge model are presented
and comparative results are given. The final conclusions are presented in Chapter 6.
18
Chapter 2. Modeling
2 MODELING
2.1 The computational capability
For the modeling and the analysis of the concrete bridge, a computational capability was used.
The computational tool was the computer program ANSRuop-Bridges, developed in the
laboratory of Structures, University of Patras as an improved and expanded version of ANSR-
I program developed at UC Berkeley for the nonlinear response analysis of structures in 3D
(Mondkar and Powell, 1975).
The seismic response analysis capabilities of the expanded version of ANSR include:
1. Linear static analysis, under lateral forces proportional to nodal masses and a specified
force pattern, including inverted triangular forces (transverse or parallel to the bridge axis) or
a modal force pattern, derived from user-specified or default response spectra, given the
internally determined value of the fundamental translational periods in the directions of
application of the forces.
4. Nonlinear dynamic (response-history) analysis, under one or two horizontal ground motion
components (transverse or parallel to the bridge axis).
- For piers: circular or rectangular sections (solid or hollow), with the common arrangements
of vertical and transverse reinforcement.
19
Chapter 2. Modeling
- For the deck: single-cell box section with vertical or inclined webs, tapered outhangs and
internal haunches in the box, or T-beam.
In both cases user-friendly generation capabilities are available for the placement of
longitudinal and transverse reinforcement and of prestressing tendons.
The pre-processor allows also calculation of the rigidity of the section in shear or torsion,
including the possibility of modification for the effects of cracking. The default option is to
take the torsional and shear rigidities equal to a user-specified fraction of the full elastic
torsional or shear rigidity of the uncracked gross section.
A full-feature post-processor (Kosmopoulos and Fardis 2006) allows a fully graphical display
of plots of force, displacement, deformation or damage (demand-capacity ratio in flexure or in
shear) from the analysis. If the analysis is nonlinear dynamic for a set of strong motion
components, the minimum, the maximum and the mean value of the force, displacement,
deformation or damage ratio for the suite of the motions are displayed, along with the
coefficient-of-variation of each quantity. Video output is also possible, displaying normal
modes, the response from pushover or dynamic time-history analysis and the time-evolution
of plastic hinges or member damage (Kosmopoulos and Fardis 2006).
The post-processor includes evaluation of the deck and of the pier on the basis of the analysis
results. Flexural behavior and failure are evaluated in terms of chord-rotations at member
ends or of section curvatures), while the behavior and failure in cyclic shear (diagonal tension
failure before or after flexural yielding, web crushing or diagonal compression failure) are
evaluated in terms of forces. For the piers, this is done on the basis of expressions developed
in (Biskinis and Fardis 2006) for:
- the effective stiffness at yielding of the pier end section(s), including effects of shear and
pull-out of vertical bars from their anchorage beyond the pier end,
- the shear resistance, including its reduction after flexural yielding with the magnitude of
cyclic inelastic deformation, and
- the ultimate chord-rotation capacity at the pier end under cyclic loading.
20
Chapter 2. Modeling
These performance measures depend on the geometry and the mechanical properties of the
pier and of its reinforcement, and on certain quantities that vary during the seismic response:
- the compression zone depth and the location of the neutral axis with respect to the
longitudinal reinforcing bars, and
- the maximum inelastic deformation demand to the present point of the response, etc. When
the analysis is nonlinear, in increments (steps) of loading (for nonlinear static analysis) or of
time, this part of the post-processor operates during the calculation of the response and the
value of the performance measure is updated, whenever the value of the response quantity on
which the performance measure depends, changes beyond a certain tolerance.
Prismatic beam elements in 3D are used for the deck and the piers. Inelasticity is lumped at
point hinges at the ends of each element, with a bi- or tri-linear moment-rotation envelope and
modified-Takeda-type hysteresis rules.
The treatment of inelasticity in the two transverse directions is independent and uncoupled.
However, in each direction the M-N interaction is considered (My-N and Mz-N), as well as the
effect of the variation of axial force during the response.
Tributary masses are automatically lumped at the nearest node of the model.
Figure 2.1. Bridge design to be modeled shows the discretization of the deck and the piers
used in the analysis.
Piers were considered as fixed and the bridge as simply supported to the abutments.
21
Chapter 2. Modeling
The deck was discretized longitudinally into a series of nonlinear elements, with separate and
uncoupled behavior in the two main directions of bending of the deck section (about the
horizontal cross-sectional axis for the response within a vertical plane through the
longitudinal axis, about the vertical axis for the response within a horizontal plane in the
transverse direction of the bridge). Likewise, the two piers were also discretized as shown in
Figure 2.3. Discretization of the piers- Lumped masses, demonstrating also the tributary
masses lumped at the nodes.
The moment-rotation relations at the two ends of each element simulating a segment of the
deck in the longitudinal direction were taken as multilinear, with corners at cracking and
yielding of the box section, fitted to the moment-curvature relationship of the cross-section.
This relationship is derived through an algorithm that takes into account the longitudinal
reinforcement and prestressing and comes from a section analysis based on the plane sections
hypothesis.
Moment-curvature diagrams at typical sections of the deck near the support to the pier or near
mid-span and at the base of the piers are shown in the figures of Table 2.1: (a), (b) and (c)
respectively. In these diagrams, it is noted the effect of prestress in the deck sections as well
as the one of symmetry of the pier sections on the moment-curvature figures.
With yellow dots are denoted the yield moment M y in the corresponding yield
curvatures φ y .For the deck, yielding of the section on the side where the mean tendon is,
22
Chapter 2. Modeling
essentially corresponding to concrete cracking, i.e. for zero presumed tensile strength of
concrete coincides with decompression. Red dots are used for section ultimate curvature.
a) b) c)
Table 2.1. Typical sections and corresponding moment-curvature diagrams (a) deck near the support to
the pier, (b) deck near mid-span, (c) the base of pier
Torsional stiffness about the longitudinal axis of the deck and the pier was taken equal to the
full elastic torsional stiffness of the uncracked section. The joint region of the deck and the
pier was considered as rigid, but slippage of pier vertical bars from that joint was accounted
for, by including the effect of the resulting fixed-end rotation of the pier top sections within
the corresponding secant-to-yielding stiffness of that end of the pier. Fixed-end rotation was
similarly included at the bottom section, where the pier was considered fixed at its (pile)
foundation.
23
Chapter 2. Modeling
building, T , is shorter than TC ) and they use as input a global seismic displacement demand
derived from the 5%-damped elastic response spectrum.
On the other hand, another way of estimation of the inelastic local displacement and
deformation demands, throughout the structure via linear static, modal response spectrum
analyses and even time-history analysis, is to use a realistic estimate of the global elastic
stiffness. For concrete structures this means using realistic values of the effective cracked
stiffness of concrete members at yielding.
According to Eurocode 8 and other recent codes, the global inelastic response of the structure
to monotonic lateral forces is bi-linear, close to elastic-perfectly-plastic. The elastic stiffness
used in analysis should correspond to the stiffness of the elastic branch of such a bi-linear
global force-deformation response. This means that the use of the full elastic stiffness of
uncracked concrete or masonry in the analysis is inappropriate. So, Eurocode 8 requires that
the seismic analysis of concrete buildings should be based on member stiffness taking into
account the effect of cracking. Thus, that the stiffness of concrete members corresponds to the
initiation of yielding of the reinforcement (secant stiffness to the yield-point).
Unless a more accurate modeling of the cracked member is performed, Eurocode 8 allows
taking that stiffness equal to 50% of the corresponding stiffness of the uncracked member,
( EI ) c , neglecting the presence of the reinforcement. This is unconservative within the
framework of displacement-based seismic assessment and retrofitting of existing structures
and member seismic deformation demands are seriously underestimated. The best way to
realistically estimate the effective elastic stiffness of the shear span of a concrete member
(moment-to-shear ratio at the end, Ls = M V ) in a bilinear force-deformation model under
monotonic loading, is to use the value of the secant stiffness of the shear span at member
yielding:
M y Ls
EI eff = (2.1)
3θ y
where M y is the value of the yield moment in the bilinear M-θ model of the shear span and
θ y is the chord rotation at the yielding end, both from first principles with empirical
corrections obtained from calibrations with relevant test results. For circular piers:
Ls + av z ⎛ ⎛ L ⎞⎞ φ y db f y
θ y = φy + 0.0022 ⋅ max⎜⎜ 0, ⎜1 − s ⎟ ⎟⎟ + asl (2.2)
3 ⎝ ⎝ 6D ⎠ ⎠ 8 fc
Calculation of the ‘effective stiffness’, from Eq. 2.1, using the values of M y and θ y , requires
knowledge of the amount and arrangement of the longitudinal reinforcement. So this approach
can be conveniently used for displacement-based seismic assessment of existing buildings,
but does not lend itself for displacement-based seismic design of new structures. For this
latter purpose a purely ‘empirical effective stiffness’ may be more convenient, expressed in
terms of geometric etc. characteristics of the member which are known before dimensioning
of its reinforcement.
24
Chapter 2. Modeling
The following expression was fitted by Biskinis et al. [2006] to the available experimental
data. For the common in practice case, that slip of the longitudinal bars from their anchorage
beyond the member end section is physically possible, the ‘effective stiffness’ at member
yielding based on Eq. 2.2 is:
⎡ ⎛ L ⎞⎤
EI eff = 0.09 ⎢1 + 0.7⎜ s ⎟⎥ (1 + 3.5v)(1 − 0.37α sl )( EI ) c (2.3)
⎣ ⎝ D ⎠⎦
where ν = N Ac f c , D the depth of the section, asl is a zero-one coefficient taken equal to
zero if pull-out is not physically possible and ( EI ) c denotes the stiffness of the uncracked
gross concrete section.
In this thesis, the establishment of the effective stiffness of the piers and of the deck EI eff was
done as follows:
− Regarding the deck, cracking was expected to take place under this combination of the
design seismic action and gravity loads. So, the cracked stiffness of the deck section was
used, evaluated from a moment-curvature diagram of the section under the action of the
pertinent prestressing force. In the -unsymmetrical- box sections about their horizontal
centroidal axis, the mean value of the cracked stiffness for positive or negative bending was
used. This, however, was not the case for sections near the supports (piers) were stiffness was
evaluated from negative bending and in the region of midspans were stiffness from positive
bending was evaluated from negative bending respectively, due to the effect of tendons’
prestressing.
− Regarding the piers, the value of EI eff was the secant stiffness to yielding of the end
sections where plastic hinges were expected to develop under the combination of the design
seismic action with the relevant gravity loads: at the base of each pier and at its connection to
the deck for the longitudinal seismic action, or at the base of each pier alone for the transverse
seismic action. The secant stiffness to yielding of the plastic hinge sections, EI eff , depended
not only on the geometry of the pier section and on its axial load, but also on the moment-to-
shear ratio (“shear span”) at these sections, as well as on the amount and arrangement of
longitudinal reinforcement.
Since the deck is monolithically connected to an arrangement of more than one pier in its
transverse direction, then Ls is equal to half the clear height of the pier in that direction as
well.
25
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
3 ANALYSIS RESULTS
3.1 Original design of the bridge
The bridge was designed for the 5%-damped Type 1 elastic spectrum of soil type C (medium-
stiff soil) in Eurocode 8 and a peak ground acceleration (PGA) on rock of 0.16g, which,
according to Eurocode 8, produces a PGA on top of soil type C equal to 1.15x0.16g=0.184g.
For the design, the 5%-damped elastic spectrum was reduced by a behavior factor q equal to
1.54 for the x direction and 2.05 for the y direction.
From a modal analysis, the natural vibration period in the z (transverse) direction was found
to be T ( z ) = 0.9163 sec and in the x (longitudinal) direction T ( x) = 0.6493 sec , with a
percentage of effective mass equal to 82.2 % and 94.4 % respectively.
The expected values of material strengths used in the analysis were: 35.5 or 43 MPa for the
concrete of the piers and the deck, respectively (27.5 or 35 MPa nominal values) and 575
MPa for the reinforcing steel (500MPa nominal value).
Taking into account overstrength of the materials alone, the bridge would be expected to
develop first yielding at a PGA on rock of about (1.5/1.54)x0.16g ≈ 0.156g in the x direction
and (1.5/2.05)x0.16g ≈ 0.12g in the z direction. The assumptions made in the seismic design
of the bridge, regarding the effective stiffness of the deck and the piers, which were taken
equal to 60% and 100% of the uncracked section stiffness, respectively, in a force-based,
intentionally overestimated the stiffness. Hence, the design values of seismic internal forces
were on the safe (i.e. conservative) side.
Thus, nonlinear time-history analyses were performed, for seven acceleration time-histories
emulating the strongest among the two horizontal components of seven historic earthquakes,
but modified to conform to the 5%-damped Type 1 elastic spectrum for soil type C in
Eurocode 8. Each of the seven motions was applied in the longitudinal direction and in the
transverse direction of the bridge for peak ground acceleration on rock: 0.25g, 0.35g and
26
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
0.45g, corresponding to effective ground acceleration on top of soil type C about 0.29g, 0.40g
and 0.52g, respectively. Each motion was applied in the positive and in the negative sense,
giving at the end 84 nonlinear analyses.
3.3 Accelerograms
Each time-history motion emulates the strongest among the two horizontal components of
seven historic earthquakes, but was modified to conform to the 5%-damped Type 1 elastic
spectrum for soil type C in Eurocode 8. The seven historic records emulated are:
The motions and spectra shown in Figure 3.1, refer to a PGA on rock of 0.25g, which,
according to Eurocode 8, produces an effective ground acceleration on top of soil type C
which is higher by 15% (i.e., 0.2875g).
Each of the seven motions was applied separately in the “longitudinal” direction of the bridge
(defined by the chord connecting the middle of the deck section at the two abutments) and in
the orthogonal “transverse” direction. Due to the asymmetry of the bridge in the
‘‘longitudinal’’ direction, each motion was applied in the positive and in the negative sense,
giving at the end 14 nonlinear analyses for each of the two orthogonal horizontal directions.
27
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
Bonds Corner, Imperial Valley (1979) earthquake, Ca Tolmezzo, Friuli (1976) earthquake
0.2 0.2
0.15 0.15
.
.
0.1 0.1
Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)
0.05 0.05
0 0
-0.05 -0.05
-0.1 -0.1
-0.15 -0.15
-0.2 -0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Time (sec) Time (sec)
Capitola building, Loma Prieta (1989) earthquake, Ca Ulcinj, Montenegro (1979) earthquake
0.2 0.2
0.15 0.15
.
.
0.1 0.1
Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)
0.05 0.05
0 0
-0.05 -0.05
-0.1 -0.1
-0.15 -0.15
-0.2 -0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Time (sec) Time (sec)
Kalamata (1986) earthquake, Greece El Centro, Ca. Imperial Valley (1940) earthquake, Ca
0.2 0.2
0.15 0.15
.
0.1 0.1
Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)
0.05 0.05
0 0
-0.05 -0.05
-0.1 -0.1
-0.15 -0.15
-0.2 -0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Time (sec) Time (sec)
0.2
0.15
.
0.1
Acceleration (g)
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Time (sec)
Figure 3.1. Time histories used for the analysis modified to conform to the 5% damped EC8 spectrum.
28
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
In a seismic design procedure in which inelastic deformation demands are estimated through
appropriate linear-elastic seismic response analyses, of prime interest is the magnitude of
chord rotation demands predicted through nonlinear time-history analyses.
An additional checking of the seismic performance was done by the computational capability,
which uses indices directly referring to a performance based design. Performance levels and a
viable procedure for identifying them by analytical methods, is at the heart of all bridge
assessment procedures. Eurocode 8 provides for two limit states of performance: the Damage
Limit State (DLS) and the Ultimate Limit State (ULS). Limit States are defined in terms of
(acceptable) degree of damage and associated implications on the functionality of the bridges
In the DLS, damage indices both at member and in global level should be less than 20 % and
plastic rotations θ pl at the ends of every member should be less than 6θ y -the chord rotation at
first yielding. In the ULS, these damage indices should be between 20 % and 60 % and the
plastic rotations should be less than 8θ y . Table 1 shows the relationship between the Park and
Ang damage index and pier damage state.
The computational capability uses the terms ‘DL’ to express Damage Limitation, ‘SD’ for
Serious Damage and ‘NC’ for Near Collapse performance level. In the latter one the structure
is heavily damaged, at the verge of local collapse or even of total collapse. The structure may
have large permanent drifts, and may retain little residual strength and stiffness against lateral
loads, but its vertical elements can still carry the gravity loads. It is unsafe, as it may not
survive another earthquake, not even a strong aftershock. Repair may not be technically
feasible and certainly is not economically justified.
29
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
Table 3.1. Relationship between the Park and Ang damage index and pier damage state
Figure 3.2. Bridge response in the longitudinal (x) direction at the 0.25g PGA level
30
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
Figure 3.3. Bridge response in the transverse (z) direction at the 0.25g PGA level
In Table 3.2, there are presented typical diagrams of moment versus end-chord rotations (a),
(c) and of the failure surfaces of the left pier and the right-side central span deck (b), (d) in the
longitudinal and transverse direction respectively. Regarding the pier, a small amount of
energy was dissipated in the longitudinal direction and almost double in the transverse
direction. In the transverse direction, chord rotations were slightly bigger. In the deck, there
was observed a remarkable difference between the two directions. The response of the deck in
the transverse direction was ductile, whereas in the longitudinal direction, the energy
dissipated was small and yielding of the section occurred after relatively few cycles. The
results can easily be explained taking into account the different overstrength provided to the
bridge in its two transverse directions.
31
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
Table 3.2. Moment vs end-chord rotations diagrams and failure surfaces of the left pier and the right-side
central span deck in the longitudinal and transverse direction
32
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
Figures 3.4 and 3.5 show the amount of energy dissipated from the bridge in the Loma Prieta
(1989) California earthquake in the 0.25g PGA level in the x and z direction respectively.
Notable is the response of the bridge in the transverse direction which resembles the response
of a perfect solid. This behavior is expected, given that the PGA level is very close to the one
the bridge was designed for.
15000
10000
5000
Force (KN) .
z
0
-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
-5000
-10000
-15000
Displacement (m)
Figure 3.4. Energy dissipation in the Loma Prieta (1989) earthquake (Ca) – 0.25g(x)
33
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
Force (KN) .
z
0
-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
Displacement (m)
Figure 3.5. Energy dissipation in the Loma Prieta (1989) earthquake (Ca) – 0.25g (z)
Figure 3.6 shows the variation of moment versus the steps of the time-history of the Kalamata
(1986) earthquake in Greece in the longitudinal direction and Figure 3.7, the one of the
transverse direction during the simulated time-history.
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-10000
-20000
-30000
-40000
-50000
Time (sec)
Figure 3.6. Moment variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- x direction (0.25g)
34
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
-8000
-10000
Time (sec)
Figure 3.7. Moment variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- z direction (0.25g)
A typical performance of the bridge under the 0.35g motion is shown in Figure 3.8. In the
transverse direction plastic hinging was induced only at the bottom of both piers and
decompression of the prestressing tendons took place in most of the cases in the middle of the
central span of the bridge as shown in Figure 3.9.
35
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
Figure 3.8. Bridge response in the longitudinal (x) direction at the 0.35g PGA level
Figure 3.9. Bridge response in the transverse (z) direction at the 0.35g PGA level
36
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
Table 3.3. Moment vs end-chord rotations diagrams and failure surfaces of the left pier and the middle of
the central span deck in the longitudinal and transverse direction
37
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
Table 3.3 presents typical diagrams of moment versus end-chord rotations (a), (c) and of the
failure surfaces of the left pier and the right-side central span deck (b), (d) in the longitudinal
and transverse direction respectively. Regarding the pier, a significant amount of energy was
dissipated in the longitudinal direction. In the transverse direction, chord rotations were
larger, as well as the energy dissipated in this direction. At any rate, energy dissipation was
much larger in both directions than under the 0.25g PGA level. In the deck, there was
observed a remarkable difference between the two directions. The response of the deck in the
transverse direction was similar to the one of the 0.25g PGA level with smooth loops
replacing the purely elastic response. In the longitudinal direction, there was pinching in the
loops and small energy dissipation. Yielding of the section occurred after a relatively few
cycles.
Figures 3.10 and 3.11 show the amount of energy dissipated from the bridge in the Loma
Prieta (1989) California earthquake under the 0.35g PGA level in the x and z direction
respectively.
15000
10000
5000
Force (KN) .
0
-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
-5000
-10000
-15000
Displacement (m)
Figure 3.10. Energy dissipation in the Loma Prieta (1989) Earthquake (Ca) – 0.35g (x)
38
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
6000
4000
2000
Force (KN) .
0
-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
-2000
-4000
-6000
Displacement (m)
Figure 3.11. Energy dissipation in the Loma Prieta (1989) Earthquake (Ca) – 0.35g (z)
Figure 3.12 shows the variation of moment versus the steps of the time-history of the
Kalamata (1986) earthquake in Greece in the longitudinal direction and Figure 3.13, the one
of the transverse direction during the simulated time-history.
39
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
60000
40000
20000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-20000
-40000
-60000
Time (sec)
Figure 3.12. Moment variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- x direction (0.35g)
15000
10000
5000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Figure 3.13. Moment variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- z direction (0.35g)
40
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
Figure 3.14. Bridge response in the longitudinal (x) direction at the 0.45g PGA level
41
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
Figure 3.15. Bridge response in the transverse (z) direction at the 0.45g PGA level
Table 3.4 presents typical diagrams of moment versus end-chord rotations (a), (c) and of the
failure surfaces of the left pier and the right-side central span deck (b), (d) in the longitudinal
and transverse direction respectively. Regarding the pier, a relatively large amount of energy
was dissipated both directions. In the transverse direction, chord rotations were larger. The
hysteresis loops were wider than under the previous PGA level but still keeping their
characteristic shape. Longitudinally, hysteresis loops were less smooth. In the deck, there was
observed a small difference between the two directions.
42
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
Table 3.4. Moment vs end-chord rotations diagrams and failure surfaces of the left pier and the middle of
the central span deck in the longitudinal and transverse direction
43
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
Figures 3.16 and 3.17, show the amount of energy dissipated from the bridge under the Loma
Prieta (1989) California earthquake at the 0.45g PGA level in the x and z direction
respectively.
15000
10000
5000
Force (KN) .
z
0
-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
-5000
-10000
-15000
Displacement (m)
Figure 3.16. Energy dissipation in the Loma Prieta (1989) Earthquake (Ca) - 0.45g (x)
6000
4000
2000
Force (KN) .
0
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 z0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-2000
-4000
-6000
-8000
Displacement (m)
Figure 3.17. Energy dissipation in the Loma Prieta (1989) Earthquake (Ca) - 0.45g (z)
44
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
Figure 3.18 and 3.19 show the variation of moment versus the steps of the time-history of the
Kalamata (1986) earthquake in Greece in the longitudinal and transverse direction
respectively.
60000
40000
20000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-20000
-40000
-60000
Time (sec)
Figure 3.18. Moment variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- x direction (0.45g)
15000
10000
5000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Figure 3.19. Moment variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- z direction (0.45g)
45
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
Figure 3.20 shows the mean value of the ratio of the inelastic chord rotation demands from the
84 nonlinear time-history analyses in the longitudinal and transverse direction of the bridge to
the corresponding capacity for PGA on rock: 0.25g, 0.35g and 0.45g, corresponding to
effective ground acceleration on top of soil type C about 0.29g, 0.40g and 0.52g, respectively
in flexure. Namely, they give the damage indices for each PGA.
As the PGA level increased, both displacements and induced forces increased proportionally.
The response values of the demand to capacity ratios in Figure 3.20 that reflect the response
of the bridge, increased respectively. Under ground motions about twice or three times as
strong as the design seismic action, the bridge did not exceed the ultimate conditions in all
time-history analysis in flexure, apart from the connection of the deck with the piers.
46
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
Figure 3.20. Damage indices in flexure (a) 0.25g, (b) 0.35g, (c) 0.45g
47
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
In regions within flexural plastic hinges, flexural cracks develop into large and intersecting
diagonal ones, the damage of the compression zone and the reduction of its size suffered are
larger, longitudinal bars develop inelastic strains, or even buckle, and lose most of their
effectiveness in dowel action. At the end sections the compression zone should also resist the
effects of the diagonal strut of the truss mechanism of shear resistance.
48
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
h−x
VR =
2 Ls
( ( ))
min( N ;0.55 Ac f c ) + 0.16 1 − 0.095 min 5, μθpl max(0.5,100 ρ tot ) ⋅
(3.1)
⎛ ⎛ Ls ⎞⎞
⎜⎜1 − 0.16 min⎜ 5; ⎟ ⎟⎟ f c Ac + Vw
⎝ ⎝ h ⎠⎠
h−x
VR = min( N ;0.55 Ac f c ) + (1 − 0.05 min (5, μθpl ))
2 Ls (3.2)
⎡ ⎛ ⎛ Ls ⎞⎞ ⎤
⎢0.16 max(0.5,100 ρ tot )⎜⎜1 − 0.16 min⎜ 5; ⎟ ⎟⎟ f c Ac + Vw ⎥
⎣ ⎝ ⎝ h ⎠⎠ ⎦
Where for circular sections:
μθpl = μθ − 1 is the ratio of the post-elastic chord rotation at ductile shear failure by diagonal
tension, to the chord rotation θ y and
π Asw
Vw = f yw (D − 2c ) (3.3)
2 sh
Asw is the cross-sectional area of a circular stirrup , f yw is the yield stress, sh is the centerline
spacing of stirrups of transverse reinforcement to shear resistance
Figure 3.22 shows the mean value of the ratio of the inelastic chord rotation demands from the
84 nonlinear time-history analyses in the longitudinal and transverse direction of the bridge to
the corresponding capacity for PGA on rock: 0.25g, 0.35g and 0.45g, corresponding to
effective ground acceleration on top of soil type C about 0.29g, 0.40g and 0.52g, respectively
in shear. Namely, they give the damage indices for each PGA.
49
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
As the PGA level increased, the response values of the demand to capacity ratios in Figure
3.22 that reflect the response of the bridge, increased respectively in the piers with the
corresponding values in the deck remaining at the same level. From the above it is clear that
the bridge may be prone to shear failure.
Figure 3.22. Damage indices in shear (a) 0.25g, (b) 0.25g, (c) 0.45g
50
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
Figures 3.23 - 3.28 show the variation of shear force in both directions and for every PGA
level during the simulated time-history of the Kalamata (1986) earthquake in Greece.
15000
10000
5000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Figure 3.23. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- x direction (0.25g)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
Time (sec)
Figure 3.24. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- z direction (0.25g)
51
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
15000
10000
5000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Figure 3.25. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- x direction (0.35g)
6000
4000
2000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Figure 3.26. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- z direction (0.35g)
52
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
15000
10000
5000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-5000
-10000
-15000
-20000
Time (sec)
Figure 3.27. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- x direction (0.45g)
6000
4000
2000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Figure 3.28. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- z direction (0.45g)
53
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
All the results presented above for the left pier, vary only 10% in the right pier maintaining
the same pattern of response.
Energy dissipation in the shear mechanism was negligible and its behavior did not possess the
characteristics required for ductile behavior under cyclic loading mostly in the longitudinal
(x) direction, which was designed with the smallest ductility factor q. Limited ductile
designed bridges, as the one analyzed, may suffer failure by shear, since the shear strength
corresponding to the maximum (not design) flexural strength is not considered. Shear failure
mechanisms are not usually suitable for ductile seismic response, because of the low levels of
deformation corresponding to failure. Short piers are particularly susceptible to such effects.
As a result, shear behavior should be limited in the elastic region. What is of primary interest
is the cyclic shear resistance of concrete members and in particular of the piers. In order to
upgrade the seismic response of the particular bridge, retrofit was considered as an option.
54
Chapter 4. Seismic Isolation
4 SEISMIC ISOLATION
4.1 Introduction
Seismic isolation aims at the decoupling of the building or the structure from the horizontal
components of the ground motion by interposing structural elements with low horizontal
stiffness between the structure and the foundation. This gives the structure a fundamental
frequency that is much lower than both its fixed-base frequency and the predominant
frequencies of the ground motion.
The first dynamic mode of the isolated structure involves deformation only in the isolation
system, the structure above responding to all intents and purposes as rigid. The higher modes
that produce deformation in the structure are orthogonal to the first mode and, consequently,
to the ground motion and do not participate in the motion. So, the high energy in the ground
motion related to these frequencies cannot be transmitted into the structure.
The lengthening of the first-mode period results into the reduction of the earthquake-induced
forces in the structure, but only for short period structures. For long period structures, this
effect might be negligible. The shear forces transmitted to the structure are limited by the
amount of force that can be transmitted across the dense, which allows the isolation device to
act as a fuse for the structure. The lengthening of the period necessitates larger system
displacements. Inelasticity, however, is confined to the dense, allowing elastic design of the
remainder of the structure. The damping in the isolation system and the associated energy
dissipation is a secondary factor in reducing structural response.
Reinforced concrete piers which were designed in accordance with old codes or did not take
account of the importance of plastic deformation and ductility capacity are often deficient in
flexural ductility, shear strength and flexural strength under strong seismic excitation. The
analyzed bridge as already illustrated thoroughly in the previous chapter has limited shear
strength.
55
Chapter 4. Seismic Isolation
There are variety of applications of dampers and seismic isolations for seismic retrofit. Some
are direct application based on the original concept of seismic isolation while others are
indirect application.
Given the fact that bearings in general are shear elements, the option chosen to retrofit the
bridge was by using isolation bearings on top of the existing piers.
• Sliding systems are simple in concept. A layer with a defined coefficient of friction will
limit the accelerations to this value. The forces which can be transmitted will also be limited
to the coefficient of friction times the weight.
• Elastomeric bearings are formed of horizontal layers of natural or synthetic rubber in thin
layers bonded between steel plates. The steel plates prevent the rubber layers from bulging.
So the bearing is able to support higher vertical loads with only small deformations. Under a
lateral load the bearing is flexible. Plain elastomeric bearings provide flexibility but no
significant damping and will move under service loads
• Springs. There are some proprietary devices based on steel springs but are not widely
used. Their most likely application is for machinery isolation.
• Rolling devices include cylindrical rollers and ball races. As for springs, they are most
commonly used for machinery applications.
• The flexibility may be provided by pin ended structural members such as piles inside a
sleeve that allows movement. These elements provide flexibility but no damping or service
load resistance. So they are used in parallel with other devices to provide these functions.
• Rocking isolation systems are a special case of energy dissipation that does not fit the
classic definition of isolation by permitting lateral translation. The rocking system is used for
slender structures and is based on the principle that for a rocking body the period of response
increases with increasing amplitude of rocking. This provides a period shift effect. Resistance
to service loads is provided by the weight of the structure. Damping can be added by using
devices such as yielding bolts or steel cantilevers.
• Supplementary devices:
56
Chapter 4. Seismic Isolation
- Viscous dampers. These devices provide damping but no service load resistance. They
have no elastic stiffness and so add less force to the system than other devices.
- Lead extrusion devices, where lead is forced through an orifice. They provide added
stiffness and damping.
Lead-plug bearings are laminated rubber bearings that consist of low-damping elastomeric
bearings, but contain one or more lead plugs (cylindrical core) that are inserted into holes as
shown in the figure below.
The steel plates in the bearing force the lead plug to deform in shear. The lead in the bearing
deforms physically at a flow stress of 10 MPa. Yielding of the lead core provides such
devices with substantial hysteretic behavior.
57
Chapter 4. Seismic Isolation
In bridges, the isolation concept is very different compared to the one in buildings. In bridges,
most of the weight is concentrated in the superstructure, in a single horizontal plane. The
superstructure is robust in terms of resistance to seismic loads but the substructures (piers and
abutments) are vulnerable. Also, the seismic resistance is often different in the two orthogonal
horizontal directions, longitudinal and transverse. Also, the bridge must resist significant
service lateral loads and displacements from wind and traffic loads and from creep, shrinkage
and thermal movements.
Elastic stiffness: K e = K L + K R , where K R and K L are the shear stiffnesses of the elastomeric
and lead parts o the device, respectively
• Post-elastic stiffness: K p = K R
• Yield force: Fy = FLy (1 + K R / K L ) , where FLy is the yield force of the lead core.
58
Chapter 4. Seismic Isolation
• a y : yield displacement
• E D : dissipated energy per cycle at the design displacement d bd , equal to the area enclosed
by the actual hysteresis loop = 4( Fy ⋅ d bd − Fmax ⋅ d y )
The effective stiffness of a lead-plug bearing, defined on the basis of peak-to-peak loads,
steadily reduces with displacement. In terms of the basic parameters K e , K p and Fy , it is
equal to K eff = K p + Fy / d bd , for d bd ≥ d y where d y is the yield displacement.
E D = 4 Fy (d bd − d y ) (4.2)
and
d y = Fy ( K e − K p ) (4.3)
Using the definition of ξ eff and the result of equation ( K eff = K p + Fy d bd ) for K eff , we have:
59
Chapter 4. Seismic Isolation
2) The pier was assumed to have a linear behavior. This is a reasonable assumption, since
the isolation technique attempts to reduce the earthquake response in such a way that the pier
remains within the elastic range. One of the performance objectives of the present design is
to require the pier to remain within the elastic range.
4) The effects of the incoherence of support motion and of the soil-structure interaction
were ignored, as well as the vertical motion and its effects on the bridge.
The key parameter in the design was to define the design displacement of the structure. This
was done by considering the bridge as a single-degree-of-freedom system and using the
effective stiffness of the isolation system, K eff , the effective damping of the isolation system,
ξ eff , the mass of the superstructure, M d and the spectral acceleration S e (Teff , neff ) .
From the ANSRuop program (analysis mode) the mass of the superstructure, including the
service loads was calculated. The effective period, which is practically the isolation period of
the system, was selected to be above 2 sec i.e. in the constant displacement part of the
spectrum. So, an effective period Teff = 2.1 sec was selected. Figure 4.3 presents the elastic
spectrum of the Eurocode 8 in which the period shift attempted by using the seismic isolation
in the bridge is evident.
60
Chapter 4. Seismic Isolation
Teff Se d cd
TC Teff
TC ≤ Teff ≤ TD 2.5 neff a g S dc
Teff TC
TCTD TD
TD ≤ Teff ≤ 4sec 2.5 2
neff a g S dc
Teff TC
Table 4.1. Spectral acceleration Se and displacement dcd (Table 7.1 EC8)
Ground type S TB TC TD
Table 4.2. Values of the parameters describing the elastic response spectra of EC8
Given the ground type and the spectrum (elastic response spectrum of the EC8- type1), the
displacement was calculated according to Table 4.1 (Table 7.1 of EC8-7.5.4.3).
The maximum design ground acceleration on rock a g , R = 0.45 g was used. This is done to
ensure that the response of the bridge will be limited in the elastic range (assumption 2).
The design ground acceleration on type A ground corresponding to the importance category
of the bridge is: a g = γ I a g , R = 1.0 ⋅ 0.45 g = 0.45 g , where γ I = 1.0 is the importance factor of
the bridge. From Chapter 7 of Eurocode 8- Part 2:
d c = (0.625 π 2 ) ⋅ a g S ⋅ neff Tc2 = (0.625 π 2 ) ⋅ 0.45 ⋅ 9.81 ⋅ 1.15 ⋅ 0.69 ⋅ 0.6 2 = 0.08m , where:
0.10 0.10
neff = = = 0.69
0.05 + ξ eff 0.05 + 0.16
Since TD ≤ Teff ≤ 4sec , from Table 4.1:
TC TD 0.6 ⋅ 2
S e = 2.5 2
neff a g S = 2.5 1.15 = 1.192m/sec 2
Teff 2.1
TD 2.1
d cd = dc = 0.00815 = 0.2795 = 0.280 m
TC 0.6
The nominal design properties of simple low-damping elastomeric bearings in accordance
with EN1998-2:2005, clause 7.5.2.3.3(5) and (6), may be assumed as follows:
61
Chapter 4. Seismic Isolation
− where G g is the value of the “apparent conventional shear modulus” in accordance with
EN 1337-3:2005.
Being on the safe side, at first, it was considered that also in the case of LR Bearings the shear
modulus Gb = 1.1Gg = 1320 MPa
Md Md (4.6)
Teff = 2π → K eff = 4π 2 2
K eff Teff
The design displacement was multiplied by a safety factor, taken as 1.5 ⋅ d bd and ξ eff was
taken 16% for being lead-rubber bearings. The energy dissipated by each bearing was such
expressed by both equations (4.7) and (4.8).
(4.7)
E D = 2πK eff d bd2 ξ eff
(4.8)
E D = 4 Fy (d bd − d y )
If we neglect d y , we have a first approximation for Fy :
ED
Fy = (4.9)
4d bd
It follows that:
K p = K eff − Fy (4.10)
d bd
The same procedure is continued until the iterations converge with a tolerance of 10 −6 .
From the final estimation, the parameters K eff , Fy and p are defined, where p is the post-
yield ratio p = K p / K e .
62
Chapter 4. Seismic Isolation
At first, it is supposed that on the top of each pier a single isolation device is placed. This
assumption, although oversimplified, is deliberate in order to use these results in the
implementation of the bearings to the initial mode of the bridge and run the analysis for the
isolated bridge model.
Bearings' properties
K eff 17625.19
Ke 117125.6
Fy1 1933.434
Fy 2 5241.76
p1 0.11
The yield level of lead is around 10 MPa so that the area of the plug needed
was A plug = Fy / 10 . The design philosophy for lead plugs is that they should not be too slender
or too squat. So, lead plugs should have a diameter between 1 / 6 and 1 / 4 of the rubber
diameter.
Considering that the post-elastic stiffness is basically the stiffness provided by the rubber only
(the lead-plug has already yielded), then K rub = K eff − Fy / d bd .
G ⋅ Arub (4.11)
K rub =
∑t
d bd
∑t = γ
(4.12)
where γ is the shear strain of the bearing, Arub the rubber area of the bearing and G the shear
modulus of the rubber. The procedure described below is given in the Table 4.4.
63
Chapter 4. Seismic Isolation
M b (KNsec2 / m)
1968.85
K eff = M b ⋅ 4π 2 /Teff
2
(KN/m)
17625.2
EDi (KNm)
3114.994
Fyin1 (KN) Fy 3
1857.314 1933.42
K pin = K eff - Fy /d bd K p 3 = K eff - Fy3/d bd
13195.496 13013.98
D yin Dy3
0.0156 0.016507
Fy1 Fy 4
1929.276 1933.43
K p1 = K eff - Fy1/d bd K p 4 = K eff - Fy4 /d bd
13023.868 13013.95
D y1 Dy 4
0.0165 0.016507
Fy 2 Fy 5
1933.20 1933.43
K p 2 = K eff - Fy2 /d bd K p 5 = K eff - Fy5/d bd
13014.501 13013.9512
Dy2 Dy5
0.016505 0.016507
Due to the very large vertical loads of the bridge deck, the magnitude of a possible isolation
device and its lead plug were excessive. As a result, there were considered 4 lead-plug
bearings on each pier, 8 in total (Figure 4.4). By using the same procedure, rational values for
the bearings were reached as shown in the following Table 4.5.
64
Chapter 4. Seismic Isolation
M b (KNsec2 / m)
492.21
K eff = M b ⋅ 4π 2 /Teff
2
(KN/m)
4406.3
EDi (KNm)
778.748
Fyin1 (KN) Fy 3
464.329 483.36
K pin = K eff - Fy /d bd K p 3 = K eff - Fy3/d bd
3298.874 3253.50
D yin Dy3
0.0156 0.0165
Fy1 Fy 4
482.319 483.36
K p1 = K eff - Fy1/d bd K p 4 = K eff - Fy4 /d bd
3255.967 3253.49
D y1 Dy 4
0.0165 0.0165
Fy 2 Fy 5
483.30 483.36
K p 2 = K eff - Fy2 /d bd K p 5 = K eff - Fy5/d bd
3253.625 3253.4878
Dy2 Dy5
0.0165 0.0165
65
Chapter 4. Seismic Isolation
66
Chapter 4. Seismic Isolation
In Table 4.7 the basic parameters of the values of seismic isolation used are concentrated.
Initial Selected
values values
Teff 2.1 sec
ξ eff 16% 16%
S 15 15
G 1320 1340
d bd 0.419 m
γ 160% 161.3%
∑ t = d bd / γ 0.262 0.26
Figure 4.5 shows the section of each LRB device after the final design.
67
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
Figures 5.1 and 5.2 show the analyzed bridge after the implementation of seismic isolation on
top of the piers.
68
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
2) Two general shear springs available from the computational capability were used, one
in each direction at the top of each pier, with the same characteristics as shown in the table
below. The values used were the same as in the preliminary design of the lead-plug bearings,
as the set of four bearings of each pier was modeled as one single bearing working in the two
transverse directions.
3) The deck and the corresponding nodes of the shear spring elements in the longitudinal
and vertical were constrained in the respective directions. The shear spring element in the
longitudinal direction was restrained in all directions apart from the x (longitudinal).
Accordingly the spring in the transverse direction (z) was treated. Rotations were also
restrained.
69
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
Figures 5.3 and 5.4 present the restrains of the nodes were seismic isolation is implemented.
Figure 5. 5 is taken from the program used for the analyses and shows the properties used to
model the bi-linear behavior of the bearings, discussed in detail in the previous chapter.
70
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
Figures 5.6 and 5.7 show details of the isolated bridge model. Namely, the restrains of the
nodes.
Figure 5.6. Detail of the bearings’ modeling in the two transverse directions- restrains
Figure 5.7. Detail of the shear springs that model the LRB’s in the two directions
71
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
Table 5.1 presents typical diagrams of moment versus end-chord rotations and failure surfaces
of the left pier in the longitudinal and transverse direction. At every PGA level the response is
similar.
Table 5.1. Typical diagrams of moment vs end-chord rotations and failure surfaces of the left pier in the
longitudinal and transverse direction
72
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
5.2.1.1 In flexure
a)
b)
c)
Figure 5.8. Damage indices of the isolated bridge in flexure in a) 0.25g, b) 0.35g and c) 0.45g PGA level
In flexure, a very large reduction was noticed, that is reflected also in the damage indices in
Figure 5.8 above. A reduction on the order of 10-45% in damage was attained. However the
main interest is focused on shear. As clearly shown in Figure 5.9, a remarkable reduction in
the volumes of the damage indices in shear by 70-80% was accomplished with the use of the
Lead-Rubber Bearings on top of the piers.
73
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
5.2.1.2 In shear
a)
b)
c)
Figure 5.9. Damage indices of the isolated bridge in shear in a) 0.25g, b) 0.35g and c) 0.45g PGA level
74
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
Time (sec)
Figure 5.10. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- x direction (0.25g)
75
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
Time (sec)
Figure 5.11. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- z direction (0.25g)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
Time (sec)
Figure 5.12. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- x direction (0.35g)
76
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
3000
2000
1000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-1000
-2000
-3000
Time (sec)
Figure 5.13. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- z direction (0.35g)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
Time (sec)
Figure 5.14. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- x direction (0.45g)
77
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
3000
2000
1000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-1000
-2000
-3000
Time (sec)
Figure 5.15. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- z direction (0.45g)
5.4 Influence of the isolation in the Imperial Valey (1879), California eartquake
The following figures present comparisons regarding the isolation effect in the bridge
displacements during the time-history of the Imperial Valley earthquake. The increase of the
displacement magnitude is obvious, as well as the phase lag, features of seismic isolation that
were discussed in the previous chapter. First, there are presented the graphs for the
longitudinal direction and later the transverse, for all PGA levels.
78
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 122 245 367 487 610 732 852 975 1097 1217 1340 1462
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
Figure 5.16. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Imperial Valley (1879)
earthquake, Ca – 0.25g (x)
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
Figure 5.17. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Imperial Valley (1879)
earthquake, Ca – 0.35g (x)
79
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
Figure 5.18. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Imperial Valley (1879)
earthquake, Ca – 0.45g (x)
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
Figure 5.19. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Imperial Valley (1879)
earthquake, Ca – 0.25g (z)
80
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
Figure 5.20. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Imperial Valley (1879)
earthquake, Ca – 0.35g (z)
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
Figure 5.21. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Imperial Valley (1879)
earthquake, Ca – 0.45g (z)
81
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
5.5 Influence of the PGA level n the Imperial Valley (1879), California earthquake
In Figures 5.22 and 5.23, the effect of the PGA level in the response of the isolated system is
presented for the longitudinal and transverse direction. The same pattern is followed and the
maximum values increase proportionally.
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Figure 5.22. Effect of the ground acceleration on the isolation displacement in the x direction
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Figure 5.23. Effect of the ground acceleration on the isolation displacement in the z direction
82
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
5.6 Influence of the isolation for the 0.35g PGA level related to the time-history
realized
As it is implied from the previous graphs, the PGA level does not change much the pattern of
the response; only the peak values. It is interesting to show the response of the isolated system
to different earthquake motions, which although modified to conform to the EC8 spectrum,
has different waveforms causing the system to respond differently. The results for the 0.35g
PGA level follow below. Results not presented here are given in the Appendix.
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 122 245 367 487 610 732 852 975 1097 1217 1340 1462
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
Figure 5.24. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Loma Prieta (1989)
earthquake, Ca – 0.35g (x)
83
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 122 245 367 487 610 732 852 975 1097 1217 1340 1462
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
Figure 5.25. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Loma Prieta (1989)
earthquake, Ca – 0.35g (z)
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
Figure 5.26. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Kalamata (1986)
earthquake, Greece – 0.35g (x)
84
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
Figure 5.27. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Kalamata (1986)
earthquake, Greece – 0.35g (z)
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
Figure 5.28. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Montenegro (1979)
earthquake – 0.35g (x)
85
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
Figure 5.29. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Montenegro (1979)
earthquake – 0.35g (z)
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
Figure 5.30. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Friuli (1976)
earthquake – 0.35g (x)
86
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
Figure 5.31. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Friuli (1976)
earthquake – 0.35g (z)
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
Figure 5.32. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Montenegro (1979)
earthquake – 0.35g (x)
87
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
Figure 5.33. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Montenegro (1979)
earthquake – 0.35g (z)
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
Figure 5.34. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Imperial Valley (1940)
earthquake, Ca – 0.35g (x)
88
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
Figure 5.35. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Imperial Valley (1940)
earthquake, Ca – 0.35g (z)
In order to present the differences of the isolated system’s response to the various time-
histories, Figure 5.36 gives in a single plot the response of the top of the right pier to the
ground motions of 0.45g.
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 122 245 367 487 610 732 852 975 1097 1217 1340 1462
Time (sec)
Bonds Corner, Imperial Valley (1979) earthquake, Ca Capitola building, Loma Prieta (1989) earthquake, Ca
Kalamata (1986) earthquake, Greece Herceg Novi, Montenegro (1979) earthquake
Tolmezzo, Friuli (1976) earthquake Ulcinj, Montenegro (1979) earthquake
El Centro, Ca. Imperial Valley (1940) earthquake, Ca
Figure 5.36. Response of the isolated bridge to various earthquakes in 0.45g PGA
89
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
5.7 Influence of the isolation on the shear forces for the 0.35g PGA level in the
Kalamata (1986), Greece earthquake
Figures 5.37 and 5.38 show the dramatic reduction of the shear force in the Kalamata (1986)
earthquake in the longitudinal and transverse direction. The reduction of the magnitude as
well as the decoupling, was achieved and the behavior of the isolation system is the desirable
one.
15000
10000
5000
0
1 58 115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
Figure 5.37. Isolation influence on shear force at the top of the left pier in the Kalamata (1986)
earthquake, Greece – 0.35g (x)
6000
4000
2000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
Figure 5.38. Isolation influence on shear force at the top of the left pier in the Kalamata (1986)
earthquake, Greece – 0.35g (z)
90
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
In 0.35g and 0.45g there was noted a permanent drift. The lead-rubber bearings’ core was
designed to yield in order for the pier to remain in the elastic region. The figures of the upper
PGA levels show the design successfully achieved the goal set.
3000
2000
1000
Force (KN)
0
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
-1000
-2000
-3000
Displacement (m)
Figure 5.39. Energy dissipation by the isolated bridge at the 0.25g PGA level of the Loma Prieta (1989)
earthquake in the longitudinal direction
91
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
3000
2000
1000
Force (KN)
0
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
-1000
-2000
-3000
Displacement (m)
Figure 5.40. Energy dissipation by the isolated bridge at the 0.35g PGA level of the Loma Prieta (1989)
earthquake in the longitudinal direction
3000
2000
1000
Force (KN)
0
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
-1000
-2000
-3000
Displacement (m)
Figure 5.41. Energy dissipation by the isolated bridge at the 0.45g PGA level in the Loma Prieta (1989)
earthquake in the longitudinal direction
92
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
15000
10000
5000
Force (KN)
0
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
Figure 5.42. Comparison of the energy dissipation between the monolithic and the isolated model at 0.25g
PGA
15000
10000
5000
Force (KN)
0
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
Figure 5.43. Comparison of the energy dissipation between the monolithic and the isolated model at 0.35g
PGA
93
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
15000
10000
5000
Force (KN)
0
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
Figure 5.44. Comparison of the energy dissipation between the monolithic and the isolated model at 0.45g
PGA
The effect of seismic isolation met the goals: the period was lengthened, the shear forces were
reduced and the energy dissipation increased, as shown by the wider hysteresis loops.
The response followed the same pattern at all PGA levels only with the peak values increasing
proportionally.
94
Chapter 6. Conclusions
6 CONCLUSIONS
This thesis focused on the assessment of the seismic performance of a bridge constructed as
part of the Egnatia motorway in northern Greece through time-history analyses.
For the modeling and the analysis of the concrete bridge, a computational capability was used.
The computational tool was the computer program ANSRuop-Bridges, developed in the
laboratory of Structures, University of Patras which is an improved and expanded version of
ANSR-I program developed at UC Berkeley for the nonlinear response analysis of structures
in 3D (Mondkar and Powell, 1975).
In the modeling, the estimation of the effective elastic stiffness of the shear span of the
concrete members was done by using the value of the secant stiffness of the shear span at
member yielding.
The assessment showed that energy dissipation capacity of shear mechanism was negligible
and its behavior did not possess the characteristics required for ductile behavior under cyclic
loading mostly in the longitudinal (x) direction, which was designed with the smallest
ductility factor q.
In an effort to mitigate damage to the bridge, a practical and effective technique for the
seismic upgrade of this structure using seismic isolation devices was developed.
Lead-rubber bearings were used in order to upgrade the seismic behavior of the bridge. The
lead plug provided energy dissipation for seismic response and stiffness for static loads. The
devices were designed in order for the piers to remain in the elastic range. Their size was big
in general. Lead rubber bearings could have been smaller, if there was accepted a minimum
degree of failure, in case that they were designed for a lower performance level.
By the implementation of seismic isolation to the system, a very important reduction in the
flexure damage indices was achieved on the order of 10-45% and a remarkable reduction of
70-80% of the shear damage indices.
The effect of seismic isolation met the goals: the period was lengthened, the shear forces were
reduced and the energy dissipation increased as shown by the wider hysteresis loops.
The response followed the same pattern at all PGA levels, with the peak values increasing
proportionally.
95
Chapter 6. Conclusions
In practice, the implementation of isolation technology to the existing bridge may face certain
restrictions. The first is the restriction on the leveling of bridge surface and the second is the
restriction on the gaps at the abutments, which were not designed to have such large
displacements.
96
References
7 REFERENCES
Bardakis V.G. [2006] “Modelling and Inelastic Seismic Response Analysis in 3D of Concrete Bridges
Having monolithic Connection Between Deck and Piers” Proceedings of the 6th International PhD
Symposium in Civil Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland.
Biskinis, D., Fardis, M.N.[2006] “Effective Stiffness, Lateral Resistance and Cyclic Deformation
Capacity of Bridge Piers” Proceedings of the 2nd fib International Congress , Naples, Italy
CEN [2003] Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General rules,
seismic actions and rules for buildings, prEN 1998-1, Brussels, Belgium.
CEN [2005] Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 2: Bridges, EN 1998-
2, Brussels, Belgium.
Chopra, A. K. [2001] Dynamics of Structures Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering,
Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.
Naeim, F., Kelly, J. M. Design of Seismic Isolated Structures: From Theory to Practice, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., USA.
Panagiotakos, T.B., Bardakis, V., Fardis, M.N. [2006] “Displacement-based Seismic Design
Procedure for Concrete Bridges with Monolithic Connection between Deck” Proceedings of the
2nd fib International Congress , Naples, Italy
Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F., Calvi, G.M. [1996] Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., USA.
Skinner, R.I., Robinson, W.H., McVerry, G.H. [1993] An Introduction to Seismic Isolation, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., West Sussex, England.
Structural Laboratory Department of Civil Engineering University of Patras [2003] User’s manual
ANSRuop: A Computer Program for the Assessment of Nonlinear Seismic Response, University of
Patras, Greece.
97
Appendix A
APPENDIX A: ACCELEROGRAMS
0.2
0.15
.
0.1
Acceleration (g)
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Time (sec)
A98
Appendix A
0.2
0.15
.
0.1
Acceleration (g)
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Time (sec)
0.2
0.15
.
0.1
Acceleration (g)
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Time (sec)
A99
Appendix A
0.2
0.15
.
0.1
Acceleration (g)
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Time (sec)
0.2
0.15
.
0.1
Acceleration (g)
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Time (sec)
A100
Appendix A
0.2
0.15
.
0.1
Acceleration (g)
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Time (sec)
0.2
0.15
.
0.1
Acceleration (g)
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Time (sec)
A101
Appendix B
15000
10000
5000
0
1 58 115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
A102
Appendix B
15000
10000
5000
0
1 58 115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
15000
10000
5000
0
1 58 115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
A103
Appendix B
15000
10000
5000
0
1 58 115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
15000
10000
5000
0
1 58 115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
A104
Appendix B
15000
10000
5000
0
1 58 115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
15000
10000
5000
0
1 58 115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
A105
Appendix B
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
A106
Appendix B
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
A107
Appendix B
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
A108
Appendix B
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
15000
10000
5000
0
1 58 115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
A109
Appendix B
15000
10000
5000
0
1 58 115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
15000
10000
5000
0
1 58 115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
A110
Appendix B
15000
10000
5000
0
1 58 115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
15000
10000
5000
0
1 58 115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
A111
Appendix B
15000
10000
5000
0
1 58 115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
A112
Appendix B
15000
10000
5000
0
1 58 115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
6000
4000
2000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
A113
Appendix B
6000
4000
2000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
6000
4000
2000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
A114
Appendix B
6000
4000
2000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
6000
4000
2000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
A115
Appendix B
6000
4000
2000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
6000
4000
2000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
A116
Appendix B
15000
10000
5000
0
1 58 115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
15000
10000
5000
0
1 58 115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
A117
Appendix B
15000
10000
5000
0
1 58 115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
15000
10000
5000
0
1 58 115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
A118
Appendix B
15000
10000
5000
0
1 58 115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
15000
10000
5000
0
1 58 115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
A119
Appendix B
15000
10000
5000
0
1 58 115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
A120
Appendix B
6000
4000
2000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
6000
4000
2000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
A121
Appendix B
6000
4000
2000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
6000
4000
2000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
A122
Appendix B
6000
4000
2000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
6000
4000
2000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
A123
Appendix B
6000
4000
2000
0
1 57 113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Fixed Isolated
A124
Appendix C
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 122 245 367 487 610 732 852 975 1097 1217 1340 1462
Time (sec)
Bonds Corner, Imperial Valley (1979) earthquake, Ca Capitola building, Loma Prieta (1989) earthquake, Ca
Kalamata (1986) earthquake, Greece Herceg Novi, Montenegro (1979) earthquake
Tolmezzo, Friuli (1976) earthquake Ulcinj, Montenegro (1979) earthquake
El Centro, Ca. Imperial Valley (1940) earthquake, Ca
A125
Appendix C
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
A126
Appendix C
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
A127
Appendix C
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
A128
Appendix C
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 122 245 367 487 610 732 852 975 1097 1217 1340 1462
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 122 245 367 487 610 732 852 975 1097 1217 1340 1462
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
A129
Appendix C
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 122 245 367 487 610 732 852 975 1097 1217 1340 1462
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 122 245 367 487 610 732 852 975 1097 1217 1340 1462
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
A130
Appendix C
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 122 245 367 487 610 732 852 975 1097 1217 1340 1462
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 122 245 367 487 610 732 852 975 1097 1217 1340 1462
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
A131
Appendix C
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
A132
Appendix C
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
A133
Appendix C
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
A134
Appendix C
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
A135
Appendix C
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
0.4
0.3
0.2
.
0.1
Displacement (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
A136
Appendix D
15000
10000
5000
Force (KN) .
z
0
-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
-5000
-10000
-15000
Displacement (m)
A137
Appendix D
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
Force (KN) .
z
0
-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
Displacement (m)
15000
10000
5000
Force (KN) .
0
-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
-5000
-10000
-15000
Displacement (m)
A138
Appendix D
6000
4000
2000
Force (KN) .
0
-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
-2000
-4000
-6000
Displacement (m)
15000
10000
5000
Force (KN) .
z
0
-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
-5000
-10000
-15000
Displacement (m)
A139
Appendix D
6000
4000
2000
Force (KN) .
0
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 z0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-2000
-4000
-6000
-8000
Displacement (m)
3000
2000
1000
Force (KN)
0
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
-1000
-2000
-3000
Displacement (m)
A140
Appendix D
3000
2000
1000
Force (KN)
0
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
-1000
-2000
-3000
Displacement (m)
3000
2000
1000
Force (KN)
0
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
-1000
-2000
-3000
Displacement (m)
A141
Appendix D
15000
10000
5000
Force (KN)
0
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
15000
10000
5000
Force (KN)
0
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
A142
Appendix D
15000
10000
5000
Force (KN)
0
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Monolithic Isolated
A143