Structures 27 (2020) 383–395

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Life-cycle cost based design of bridge lead-rubber isolators in seismic regions T

a,⁎ b c
Payam Asadi , Davood Nikfar , Iman Hajirasouliha
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan 84156-83111, Iran
b
Civil Engineering Group, Pardis College, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan 84156-83111, Iran
c
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: While rubber isolators are widely used for the seismic protection of bridges, their influence on the total life-cycle
Life-cycle cost analysis costs (TLCC) is generally neglected. This study aims to provide a framework to obtain the most cost-effective
Bridge damage indices design solutions of Lead-Rubber Bearing (LRB) isolators for minimum objective functions based on the life-cycle
Damage costs cost of bridges. Also, a comprehensive analytical study is conducted to assess the effects of LRB characteristics on
Lead-rubber bearing isolators
the total life-cycle costs (TLCC) consisting of the initial costs of LRB isolators and structural elements, traffic
Economic design of bridges
Seismic design
damage costs, and structural and non-structural damage costs due to possible earthquake events during the
bridge life-span. While changing the lead core diameter, confined diameter, and the total thickness of the rubber
layers could influence the TLCC of the bridges, the effect of lead core diameter is shown to be more significant.
By using lead core diameter as the main design parameter, increasing the initial cost of LRBs up to a certain level
can significantly reduce (up to 38%) TLCC of the bridges. However, beyond this limit, the TLCC may increase.
Based on the results of over 13,000 Reinforced Concrete (RC) bridges under different earthquake hazard levels,
the best design solutions are identified for different design objectives. The results of this study should prove the
benefit of the proposed method for a more efficient design of bridges with lower TLCC.

1. Introduction lead core is expected to exhibit plastic deformations. However, yielding

Transportation bridges play a key role in the economic growth and
welfare of societies around the globe. Therefore, a large amount of
investment is allocated for the construction and design of bridges
worldwide. To have more resilient structural systems, different types of
isolators are widely used for the design of bridges, especially in seismic
prone regions. As a result, unlike typical buildings, the super-structures
of the bridges are generally resistant to seismic loads, while the sub-
structures are more vulnerable. In building structures, the isolation
system is generally used to reduce the inertial forces transmitted to the
super-structure and limit the seismic demands of structural elements.
However, the isolators in bridges are placed below the super-structure,
with the purpose of protecting the sub-structure and reducing the in-
ertial forces transmitted through the super-structure [1]. Increasing the
time period via isolators reduces the probability of occurrence of re-
sonance during an earthquake event. Lead Rubber Bearing (LRB) iso-
lators are one of the most efficient types of isolator systems for bridges.
LRB isolators generally have one or more lead cores to add the damping
to the isolator system, while steel plates force the lead core to deform
under shear. The force–displacement response of the isolator under
service loads is elastic, but during severe earthquake excitations the
and plastic deformation of the lead core increases the energy dissipation
capacity of the system [2].
There are a few investigations on the effect of mechanical properties
of LRBs on the bridge responses under the earthquake excitation. Zhang
and Huo [3] optimized the bridge isolator design characteristics based
on different performance objectives. They concluded that the me-
chanical properties of isolation devices can significantly affect the ex-
pected damage during earthquake events. In a more recent study, Ah-
madipour and Alam [4] conducted a sensitivity analysis on the
mechanical properties of LRBs, including the number of rubber layers,
lead core diameter, and lead core material properties. It was found that
the lead core diameter and the number of rubber layers have the most
and the least contribution, respectively.
To obtain the most cost-effective design solution for critical infra-
structure, the life-cycle cost of different scenarios should be evaluated
by taking into account the financial risks as well as the risk of non-
performance and serious damage or failure (risk-informed decisions)
[5]. Sato et al. [6] proposed a framework to prioritize bridges that re-
quire seismic retrofitting with different levels of service and importance
based on cost-of-life cycles. Cho et al. [7] also compared the life-cycle
costs of different retrofitting methods for bridges, including the use of

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: asadi@cc.iut.ac.ir (P. Asadi), davoodnikfar@gmail.com (D. Nikfar), i.hajirasouliha@sheffield.ac.uk (I. Hajirasouliha).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.05.056
Received 5 December 2019; Received in revised form 27 May 2020; Accepted 27 May 2020
2352-0124/ © 2020 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Asadi, et al.
elastomeric isolators. In another study, Alipour et al. [8] concluded that
life-cycle cost estimation can provide valuable information for opti-
mizing the inspection and maintenance intervals for corroded bridges.
By evaluated the life-cycle cost of old bridges under traffic and seismic
hazards, Deco and Frangopol [9] demonstrated that aging increases
seismic hazards and life-cycle costs of bridges. Safi et al. [10] developed
a novel life-cycle cost analysis technique, which could be integrated
with public agency established procurement procedures and maintain
contractors’ freedom during the design and construction process.
Frangopol et al. [11] developed a generalized framework for assessing
the life-cycle performance and cost of bridges, with an emphasis on
analysis, prediction, optimization, and decision-making under un-
certainty. In another study, Cataldo et al. (2016) proved that increasing
the curvature radius of friction pendulum isolators for RC structures can
significantly reduce the expected life-cycle damage costs, while the
initial structural cost is almost the same. In a follow-up study, Castaldo
et al. [2] produced linear regression functions for the preliminary de-
sign of the optimal friction pendulum systems for bridges to reduce
their vulnerability under seismic excitations. The results confirmed that
lead-rubber Isolators (LRBs) can effectively reduce the damages in a
bridge system during an earthquake event.
The above-mentioned studies, in general suggested that the initial
costs and expected damage costs (e.g. due to an earthquake event) over
the operational life of the bridges can be concurrently significant. It is
especially important since in the seismic design of typical bridges, the
life-cycle costs are not generally considered. While previous studies
showed that lead-rubber Isolators (LRBs) can effectively reduce the
damages in a bridge system during an earthquake event, currently there
is no study available to assess the influence of LRB characteristics on the
total life-cycle cost (TLCC) of the bridges.
This study aims to bridge the above mentioned knowledge gap by
conducting a comprehensive analytical study to assess the effects of
LRBs key design parameters on the total life-cycle costs using different
combinations of sub-structure and isolators. The life-cycle cost analysis
includes the initial costs of LRB isolators and structural elements, traffic
damage costs, and structural and non-structural damage costs due to
possible earthquake events during the bridge life-span. Subsequently,
for the first time, an optimum design flowchart is proposed to obtain
the best design solutions for lead-rubber Isolators (LRBs) to minimize
both the initial structural cost and the life cycle cost as optimisation
objective functions. It is shown that a more efficient design of isolators
can lead to a significant reduction in the TLCC of bridges.
2. Optimum design bridges equipped with LRB isolators
Fig. 1 displays the general flowcharts of the optimum design
methodology and life-cycle cost analysis of the bridges in this study.
The design methodology aims to find optimum designs of sub-structure
system and LRB isolators that can satisfy all design code regulations by
suing minimum initial costs. The acceptable design solutions corre-
sponding to different combinations of sub-structure and isolators are
used for sensitivity analyses.
2.1. Design objective functions
Three objective functions are defined as follows:
I) Objective:
Minimize: G1 = Initialcolumnscost + InitialLRBscost (1)
Owners tend to minimize initial costs. In this case, it is assumed that
the initial costs of the columns (the main structural element changed in
different bridge designs) and the LRBs are minimized.
II) Objective:
Minimize: G2
= InitialcolumnandLRBcosts + StructuralandLRBdamagecosts (2)
384
Structures 27 (2020) 383–395
In many of the previous studies, only the structural damage costs
were taken into account. Thus, the designed bridges are desirable for
both the owners and consumers, while the initial structural costs and
structural damage costs are merely considered.
III) Objective:
Minimize: G3
= TotalLifecycleCosts(Initialcolumn, LRBs, andallthedamagecosts)
(3)
In the third objective, all damage costs in the event of an earthquake
including the structural, non-structural, LRBs, and traffic damage costs
are considered. In this way, the optimum design solutions based on this
objective function are both desirable for the owners and the consumers
in terms of all damage costs.
To find the best solution, a comprehensive parametric analysis was
conducted. By identifying the bridge designs which satisfy all the design
criteria with the demand to capacity ratio close to 1.0, the best design
solutions were obtained to minimise the three different objective
functions. The details of the adopted design process are explained in the
following sections.
2.2. Life-cycle cost analysis
The life-cycle cost of a structure is an important parameter for
owners and consumers, which can be calculated from Eqs. (4) to (6)
[12]:
(1 − e−λt )
N
E [CLC (t )] = C0 +
λ
∑ Ci Pi
i=1 (4)
where C0 shows the initial cost of construction; t represents structural
operating life; λ shows the annual monetary discount rate; N is the total
number of damage limits; Pi denotes the probability of occurrence of the
ith damage limit, and Ci reflects the limit states dependent cost. The
value of Pi is obtained from Eq. (5).
Pi = P(ΔD > ΔC,i) − P(ΔD > Δc,i + 1) (5)
where ΔD and ΔC , i are the seismic demand displacement and displace-
ment capacity of the ith damage limit, respectively. The probability of
exceeding from the displacement capacity is estimated from Eq. (6).
∞ dv(IM)
P(ΔD > ΔC,i) = ∫0 P(ΔD > ΔC,i |IM = im)
d(IM)
dM
(6)
where ν (IM ) is the seismic hazard curve and IM is the Peak Ground
Acceleration (PGA) used in this study. Exceedance probability function
of displacement capacity is a cumulative probability distribution func-
tion with a log-normal distribution. Wen and Kang [13] suggested the
following equation to calculate the total life-cycle cost.
CTot (t, s) = CIN (s) + CLS (t, s) (7)
where s is the design vector and CLS is the limit states dependent cost.
CLS includes structural damage costs (Cs ), non-structural damage costs
(Cns ), isolator damage costs (Ciso ), and the traffic damage costs (Ct ).
Thus, the total life-cycle cost can be represented using Eq. (8):
CTot (t, s) = CIN (s) + Cs (t, s) + Cns (t, s) + Ciso (t, s) + Ct (t, s) (8)
The occurrence probability of any earthquake intensity and the
occurrence probability of each limit state can be different for every
seismic region and structural model, respectively. The value of these
probabilities, as indicated in Eqs. (4) to (6), can significantly affect the
limit states dependent cost. Increasing the seismicity of the region and/
or the seismic demands can also increase the life-cycle expected damage
costs.
P. Asadi, et al.
Fig. 1. The General flowcharts of the a) optimum design and b) life-cycle cost analysis of the bridges equipped with LRB bearings.
3. Nonlinear analysis of the isolated bridges
Due to the nonlinear behavior of the isolators, the analysis method
for the bridge system should be a time history dynamic analysis or one
of the equivalent elastic methods. Among the equivalent linear
methods, the Uniform Load (UL) and Multi-Modal Spectral (MMS)
methods are used for most practical applications. The time history
dynamic method is generally employed only for complex structures or
when the demanded damping ratio is beyond 30% [14].
3.1. Equivalent elastic method
Both UL and MMS methods require an iterative procedure to obtain
the final design solution. Given that many characteristic parameters of
the bridges (such as damping ratio, effective period Teff , and effective
stiffness K eff ) are directly related to the displacement demand of the
bridge, they do not have a specific value at the beginning of the ana-
lysis. To address this issue, it is necessary to assume an initial value for
the characteristic parameters [15]. It should be noted that while the
results of the MMS method are more consistent with actual values, this
type of analysis is more time-consuming compared to the UL method.
Therefore, in the proposed algorithm, the preliminary design of the
bridge system is based on the UL method, and the MMS method is
385
Structures 27 (2020) 383–395
utilized to check and finalize the design solution.
In the MMS method, two corrections are required. The first one is
used to obtain the equivalent linear specification as Eqs. (9), while the
second one captures the damping effect of isolators due to nonlinear
deformations in the isolators [14]. Based on Eq. (9), the effective
stiffness of the LRB is obtained using an iterative method.
F Q
⎧ Dd = K d + Ddd , Dd > Dy
K eff =
⎨ Ku, Dd ≤ Dy
⎩
Qd
Dy = Ku − K d (9)
where Qd is characteristic strength of the isolators, and F is the total
lateral forces in the isolator. Ku, Keff, and Kd represent elastic, effective,
and post-elastic stiffness of the isolator, respectively. Also, Dd and Dy
are relative displacement and yield displacement of the isolator, re-
spectively. The value of the damping coefficient for modes with the
time period longer than 0.8 s was calculated by the isolated bridge
damping coefficient. For the lower time periods, the damping coeffi-
cient of 5% was assumed. The damping ratio (βe ) of the isolated bridge
is then calculated from Eq. (10) [14].
P. Asadi, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 383–395

Fig. 1. (continued)

n
∑i = 1 EDCi
βe = n ≥ 5%
2π ∑i = 1 K eff Dd (10)

where i is the i-th vibration mode, n represents the number of modes,

and energy dissipation capacity (EDC) is derived from Eq. (11).

0, |Dd < Dy
EDC = ⎧
⎨
⎩ 4Q d (Dd − D y ), |Dd ≥ Dy (11)

Based on AASHTO [14], the number of the modes required for

analysis is equal to 12 + 6×(ns-2), where ns in the number of bridge
spans. As an example, Fig. 2 presents the spectral acceleration for the
isolated bridges under San Fernando 1971 earthquake.
The relative displacement of the isolator, Dd, can be expressed as Eq. Fig. 2. Spectral acceleration for the isolated bridges (ground motion: San
(12): Fernando 1971).
u1 (orv1) = ul (orvl) + 0.3ut (orvt)
u2 (orv2) = 0.3ul (orvl) + ut (orvt) respectively. It should be noted that when the bridge is a regular
R1(orR2) = u12 (oru22) + v 12 (orv 22) structure vl and ut values are zero.

Dd = max(R1, R2) (12)

where ul and ut are the maximum relative displacement of the isolators
in the longitudinal bridge direction under the longitudinal and trans-
verse earthquake excitations, respectively; and vt and vl represent the
relative displacement of the isolators in the transverse bridge direction
under the longitudinal and transverse earthquake excitation,
3.2. Design of LRB isolators
The general form of the LRB isolators is illustrated Fig. 3. In this
figure, dl is the diameter of the lead core, db denotes the diameter of the
steel reinforcement plates, d shows the total diameter of the isolator,
and h represents the isolator height.

386
P. Asadi, et al.
Fig. 3. The general form of LRB isolators with a circular cross-section.
The required thickness of the steel plates can be calculated by Eq.
(13):
2(ti + ti ) × P
ts =
Ar × f y
where P is the total live and dead loads applied on the isolator, fy re-
presents the steel yield stress, ti shows the thickness of a rubber layer,
and Ar denotes the area of overlap between the upper and lower parts of
the deformed isolator. The cyclic behavior of the isolators under lateral
loads such as earthquake excitations is depicted in Fig. 4.
The seismic isolators require sufficient resistance to vertical service
loads, proper energy loss capacity to limit the relative displacement
between the sub-structure and the super-structure, and flexibility to
reduce the sub-structure’s seismic demand forces by prolonging the
bridge's fundamental period. Also, LRB isolators should have stability
against vertical forces in the absence of buckling with a proper margin
of confidence, and adequate capacity against the strains developed
under lateral loads [16].
Experimental tests conducted on LRB isolators indicated that the
characteristic strength of each isolator (Qd) might vary on average by
20–25% over time [14]. The lower bound strength (QL) is equivalent to
the characteristic resistance of the target design, while the upper bound
strength (Qu) is equivalent to 1.25 times the QL. In this study, the
characteristic strength values (QL and Qu) and the elastic stiffness of the
isolators are obtained by using probable correction coefficients to take
into account the effects of temperature, aging, loading velocity, dete-
rioration, contamination, and scaling as suggested by AASHTO [14].
The isolators were assumed to have different Qd and Kd values to
evaluate the effect of the isolator properties on the life-cycle costs of
bridges. Subsequently, the relative design displacement, damping
coefficient, and the effective period of the bridges were calculated for
each case. The design displacement was estimated by using an iterative
Fig. 4. The elasto-plastic behavior of the LRB isolators.
Structures 27 (2020) 383–395
method according to the Eqs. (12). In each iteration, the effective
stiffness and equivalent damping ratio were determined by using Eqs.
(9) and (10) in the equivalent elastic method.
3.3. Super-structure and sub-structure design
The super-structure of the bridge system is generally designed based
on dead and live loads. Therefore, changes in the isolator characteristics
do not affect the design of the super-structure. The design of the sub-
structures, however, is based on the results of MMS analysis, taking into
account the upper bound strength of LRBs [16]. To calculate the op-
timal cross-section of the columns (prioritizing the cross-section re-
lative to the reinforcements), first a hypothetical cross-section is as-
sumed for each column. Then, based on the results of the MMS analysis,
the forces imposed on the sub-structure are calculated. The redesign of
the column continues to reach convergence for achieving design de-
mand to capacity ratios close to 1.
4. Vulnerability seismic assessment of the isolated bridges
(13)
4.1. Damage state for the bridge
For life-cycle cost analysis, it is necessary to calculate the damages
of the bridge subjected to different earthquake hazard levels. Given that
the elements of a bridge operate like a serial system acting in-
dependently when an element is damaged, the entire system will be
destroyed. Therefore, the overall structural damage index (DSsystem ) is
determined based on the maximum damage index of the base and
isolator elements [3]:
DSsystem = max(DSPier , DSBearing) (14)
where DSpier is the damage index for the piers, and DSBearing is the
damage index of the isolators. Nielson and Desroches [17] presented
the upper and lower bounds of the failure probability of the system for a
serial system as Eq. (15):
n
max ni = 1 [P(Fi)] ≤ P(Fsystm) ≤ 1 − ∏ [1 − P(Fi)]
i=1 (15)
where P(Fi) and P(Fsystem) are the failure probability of the i compo- th
nent and the system, respectively. If the entire system is dependent, the
failure probability of the system tends to the lower bound level, while
for independent systems the failure probability is equal to the upper
bound level. In reality, the failure probability of a real bridge system
lies within these two boundaries, and the exact position depends on the
correlation of the component response [3].
If a bridge is assumed to be a parallel system, the DSsystem is the
minimum damage level in the components according to Eq. (16) [3]:
DSSystem = min(DSPier , DSBearing ) (16)
The failure probability of a parallel system is calculated from the
interaction of the failure probability of its components, with the upper
and lower bounds calculated using Eq. (17):
n
∏ P(Fi) ≤ P(Fsystem) ≤ min[P(Fi)]
i=1 (17)
The lower bound corresponds to the independent components,
while the upper bound provides perfect results for the correlated
components. The performance of a bridge is strongly influenced by the
failure of the isolators as well as the damage in the columns. Due to the
great importance of columns and their high damage cost, in this study
the effective weights of the columns and the isolators are considered to
be 0.75 and 0.25, respectively. Also, when isolators are deformed be-
yond their capacity or when columns are completely failed, the bridge
is assumed to collapse. The combined damage state for the bridges is
presented as Eq. (18) [3]:
387
P. Asadi, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 383–395

int (0.75DSPier + 0.25DSBearing), DSPier andDSBearing < 4 θp = (φ3 − φy ) Lp

DSsystem = ⎧
⎨ 4, DSPier or DSBearing = 4 Lp = 0.08L + 0.022f ye db1 ≥ 0.044f ye db1 (23)
⎩
(18) where f ye and db1 denote the yield strength and the diameter of the
The estimated isolator damage (DSBearing) in this section is only used longitudinal column reinforcements respectively. The fourth damage
to calculate the overall damage of the structural system, while Section state limit ( μc4 ) is determined as Eq. (24) [20]:
4.3 describes the estimation of the isolator damage state. It should be μc 4 = μc3 + 3 (24)
noted that the bridge systems in this study are assumed to have low to
medium height column height, and therefore, the replacement of the
isolator devices is not considered to be a very difficult task. 4.3. Damage state for the LRBs

4.2. Damage state for the structural system
In this study, according to the Eqs. (19) to (24), the structural da-
mages are estimated based on the displacements calculated using the
Response Spectrum method. It should be noted that, since LRB isolators
may exhibit a nonlinear behaviour under strong earthquake events, the
internal forces obtained from the response spectrum method using the
equivalent elastic shear stiffness of the isolators cannot be directly used
to assess the structural damages.
The damage state for the structural system of bridges has been
classified in five different levels by HAZUS [18], as presented in
Table 1.
In Table 1, the demand ductility at the ith seismic hazard level ( μci )
is calculated in accordance with Eq. (19) [19]:
Δi
μci =
Δy1 (19)
The shear stress is used for the isolator damage state, while the
shear strain criteria are utilized for the isolator damage in the Eq. (17).
The shear strain damage state, which consists of five damage limits, is
applied in Eq. (17). The shear strain (γ) can be calculated by the fol-
lowing equation:
D
γ=
Tr (25)
where D is the isolator relative displacement and Tr is the total thick-
ness of the rubber layers. The damage state limits for the shear strain
are presented in Table 1. D is calculated based on both upper and lower
bounds of the isolator characteristics.
When the rubber of a LRB isolator is ruptured in the event of a
severe earthquake, the isolator is practically destroyed and cannot be
repaired. Therefore, the following two damage states are defined in this
study when LRBs are evaluated alone: (i) non-damaged, and (ii) de-
stroyed isolator.

where Δi and Δy1 represent the relative displacements of the damaged
column and the column whose longitudinal top reinforcements reached
the first yield, respectively. When the piers are expected to deform in
double curvature, Δy1 is obtained by using Eq. (20) [20]:
2
Δy1 = ∅y1 L2
3 (20)
4.4. Damage state for the non-structural components
For evaluating the damage state of non-structural components, the
maximum acceleration of the deck (adeck) at mid span is utilized. This
damage state is then described by seven damage limits according to
Table 2 [18].

where L is the length from the plastic hinge to the point of contra- 5. Life cycle damage costs
flexure, which is assumed to be half of the column height [20] and φy1 is
the curvature corresponding to the relative displacement of the column, 5.1. Structural and non-structural damage cost
where the longitudinal top reinforcements reach the first yield. μc1
denotes the limit of the first damage state which is equal to one. The The structural and non-structural damage costs for each damage
second damage limit is the yield displacement ductility ( μc2 ) defined by state level are a factor of their initial cost. These factors for structural
Eq. (21): and non-structural components of the bridges are reported in Tables 3
and 4, respectively.
Δ2 2∅y L2
μc 2 = =
Δy1 3Δy1 (21) 5.2. LRB isolator damage cost

where ∅y is the curvature corresponding to the relative displacement of

When the LRB isolator is in the elastoplastic domain, its damage cost
the column, when all longitudinal reinforcement at the top of the
ratio is zero. However, when the LRB shear strain is beyond the rupture
column reach the yield point. μc3 denotes the ductility proportional to
limit, the isolator is considered to be destroyed and its damage cost
the εc = 0.004 , with εc being the maximum compressive strength of the
ratio is one.
column’s concrete. Δ3 is obtained based on Eq. (22):

Lp 5.3. Traffic damage cost

Δ3 = Δ2 + θp ⎛L − ⎜
⎞ ⎟

⎝ 2⎠ (22)
Bridges in the urban transportation network can reduce transpor-
where θp and Lp are the rotation and plastic joint length, respectively, tation costs such as travel time and distance, vehicle air emissions, and
which are obtained according to Eq. (23). incidence of accidents. When the bridge performance is halted,

Table 1
Damage state levels for the structural system of the bridges [18].
Damage Level DS = 0 DS = 1 DS = 2 DS = 3 DS = 4

Damage State Non Minor Medium Major Collapse

Sub-Structure μci ≤ μc1 μc1 < μci ≤ μc2 μc2 < μci ≤ μc3 μc3 < μci ≤ μc 4 μc 4 < μci
LRB γ ≤ 100% 100% < γ ≤ 150% 150% < γ ≤ 200% 200% < γ ≤ 250% 250% < γ

388
P. Asadi, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 383–395

Table 2
Damage state levels for the non-structural components of the bridges [18].
Damage Level DS = 0 DS = 1 DS = 2 DS = 3 DS = 4 DS = 5 DS = 6

Damage State Non. Slight Minor Moderate Severe Major Collapse

adeck (g) ≤ 0.05 0.05 < ≤ 0.1 0.1 < ≤ 0.2 0.2 < ≤ 0.8 0.8 < ≤ 0.98 0.98 < ≤ 1.25 1.25<

Table 3
Structural loss percentage for each damage state [21].
DS = 4 DS = 3 DS = 2 DS = 1 DS = 0 Damage Level
Collapse Major Moderate Minor Non. Damage State
100 (n < 3 ) 25 8 3 0 Loss (%)
200/n (n ≥ 3 )
additional costs develop for users which are directly linked to traffic
volumes and traffic conditions. Also, annual overhead costs are imposed
for a destroyed bridge, due to its absence in the transportation network.
The difference in annual traffic costs in the two modes (existence or
absence of the bridge) is equal to the annual traffic damage cost of a
collapsed bridge. Thus, the magnitude of downtime when an earth-
quake occurs is multiplied by the traffic damage cost of a collapsed
bridge, whereby the traffic damage cost is estimated [23–24].
Kaini and Zongzhi [25] suggested that the cost of highway bridges
can be broken down into the vehicle operating cost, travel time cost, the
vehicle accident cost, and the vehicle air emissions cost. To calculate
these costs in a particular project, the annual cost of vehicle operation,
travel time delay, vehicle accident, and air emissions are calculated
separately based on the vehicle’s miles of travel (VMT) and vehicle
hours of travel (VHT) in the first year. Then, each user's cost is quan-
tified into a financial value and eventually aggregated to reach the total
annual user cost.
The time delay cost (TDC), which is related to increased travel time,
is associated with a decline or increase in congestion or a rise in the
route path as Eq. (26) [26]:
TE
1 field studies should be conducted to estimate parameters such as
TDC = ∑ T × ADTt × Nt × (rTwT + (1 − rT)wp) (1 + r)t
t=0
where T(hr) is the time delay equal to Twz − T0 ; ADTt (vehicle/day)
represents the average daily traffic at time t; N shows the number of
working days at time t; rT denotes the truck percentage from the total
daily vehicles; wT is the hourly time value of each truck; wp reflects the
hourly time value for one passenger care; Twz (hr) represents the time
taken to deviate from the route equal to L/vwz ; T0 (hr) is the time for
crossing the bridge in normal flow conditions equal to L/v0 ; L(km) is the
bridge length; v0(km/hr.) denotes the normal traffic flow rate; vwz(km/
hr.) shows the work zone speed; r refers to the annual monetary dis-
count rate; and TE is the bridge expected life span.
The vehicle operating cost (VOC) is related to an increase in the
VOC due to traffic congestion as Eq. (27) [26]:
TE
1
VOC = ∑ T × ADTt × Nt × (rTOT + (1 − rT)Op) (1 + r)t
t=0
where OT is the average hourly operating cost for one truck and Op is
the average hourly operating cost for one passenger care. Similar re-
lations are provided by Eamon et al. [27] for TDC and VOC.
The accident cost (AC) is related to the cost of increased accident
hazard, medical care, and mortality due to intensified congestion as Eq.
(28) [26]:
TE
1
AC = ∑ ADTt × Nt × (Cn − Ca) × [(CF × PF) + (CI × PI)] (1 + r)t
t=0
(28)
where Cn and Ca (accident/ vehicle/ unit bridge length/ day) are the
accident rates under normal traffic conditions and in the bridge blocked
at the time of the accident, respectively. Also, CF is the death average
cost caused by accident for the society; CI shows the injury average cost
resulting from the accidents for the society; and PF and PI are the
average numbers of people killed and injured in any bridge accidents,
respectively. To estimate the accident rate, the following general
equation can be used:
Npredict = (Nspf × (AMF1x × AMF2x ×⋯×AMFyx) + Npedx + Nbikex) × C x
(29)
where Npredict is the average predicted accident frequency for a specific
year in a specified location x; Nspf shows the predicted average accident
frequency for the base conditions in terms of the safety performance
function in the site type x; andNpedx and Nbikex represent the average
vehicle–pedestrian and vehicle-bike accidents predicted for one year in
the specified site x, respectively. Also, AMFyx is the accident correction
coefficient for the site type x and the characteristics of the geometric
design and traffic control conditions of the site type y. Finally, C x refers
to the modification calibration coefficient of the safety performance
function for the site type x.
It should be mentioned that to calculate the above mentioned costs,
greenhouse gas emission costs and the travel time-volume functions,
(26)
which include the total travel time of each arc and the delay time.
6. Numerical Modeling
6.1. Structural modeling
As a case study example, a comprehensive numerical study is con-
ducted on an important urban area in Isfahan (one of the largest cities
in Iran). Although the cost estimates are based on field studies, given
the supply–demand system governing the cost functions, it is possible to
generalize the results. All the design criteria are based on AASHTO
[14]. The short spectral response acceleration (Ss) and the spectral re-
sponse acceleration (S1) during 1‐s period were assumed 1.13 g and
0.56 g, respectively. Soil classification was assumed type C. Besides, 20
natural ground motions were selected from Chopra and Chintana-
(27)
pakdee [28] in accordance with the seismicity of the site, and scaled
according to ASCE-7 [29]. The characteristics of the selected natural
earthquake records are listed in Table 5. The exceedance probability of
each damage limit was calculated by MMS analysis using the response
spectrum of the selected ground motions.

Table 4
Non-Structural loss percentage for each damage state [22].
DS = 6 DS = 5 DS = 4 DS = 3 DS = 2 DS = 1 DS = 0 Damage Level

Collapse Major Severe Moderate Minor Slight Non. Damage State

100 80 45 20 5 0.05 0 Loss (%)

389
P. Asadi, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 383–395

Table 5
The selected natural ground motions [28]
Earthquake Name Location Year Magnitude PGA (g) Vs(m/s)

Northridge Littlerock, Brainard Canyon 1994 6.7 0.071 486

Northridge Castaic Old Ridge Route 1994 6.7 0.56 450
Northridge Lake Hughes #1 1994 6.7 0.09 425
Northridge Rancho Paolos Verdes, Hawth 1994 6.7 0.071 580
Imperial Valley Parachute Test site 1979 6.5 0.2 350
San Fernando Lake Hughes, #12 1971 6.6 0.35 602
San Fernando Pasadena, CIT Kresge 1971 6.6 0.1 415
San Fernando Castaic Old Ridge Route 1971 6.6 0.31 450
Loma Prieta Gilroy, Gavilon college 1989 6.9 0.35 730
Loma Prieta Gilroy #6, San Ysidro 1989 6.9 0.167 663
Loma Prieta Saratoga, Aloha Ave. 1989 6.9 0.50 381
Loma Prieta Santa Cruz, UCSC 1989 6.9 0.11 713
Loma Prieta San Francisco, Dimond Heighs 1989 6.9 0.1 583
Morgan Hill Gilroy#6, San Ysidro 1984 6.2 0.22 663
Morgan Hill Gilroy, Gavilon College 1984 6.2 0.097 730
Kern County Santa Barbara, Courthouse 1952 7.4 0.052 515
Kern County Pasadena, CIT Athenaeum 1952 7.4 0.13 415
N. Palm Springs Fun Valley 1986 6.0 0.13 389
Whittier Narrows Cataic, Old Ridge Route 1987 6.0 0.067 450
Whittier Narrows Riverside. Airport 1987 6.0 0.057 390

Fig. 5. Three-dimensional shape of the bridge and cross-section of the main girders.

The analytical study was performed on a bridge with three spans
with a length of 47 m, width of 12.8 m, and 8 concrete girders. The slab
thickness of the deck was 250 mm, the height of the bridge was the
same at all points and equal to 5.88 m, and the bridge was assumed
without any arch or curvature in the plan or altitude. The transverse
distance of the columns was 3.5 m connected by a capital beam with
12.8 m length and 1.2m × 1.5m dimensions. The ultimate compressive
strength of concrete and yield reinforcement resistance were 35 MPa
and 400 MPa, respectively. The girder sections were based on the
standard sections defined in AASHTO (No.6) [14]. The general geo-
metric shape of the bridge and the selected section are presented in
Fig. 5.
The dead loads of the bridge included the fences linear load, as well
as pavements and asphalt weights, while the live load included the
equivalent load of AASHTO LRFD standard trucks (HL-93) in two lines
[14].
In this study, CSIBridg software [30] is used for the design and
multi-modal spectral analyses of the bridge systems. The relative dis-
placements of each isolator for both longitudinal and transverse di-
rections of the bridge were extracted from the analysis results. Load
combinations were based on AASHTO [14]), with 80 predefined sec-
tions utilized to design the columns.
Modeling of the columns, decks, and girders are characterized based
on the widely accepted three-dimensional beam-column formulation, as
suggested by Bathe and Wilson [33]. The 3D interaction surfaces be-
tween the axial force (P) and the bending moments (M2-M3) of the
predefined sections of the columns as well as the interaction surface of
the bending moments of the sections of the girders were extracted from
the CSIColumn software [31]. Also, the deck was assumed to act as a
TRA = {30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110, 120, 130, 140} mm
rigid diaphragm in its own plain (two degrees of freedom in the x and y
directions and one degree of freedom around the vertical axis). The
entire process of analysis and designs was performed by MATLAB [32].
The cyclic non-linear behaviour of LRB isolators is modelled by using
the Rubber Isolator Link element (which is similar to that in SAP2000
library [34]), while the stiffness of the LRB isolators is regarded in
longitudinal, transverse, and vertical directions. The accuracy of this
adopted model has been validated by Scheller and Constantinou [35]
against experimental test results.
6.2. LRB isolator properties
The following design assumptions are made for LRB isolators:
rubber bulk modulus (K) of 2000 MPa; rubber shear modulus (Gr) of
620 kPa; lead tensile stress (fyl) of 11.4 MPa; lead core contribution
coefficient in the hardness (f) of 1.1; compressive stress (f’c) of 11 MPa;
steel tensile strength of 240 MPa; isolator cover thickness of 5 mm; and
thickness of rubber layer (ti) of 6 mm.
Changing the LRBs characteristics directly affects the initial LRBs
costs. These characteristics included the lead core diameter (DLA), the
confined diameter (DCA), and the total thickness of the rubber layers
(TRA) for the side abutment isolators as well as the lead core diameter
(DLP), the confined diameter (DCP), and the total thickness of the
rubber layers of the column isolators (TRP) for the column isolators.
Accordingly, the state space for the LRB characteristics to assess the
effect of the initial LRBs costs on the total life-cycle cost of the designed
bridges is presented as Eqs. (30). The combination of these character-
istics provided 13,104 possible bridge models in total.
(30a)

390
P. Asadi, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 383–395

Table 6 reflects saturation flow rate for 1 m width of the approach; W refers to
Social costs of greenhouse gas emissions ($/ton) [41] the approach width (meter); and Q (=W*S*G/C) is approach capacity.
NOx SO2 PM10 CO It should be noted that Q, a, b, and e are the model parameters, derived
from the field study.
995 3025 7130 2487 To calculate the greenhouse emission costs caused by the traffic of
vehicles in Iran, Eqs. (33) was generated [39].

DLP = {70, 80, 90, 100, 110, 120} mm (30b) 95.91

COmotorcycle = 75.75 − 1.61v + 0.0095v 2 +
v (33a)
DCP = {240, 290, 340, 390, 440, 490, 540} mm (30c)

TRP = {30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110, 120, 130, 140, 150} mm 160.12
COcar,taxi,vanet = 127.64 − 2.68v + 0.016v 2 +
(30d) v (33b)

Also, there are two types of confined diameter of the abutment

42.57
(DCA = 240, 290). HCcar , taxi, vanet = 6.0/0.1v + 0.00056v 2 +
v (33c)

6.3. Initial costs

42.57
HCcar , taxi, vanet = 6.0/0.1v + 0.00056v 2 +
v (33d)
The initial structural and non-structural estimated costs, based on
the Iranian building price list [36], are 100,000$ and 28,000$, re-
1.92
spectively. In the life-cycle cost analysis, it is assumed that the mone- NOxcar,taxi,vanet = 0.7 +
1 + 93.54e − 0.049v (33e)
tary discount rate is 10% [37], the bridge life span is 100 years [14],
and 2 years are required for downtime bridge renovation [36].
21.13
NOxbus,truck = 19.63 − 0.32v + 0.0037v 2 +
v (33f)
6.4. Annual traffic cost

To calculate the annual traffic costs, travel time-volume, delay time,

NOxminibus = 0.64 × NOxbus (33g)
greenhouse emission cost, fuel consumption cost, and social cost func-
where v (km/hr) is the velocity. To calculate the fuel consumption, Eq.
tions are considered. One of the major relations for the travel time-
(34) is used [40]:
volume function employed for each arc length, which is valid for this
site, is Eq. (31) [37]: Q m = 16.57 × Pm × V−1 × exp(0.01957V) (34)
V
t(V) = t 0 [1 + 0.15 ⎛ ⎞ ]
⎜ ⎟ where Qm (litre/100 km) is fuel consumption, and Pm (litre) is the
⎝Q⎠ (31) average fuel consumption at 30 km/h velocity, which is dependent on
where t(V) (minutes) is the average travel time to traverse a kilometer; the vehicle type.
t0 is the average free travel time (minutes) to traverse a kilometer; V Table 6 lists the estimated social costs of using energy fossil carriers
represents the traffic flow volume (number of vehicles per hour for one in Iran [41].
meter wide pass); and Q denotes the practical capacity (number of To calculate the global warming cost, $35 per tons for CO2 emission
vehicles per hour for one meter wide pass). In order to estimate the is assumed given the usual cost of carbon taxes. Noise emission cost is
delay time, Eq. (32) has been utilized [38]: also calculated based on the traffic of different vehicle types in ac-
cordance with Khashaeipour [42]. Based on the above mentioned re-
b
(C − G)2 V lations, the annual traffic costs for the two scenarios (i.e. the current
D= + a⎛ ⎞ + e
⎜ ⎟
V
2C ⎡1 − W × S⎤
⎝Q⎠ (32)
condition and the complete collapsed condition) were extracted from a
⎣ ⎦ field study of the main direction of “Shahid-Chamran” bridge (a
where D denotes average approach delay (second/Passenger Car (PC)); highway bridge in Isfahan), as listed in Table 7 [43]. The difference in
C is cycle length (second); G shows green time (second); V is the total the cost of the two scenarios represents the maximum annual traffic
traffic volume on the approach (PC/hour); S (=600 PC/hour green) damage cost.

Table 7
Net present value of annual traffic cost of Isfahan transportation network in the presence and absence of “Shahid-Chamran” bridge (106 USD) [43]
In the presence of “Shahid-Chamran” bridge

Fuel Performance Travel time Facility Service Accident Pollution Total

Private Car 189.2 622.4 226.6 21.4 2.10 25.8 157.7 4029.8
Taxi 45.7 123.7 59.5 5.20 1.50 1.25 43.3
Minibus 26.5 57.7 48.5 1.20 0.10 10.3 31.9
Motorcycle 26.8 40.7 53.1 6.10 0.55 1.05 146.5
Bus 30.4 132.8 161.4 12.0 0 1.80 27.4
Truck 112.8 1145.9 10.1 59.2 0.55 205.2 153.9
Total 431.4 2123.2 559.2 105.1 4.8 245.4 560.7
In the absence of “Shahid-Chamran” bridge
Private Car 188.7 620.7 231.3 21.4 2.10 25.8 157.7 4042.8
Taxi 45.7 123.7 60.4 5.20 1.50 1.25 43.3
Minibus 26.5 57.7 49.0 1.20 0.10 10.3 31.9
Motorcycle 26.8 40.7 54.0 6.10 0.55 1.05 146.5
Bus 30.4 132.8 163.7 12.0 0 4.30 27.4
Truck 113.0 1148.2 10.1 59.3 0.55 205.7 154.2
Total 431.1 2123.8 568.5 105.2 4.8 248.4 561.0

391
P. Asadi, et al.
Fig. 6. Total life-cycle cost in terms of the a) TRP and DLP, b) TRA and DCP
with DCA = 240 mm.
7. Results and discussion
7.1. Sensitivity analysis
To reduce the number of analyses, each structural model was in-
itially evaluated by the UL analysis. If all the design criteria were sa-
tisfied, the final assessment of the bridges was then performed by the
MMS analysis based on the maximum and minimum isolator properties.
From all the 13,104 possible models, after the initial evaluation, 252
models with 240 mm DCA and 903 models with 290 mm DCA could
satisfy all the design criteria with a demand to capacity ratio close to
1.0. The life cycle cost analysis was conducted only for the models with
acceptable designs. The minimum and maximum sub-structure initial
costs of these bridges were equal to 170,042$ and 174,042$, respec-
tively. Life-cycle cost analysis of these bridges suggested that the
structure with the minimum initial cost has the maximum damping
ratio. The assessment of the effect of the LRBs’s properties on the total
life-cycle cost of the bridges is presented in Figs. 6 and 7. In these
figures, the trend-lines using the polynomial function of order 6 are also
fitted to the results to show the general trend of changes.
Fig. 7 demonstrates that an increase in DLP and TRP can sig-
nificantly reduce the total bridge life-cycle cost, where the effect of DLP
is greater than that of the TRP. Changes in TRP and TRA also affect the
total life-cycle cost, but DCP has the least impact. It can be noted that
the effect of TRP is generally greater than TRA. The results also suggest
that increasing TRP up to a certain limit leads to a reduction in the total
life-cycle cost. Beyond this limit, however, increasing TRP results in an
increase in the total life-cycle cost. This specific limit for TRP for
DCA = 240 mm and DC = 290 mm was equal to 40 mm and 60 mm,
respectively, while for TRA, it was not possible to express a specific
limit.
Based on the direct relationship between enhancing the LRBs’s
properties and cost, in general, the results indicate that increasing the
initial isolator cost up to a specific point (optimal point) will reduce the
total life-cycle cost of the bridge system. Beyond this point, increasing
392
Structures 27 (2020) 383–395
Fig. 7. Total life-cycle cost in terms of the a) TRP and DLP, b) TRA and DCP
with DCA = 290 mm.
the initial cost is not beneficial and can considerably increase the total
life-cycle cost. It is due to the increase in the initial and damage costs of
the isolators, while it has no significant impact on reducing the initial
sub-structural and damage costs.
When DCA is equal to 290 mm, the total life-cycle costs are lower
compared to when DCA is equal to 240 mm, since the larger confined
diameter provides the possibility of using a higher TRA without losing
stability. Overall, the results show that the use of higher DLP and higher
magnitudes of TRP and DCA is very effective in reducing the total life-
cycle costs.
Ahmadipour and Alam [4] demonstrated that the lead core radius
and the number of rubber layers have the greatest effect in enhancing
horizontal stiffness and energy dissipation capacity of isolators. The
increase in horizontal stiffness and energy dissipation capacity reduces
the damage under strong earthquake excitations. The results of this
study, confirm these findings. However, it should be noted that here the
effect of the initial cost of LRBs on the TLCC of the bridges is also taken
into account. Moreover, contrary to Ahmadipour and Alam [4] study
where only the positive effects of lead core radius and the number of
rubber layers were reported, the current study has shown that in-
creasing these effective parameters beyond a certain limit can con-
siderably increase in initial cost and suppress the reduction in the da-
mage costs.
7.2. Optimum design solutions
The LRB specifications and the minimum objectives in the three
cases of optimum design are outlined in Table 8.
Table 8 shows that when the target is to minimize the G2, a bridge
with a low initial cost and a minimum total life-cycle cost will be ob-
tained. It should be noted that, unlike conventional methods, in this
case all of the damage costs such as the non-structural and traffic da-
mage costs are included. Cataldo et al. (2016) demonstrated that
P. Asadi, et al.
Table 8
LRB specifications and the minimum objective values of optimum designed bridges.
Objective LRB specification
DLA DBA TRA DLP DBP TRP
G1 50 290 30 70 390 30
G2 50 240 30 120 440 30
G3 50 290 70 120 440 60
increasing the cost of the isolator device does not lead to a tangible
change in the initial structural cost, while it can be very effective in
reducing the expected life-cycle damage costs. In the current study,
similar results were achieved. It is shown that with only a 0.5% increase
in the initial cost of the bridges optimized based on G1, the total life-
cycle cost is reduced by around 28%. In a similar way, when the ob-
jective function is G3, with a 7.5% increase in the initial costs, the TLCC
is reduced by 38%.
Cataldo et al. (2016) demonstrated that increasing the cost of the
isolator device does not change the initial structural cost, but it can be
very effective in reducing the expected life-cycle damage costs. In the
current study, similar results were achieved.
The TLCC results in Figs. 6 and 7 also indicate that, by considering
the objective functions G2 and G3, the first increment is observed in the
value of DLP followed by a rise in TRP and TRA.
Fig. 8 illustrates the bar chart of the life-cycle costs of optimal de-
sign bridges. In this figure, the columns with the name “Max1”, “Max2”,
and “Max3” refer to the bridges with structural elements obtained
based on G3 objective function, but with the maximum DCP (540 mm),
TRP (150 mm), and both the DCP (540 mm) and TRP (150 mm), re-
spectively.
The cost evaluation of the “Max1”, “Max2”, and “Max3” bridges
suggests that increasing the LRB cost from the optimal point not only
had no significant impact on the initial columns cost and the damage
costs, but also increased the initial and damage costs to the LRBs. Fig. 8
shows that the structural and traffic damage costs decreased dramati-
cally when the LRBs initial cost slightly increased. Also, the comparison
between damage costs of the best developed bridges indicates that the
traffic damage cost exhibited the maximum reduction, while the initial
structural costs and non-structural damage costs did not have con-
siderable changes.
For further investigation of the results, Fig. 9 presents the demand
ductility, maximum shear strain of LRBs, and deck acceleration of the
above mentioned optimum bridges under the incremental PGAs. As
mentioned in Section 4, the demand ductility can be employed to es-
timate the structural damage state. The maximum shear strain of the
LRBs and deck acceleration can also be used to estimate the damage in
the LRBs and non-structural parts of the bridge, respectively. The in-
dicated damage levels in Fig. 9 (i.e. DS1, DS2, …) are calculated based
on the presented Eqs. (18) to (23) and damage limits in Tables 1 and 2.
Fig. 8. Life-cycle costs of the optimum designed bridges.
393
Structures 27 (2020) 383–395
LRBs cost (1000$) G1 (1000$) G2 (1000$) G3 (1000$)
ti
6 4.66 88.7 104.0 237.6
6 5.18 89.2 95.2 171.9
6 11.30 95.4 97.8 147.6
It can be seen that, in general, by increasing the PGA of the input
earthquake, the difference between the damage occurring at different
bridge components was increased. When damage costs other than
structural damage were regarded in the selection of the optimum design
(i.e. G2 and G3), the level of the damages observed in LRBs and non-
structural components were decreased significantly. This reduction was
more pronounced (up to 50%) in the isolator and non-structural da-
mage states (related to the shear strain and deck acceleration, respec-
tively). Also, it is shown that increasing the size of the LRBs in “Max1”,
“Max2”, and “Max3” cases reduced the damage states at high levels of
earthquake hazard, which due to their low occurrence probability, did
not have a notable effect on the expected damage costs.
8. Summary and conclusions
This study aimed to investigate the influence of Lead-Rubber
Bearing (LRB) isolators on the life-cycle cost of bridges by using dif-
ferent combinations of sub-structure and isolators leading to more cost-
effective design solutions under earthquake hazard. To achieve this,
over 13,000 RC bridges were modeled with different LRB isolators. The
obtained bridges with the demand to capacity ratios close to 1.0 were
then analyzed for different possible earthquake hazard levels. Based on
the estimated damage levels, structural, non-structural, isolator, and
traffic damage costs were calculated. Subsequently, by defining three
different design objectives, the optimal bridge designs were identified
for each case. Based on the results of this study, the following conclu-
sions can be drawn:
• In general, changing DLP, TRP, and DCA can considerably affect the
total life-cycle cost of the bridge system, while the effect of DLP is
greater than that of the others. Increasing the DLP is always ac-
companied by a reduction in the total life-cycle cost. While in-
creasing TRP up to a certain level can reduce the total life-cycle cost,
beyond that the total life-cycle cost is increased again. For TRA at
DCA = 240 mm, increasing TRP generally results in a reduction of
total life-cycle cost; however, for DCA = 290 mm, no clear trend is
observed.
• Increasing the initial cost of LRBs up to a certain limit can sig-
nificantly reduce the damage costs. Beyond that limit, however,
increasing the initial cost may suppress the reduction in the damage
costs and therefore increase the total life-cycle cost of the system.
• The results indicate that, when the objective is to minimize the total
life-cycle cost, with a slight increase in the initial LRBs cost, the life-
cycle damage costs can be significantly (by up to 38%) reduced. In
this case, the most important parameter in reducing the total da-
mage costs is shown to be the traffic damage cost. With a slight
increase in LRBs cost, the traffic damage cost was reduced by 88%.
• When only the structural damage cost was considered as the ob-
jective function, with a 0.5% increase in the initial structural cost,
the total life-cycle cost was reduced by 28%. However, when both
non-structural and traffic damage costs were included, with a 7.5%
increase in the initial structural cost, the total life-cycle cost was
reduced by 38%.
• Compared to the bridges designed to minimize the initial structural
cost, the bridges designed to minimize the total life-cycle cost ex-
hibited considerably less damage to non-structural and LRB
P. Asadi, et al.
Fig. 9. Damage states of the optimum designed bridges under incremental
PGAs based on a) demand ductility, b) maximum shear strain, and c) deck
acceleration.
components under earthquake excitations especially at higher PGA
levels.
•
The results of this study should prove useful for structural engineers
and practitioners to design more cost effective and seismic resilient
bridge systems by optimizing the design of bridge LRBs, based on
life cycle cost, rather than using design solutions with minimum
LRBs initial costs. It is shown that such solutions generally lead to
larger lead core diameters (DLP).
394
Structures 27 (2020) 383–395
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Hameed A, Koo MS, Dai Do T, Jeong JH. Effect of lead rubber bearing character-
istics on the response of seismic-isolated bridges. KSCE J Civ Eng
2008;12(3):187–96.
[2] Naeim F, Kelly JM. Design of seismic isolated structures: from theory to practice.
John Wiley & Sons; 1999.
[3] Zhang J, Huo Y. Evaluating effectiveness and optimum design of isolation devices
for highway bridges using the fragility function method. Eng Struct
2009;31(8):1648–60.
[4] Ahmadipour M, Alam MS. Sensitivity analysis on mechanical characteristics of lead-
core steel-reinforced elastomeric bearings under cyclic loading. Eng Struct
2017;140:39–50.
[5] Ang AS. Life-cycle considerations in risk-informed decisions for design of civil in-
frastructures. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2011;7(1–2):3–9.
[6] Sato T, Yoshida I, Masumoto M. November). Prioritization of seismic reinforcement
for road bridges based on the concept of life cycle cost. In Third IABMAS Workshop
on Life-Cycle Cost Analysis and Design of Civil Infrastructure Systems and the JCSS
Workshop on Probabilistic Modeling of Deterioration Processes in Concrete Structures,
International Association of Bridge Maintenance and Safety (IABMAS), Swiss Federal
Institute of. Technology, Swiss National Science Foundation; 2003.
[7] Cho HN, Choi HH, Lee KM, Park KH, Cho HN, Choi HH, et al. Optimal seismic
retrofit and maintenance strategy for steel bridges using life-cycle cost analysis. Life-
cycle cost and performance of civil infrastructure systems 2007:121–30.
[8] Alipour A, Shafei B, Shinozuka M. Performance evaluation of deteriorating highway
bridges located in high seismic areas. J Bridge Eng 2010;16(5):597–611.
[9] Decò A, Frangopol DM. Life-cycle risk assessment of spatially distributed aging
bridges under seismic and traffic hazards. Earthquake Spectra 2013;29(1):127–53.
[10] Safi M, Sundquist H, Karoumi R. Cost-efficient procurement of bridge infra-
structures by incorporating life-cycle cost analysis with bridge management sys-
tems. J Bridge Eng 2014;20(6):04014083.
[11] Frangopol DM, Dong Y, Sabatino S. Bridge life-cycle performance and cost: analysis,
prediction, optimisation and decision-making. Struct Infrastruct Eng
2017;13(10):1239–57.
[12] Gencturk B, Elnashai AS. Optimal whole-life-cycle seismic design of concrete
frames. In 3rd International Conference on Computational Methods in Structural
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, COMPDYN 2011:2011.
[13] Wen YK, Kang YJ. Minimum building life-cycle cost design criteria. I: Methodology.
J Struct Eng 2001;127(3):330–7.
[14] AASHTO. LRFD Bridge Design. Washington, DC: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials; 2012.
[15] Dong Y, Frangopol DM, Saydam D. Time-variant sustainability assessment of seis-
mically vulnerable bridges subjected to multiple hazards. Earthquake Eng Struct
Dyn 2013;42(10):1451–67.
[16] Buckle IG, Friedland IM, Mander JB, Martin GR, Nutt R, Power M. Seismic retro-
fitting manual for highway structures. Part 2006;1-bridges.
[17] Nielson BG, DesRoches R. Seismic fragility methodology for highway bridges using
a component level approach. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2007;36(6):823–39.
[18] FEMA. Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology, earthquake model. Washington,
DC, USA: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2003.
[19] Mosleh A, Razzaghi MS, Jara J, Varum H. Seismic fragility analysis of typical pre-
1990 bridges due to near-and far-field ground motions. International Journal of
Advanced Structural Engineering (IJASE) 2016;8(1):1–9.
[20] Hwang H, Liu JB, Chiu YH. Seismic fragility analysis of highway bridges. Mid-
America Earthquake Center CD Release 2001:01–6.
[21] Padgett JE, Dennemann K, Ghosh J. Risk-based seismic life-cycle cost–benefit (LCC-
B) analysis for bridge retrofit assessment. Struct Saf 2010;32(3):165–73.
[22] Mitropoulou CC, Lagaros ND, Papadrakakis M. Life-cycle cost assessment of opti-
mally designed reinforced concrete buildings under seismic actions. Reliab Eng Syst
Saf 2011;96(10):1311–31.
[23] Penadés-Plà V, García-Segura T, Martí J, Yepes V. An optimization-LCA of a pre-
stressed concrete precast bridge. Sustainability 2018;10(3):685.
[24] Kilanitis I, Sextos A. Impact of earthquake-induced bridge damage and time evol-
ving traffic demand on the road network resilience. Journal of Traffic and
Transportation Engineering (English Edition) 2019;6(1):35–48.
[25] Kaini P, Zongzhi L. A Methodology for Risk-Based Highway Project Benefit-Cost
Analysis. Doctoral dissertation. Illinois Institute of Technology; 2006.
[26] Safi M. Bridge Life Cycle Cost Optimization Analysis: Evaluation, &
Implementation. Master of Science Thesis. Retrieved from Stockholm,
Sweden;2009.
[27] Eamon CD, Jensen EA, Grace NF, Shi X. Life-cycle cost analysis of alternative re-
inforcement materials for bridge superstructures considering cost and maintenance
uncertainties. J Mater Civ Eng 2012;24(4):373–80.
[28] Chopra AK, Chintanapakdee C. Inelastic deformation ratios for design and evalua-
tion of structures: single-degree-of-freedom bilinear systems. J Struct Eng
2004;130(9):1309–19.
[29] ASCE/SEI7-16 (2016). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.
P. Asadi, et al.
USA.
[30] CSIBridge (2017). Integrated 3D Bridge Analysis, Design and Rating. Computers &
Structures Inc, Berkeley CA.
[31] CSIColumn (2009). Design of Simple and Complex Reinforced Concrete Columns.
Computers & Structures Inc., Berkeley CA.
[32] MathWorks (2014). MATLAB programming fundamentals. Natick, MA: The Math
Works.
[33] Bathe KJ, Wilson EL. Numerical methods in finite element analysis. Prentice-Hall;
1976.
[34] SAP2000NL software (2014), Structural Analysis Programs-Theoretical and User’s
Manual. Berkeley, CA: Computer and Structures Inc.
[35] Scheller, J., & Constantinou, M. C. (1999). Response history analysis of structures
with seismic isolation and energy dissipation systems: Verification examples for
program SAP2000, Technical Report MCEER-99-0002.
[36] Iranian Publishing Planning and Budget Organization (2009). Unit price list for
Roads, Railways and Runways. https://sama.mporg.ir. Accessed October 2019.
[37] Wu JH, Florian M, He S. An algorithm for multi-class network equilibrium problem
in PCE of trucks: application to the SCAG travel demand model. Transportmetrica
395
Structures 27 (2020) 383–395
2006;2(1):1–9.
[38] Mazloumi E. A new delay function for signalised intersections. Road Trans Res: J
Aust NZ Res Pract 2008;17(3):3.
[39] Report No. 117 (1996). The final structure of the transport model of Tehran in the
EMME software. Comprehensive traffic and traffic studies in Tehran.
[40] Clarkson H, Oglesby R, Hicks RG. (1982). Highway engineering. 4th ed. NewYork:
Wiley.
[41] Shafipour M, Ardestani M, Sarraf M. Fuels Price Structuring; A Tool for Integration
of Environmental Concerns into Energy Sector. Int J Environ Res (IJER)
2007:358–67.
[42] Khashaeipour DVM. (2011). Determine the trip cost with any of the transportation
modes in Tehran. 12th International Conference on Transport and Traffic. Tehran.
Iran.
[43] Asadi P, Haghshenas H, Birjandi S. (2017). Introducing a simple model to economic
assessment and cost-benefit analysis of repair and maintenance operations of
bridges. An Executive Project for Department of Planning, Research and
Information Technology Management of Studies and Research of Isfahan
Municipality.