Structures Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012 559

A Simplified Method of Analysis of Isolated Bridges with Yielding Substructures

Chunli Wei1 and Ian Buckle2

1
Chunli Wei, Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Nevada, Reno, Mail Stop 258, Reno, NV, 89557,
email: cwei@unr.edu
2
Ian Buckle, Professor of Civil Engineering, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Mail Stop 258, Reno, NV, 89557, email:
igbuckle@unr.edu

ABSTRACT:

Seismic isolation is an innovative design approach to minimize the effects of earthquakes on

buildings and bridges. The intent is to reduce the seismic demand on a structure rather than
increase its capacity, thereby avoiding structural collapse and reducing human casualties. To
assist the design of an isolated bridge, the Simplified Method of analysis is recommended in the
AASHTO Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design, for initial design and the
optimization of various design parameters. It is a displacement-based methodology assuming a
single degree of freedom model of the bridge and elastic substructures. This paper describes an
extension of the methodology to ductile substructures while maintaining all the attractive
features of the original method. The modified method is applied to the analysis of a seismically
isolated, 3-span, curved highway bridge of total length 362.5 ft. The results are compared to a
nonlinear time history solution using SAP2000 software for three levels of input motion: 0.475,
1.0 and 1.4 times the 3600 component of the Sylmar ground motion. Displacements and
substructure shear forces were found to be within 13% for the lowest level motion improving to
within 8% for the highest level motion.

Key words: seismic isolation design, Simplified Method, displacement-based design

approach, yielding substructure, equivalent stiffness, equivalent damping

INTRODUCTION

Although it is not directly addressed in most seismic design specifications, the concept of
performance-based design forms the basis of earthquake engineering. Table 1 summarizes a
commonly used set of performance objectives that are the foundation of performance-based
design. Under large earthquakes, damage in the form of flexural plastic hinges in the columns is
acceptable, but the structure is required to deform in a dependable, predictable and stable manner.
During small earthquakes, the bridge is expected to remain essentially undamaged and
serviceable
Seismic isolation design reduces earthquake forces by increasing the fundamental period of
vibration and in some cases the force reduction is large enough to keep the columns elastic.
However, this reduction in force is accompanied by an increase in displacement demand and
whenever the period shift is unusually long, the corresponding displacements may be
Structures Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012 560

unacceptably large. In this case there may be no alternative but to reduce the period shift and
allow the columns to yield. Although not a preferred situation, column yield is permitted by the
AASHTO Guide Specification (AASHTO 2010), provided the response modification factors for
the columns are limited to one-half of those for a conventional bridge (Art 6., AASHTO 2010).

This paper therefore develops a modification to the Simplified Method of analysis, given in the
Guide Specifications (AASHTO 2010), to allow for the possibility of yielding columns.

Table 1. Design Earthquakes and Seismic Performance Objectives

(NCHRP Project, 2001)

Performance Objective
Probability of Exceedance For Design
Life safety Operational
Earthquake Ground Motions

Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Significant

Service Immediate
3% PE in 75 years or 1.5 Median Disruption
Deterministic Damage Significant Minimal

Expected Earthquake (EE) Service Immediate Immediate

50% PE in 75 years
Damage Minimal Minimal to None

MODELING OF ISOLATED BRIDGES

Typically, isolators are located on the top of substructures and immediately under the
superstructures of isolated bridges, where movement bearings are often found in continuous
bridges (Figure 1). An individual substructure unit is shown in Figure 2(a) and a corresponding
spring-mass-dashpot model is shown in Figure 2(b). If the mass of the pier is significant, this
model has 2 degrees-of-freedom The nonlinearity of the isolator and the column with a plastic
hinge is assumed to be bilinear in nature from which effective spring constants can be found (Ke,i
and Ke,p). Similarly, effective damping coefficients can be found Ci and Cp. An equivalent single-
degree-of-freedom model for the complete bridge may then be derived by summing the
properties of individual substructure units to obtain effective stiffness and damping properties
Keff and Ceff, as shown in Figure 2(c). Such a model is the basis for the modified Simplified
Method developed in this paper..
Structures Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012 561

Deck

Isolator
Abutment
Ground Line Pier

Figure 1. Elevation of a multi-span isolated bridge

Kd

Force
Ku Ke,i
Keff
Displacement
Lr Ke,p Ke,i
Ky Mt=Mss+Mp
L

Force
Mp Mss
Force

Ki Ke,p Ceff Keff

Lp
Cp Ci
Displacement Displacement

(a) (b) (c)

(a) Elevation of individual seismically isolated pier

(b) Two-DOF model of isolated pier
(c) Equivalent SDOF model for isolated bridge

Figure 2. Simplified model of ductile substructure with isolators

DESIGN PROCEDURE

The basic assumptions of the Simplified Method (AASHTO 2010, Buckle et al 2006) are as
follows:
1) superstructure acts as a rigid-diaphragm compared to the flexibility of isolators
2) isolated bridge may be modeled as an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom
3) displacement response spectrum for the bridge site is linearly proportional to the period
4) nonlinear properties of isolators and plastic hinges may be represented by bilinear
hysteretic loops
5) hysteretic energy dissipation may be represented by viscous damping, and
6) design response spectrum may be scaled for different viscous damping ratios by a single
factor.
The method involves iteration since many key properties of an isolated bridge system (Keff,
βeff and Teff) depend on the displacement of superstructure, which is unknown at the beginning of
analysis. The procedure is shown in Figure 3 and the various steps are described below.
Structures Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012 562

Figure 3. Flowchart of the Simplified Method for the seismic isolation analysis of abridge

Step 1. Initial value for superstructure displacement, D’

Based on an assumed effective period, Teff’ and a 5% damped displacement spectrum for
which the damping factor BL=1, the displacement D’ is estimated using the following equation:
g S D1T 'eff
D' = 2 (Eq 1)
4π BL
in which S D1 = Fv S1
where Fv = site factor for long-period range of the design response spectrum
S1 = horizontal response spectral acceleration coefficient at 1.0 sec period on
rock (Site Class B)
BL = numerical coefficient related to the effective damping of the isolated system
in long-period range of the design response spectrum
= (βeff/0.05)0.3 and βeff is equivalent viscous damping ratio for bridge system
= 1.0 for βeff = 0.05
Structures Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012 563

Step 2. Properties of Two-DOF Model

The effective damping and effective stiffness of the isolator and column are calculated in this
step. The effective stiffness is obtained from a force-displacement relationship, and the effective
damping is obtained from an equivalent energy dissipation requirement Figure 4 shows the
idealized substructure with an isolator supported on a ductile column.

K d
Superstructure

Force
Q d

K u
K
K e,i
e,i

Isolator
Displacement
K e,p

K y

Force
Dsub D iso Q p K i
K e,p

D
Displacement

Figure 4. Idealized deformations in an isolated bridge with yielding substructure

Step 2(a). Effective stiffness of the isolator and substructure

For the isolator, the effective stiffness is calculated from the following equation:
K e ,i = Qd / Diso + K d (Eq 2)
where Qd = characteristic strength of the isolator
Kd = post yield stiffness of the isolator
Diso = isolator displacement
= D/ (1+α)
α = Ke,i / Ksub = ( Kd D + Qd ) / ( Ksub D − Qd )
and D = superstructure displacement = Diso + Dsub as defined in Figure 4.

For yielding substructures, the force-displacement relationship of the pier can be derived from
the moment-curvature relationship for the column (Error! Reference source not found.). The
stiffness of the substructure, which depends on the substructure displacement Dsub, is given by:
K sub = {
Ki ( Dsub ≤ Δ y )
K e, p ( Dsub > Δ y )
(Eq 3)
where Ki = initial stiffness of the substructure
Ke,p. = effective stiffness of substructure after yielding
Dsub = substructure displacement
= D - Diso
The effective yield displacement, Δy, is based on the assumption of single curvature behavior
and is given by:
φ L2
Δy = y (Eq 4)
3
where φ y = effective yield curvature
Structures Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012 564

¦ ¤u
F ¦ ¤y ¦ ¤p

L
Plastic ¦ µ
Lp Hinge
p

Lp/2
Lp
Mu ¦ µ
u ¦ µ
y

Substructure Moment Curvature Displacement

Diagram Diagram
Moment, M

Mu
Fu

Force, F
My Fy Ky
Qp
Ki Ke,p

¦ µ
y ¦ µ
u ¦ ¤y ¦ ¤u
Curvature, ¦ µ Displacement, ¦ ¤

Figure 5. Nonlinear force-displacement relationship of substructure

L = cantilever length (column height)

The length of the plastic hinge, Lp, is given by:

L p = 0.008 L + 0.15 f ye d b ≥ 0.30 f ye d b
(Eq 5)
where fye = steel yield stress
and db = longitudinal bar diameter

The ultimate displacement, Δu,is given by:

Δ p = (φ u −φ y ) L p ( L − L p / 2)
(Eq 6)
Δu = Δ y + Δ p (Eq 7)
The initial stiffness of the substructure, Ki, is calculated assuming the bent cap is a rigid body
and using an effective cracked moment of inertia (EIeff):
3( EI )eff L3
Ki = ( 3 3) (Eq 8)
L3 L − Lr

where Lr = height of bent cap (rigid body)

The post-yield stiffness of the substructure, Ky, is given by:

F − Fy
Ky = u
Δu − Δ y
(Eq 9)
Structures Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012 565

The pseudo-yield force of substructure, Qp, is given by:

Q p = Fy − K y Δ y
(Eq 10)
The effective stiffness of substructure (after substructure yielding), Ke,p is given by:
K e , p = Q p / Dsub + K y
(Eq 11)

Step 2(b). Effective damping of the isolator and plastic hinge

The effective damping ratio is found by equating the energy dissipated in each cycle of
motion of the hysteretic device (isolator or plastic hinge) to that dissipated in an equivalent
viscous dashpot. This is achieved by setting the area under force-displacement loop of Figure
6(b), which represents the energy dissipated due to viscous damping, equal to the area enclosed
by hysteresis loop of Figure 6(a). It can then be shown that:
hysteretic energy dissipated area of hysteresis loop
βe = = (Eq 12)
2π K e Dmax
2
2π K e Dmax
2

Force Damping Force

Fmax
2¦ Â
eKeDmax

Ke
Displacement Displacement
Dmax Dmax

Area of Hysteresis Loop Area=2¦ Â

eKeD2max

(a) Biliear Hysteresis Loop (b) Force-displacement loop for Viscous Damper
Excited at a Frequency Equal to Natural Frequency of Isolated Bridge

Figure 6. Definition of Equivalent Viscous Damping

It follows from Eq 12 that the equivalent viscous damping ratio (βe,i) of the isolation system
is given by:
βe,i = 2Qd ( Diso − Dy ) / (π Ke,i Diso
2
) (Eq 13)
Assuming the force-displacement relationship of the substructure is also bilinear, it follows
from Eq 12 that the equivalent viscous damping ratio (βe,p) of the substructure is given by :
βe, p = 2Qp ( Dsub − Δ y ) / (π Ke, p Dsub
2
) (Eq 14)

Step 3. Analysis of Equivalent SDOF Substructure-Isolator Unit, j

Step 3(a). Effective stiffness of the SDOF substructure-isolator unit, j

The effective stiffness of the equivalent SDOF substructure-isolator unit, j, is given by:
K × K sub
K eff , j = e,i = α K sub / (1 + α ) (Eq 15)
K e,i + K sub
where α = K e ,i / K sub = ( K d D + Qd ) / ( K sub D − Qd )
Structures Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012 566

Ksub = Ki or Ke,p
Step 3(b). Effective damping of the SDOF substructure-isolator unit, j
Using the same approach as in Step 2(b), the equivalent viscous damping ratio of the
combined substructure-isolator unit may be estimated by equating the total energy dissipated by
the isolator and yielding substructure to the energy dissipated by the equivalent viscous dashpot,
as shown in Figure 7.

Ke,i Ksub Keff,j

+ =
Diso Dsub D
Aiso
Asub A

(a) Isolator (b) Yielding Subtrucutre (c) Isolator+Yielding Subtrucutre

Figure 7. Damping contributions of isolator and yielding substructure

It follows that the effective damping ratio is given by:

total area A + Asub
β eff ,h , j = = iso (Eq 16)
2π K eff , j D 2
2π K eff , j D 2

Since Keff,j D = Ke,I Diso = Ksub Dsub , the above equation can be rearranged as below:
Aiso Asub
β eff ,h , j = +
2π K e ,i Diso D 2π K sub Dsub D
(Eq 17)
β e,i Diso + β e , p Dsub
=
D
= 2[Qd ( Diso − Dy ) + Qp ( Dsub − Δ y )] / (π keff , j D2 ) (Eq 18)

If elastic damping is also considered, the effective damping ratio for the substructure-isolator
unit, j, is given by:
β eff , j = β eff , h , j + β elastic (Eq 19)
For concrete structures, the elastic damping ratio may be taken as 0.05.

Step 4. Analysis of the Equivalent SDOF Isolated Bridge System

Step 4(a). Effective stiffness of the SDOF isolated bridge system
If there are N substructures (including the abutments), the effective stiffness of the complete
bridge system, Keff, is given by:
N
K eff = ∑ K eff , j (Eq 20)
1

Step 4(b). Effective damping of the SDOF isolated bridge system

The system effective damping may be found from the weighted average of the individual
substructure damping ratios. Since in longitudinal direction, the displacement of each
Structures Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012 567

substructure is the same (Dj = D), the equivalent viscous damping of the isolated bridge system is
given by:
N N

∑ Fj D j βeff , j 2∑ [Qd ( Diso − Dy ) + Q p ( Dsub − Δ y )]

β eff = 1
N
= 1
N
+ β elastic (Eq 21)
∑F D
1
j j ∑ (π K
1
eff , j
2
D )

Step 4(c). Effective period of the SDOF isolated bridge system

The effective period Teff, of a single-degree-of-freedom system with mass W/g, and stiffness
Keff, at displacement D, is given by:
Teff = 2π W / ( gK eff ) (Eq 22)
where W = weight of the bridge superstructure.

Step 4(d). Superstructure displacement

The displacement D, of single-degree-of-freedom system with effective period Teff, and
effective damping ratio βeff, is given by:
g S T
D = 2 D1 eff (Eq 1)
4π BL
Step 4(e). Total base shear and individual isolator forces
The total lateral force in the system isolators at displacement D is given by:
F = K eff D (Eq 23)
This force is the total base shear for the bridge.

The force in any substructure is given by:

Fsub = K sub Dsub (Eq 24)
The force in all the isolators on a given substructure is given by:
Fiso = K e ,i Diso (Eq 25)
Individual isolator force may be found by dividing this quantity by the number of isolators on
the same substructure (if all isolators have identical properties), or in proportion to their
individual stiffnesses.
It is noted that these two forces should be same since both the isolator and substructure ‘see’
the same shear force due to serial nature of the load path.

SEISMIC ISOLATION DESIGN EXAMPLE

The above methodology is applied to the analysis of a seismically isolated, 3-span, curved
highway bridge of total length 362.5 ft. and the results compared to a nonlinear time history
solution using SAP2000 software.

The superstructure of this three-span bridge weighs 1673.92 kips (7448.94 kN). The two piers
are single reinforced concrete columns, 40 in (101.6 cm) in diameter, and 20 ft (6.1 m) high,
fixed at the base and pinned at the top. An elevation of this bridge is shown in Figure 8. For the
Structures Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012 568

purpose of this example the lateral stiffness of each abutment is taken to be 1.0x106 k/in
(1.75x105 kN/mm).
105ft 152.5ft 105ft

Bent 2 50in Bent 3

Abut 1 Isolators Isolators Abut 4
240in 40in

Figure 8. Elevation of Three-Span Isolated Bridge Example

Isolators are located on the abutments and pier caps. Total values for Qd and Kd summed over
all isolators are 0.09W (= 150 kips) and 31.20 k/in (5.47 kN/mm), respectively. Isolator
properties and the weight carried at each substructure are given in Table 2.

Table 2. Isolator Properties for the Example Bridge

Substructure Wsub (kips) Qd (kips) Kd (k/in)

Abut 1 167.56 42.00 7.20
Pier 2 669.40 33.00 8.40
Pier 3 669.40 33.00 8.40
Pier 4 167.56 42.00 7.20
Total 1673.92 150.00 31.20

The effective yield displacement for the columns, Δy, and initial stiffness, Ki were obtained
from the equations 3 and 6. Columns properties are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Column Properties for Piers 2 and 3

Substructure H (ft) D (in) Ki (k/in) Δy (in)

Columns 2 & 3 20 40 29.02 3.82

The bridge is located on a rock site in Zone 3 and the 1000-year design response spectrum is
defined by PGA = 0.47g, SS = 1.14g and S1 = 0.41g. For the time-history analysis, the Sylmar
360 record from the 1994 Northridge earthquake was chosen and scaled such that the S1 value of
the scaled record was 0.41g

The Simplified Method was executed using an Excel spreadsheet following the steps outlined
above. The time history solution used a 3D finite element model for the bridge and was analyzed
using SAP2000. The results from both solutions for three levels of input motion are summarized
in
Structures Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012 569

Table 4.

0.475*Syl360-X 1.0*Syl360-X 1.4*Syl360-X

SAP SM SAP SM SAP SM
Parameters
S1 0.4133 0.4133 0.87 0.87 1.218 1.218
Abut 42 42 42 42 42 42
Qd(kips)
Bent 33 33 33 33 33 33
Abut 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2
Kd(k/in)
Bent 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4
Qd/W, % 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9%
Basic Response
Abut 1 5.52 6.29 16.60 17.15 24.47 26.53
Bent 2 5.51 6.29 16.61 17.15 24.48 26.53
Displacement of Sup.(in), D
Bent 3 5.45 6.29 16.54 17.15 24.43 26.53
Abut 4 5.43 6.29 16.52 17.15 24.41 26.53
Difference, % -12.2% -3.2% -7.8%
Abut. Disp. of Isolator(in),Diso 5.52 6.29 16.61 17.15 24.47 26.53
Bent. Disp. of Isolator(in),Diso 3.00 4.00 9.82 9.53 10.43 10.01
Disp. of Column(in), Dsub 2.41 2.29 6.52 7.62 13.59 16.52
Ductility Ratio, μ 0.63 0.60 1.71 2.00 3.56 4.32
Abut 14.81 13.88 9.73 9.65 8.92 8.78
Eff. stiffness of isolator, Kiso
Bent 19.39 16.65 11.76 11.86 11.53 11.70
Eff. Stiff.of sub. Stru., Ksub 24.27 29.10 17.74 14.83 8.79 7.15
Period(sec), T / 1.869 / 2.296 / 2.545
Damping Ratio, ζ / 28.3% / 23.8% / 24.0%
Damping Factor, B / 1.68 / 1.60 / 1.60
Force Distribution(kips)
Abut 81.75 87.29 161.56 165.48 218.16 233.01
Bent 58.40 66.61 115.60 113.03 119.37 117.64
Total 280.31 307.80 554.33 557.02 675.06 701.30
Difference, % -8.9% -0.5% -3.7%
Base Shear/ Weight, % 14.92% 16.38% 29.50% 29.64% 35.92% 37.32%

Table 4. Comparison of Seismic Response of Isolated Bridge

by Modified Simplified Method (SM) and Time History SAP 2000 Solution
Structures Congress 2012 © ASCE 2012 570

RESULTS

As shown in Table 4, the modified Simplified Method is in good agreement with the results of
the finite element analysis time history solution from SAP2000. The maximum difference for the
superstructure displacements is 12.2% and for the total base shear it is 8.9%. These differences
occurred when the columns were still elastic (input motion was 0.475 Sylmar), but the errors
diminished in size once the columns yielded at the higher levels of motion (input motions of 1.0
and 1.4 Sylmar). Agreement within 8% was obtained at these higher motions.

CONCLUSION
This paper describes an extension to the Simplified Method for the analysis of seismically
isolated bridges recommended in the AASHTO Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation
Design. Specifically the method is modified to include ductile substructures while maintaining
all the attractive features of the original method. The modified method is applied to the analysis
of a seismically isolated, 3-span, curved highway bridge of total length 362.5 ft. The results are
compared to a nonlinear time history solution using SAP2000 for three levels of input motion:
0.475, 1.0 and 1.4 times the 3600 component of the Sylmar ground motion. Displacements and
substructure shear forces were found to be within 13% for the lowest level motion improving to
within 8% for the highest level motion. This agreement is very satisfactory considering the
assumptions made in the method and validates the approach for the preliminary design of
isolated bridges when column yield is expected.

REFERENCES:

AASHTO, “Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design”, Third Edition, Washington, DC,
2010.
Buckle I.G., Constantinou M., Dicleli M. and Ghasemi H., “Seismic Isolation of Highway
Bridges”, MCEER-06-SP07, University at Buffalo, 2006.
NCHRP Project 12-49, “Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic Design of the
Highway Bridges”, Washington, DC, 2001.
Priestley M.J.N., Calvi G.M. and Kowalsky M.J., “Displacement-Based Seismic Design of
Structures”, IUSS Press, Italy, 2007.
Goel R., Chopra A., “Improved Direct Displacement-Based Design Procedure for Performance-
Based Seismic Design of Structures”, A Structural Engineering Odyssey, Proceedingsof
Structures Congress, ASCE, 2001.
AASHTO, “Guide Specifications for the Seismic Design of the Highway Bridges”, Washington,
DC, 2009.