See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321170799

Effectiveness of Rubber Isolators for the Seismic Retrofitting of a Peruvian

Highway Concrete Bridge

Conference Paper · November 2017

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21397.42729

CITATIONS READS
0 81

2 authors, including:

Anibal Tafur
Pontifical Catholic University of Peru
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Seismic Retrofitting of Bridges View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anibal Tafur on 20 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Effectiveness of Rubber Isolators for the Seismic Retrofitting of a
Peruvian Highway Concrete Bridge
Anibal Tafur1*, Thomas Swailes2
1*
Department of Civil Engineering, Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, Peru (atafur@pucp.edu.pe)
2
School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, The University of Manchester, UK
(thomas.swailes@manchester.ac.uk)
Abstract – This paper investigates the effectiveness of
rubber isolators for retrofitting highway concrete
bridges. The Huamani Bridge is analysed as a case
study. Located on the central coast of Peru, this bridge
was constructed around 1950 with obsolete seismic
provisions, using fixed steel bearings. It suffered from
severe damage during the 2007 Pisco Earthquake (8.0
Mw). As-built and isolated models were analysed and
their results were compared.
For the isolated option, the fixed steel bearings are to
be replaced with Lead Rubber Bearings (LRB), in order
to uncouple the movement of the super and sub-
structure, thus increasing the flexibility of the system
and decreasing the forces transmitted to the lateral
stability elements (piers and transverse beams). Flexible
links having the isolators’ properties were introduced
into the as-built model. The analysis of the isolated
model was performed following the AASHTO GSID
Simplified Method.
It was found that implementing the isolation system
increased the structure’s overall damping ratio by more
than 3 times, as well as its flexibility. This effectively
reduced the solicitations in the sub-structure and
transverse beams by an average of 75%. It is concluded
that the use of rubber isolators is effective for
retrofitting highway concrete bridges and that this
analytical procedure can be applied to other bridges of
similar characteristics in Peru.
1. INTRODUCTION
Peru is a country seismically high active due to its
location on the Pacific ‘Ring of Fire’, suffering from
disastrous seismic events in the past years such as the
1970 Ancash Earthquake (7.9 Mw; 70,000 deaths), the
2001 Arequipa Earthquake (8.4 Mw; 145 deaths); and
more recently the 2007 Pisco Earthquake (8.0 Mw,
519 deaths) [1]. These events caused high personal
and material losses.
Nevertheless, the seismic protection technologies
in Peru are not in wide use. In the last years, isolation
systems have started to be implemented in buildings,
but bridges remain overlooked. In January 2016 the
Peruvian Government published the current version of
the Peruvian Seismic Code (“Norma Tecnica Peruana
NTE E030”) making mandatory the implementation of
seismic protection systems for essential buildings
(schools, hospitals, etc.), without further specific
requirements for bridges (NTE E0.30, 2016). The
Peruvian Bridge Design Manual (MTC, 2016) [3]
provides minimal and vague provisions for the
analysis and design of isolated bridges, leaving local
engineers with insufficient information and guidelines
about this type of structures.
Considering that in Peru many bridges built long
time ago with obsolete seismic provisions are still
operational, and given the high seismic activity in the
country (especially on the Peruvian Coast); it is then
observed the necessity for vulnerability assessment
and retrofitting of these bridges. It is crucial to
improve their seismic performance, seeking
compliance with current seismic criteria applied in
other seismically high active and more developed
countries, such as USA and Japan.
According to Siqueira et al. (2014) [4], seismic
isolation has been recently used for the retrofitting of
existing bridges by increasing their flexibility, and
thus, their natural periods of vibration. This effectively
reduces the seismic energy input into the bridge
structure and the solicitations in the lateral stability
system [4]. Furthermore, the implementation of
isolators is generally easier to execute and less
expensive than the retrofitting of the sub-structure
(piers, columns or foundations) [5]. Even though to
the author’s knowledge there is no record of bridges in
Peru retrofitted using this technique, in other parts of
the world this has been successfully implemented.
Some notable examples are the retrofitting of the
Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco (USA), the Bolu
Viaducts in Turkey; and the Chemin des Dalles Bridge
in Canada [4].
Figure 1 illustrates the principle of this retrofitting
method. In the case of an isolated bridge system (b),
the deformation takes place at the isolators during an
earthquake, preventing the damage of the sub-
structure; whereas in a conventional bridge system (a),
this deformation will occur at the sub-structure, which
is not desirable. The sub-structure elements (columns base shear force equivalent to 4-8% of the bridge
or pylons) are the most demanded during an weight, with no provisions regarding ductility [7].
earthquake, and it is crucial to prevent their damage. It
is clear that the most widely used isolation system for
bridge applications is the Lead Rubber Bearings
(LRB), as stated by Buckle et al. (2006) [6].

Fig. 2: The Huamani Bridge over the Pisco River after the Pisco
EQ (2007) [7]

The bridge consists of 5 spans, 3 typical of 30 metres

Fig. 1: Comparison of a conventional and seismically isolated
bridge [6]
The aim of this paper is to evaluate the efficiency of
rubber isolators for the retrofitting of a multi-span
concrete highway bridge, namely the Huamani Bridge
in Peru, by comparing the responses and solicitations
(displacements and forces) obtained from linear
dynamic analyses of as-built and isolated models.
Thus, the reduction of the seismic forces induced in
the structure due to the implementation of the isolation
system is evaluated.
each and 2 spans of 23 metres on the sides, giving a
total length of 136 metres (see Figure 3, top). The
super-structure is supported by 3 hunched beams
which are 700 mm wide and 1.80 m high (away from
the supports), and at the supports the beams are 3.5 m
high. The bridge deck is a 300 mm thick reinforced
concrete slab. There are also several diaphragm
(transverse) beams that restrain the structure laterally.
Elevation view:
Cross section:

2. CASE STUDY: THE HUAMANI BRIDGE

The Huamani Bridge (see Figure 2) is a reinforced
concrete continuous bridge that spans over the Pisco
River, in the Ica Department of Peru. It was built
around 1950 and suffered from considerable damage
during the 2007 Pisco Earthquake (8.0 Mw), located at
approximately 60 km from the epicentre. It is located
close to San Clemente Town in the Pisco Province, at
coordinates S13°41’13” W76°09’31”, and it is one of
the most important bridges on the Pan-American
Fig. 3: Layout of the Huamani Bridge (dimensions in mm)
South Highway, the main road network on the
Peruvian Coast.
The substructure consists of two abutments and four
This bridge is representative of many old concrete interior pier walls measuring 1.10 m by 8.20 m, with
bridges still operational in Peru, which were designed shear keys implemented on their sides as shown in
with none or obsolete seismic provisions. The seismic Figure 3 (bottom), with the objective to control
design criteria used for this bridge was to apply as excessive lateral displacement. These pier walls are
founded on deep foundations (caissons) [7].
 At the intermediates pillars, the super-structure is
supported on steel pot bearings, fixed in both
directions. On the abutments, simple steel rollers were
used, which are free to move in the longitudinal
direction, but restrained in the lateral direction by
means of steel stoppers. According to the survey
reports, the bearings were found in very bad state,
corroded and with rust and dirt covering [7].
Both structural and geotechnical damage was
observed during the surveys at the Huamani Bridge
after the earthquake. The most complete reports on
this matter are the works of Tang & Johansson (2010)
[7], Johansson et al. (2007) [8] and Taucer et al.
(2009) [9], these being the main sources consulted for
this paper. Some examples of critical structural
damage are shown in Figure 4.
a) [7]
c) [7]
d) [8]
b) [8]
Fig. 4: Structural damage observed in the Huamani Bridge after
the 2007 Pisco EQ [7], [8].
Severe cracking was observed in one pier, at the
junction with its shear key. This was due to loss of the
lateral restriction in the bearings which allowed the
superstructure to move freely at this point, pounding
the shear lock and causing severe damage to it (see
Figure 4.a). The shear lock, although damaged,
prevented the bridge superstructure from suffering
excessive displacement and overturning (100 mm
permanent displacement was observed) [7]. Also,
severe cracking was observed in the transverse beams,
which provide lateral stability to the super-structure
(see Figure 4.b).
The steel roller bearings at the abutments were
meant to behave as laterally restrained by means of
steel stoppers welded to their base plates.
Nevertheless, the steel rollers at the southern abutment
suffered severe damage due to excessive displacement,
losing their lateral restraints (see Figure 4.c). On the
other hand, at the northern abutment the damage was
less severe, with the lateral restraint being still present,
but with evidence of permanent displacements (See
Figure 4.d). Severe corrosion was observed in all the
bearings [7].
3. METHODOLOGY
As-built and isolated models of the Huamani Bridge
are analysed and their results are compared. For the
isolated option, the fixed steel bearings present in the
as-built model are to be replaced with flexible links
having the isolators’ properties. The modelling process
is discussed more fully in Section 4 of this paper.
The efficiency of the isolation system is assessed
by comparing the following results from the as-built
and isolated model analyses: super and sub-structure
displacements, base shear forces, forces in key
structural elements, periods and damping ratios.
Furthermore, the piers and transverse beams’
capacities (shear and flexural) are calculated, in order
to illustrate the beneficial effects of the isolation
system on the demand-capacity ratios of these
elements.
The response of an isolated structure is very
complicated to analyse, due to the high-non linearity
induced by the isolators. Non-linear models for the
structure elements have to be combined with hysteretic
curves obtained from laboratory tests of isolators, and
time-history functions for the seismic loads.
Nevertheless, for the purpose of this paper only linear
analyses are carried out, following the AASHTO
GSID simplified method as described in Section 7.1 of
the AASHTO Guide Specifications for Seismic
Isolation Design GSID (2010) [13].
LRB isolators dissipate energy due to internal
friction inside the rubber material (also called viscous
damping), and deformation in the lead core. Figure 5
(top) shows a typical section and the displacement—
force diagram of an LRB isolator, where its hysteretic
curves and non-linear behaviour can be appreciated.
The cyclic behaviour of these isolators can be linear methods are considered. The value of Kisol is
approximately represented by a simplified bi-linear input into the software SAP2000 to define the
model as shown in Figure 5 (bottom). properties of the link elements used to represent the
isolators in the model.

The methodology presented is this paper to determine

the isolation system properties and isolated structure
response consists of three stages:

 First, the Simplified Method presented in AASHTO

GSID is applied. For the first iteration a
displacement is assumed and a preliminary set of
characteristic isolator resistance properties is
defined. The displacement response of the isolated
structure is calculated taking into account the
reduction by damping. Then, convergence is checked
comparing the obtained displacement with the initial
assumed value.

 In the next stage, a Multimodal Spectral Analysis is

carried out, similarly to what is done with the as-
built structure, but with a modified response
spectrum (reduced by damping). It is used the same
as-built models, but replacing the rigid links with
flexible links having the representative isolator
properties determined in the previous stage. The
objective is to obtain similar response to that
estimated by the GSID Simplified Method. After
reaching this second convergence, displacement
response and forces are obtained for the sub-
Fig. 5: Top: Section of an LRB and its force—displacement structure and isolators.
diagram [10], [11]. Bottom: Bilinear simplified model of a rubber
isolator [12]  The final stage is the Design of the Isolators in order
to secure their viability, using the forces and
Where: displacements obtained from the spectral dynamic
K1 = Isolator initial stiffness analysis. The requirements and limit checks provided
K2 = Isolator post-yielding stiffness by the AASHTO GSID are followed. The output of
Kisol = Isolator effective stiffness
Qd = Isolator characteristic strength
the design includes sizes and material properties,
Fy = Isolator yield force which should be checked against the existing bridge
Fisol = Isolator maximum force dimensions.
dy = Isolator yield displacement
disol = Isolator maximum displacement The AASHTO simplified method reduces the isolated
structure to an equivalent single degree-of-freedom
And K2 may be estimated as follows [12]: model with equivalent properties, in order to estimate
GA its response (displacement of the super-structure) [12].
K2  × (1.15 to 1.20) (3.1) The super-structure displacement d is estimated as
Tr
follows:
Where Tr is the total thickness of rubber (addition of 250S D1Teff
layers), G is the rubber shear modulus and A is the d (3.2)
section area. K1 is in the range of 15 to 30 times K2. BL
Note that the effective stiffness Kisol is dependent on Where:
the isolator maximum displacement disol; therefore, it is SD1 = Spectral acceleration coefficient
Teff = Effective period of the isolated structure
not possible to know its exact value beforehand. The
BL = Damping reduction factor given by Eq. 3.7
isolator effective stiffness Kisol is useful when only
SD1 is defined as 0.62 from the seismic hazard study. K 2 d  Qd 
Since the values of Teff and BL are unknown  K eff  K sub (3.3)
K subd  Qd 1
beforehand, for the first iteration Teff may be taken as
1.0 seconds and BL may be taken as 1.0 (5% of
damping). To estimate the system Qd ,total and K 2,total The displacements of the sub-structure d sub and
required for the first iteration (addition of all the isolators d isol at each support (abutment and piers),
isolators), it is recommended by Buckle et al. (2011) are calculated as follows:
[12] that Qd ,total should be at least 5% of the bridge
d
effective weight. Since for this bridge the piers are d isol  d sub  d  disol (3.4)
very stiff (no vibration), it is assumed that only the 1
mass of the superstructure contributes to the vibration, The effective period of the isolated structure Teff is
therefore the effective weight Weff is taken as the calculated using the effective weight Weff and the
super-structure weight. For K 2,total it is recommended summation of the effective stiffness’ at each support
to take 10% of Weff / d . For this case, since the mass  K eff , as follows:
of the existing structure is very large (relatively Weff
compared with bridges designed considering isolation Teff  2 (3.5)
gK eff
from the beginning), 15% of Weff / d is taken. The
assumed Qd ,total and K 2,total are distributed according The damping ratio of the isolated structure  and the
to the percentage of the dead load acting at each damping reduction factor BL are calculated using the
support (abutments and piers). following expressions:

2 Qd d isol  d y 
K2  (3.6)
  K eff d isol  d sub 2

  0.3
   0.3
BL   0.05  Eq.7.1-3 AASHTO GSID (3.7)
 1.70   0.3

Using these values of Teff and BL, the expected super-
structure displacement is calculated using Eq. 3.2.
After a series of iterations, convergence should be
found between the initial assumed displacement and
the calculated after the iteration. Once convergence is
reached, the effective stiffness of the isolators Kisol are
obtained using the following expression, in order to be
used for the multimodal spectral analysis in the next
stage.
Q
K isol  d  K 2 (3.8)
d isol

In order to carry out the dynamic analysis of the

Fig. 6: Calculation of the combined effective stiffness at the
supports [12]
It is then necessary to calculate the combined effective
lateral stiffness at each support K eff , accounting for
the stiffness of the sub-structure and the isolators
combined. As shown in Figure 6. The stiffness
distribution factor  is defined as follows:
isolated model, the response spectrum is modified to
take into account the higher damping present in the
fundamental modes introduced by the isolators. The
acceleration values are divided by the damping factor
BL, at periods above 0.8Teff. Figure 10 in next section
shows the reduced spectrum resulting from the
Huamani Bridge analysis, and is used for both
directions of analysis.
In order to define the properties of an isolation system
used for retrofitting, a controlling parameter has to be
defined. For existing bridges supported on columns,
the shear force in these elements is likely to control
the design. For the Huamani Bridge, the existing piers
are of massive dimensions; therefore the shear force in
these will hardly control the design. The size of the
isolators, which will have to properly fit between the
existing piers and beams, is likely to control the
design. Other parameter to take into account is the
maximum displacement of the super-structure, which
will have to be controlled in order to avoid excessive
pounding on the existing abutments [12]. Figure 7
shows a flowchart summarising the methodology
described in this section.
Assume displacement, characteristic strength Q d
and post-yielding stiffness K 2
Find the effective period and the equivalent
damping ratio of the isolated structure using the
GSID Simplified Method
Find the theoretical displacement, reduced by
NO
damping. Is it the same as the assumed?
YES
Use the assumed displacement, Q d and K 2 to
find the isolators' effective stiffness K isol to be
used in the model.
Modify the 5% damped response spectrum used
for the as-built model, reducing it by the damping
factor B L .
Run a dynamic linear analysis of the isolated
model. Are the displacements and periods
obtained similar to those calculated with the
NO
simplified method?
YES
Obtain the isolators' design forces and
displacements from the dynamic analysis results.
Design the isolators. If suitable dimensions cannot
be reached repeat the process from the beginning.
Fig. 7: Flowchart summarising the methodology for the analysis of
the isolated bridge
4. BRIDGE MODEL SIMULATION
Figure 8 shows a perspective view of the model
defined using finite elements and analysed using the
software SAP2000. The seismic solicitations applied
to the as-built model are represented by Response
Spectrum and Time History linear cases. The
Response Spectrum (RS) is defined according to the
AASHTO specifications and using seismic hazard
information from a similar project in Peru [16]. The
Time History (TH) cases were defined using 10
signals, including the accelerogram of the 2007 Pisco
EQ, properly scaled to PGA 0.45g, which is the
characteristic value of the peak ground acceleration
specified for the bridge location in the Peruvian
Seismic Code (Seismic Zone 4). The most
unfavourable of these cases will be considered to
obtain the design resistance demanded on the
structural elements of the as-built case (envelope).
Due to the limitations of the AASHTO Simplified
Method, for the isolated model only the Response
Spectrum case is carried out, considering the reduction
by damping.
Fig. 8: Model perspective view as seen in the software interface
For the purpose of this paper, the piers were assumed
as fixed at their base for both models. According to the
reports consulted, the foundations are caissons
embedded 8 metres into the soil [7], [8]. The material
properties input into the software were: for the
concrete f’c = 30 MPa, Young’s Modulus E = 24.6x109
MPa, specific weight γ = 25 kN/m3 and 5% damping
ratio. For the reinforcement steel it was considered
ASTM A615 Gr60 with fy = 420 MPa.
Regarding the bearings at the supports, to simulate
the fixed bearings of the as-built bridge, they were
idealised using rigid links. For the isolated model, the
rigid links where replaced with flexible links having
the isolators’ characteristic properties, in this case, the
isolators’ effective stiffness Kisol. The element meshing
was defined in the software by establishing a
maximum characteristic dimension of 300 mm. The
software has an option to automatically decrease the 1.20

Elastic Seismic Coefficient Csm (g)

size of the mesh in areas where higher discretization is 1.0g
required, such as corners and curved parts. 1.00

The AASHTO Seismic Code, Section 3.10.4 0.80

‘Seismic Hazard Characterization’ [14], presents the
0.60
procedure to define the response spectrum for 5% Reduced response
damping (typical concrete bridges). This spectrum is 0.50g
0.40
defined as elastic, i.e. without considering ductility
reduction factors for design. Figure 10 shows the 0.8Teff 
0.20
spectra defined for the bridge analyses, for both as- (1.76s)
built and isolated models. Note the reduced response 0.00
due to damping for the isolated model (solid line). 2.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 4.00
Period Tm (seconds)
The accelerograms used for the Time-History Fig. 10: AASHTO Response Spectra (as-built and isolated cases)
Cases were recorded by many seismic monitoring defined for the Huamani Bridge analysis
stations in Peru. These stations are part of the large
seismic observation network managed by the CISMID
(Peruvian-Japanese Centre of Seismic Investigation 5. RESULTS
and Disaster Mitigation), and their records are
available on their website (www.cismid-uni.org). It is After the iterative process of the isolated bridge
notable the case of the 2007 Pisco EQ accelerogram, analysis, convergence was found for the
which affected the Huamani Bridge. The closest following values: d =241mm, Qd ,total =1251 kN,
accelerometer to the bridge is located at the ICA002
K 2,total =15573 kN/m, Teff = 2.203 s,  = 0.16 and
station (63 km away) and its records are shown in
Figure 9. BL = 1.42. Table 1 summarizes the required
North-South direction
properties found for each isolator after the last
400 iteration, considering a ratio K2/K1 = 0.1 and dy =
300 PGA = 333.66 cm/s2 (0.34g) 0.1dt. These values were obtained diving by 3 the
Acceleration (cm/s2)

200 properties found at each support.

100
Table 1: Required properties of the isolators obtained with the
0 GSID simplified method
-100 K1 K2 Qd dy Fy Kisol
Location
(kN/m) (kN/m) (kN) (mm) (kN) (kN/m)
-200
Abutments 2701 270 22 8.93 24 360
-300 Piers 11627 1163 93 8.93 104 1551
-400
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 Figure 11 shows a comparison of the results from the
Time (seconds) modal analyses of the as-built and isolated models,
Eat-West direction where important increment in the flexibility due to the
300 implementation of the isolation system is appreciated.
The periods increased 15 times for the longitudinal
Acceleration (cm/s2)

200
and 10 times for the transverse direction. This caused
100
a very important increment in the super-structure
0 displacement as well, 60 times in the longitudinal and
-100 14 times in the transverse direction. Since the as-built
model was found to be very stiff (small
-200 displacements), theses increments are as expected.
PGA = -272.82 cm/s2 (0.28g)
-300
0 25 50 75
100 125 150 175 200 225 The overall structure damping ratio increased from
Time (seconds) the initial 5% estimated for the existing concrete
Fig. 9: Accelerograms recorded at the ICA002 station during the structure, to 16% for the isolated structure (more than
2007 Pisco Earthquake (CISMID)
3 times). This is a very important feature that allows
the structure response to be reduced. The forces in the
piers were reduced by 80% in average. The forces in
the transverse beams were reduced by an average of
75%.
decrease from values above one in both piers
(strengthening needed), to very low values, in the
order of 0.30 to 0.40.
Table 2: Comparison of pier’s shear demands and capacity

As-built X-X direction: Max disp. = 3.91 mm, Period = 0.148 s Ratio Ratio
ϕVn AsB Isol
(49% participation), Mode 6 Direction Element AsB Isol
(kN) (kN) (kN)
ϕVn ϕVn
Longitudinal Pier 1 5731 5003 1113 0.87 0.19
Isolated X-X direction: Max disp. = 240 mm, Period = 2.206 s X-X Pier 2 5731 3545 1113 0.62 0.19
(94% participation) Mode 2 Pier 1 5446 3579 1110 0.66 0.20
Transverse
Y-Y Pier 2 5446 6320 1109 1.16 0.20
Notes: AsB = As-Built demands (Envelope of RS and TH cases)
Isol = Isolated Structure demands
As-built Y-Y direction
Max disp. = 16.90 mm Table 3: Shear demand – capacity ratios for the transverse beams
Period = 0.222 s Shear Shear
Mode 1 Location of Ratio
Case Demand Capacity
(75% participation) Beam D/C
(D) (kN) (C) (kN)
@ Pier 1 403 360 1.12
As-Built
Isolated Y-Y direction @ Pier 2 708 360 1.97
Max disp. = 240 mm
@ Pier 1 120 360 0.33
Period = 2.213 s Isolated
Mode 1 @ Pier 2 120 360 0.33
(94% participation)
Table 4: Moment demand –capacity ratios for the transverse beams
Moment Moment
Location of Ratio
Case Demand Capacity
Fig. 11: Comparison of the analyses modal results for the as-built Beam D/C
(D) (kN-m) (C) (kN-m)
and isolated models @ Pier 1 569 414 1.37
As-Built
@ Pier 2 999 414 2.41
To evaluate the significance of the seismic force @ Pier 1 172 414 0.42
reduction in the structural elements, demand-capacity Isolated
@ Pier 2 172 414 0.42
ratios of the piers and transverse beams are calculated
(shear, flexural, and flexural-compressive capacities),
following the guidelines provided by the ACI-318
Code (ACI, 2008) [15]. Two Ultimate Limit State
Pier 1 Pier 2 Pier 2 Pier 1
(ULS) loading scenarios are considered: for the as-
built bridge the envelope of the Response Spectrum Regarding the flexural-compressive capacity of the
and Time-History cases, and for the isolated bridge piers, the most critical combination is ‘0.9 D ± S’.
the Response Spectrum reduced by damping. Figure 12 shows the positions of these combinations
within the Piers’ Design Interaction Diagrams. It is
Table 2 shows that the shear demand-capacity observed that for Pier 1 (top) the as-built design forces
ratios in the piers decreased significantly for all cases. combinations are very close to the design critical
In the case of the transverse direction of Pier 2, the curve. This indicates that the element is highly
reduction is crucial since the as-built demand is 1.16 demanded in the as-built case, possibly resulting in
(larger than 1), indicating that strengthening of the pier necessity for strengthening due to bending.
would be needed. The implementation of the isolation
causes this ratio to decrease to only 0.20. Furthermore, it is seen that the isolation system
helps to significantly decrease this demands (4 times
Tables 3 and 4 show the shear and moment in average). A similar reduction in the demands is seen
demand-capacity ratios for the transverse beams. It for Pier 2 (bottom), although the as-built forces are not
can be appreciated the important reductions for the located on the critical curve. For this case, the
isolated case. The isolation system causes the ratios to reduction due to the isolation implementation is
efficient but not critical. In the transverse direction of bridge models, leading to the following conclusions.
the piers the demands are located far away from the It was found that the implementation of rubber
critical curves for both the as-built and the isolated isolators would substantially increase the modal
cases, due to the massive bending resistance in this parameters of the bridge. It was observed that the
direction. natural periods increased more than 10 times (from
0.15 s and 0.22 s to 2.21 s). The effective damping
Pier 1 Interaction Diagram for Longitudinal
Direction
ratio increased from 5% (initially estimated) to 16%
(obtained with the AASHTO Simplified Method).
ϕMn (MN-m)
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
120 The increment in the flexibility and damping ratio
of the structure caused the seismic force solicitations
100 to be reduced by an average of 80% for the piers and
80 75% for the transverse beams. It is concluded that the
60 implementation of rubber isolators is very efficient to
ϕPn (MN)

decrease the demands in the lateral stability elements.

40
20 Calculating the capacities of piers and transverse
0 beams it is observed that these would be exceeded by
the seismic demands of the design earthquake (1000-
-20 yr return period). Furthermore, it was observed that
-40 the isolation system would help to reduce substantially
the demand-capacity ratios (e.g. down to 0.20 for piers
Pier 2 Interaction Diagram for Longitudinal and 0.33 for beams), in such way that no strengthening
Direction of these elements would be needed; thus confirming
ϕMn (MN-m) the efficacy and worth of the isolation system
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 implementation.
120
100
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
80
ϕPn (MN)

60 The authors acknowledge the economic support of the

Peruvian Ministry of Education that funded this
40 investigation. The authors would also like to thank
20 Julio Arias for providing his Master’s thesis, from
0 which essential information was obtained about the
seismic hazard parameters for this bridge.
-20
-40
REFERENCES
Note: As-built combinations
Isolated combinations [1] Storchak, D. A., Di Giacomo, D., Bondár, I., Engdahl,
…& Bormann, P. (2013). Public release of the ISC–
Fig. 12: Interaction diagrams and seismic demands for the piers in GEM global instrumental earthquake catalogue
the longitudinal direction (1900–2009). Seismological Research Letters, 84(5),
810-815.
[2] NTE E.030 (2016). Peruvian Seismic Code published
by SENCICO. (Norma Técnica E.030 Diseño
6. CONCLUSION Sismorresistente, in Spanish)
[3] MTC (2003) Bridge Design Manual. Ministerio de
This paper investigated the effectiveness of rubber Transportes y Comunicaciones del Peru (Title in
isolators as a retrofitting measure for highway Spanish: Manual de Diseño de Puentes)
concrete bridges. The object of the study was the [4] Siqueira, G. H., Tavares, D. H., & Paultre, P. (2014).
Huamani Bridge, a continuous concrete highway Seismic fragility of a highway bridge in Quebec
bridge built around 1950 with obsolete seismic retrofitted with natural rubber isolators. Revista
provisions. The methodology consisted of comparing IBRACON de Estruturas e Materiais, 7(4), 534-547.
[5] DesRoches, R., Choi, E., Leon, R. T., & Pfeifer, T. A.
key parameters from the as-built and the isolated
 (2004). Seismic response of multiple span steel
bridges in central and southeastern United States. II:
Retrofitted. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 9(5), 473-
479.
[6] Buckle, I. G., Constantinou, M. C., Diceli, M., &
Ghasemi, H. (2006). Seismic isolation of highway
bridges (No. MCEER-06-SP07).
[7] Tang, A.K. & Johansson, J. (2010). Pisco, Peru,
earthquake of August 15, 2007: lifeline performance.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
[8] Johansson, J., Mayorca, P., Torres, T., & Leon, E.
(2007). A Reconnaissance Report on The Pisco. Peru
Earthquake of August, 15, 2007.
[9] Taucer, F., Alarcon, J. E., & So, E. (2009). “2007
August 15 magnitude 7.9 earthquake near the coast of
Central Peru: analysis and field mission report”.
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 7(1), 1-70.
[10] Zhang, J., & Huo, Y. (2009).’ Evaluating effectiveness
and optimum design of isolation devices for highway
bridges using the fragility function method’.
Engineering Structures, 31(8), 1648-1660.
[11] FHWA (2014). LRFD Seismic Analysis and Design of
Bridges Reference Manual. US Department of
Transportation. Federal Highway Administration,
Washington.
[12] Buckle, I.G., Al-Ani, M. & Monzon, E. (2011).
Seismic isolation design examples of highway
bridges. NCHRP Project, pp.20-7.
[13] AASHTO (American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials) (2010) “Guide
Specification for Seismic Isolation Design” Third
Edition, AASHTO, Washington, D.C.
[14] AASHTO (American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials) (2014) “Guide
Specification for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design”
Second Edition, AASHTO, Washington, D.C.
(Interim).
[15] ACI Committee, American Concrete Institute, &
International Organization for Standardization.
(2008). Building code requirements for structural
concrete (ACI 318-08) and commentary. American
Concrete Institute.
[16] Arias, J.C. & Vargas, J.O. (2015). Evaluación y
comparación del desempeño sísmico de cuatro
tramos de estructura de la línea 1 del metro de Lima
diseñados en épocas diferentes (Master’s dissertation,
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Escuela de
Posgrado. Mención: Ingeniería Civil).

View publication stats