EngineeringStructures,Vol. 18, No. 4, pp.

301-310, 1996
Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0141-0296(95)00147-6 0141-0296/96 $15.00 + 0.00
ELSEVIER

Experimental study of bridge

seismic sliding isolation systems
P. Tsopelas and M. C. Constantinou
Department of Civil Engineering, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA

S. Okamoto, S. Fujii and D. Ozaki

Technology Research Center, Taisei Corp., Yokohama 245, Japan
(Received March 1995; revised version accepted June 1995)

An experimental study of a seismically isolated and a comparable

nonisolated bridge is presented. The bridge model featured flexible
and stiff piers and, in certain cases, different isolation system
properties at the two piers. Designs for application in areas of low
to moderate seismic activity and designs for application in areas
of strong seismic activity and all types of soil conditions were
tested. All systems consisted of sliding bearings and rubber restor-
ing force devices. Moreover, fluid viscous dampers were utilized
in a system specifically designed to withstand the strong and long
period level 2 Japanese design motions while transferring a force
to the substructure not more than one-third of the deck weight and
allowing bearing displacements less than 200 mm in prototype
scale. The analytical modelling of the systems and a design exam-
ple are presented.

Keywords: seismic isolation, bridges, earthquakes, sliding bear-

ings, fluid dampers, testing, shaking table

1. Introduction these bridges consists of lead-rubber bearings2; the rest

Contemporary techniques for seismic hazard mitigation in
bridges include seismic isolation, energy dissipation and the
distribution of seismic forces to elements of the substruc-
ture in accordance to their strength. The latter approach has
been applied in a large number of bridges in Japan j. In
these bridges, unidirectional sliding bearings and viscous
dampers allow longitudinal deck motion due to temperature
changes. The viscous dampers provide resisting force when
subjected to high velocity, seismic motion, thus evenly dis-
tributing the longitudinal seismic forces to the elements of
the bridge substructure.
Seismic isolation is a strategy which attempts to reduce
the seismic forces to or near the elastic capacity of a bridge,
thus eliminating or reducing inelastic deformation and dam-
age to the substructure. "]?his technique also permits distri-
bution of the lateral forces to the various elements of the
substructure. Seismic isolation systems which are charac-
terized by a strong restoring force have been employed in
bridges in New Zealand and the United States 2,3. Currently,
about 60 isolated bridges in the United States, comprising
a total deck length exceeding 12 km are either complete or
under construction. The isolation system of the majority of
being sliding isolation systems 3,4.
Italian engineers championed a different approach to
seismically isolating bridges. They constructed over 150
bridges with a total length exceeding 150 km, the vast
majority of which exhibit nearly elastoplastic behaviours.
Typically, they consist of lubricated sliding bearings and
yielding mild steel dampers. Such systems restrict the force
transmitted to elements of the substructure to a predeter-
mined level, which is independent of the seismic action.
They are, however, characterized by a large dispersion in
peak displacements and the development of permanent dis-
placements 6.
Japan recently moved towards a different approach to
protecting bridges, called 'Menshin', which utilizes iso-
lation bearings to enhance energy dissipation capability and
to distribute the lateral forces to elements of the substruc-
ture 1. Bridges in Japan are designed for strong seismic exci-
tation (magnitude 8 or larger), which is characterized by
strong long period components. Figure 1 presents the level
2 bridge design spectra for Japan 7. Evidently, for effective
seismic isolation it is necessary to lengthen the period to
values beyond 3 s, which is both very difficult to achieve
and results in large displacements. Such displacements are

301
302
1.2 , ~ , , ,
A I 5% -DAMPED
ol
z1.0 I [ " ¢ = ~ ' ~ < ~ ' ~ " ~ v ' ~ A v ~ ' ~ - DESIGN'SPECTRUM
Q
h-
~
w,
0.8 /
~..:V^A,.~_AW~ ^ ~ "~ SIMULATED MOTION
~_)0.6
0
<
LEVEL2 G.C.I
er
I--- LEVEL2 G.C.2 j ~/ ~ not rotation) revealed the following properties. For the free
n
LEVEL2 G.C3 ~
0.0
1 2 3 4
PERIOD (sec)
Figure I Level 2 bridge design spectra for Japan (ground con-
dition 1 = stiff soil; ground condition 3 = deep alluvium soil)
undesirable because they require large expansion joints,
which have maintenance problems, are costly, affect driv-
ing comfort and result in noise pollution. Based on these
considerations Japanese engineers adopted the Menshin
design method.
In 1991, the University at Buffalo and Taisei Corpor-
ation, Japan began a collaborative research programme on
earthquake protective systems for bridges. The main objec-
tive of the project was to produce and experimentally verify
a class of protective systems for use in areas of strong seis-
mic action such as California and Japan. A specific goal
was to produce a system capable of reducing the forces
transmitted to the elastic substructure to about one-third of
the deck weight, while allowing bearing displacements of
less than 200 mm. These requirements should be met for
all ground (soil) conditions of the Japanese level 2 bridge
design motions (see Figure 1 for spectra).
Other objectives of the project were to study the
developed systems under seismic actions that are less than
those of the Japanese level 2 bridge design spectra and to
study established systems which have not previously been
tested within a bridge model. These included the Italian
elastoplastic systems and the spherical sliding FPS sys-
temr, 8.
This paper presents the composition, design, experimen-
tal results and analytical modelling of one of the systems
studied. The system consisted of sliding bearings and rub-
ber restoring force devices. Moreover, fluid viscous dam-
pers were added in order to meet the aforementioned strict
requirements for the Japanese level 2 bridge design
motions.
2. Bridge model and isolation system
Figure 1 shows the tested bridge model. It was designed
to have flexible piers so that under nonisolated conditions
the fundamental period of the model in the longitudinal
direction was 0.25 s (or 0.5 s in prototype scale). At quar-
ter-length scale, it had a clear span of 4.8 m ( 15.7 ft), height
of 2.53 m (8.3 ft) and total weight of 157.8 kN (35.5 kips).
The deck consisted of two AISC W14×90 sections which
were transversely connected by beams. Additional weights
were added to reach the model deck weight of 143 kN (32.1
kips), as determined by the similitude requirements. The
piers were designed to have in their free standing cantilever
position a period of 0.1 s (0.2 s in prototype scale) when
fully loaded (load cells and bottom part of bearings). Fur-
thermore, the piers were detailed to yield under the com-
bined effects of gravity load (40 kN each column) and 50%
Bridge seismic sliding isolation systems: P. Tsopelas e t al.
of the gravity load applied as horizontal load at each bear-
ing location.
Identification of the model was conducted by exciting
the shake table with a 0-20 Hz banded white noise of
0.03 g peak acceleration. Acceleration transfer functions of
each free standing pier and of the assembled bridge model
with all bearings fixed against translational movement (but
standing pier there was a fundamental period of 0.096 s and
a damping ratio equal to 0.015 of the critical value. For the
5 nonisolated bridge model, there was a fundamental period
in the longitudinal direction equal to 0.26 s and damping
ratio equal to 0.02 of the critical value. These values are
in excellent agreement with the design values of 0.1 s and
0.25 s, respectively. Additional identification tests of the
model were also conducted with white noise input of 0.1 g
peak table acceleration to obtain a fundamental period of
0.25 s and a corresponding damping ratio of 0.04 of critical.
The increased damping was the result of hysteretic action,
not in the columns of the model but in the overhangs of
the concrete extension of the shake table. During shake
table testing of the nonisolated model, the recorded loops
of shear force versus displacement of the piers displayed
hysteretic action. Estimates of damping ratio from these
loops were in the range 0.04-0.08 of critical. Thus while
the columns of the piers remained elastic, the pier system
displayed realistic hysteretic action with an equivalent
damping ratio of at least 5% of critical.
The entire weight of the deck was supported by four mul-
tidirectional sliding bearings of the disc type. The beatings
were identical to those utilized by Constantinou et al. 4
Each bearing consisted of an upper plate faced with a pol-
ished, stainless steel plate and a bottom plate which was
supported by an Adiprene disc which allowed for rotation.
The bottom plate of the sliding bearing was delivered with
a circular recess, which could accept plates faced with
PTFE or other materials. This facilitated replacement of the
sliding interface in order to achieve a friction coefficient at
large sliding velocity in the range 0.07-0.15. Table 1 lists
these materials, the bearing pressure and the parameters in
the model of friction. The coefficient of sliding friction, p~,
followed the relation9
=fmax -- (fmax - fmi.)exp(-alt~l) (1)
where f m a x is the coefficient of friction at a high velocity
of sliding, f m i n is the coefficient of friction at essentially
zero velocity of sliding, a is a parameter controlling the
variation of the coefficient of friction with velocity of slid-
ing and u is the velocity of sliding.
The PTFE-based composite material used in bearing C1
was identical to the material No. 1 used in the tests of the
FPS bridge isolation system8 and also used in the beatings
of the US Court of Appeals building in San Francisco. The
glass-filled PTFE and the PTFE-based composite exhibited
remarkably stable properties over a large number of tests.
However, the unfilled PTFE exhibited some scatter in the
recorded values of the coefficient of friction, which had the
tendency to reduce with an increasing number of cycles.
Restoring force capability was provided with rubber
devices acting as horizontal springs with displacement
restraint. Figure 3 shows the construction of a rubber
restoring force device. It provided stiffness by deforming
in the manner shown in Figure 4, that is, by imposing ten-
sion to the elements of the device. The rubber elements
Bridge seismic sliding isolation systems: P. Tsopelas et al. 303
Table 1 Properties of sliding disc bearings

Contact Bearing
Characterization of area pressure a
Bearing friction Material (mm 2) (MPa) fm.x fmin (s/m)

T1 High Unfilled PTFE 7090 5.0 0.150 0.055 23.7

T2 Medium Glass-filled PTFE 2040 17.6 0.138 0.055 75.0
C1 Low PTFE-based composite 320 111.0 0.068 0.040 130.0

F 2 JdSC
Wl4xg0 Table2 Properties of rubber restoring force devices
I 143 k. DBCK / I
l I II I Ill I I1~ II Ill I fl~ I Period of
Rubber isolatedi
--
--
B.9 kN
R U B B E R DEVICE AND FLUID DA[WPEBS
PIER I/3AD
BEARING

No.
hardness
(shore A)
Characterization
of stiffness
Stiffness*
(kN/m)
bridge
(s)
i 1.0 r. ""'. ".../- D,^C~,Gt~ArIO, --~... ..-"" F r2s^~.5/ le
1 45 Low 46.9 2.47
2 67 Medium 112.3 1.60
3 80 High 162.2 1.33
CONCRETE E~rENS[ON

*Each device. Stiffness is secant at displacement of 35 mm

tin model scale for two devices

I~=
I~ 3ee m
#,.80 m
=1
= ', Devices with three values of stiffness were used in the
testing. The different values of stiffness were achieved by
Figure 2 Schematicof quarter-scale bridge model using natural rubber of different hardness as shown in Table
2. Figure 5 shows the representative force displacement
loops of the three devices. The devices exhibited nearly
O.,T,.',.,.
linear behaviour to displacements of about 35 mm. Beyond
this limit they displayed increasing stiffness to the limit of
about 50 mm. After that the devices exhibited nearly rigid
behaviour. The mechanical properties of the rubber devices
were only marginally affected by the frequency of motion.
Rubber devices were installed one at each pier location. For
this configuration, the period of vibration of the isolated
model deck is given in Table 2. This period is not the effec-
tive period in accordance with the definition of AASHTO ]°.
Rather, it is the period when friction is neglected.
The effective stiffness and effective damping ratio of the
devices were dependent on the amplitude of motion. To
I s.75 -/~ J obtain a measure of the energy dissipation capability of the
rubber devices, the effective damping ratio (defined in
Figure3 Construction of rubber restoring force device
accordance with AASHTO ~°) was obtained in tests at an
amplitude of 35 mm, thus prior to the initiation of stiffening

I ~• N
IN
ERC
Y
NL
ID
ER of the devices. It was found to be in the range 2.4-3.8% for
the low stiffness device, 4.0-5.8% for the medium stiffness
device and 6.5-7.8% for the high stiffness device. This
range of values was obtained in cyclic tests with frequency
R
UB
B
ERE
L
EME
NT~ ~ -D
'''UTERC
Y
NL
ID
ER varying from 0.01 Hz (static) to 2 Hz.
15

N I)-R
I COMPRESSION UB
B
E
T
ER
N
O
SEL
E
M
INEN
T 10
FREQUENCY: 0.5 Hz
AMPLITUDE : 38.t mm / No. 3

-- EXPERIMENTAL i / No 2
5 ANALYTICALFOR DEVICEN o y ~ . No"1

LU 0
o
n-
O
iJ.
-S
Figure4 Operation of rubber restoring force device
-10

on the compression side were ineffective until they were

compressed against the outer steel cylinder. At that stage, -50 -25 0 25 50
the device exhibited increased stiffness and acted as a dis- DISPLACEMENT (mm)
placement restrainer. It allowed a maximum displacement Figure 5 Force-displacement loops of rubber restoring force
of about 50 ram. devices
304 Bridge seismic sliding isolation systems: P. Tsopelas et al.
In certain tests, the energy dissipation capability of the
isolation system was enhanced by the addition of four fluid
dampers, which were identical to those used by Con-
stantinou and Symans ~ in the testing of a building model.
Each damper behaved as a linear viscous device with output
force P proportional to the velocity of the piston rod with
respect to the housing t~
P = Co/~ (2)
where the constant C,, had a value of 15.5 N-s/mm at an
ambient temperature of about 25°C.
These dampers were used in a configuration of the iso-
lation system in which medium stiffness rubber devices
(No. 2 in Table 2) and high friction sliding bearings (T1
in Table 1) were utilized. When friction in the system is
neglected, the viscous damping ratio provided by the dam-
pers may be calculated to be approximately equal to 0.50
of critical. However, the effective period and damping of
the isolation system in accordance with AASHTO ~° were
estimated in the model scale and at displacement of 40 mm
to be 0.85 s (1.7 s in prototype scale) and 0.75 of critical,
respectively. These properties fall within a range (period
of 1 to 2 s and damping of 0.7 to 0.8 of critical) for which
the high damping spectra of the Japanese level 2 bridge
design motions have a nearly constant spectral acceleration
at 0.3 g and a spectral displacement of less than 200 mm.
Thus this system could meet the aforementioned perform-
ance criteria.
The instrumentation consisted of displacement trans-
ducers, accelerometers, load cells for measuring the force
transmitted through the sliding bearings and strain gauges
for measuring the shear forces in the pier columns. Details
of the instrumentation and interpretation of measurements
may be found in the report by Tsopelas et al. ~2
3. Test programme
Testing of the bridge model was performed in five different
bridge configurations and seven different isolation system
configurations. The five bridge configurations were
(a) The sliding bearings were locked by side plates to rep-
resent a nonisolated bridge. In this configuration, the
structure was identified in tests with banded white noise
table motion. Furthermore, a selected number of seis-
mic tests was conducted.
(b) Braces were installed to stiffen the piers and the deck
was connected by stiff rods to a nearby reaction wall.
In this configuration, the shake table was driven in dis-
placement-controlled mode with specified frequency
and amplitude of harmonic motion. Loops of bearing
horizontal force versus bearing displacement were
recorded and used to extract the frictional properties of
the sliding bearings.
(c) Both piers were stiffened by braces so that they rep-
resented stiff abutments. In this configuration, the
model resembled a single-span isolated bridge.
(d) The south pier was stiffened by braces so that it rep-
resented a stiff abutment. In this configuration, the
model resembled a two-span bridge with two stiff abut-
ments and a centrally located flexible pier.
(e) A configuration with two flexible piers which
resembled a portion of a multiple-span bridge between
expansion joints.
A total of 369 seismic tests were conducted with a variety
of combinations of isolation system properties and bridge
configurations. These combinations are listed in Table 3.
Tests were conducted with only horizontal input and with
combined horizontal and vertical input. The earthquake sig-
nals and their characteristics are listed in Table 4. The
earthquake signals consisted of historic earthquakes and
artificial motions compatible with
(a) The Japanese bridge design spectra for level 1 and level
2 and ground conditions 1 (rock), 2 (alluvium) and 3
(deep alluvium) 7
(b) The California Department of Transportation
(CalTrans) bridge spectra ~3. These motions were ident-
ical to those used in the testing of another bridge model
by Constantinou et al. 4
Each record was compressed in time by a factor of two to
satisfy the similitude requirements.
4. Test results
The report by Tsopelas et al. ~2 contains a detailed presen-
tation of the experimental results. Herein results are prim-
arily presented in condensed graphical form for the bridge
model with two flexible piers.
One of the tested isolation systems consisted of low fric-
tion (fmax= 0.068) bearings and high stiffness (No. 3) rub-
ber restoring force devices. The system had a period of
1.33 s (or 2.66 s in prototype scale). It was designed for
application in areas of weak to moderate seismic excitation.
Figure 6 compares the substructure peak response of the
bridge with this isolation system to the response of the com-
parable nonisolated bridge. The results in the latter case
have been extrapolated (assuming linear behaviour) to the
theoretical yield limit of the piers. The seismic input con-
sisted of historic earthquakes (El Centro, Taft, Hachinohe,
Miyagiken-Oki; some with vertical component) and simul-
ations of the Japanese level 1 bridge design spectra. The
comparison demonstrates the significant benefits offered by
the isolation system. The peak bearing displacement in
these tests was recorded in the long period Hachinohe
motion (scaled up by a factor of two). It was 28.2 mm or
112.8 mm in prototype scale. The largest permanent dis-
placement was recorded in the same motion. It was 4.1 mm
(or 16.4 mm in prototype scale).
Another tested system utilized medium friction (type T2)
bearings which delivered a coefficient of friction at high
velocity of sliding fmax -- 0.138. This was not very different
from that delivered by the type Tl-high friction bearings
~n~x = 0.150). The results obtained with the medium fric-
tion system were qualitatively the same as those obtained
with the high friction system. A comparison of the sub-
structure responses of the isolated and nonisolated bridges
is presented in Figure 7. The tests were conducted with the
earthquake motions listed in Table 4 except the Japanese
level 2 simulated motions, for which the bearing displace-
ment demand exceeded the capacity of the restoring force
devices and the pier shear forces nearly reached the yield
limit. The peak force transmitted through the isolation sys-
tem did not exceed 0.35 times the deck weight in all of the
tests shown in Figure 7. However, the pier shear force
reached slightly higher peak values due to the effect of the
inertia forces of the pier top. Peak bearing displacements
were less than 50 mm (or 200 mm in prototype scale).
Bridge seismic sliding isolation systems: P. Tsopelas e t al. 305

Table 3 Tested bridge and isolation system configurations

Rubber restoring Fluid viscous

force devices dampers
Pier condition Sliding bearings (type) (stiffness) (number)

Number of South North South North Period* of

tests South North South pier North pier pier pier pier pier vibration (s)

26 Stiff Stiff T1 T1 Medium Medium 0 0 1.60

39 Flexible Flexible T1 T1 Medium Medium 0 0 1.60
14 Flexible Flexible T1 T1 Medium Medium 2 2 1.60
34 Stiff Stiff T2 T2 Medium Medium 0 0 1.60
33 Flexible Flexible T2 T2 Medium Medium 0 0 1.60
27 Stiff Stiff T2 T2 High High 0 0 1.33
38 Flexible Flexible T2 T2 High High 0 0 1.33
27 Stiff Stiff T2 T2 Low Low 0 0 2.47
32 Flexible Flexible T2 T2 Low Low 0 0 2.47
18 Stiff Flexible T2 C1 High Medium 0 0 1.45
18 Flexible Flexible T2 C1 High Medium 0 0 1.45
23 Stiff Stiff C1 C1 High High 0 0 1.33
22 Flexible Flexible C1 C1 High High 0 0 1.33

*Based on secant stiffness of rubber devices and deck weight of 143 kN (in model scale)

Table4 Earthquake motions used in test programme and characteristics in prototype scale

Peak acc. Peak vel. Peak dis.

Notation Record (g) (mm/s) (mm)

El Centro S00E Imperial Valley, 18 May 1940, component S00E 0.34 334.50 108.70
Taft N21E Kern County, 21 July 1952, component N21E 0.16 157.20 67.10
Mexico S90W Mexico City, 19 September 1985, SCT building, component N90W 0.17 605.00 212.00
Pacoima $16E San Fernando, 9 February 1971, component $16E 1.17 1132.30 365.30
Pacoima $74W San Fernando, 9 February 1971, component $74E 1.08 568.20 108.20
Hachinohe N-S Tokachi, Japan, 16 May 1968 Hachinohe, component N-S 0.23 357.10 118.90
Miyagiken OKI Miyaki, Japan, 12 June 1978 Ofunato-Bochi, component E-W 0.16 141.00 50.80
Akita N-S Nihonkai Chuubu, Japan, 23 May 1983 component N-S 0.19 292.00 146.00
JP. L1G1 Artificial corn )atible with Japanese level 1 ground condition 1 0.10 215.00 90.00
JP. L1G2 Artificial com )atible with Japanese level 1 ground condition 2 0.12 251.00 69.00
JP. L1G3 Artifici.al corn )atible with Japanese level 1 ground condition 3 0.14 274.00 132.00
JP. L2G1 Artificial corn )atible with Japanese level 2 ground condition 1 0.37 864.00 526.00
JP. L2G2 Artificial corn ~atible with Japanese level 2 ground condition 2 0.43 998.00 527.00
JP. L2G3 Artifici~l corn )atible with Japanese level 2 ground condition 3 0.45 1121.00 700.00
CalTrans 0.6g A2 Artificial com )atible with CalTrans 0.6g 80"-150' alluvium spectrum, No. 2 0.60 836.40 282.90
CalTrans 0.6g $2 Artificial com )atible with CaITrans 0.6g 10"-80' alluvium spectrum, No. 2 0.60 765.00 248.90
CalTrans 0.6g $3 Artificial corn )atible with CalTrans 0.6g 10'-80' alluvium spectrum, No. 3 0.60 778.00 438.90
CalTrans 0.6g R1 Artificial com )atible with CalTrans 0.6g rock spectrum, No. 1 0.60 530.90 443.80
CalTrans 0.6g R2 Artificial corn )atible with CalTrans 0.6g rock spectrum, No. 2 0.60 510.00 274.30
CalTrans 0.6g R3 Artificial corn )atible with CalTrans 0.6g rock spectrum, No. 3 0.60 571.00 342.40

The results of Figure 7 show a significant property of
the tested systems. The force transmitted to the substructure
is maintained within a narrow range (approximate 0.25 to
0.35 times the weight) for a wide range of strength of exci-
tation (0.2 to 1 g peak ground acceleration) and content in
frequency (motions of Table 4). This desirable behaviour
resembles that of elastoplastic systems. However, the sys-
tems tested had restoring force capability which prevented
the development of large permanent displacement or the
accumulation of permanent displacements in sequential
earthquakes 12.
Moreover, the tested isolated bridge exhibited better
behaviour than the nonisolated bridge in weak seismic exci-
tation. As an example, Figure 8 compares recorded loops
of pier shear force versus pier drift of the nonisolated and
isolated (system with medium stiffness rubber devices)
bridges in the weak Japanese level 1 motions. It can be
observed that the response of the isolated bridge is lower
than that of the nonisolated bridge and also completely
insensitive to the soil conditions (ranging from rock to deep
alluvium). Identical responses were recorded in tests with
restoring force devices having lower (No. 1) and larger
(No. 3) stiffnesses. This desirable property is the result of
velocity dependency of the friction force in the sliding bear-
ings. Hence, the characteristic strength of the isolation sys-
tem is dependent on the strength of the excitation. This
strength is less than the maximum value (fma~ times the
deck weight) in weak seismic excitation.
Testing with the demanding Japanese level 2 motions
was restricted to only the high friction-medium stiffness
(T1-No. 2) isolation system. The top left graph of Figure
9 shows the recorded isolation system force-bearing dis-
placement loop of the system in the Japanese level 2,
ground condition 1 (rock) motion. Displacements reached
the capacity of 50 mm and a force nearly equal to 0.5 times
the deck weight was transmitted to the substructure. The
system did not fulfil the design requirement for a force less
than one-third of the deck weight. The isolation system was
306 Bridge seismic sliding isolation systems: P. Tsopelas et al.

00°
°S°T
i//1I/
i
a JP. LEVEL 1 G.C. 1 JP. LEVEL 1 G.C. 2 JP. LEVEL 1 G.C. 3
0.75
• NONISOlaTEDBRIDGE'(FROMTESTSi
o NsOo
NILeTS~EDLATEDB;IDGE(EXTRAPOLATEDFROMTESTS)

0.50 ~ ~ CO k

rr O.~ THEORETICAL
~< 0.25
0 ~ • • YIELD LIMIT
~ .
IT i ~ -0.4
m 0.00
E 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
°41t ISOLATED T2 - No, 2 C-- . . . . . .

1.00

/ /
(n i
0 DRIFT RATIO=
W. 0.75 DRIFT / HEIGHT
< (=1290ram) E. 0.0
n"
t - 0,50
ii
O0 :~ • •
0.25 OOjDD O O -0.4
n" O O -0.7 0.0 0.7 -0.7 0.0 0.7 -0.7 0.0 0.7
LU
E o.oo PIER DRIFT RATIO (%)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
T A B L E A C C E L E R A T I O N (g) Figure8 Comparison of substructure response of nonisolated
and isolated bridges in weak Japanese level 1 bridge design
Figure 6 Comparison of response of nonisolated and isolated motions
bridges. Case of system with low friction bearings (C1), high
stiffness rubber devices ( N o . 3) and flexible piers
I--
"r 0.5
E3
kg WITHOUT FLUID DAMPERS / WITH FLUIDDAMPERS
~) 1.00 0.3 JP I-2 G.C.1 _~___/ JP I-2 G.C.1
INON IS'OLATEDBRID(3E(FROMTESTS)
• NON ISOLATEDBRIDGE(EXTRAPOLATEDFROMTESTS)
<C 0.75 [:] ISOLATEDBRIDGE T2 - No. 1 0 0.1
n-
o ISOLATEDBRIDGE T2 - No. 2 THEORETICAL O
A ISOLATEDBRIDGE T2 - No. 3 .~ YIELDLIMIT -0.1
"~" 0.50 mnllu ii ......... e .......
o °o A -0,3 f
0.25 .J
O3 0 -0,5
n-
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50
tu 0.00
E 0.0 0:2 o:, o:5 0:8 1.0 I-
"1-
0.5
1.00 [] WITH FLUID DAMPERS WITH FLUID DAMPERS
0,3 JP L 2 ~ JP L2 G.C.3
II' / • DRIFT RATIO=
o 0.75
lqi:> ~ II DRIFT/HEIGHT
(=1290 ram) UJ
n- 0.1
O
n- l/ O
LL -0.1
0.50 ~'" u OoZ~^ 0
-0.3
r',, 0.25 --i
n- O -0.5
UJ i -50 -30 - 10 10 30 50 -50 -30 - 10 10 30 50
~" o.oo SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (ram)
0,0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
T A B L E A C C E L E R A T I O N (g)
Figuro 9 Isolation system force-bearing displacement loops of
Figure 7 Comparison of response of nonisolated and isolated system T1-No. 2 (high friction-medium stiffness) without and
bridges. Case of system with medium friction bearings ( T 2 ) , with fluid viscous dampers in testing of bridge with flexible
rubber devices N o . 1, 2 a n d 3, and flexible bridge piers piers and Japanese level 2 bridge motions

then enhanced with fluid dampers and tested with the same
motion and the ground condition 2 and 3 (deep alluvium)
motions. The results are presented in Figure 9. The
enhanced system allowed a peak bearing displacement of
only 40 mm (or 160 mm in prototype scale) and a peak
isolation system force of about 0.3 times the deck weight. It
fulfilled the set performance criteria for the Japanese level 2
motions of all soil conditions. The insensitivity of the peak
force and displacement response of this enhanced isolation
system to the significantly different details of the three
input motions, is particularly interesting.
The authors investigated the possibility of redesigning
the sliding isolation system to meet the performance criteria
in the long period Japanese level 2 motions without adding
fluid dampers. This could be accomplished with the use of
very high friction bearings (value offmax exceeding 0.20).
This option was not pursued because it would have required
the use of bimetallic or other sliding interfaces, which exhi-
bit Coulomb-type friction 3. This would have rendered the
isolation system ineffective in weak ground motions.
The effect of vertical ground motion was assessed by
conducting pairs of tests, one without and the other with
the vertical input included. Typically, the vertical input had
a minor effect on the recorded response. This effect
appeared as waviness in the loops of isolation system
force-displacement due to fluctuations in the friction force.
As an example, Figure 10 shows the recorded response of
the high friction-medium stiffness isolation system (T1-
No. 2) in the E1 Centro earthquake, scaled up by a factor of
two. In this test the peak vertical table acceleration reached
0.38 g. The effect on the pier peak force and drift was negli-
gible.
A number of tests were conducted to demonstrate the
distribution of seismic loads to various elements of the sub-
structure. In these tests the bridge model was fitted with
medium friction (type T2) bearings and medium stiffness
(No. 2) rubber devices at the south pier and low friction
(type C1 ) bearings and low stiffness (No. 3) rubber devices
at the north pier. Figure 11 shows the recorded response
of this system in a test with the E1 Centro motion, scaled
Bridge seismic slidir,,g isolation systems: P. Tsopelas et al. 307

~"
g
40.
SYSTEMT1 - No.2 EL CENTRO200%
where p,; = coefficient of sliding friction at pier i, W* =
_i normal load on two sliding interfaces at pier i, F , = restor-
o.
ing force from the rubber device at pier i, n = number of
,O fluid dampers at pier i (either 0 or 2) and Co; = damping
Z constant of one fluid damper. Furthermore, Lib; is the bear-
r r

<
LU
m
-- HORIZONTALONLY ing displacement at pier i. The coefficient of sliding friction
- - - HORIZONTAL+ VERTICAL follows relation (1) and the normal load, W;, is given by
-40.
CO
0 10 20 30 W* = IV;(l+(]vi/g), where W; = weight carried by pier i, and
I- TIME (sec) ~ ; is the table (ground) vertical acceleration of pier i. Fur-
"r
(.9 0.3
m thermore, variable Z; in equation (3) satisfies the follow-
ing equationg:
uJ
O
rr

O
LL
0.0 r;z, + 71b.Iz;Iz;I - L;.; = 0 (4)
if5
>-
CO In this equation, Y; = 'yield' displacement (= 0.25 mm) and
J
o -0.3 /3 and7 = parameters satisfying the condition/3+ 7 = 1.
co -40 0 40
The force Fr; has been described as
SW BEARINGDISPLACEMENT(mm)

Figure 10 Effect of vertical ground motion on response of iso- 1

lated bridge with flexible piers and system T1-No. 2 (high F.; = Fo;(Ub;) + ~Fo;( Ub;)Zri (5)
friction-medium stiffness',, subjected to El Centro 200% input
I.-
"r
0
0.3 , , . , , . where Fo;(Ub;) is the displacement-dependent skeleton
[] RUBBER DEV. No.2 RUBBER DEV. No.3 curve and FD;(Uh;) is also the displacement-dependent dif-
BEARING C1
0.1
ference between the loading and unloading branches of the
I.u
0
~,. hysteresis loop of a rubber restoring force device. F,,; and
0
LI_ Fo; may be expressed as odd and even polynomial functions
~A -0.1 of displacement, respectively
._i SOUTH PIER NORTH PIER
o -0.3 , , , f , _ l ,
N
-40 -20 0 ,~0 40 ~.0 -20 0 20 40
SW BEARINGDISPL (ram) NW BEARING DISPL (ram) Fo; = ~ A.U~; (6)

)
I-
n = 1 , 3 , 5 ....
0.3 i r I , ~ , i

/
M

FDi= ~ B,.U~ (7t

0.1 I
-0.1
n-
w
-0.3
--6 -4 -2 0 2 4
Q.
PIER DRIFT (ram)
Figure 11 Example of distribution of seismic forces to selected
elements of substructure in test with El Centro 200% motion
up by a factor of two. The transfer of more force to the
south pier and the associated relief of the north pier are
demonstrated.
Tests with model configurations with one stiff and one
flexible pier and two stiff piers resulted, in general, in lower
bearing displacements and lower force transmitted to the
substructure.
5. Analytical prediction of response
The tested isolation bridge model was modelled in suf-
ficient detail to account for the effects of pier flexibility,
pier top rotation, dependency of friction force on sliding
velocity and instantaneous normal force and hysteretic
characteristics of rubber restoring force devices. Details of
the analytical model may be found in Tsopelas et al. 12
Herein it is sufficient to describe the model for the iso-
lation system.
The horizontal force transmitted by the isolation system
to each pier top has been expressed as
Fbi = ~,Li( ~Jbi) W * Z i Jr Fn + nCo;~Jbi
m = 0 , 2 , 4 ....
Moreover, quantity Zr; in equation (5) is a new hysteretic
NORTH PIER variable which also satisfies equation (4) with/3+7-- 1 and
6 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
Y; being a new 'yield' displacement.
PIER DRIFT (mm) The model of restoring force devices described by equa-
tions (5)-(7) is capable of describing the complex behav-
iour which is depicted in Figure 5. However, for displace-
ments below the limit at which stiffening occurs, it was
found sufficient to model the devices as simple linear and
viscous elements. Figures 12 and 13 present comparisons
of experimental and analytical results in two selected tests.
It should be noted that the analytical prediction is good.
6. Design spectra
The experimental results demonstrated that it is possible
to design effective isolation systems which meet stringent
criteria in strong excitation with long period components.
However, the reader should note that these results were
obtained with a model in which the substructure was either
nearly rigid or had only limited flexibility. The writers
extended their experimental results to a range of parameters
that it was not possible to test by conducting analytical
studies. The results were presented in the form of response
spectra, which may be used for preliminary design (see
Tsopelas et al. 12 for a complete description).
One of the bridge models used in the analytical study
was termed the 'pier-deck model'. It is illustrated in Figure
14. In this model the isolated bridge is described by the
(3) coefficient of friction p~, period of isolation T, damping
308 Bridge seismic sliding isolation systems: P. Tsopelas et al.

5O DECK (VEIGHT=Vd)
SYSTEM T2-No. 2 ANALYTICAL "

I
I I

(5 -10
q---=px..._ ISnLATION
z

00
-30
-50
0 10
, 20
,

30
PIER
SYSTEM

F.- TIME (sees)

"r"
0.5 i i i
ILl
0.3 ///////////////////
or
0.1
LU
"1-
O3 -0.1 Uo
(/'j
>-
CO -0.3 EFFECTIVE PIER
li
O -0.5 STIFFNESS '~ ~ - EpIFFRECvTIVEHT
¢J) -50 I
-30 - 110
10 ' 3~0 50 RESTORING
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (ram) FORCE DEVICE
2.0

.J
w 1.0 v,
o
o
< 0.0
o.
O
p..
rr -1.0
LU
FRICTIONAL
O.. \ I LINEAR ELEMENT
-2,0
2 3 4 5 6 7
EFFECTIVE .__3 VISCOUS
PIER DAMPING DAMPER
TIME (sees) CONSTANT
Figure 12 Comparison of experimental and analytical res- Figure 14 Pier-deck model and mathematical representation
ponse of isolated bridge with system T2-No. 2 in test with Taft
N21E input scaled up by factor 5
500
3O
g ~ = 0.4
g ~M
ETSYS T`'N°' R2/'FLUID DAMPERs ...~..... EA;;ELRY]'I:EAL A L .J
400 -- ~=0.0 ........ -~--_
.d
O. 10 300
tj~
O (.9 2O0
(5 _z
Z -10
E- 100
<(
ING LU
LU m
113 0 , i , , J , , , , i .... i , , , , i , , , ,
I , , i
-30 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
0 5 10 15 i-

I-- TIME (sees) 0.6 .... , . . . . , . . . . , . . . . , . . . .

"I- m
0.4 i
0.5
W
LU

0.2 0.4
nr
<~
w 0,0 ~: 0.3
I
o3
>- -0.2 -c 0.2
o3 Tp--0.2s
co
.J ,,¢, 0.1 .... L , , , , I , , , , I , , , , I ....
0 -0.4 R" 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
-30 -10 1~0 ' - 30
ISOLATION SYSTEM PERIOD (sees)
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
I 0.4 Figure 15 Response spectra of pier-deck model of isolated
uJ NORTH PIER b r i d g e w i t h / z = 0.15, W p / W d = 1/10, ~jp = 0 . 0 5 f o r J a p a n e s e l e v e l
0.2 2, g r o u n d c o n d i t i o n 1 i n p u t
0
w
r~ 0.0
<
ILl -0.2 CpgTp
I
O9
rr
Ill i i L ~ _ , i I
~P - 4 7rWp (9)
-0.4
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
PIER DRIFT (mm)
T = 2~ \~gg/ (10)
Figure 13 Comparison of experimental a n d a n a l y t i c a l res-
p o n s e o f i s o l a t e d b r i d g e w i t h v i s c o u s f l u i d d a m p e r s in t e s t w i t h
J a p a n e s e l e v e l 2, g r o u n d c o n d i t i o n 1 CgT (11)
= 4~-w,,
ratio of isolation system ~, period of free standing pier Tp,
damping ratio of free standing pier ~p and weight ratio Figure 15 presents an example of such spectra for the
Wp/W~ Japanese level 2, ground condition 1 input. It should be
noted that these spectra are valid for elastic pier behaviour
Tp = 2w \~ng] (8)
and for displacements below the stiffening limit of the
restoring force devices.
Bridge seismic sliding isolation systems: P. Tsopelas et al. 309

To illustrate the use o:f these spectra, consider the design
of an isolation system for a bridge with piers having an
elastic period Tp, equal to 0.2 s (this is also the case of the
tested bridge with flexible piers when the properties are
extrapolated to prototype scale). A maximum beating dis-
placement of 200 mm is allowed. The design options are.
(a) Sliding bearings wi[h friction coefficient at high velo-
c i t y / , = 0.15, isolation period T= 1.5 s and no viscous
damping. The pier shear force for elastic conditions will
be about 0.49 Wd (Wd=carried deck weight). The
effective period at displacement d = 200 mm is
(definition of AASHTO m)
Teff= 27r ( ~ - +~-)l~g~-l/2 (12)
Figure 16 presents spectra for the Japanese level 1, ground
condition 1 input. This motion has a peak ground acceler-
ation equal to 0.1 g and a spectral shape similar to that of
Figure 1 but with a peak spectral acceleration of 0.2 g. It
is regarded as a weak motion with high frequency of occur-
rence. The parameters in the model of the isolation system
are identical to those used in the construction of the spectra
in Figure 15. That is fm,x = 0.15,fmi, = 0.05 and a = 23 s/m.
For comparison it is noted that a nonisolated bridge would
experience a pier shear force of 0.2 times the deck weight.
Therefore, the enhanced isolation system results in a
reduction of the pier shear force in this minor ground
motion although the system has been designed to work for
a much stronger motion. The reason for this desirable
behaviour is the velocity dependence of both the friction
force and the viscous damping force.

or Teff = 1.26 s. A fi~asible design would be to design 7. Conclusions

the piers with a yield strength of 0.35 Wd, allow limited
inelastic action in the piers and provide for a stiffer
isolation system so that the effective period is about
1 s. In Japan, this design would be called Menshin.
(b) Sliding bearings with/z = 0.15, isolation system period
T= 2.8 s and viscou,; dampers with ~= 0.40. The pier
shear force will be. about 0.30Wd for elastic pier
conditions. The effective period at displacement
d = 2 0 0 m m (equation (12)) is 1.78s. It should be
noted that this estimate of effective period does not
include the contribution of the viscous damping force.
The actual effective period may be calculated since the
actual effective stiffness is known (0.3 Wd/d, where
d = 200 mm). It is equal to 1.64 s. This design is prefer-
able to the first one because it prevents inelastic action
from occurring in the piers, The design is acceptable
provided that it is shown to have sufficient restoring
force to prevent the development of significant perma-
nent displacements.
The 1991 AASHTO m specifies that an isolation system
has sufficient restoring figrce when the lateral force at the
design displacement d is at least 0.025 Wa greater than the
lateral force at 0.5d. This requirement may be expressed
as ~2
An experimental study of an isolated bridge and a compara-
ble nonisolated bridge has been conducted. The isolation
system consisted of sliding bearings, rubber restoring force
devices and fluid dampers in seven different configurations.
Moreover, the bridge piers could be configured to be either
flexible or stiff (representing abutments). One of the sys-
tems had low friction bearings and it was configured for
application in areas of low and moderate seismicity.
Another system was configured with different isolation sys-
tem properties at the two piers in order to selectively direct
the seismic forces to the elements of the substructure. All
other systems were configured for areas of strong seis-
micity, such as California and Japan. In this case the design
criteria called for a maximum bearing displacement of less
than 200 mm (in prototype scale) and peak isolation system
force less than one-third of the deck weight (0.33 W).
The experimental results demonstrated a substantial
reduction of the seismic substructure forces in comparison
to the response of the nonisolated bridge. Bearing displace-
ments were less than 160 mm in the prototype scale and
the isolation system forces were less than 0.35 W for all
seismic excitations, except those of the Japanese level 2
bridge design motions. For these long period motions it was
necessary to enhance the energy dissipation capacity of the

g~ 30
d ~-- (13) g 1 , . ~. o14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
80~ E .... ~ = 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3P -=°-4s-. . . . . . . . . . . .
_ _ - -

20
where T is defined by equation (10) (this is not the effective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T_p_=O=2_s . . . . . . . .

period). The writers ]2 proposed a different definition of a (9

z__lO
system with sufficient restoring force, which may be rr
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RIGI_D_PI_E _R

expressed as m
0 , , , , i , , , , i , , , , i , , , , i , , , ,

1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

I-
d -> /xgT2 _~ 0.2
12rr2 (14) IJJ . . . . ~ Tp=O,4s

0
uJ

The latter requirement appears as more rational because it "" 0.1 i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

accounts for the effect of the characteristic strength (or < RIGID PIER
LU
friction) of the isolation system. The two requirements are I

identical when/z = 0.15. Thus, either equation (12) or (13) ~ 0.0 ' , , , i , , , , i , , , , i , , , , i , , , ,

predict for the second design that d should be larger than E 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
97.4 mm. Since d = 200 mm, the system has sufficient ISOLATION SYSTEM PERIOD (sees)
restoring force. Figure 16 Response spectra of p i e r - d e c k model of isolated
In order to further describe the performance of sliding bridge w i t h / ~ = 0.15, WJWd= 1.10, ~p = 0.05 f o r Japane s e level
isolation systems which are enhanced with fluid dampers, 1, g r o u n d condition 1 input
310 Bridge seismic sliding isolation systems: P. Tsopelas et al.
isolation system by fluid viscous dampers. Under these con-
ditions, the bearing displacements were less than 160 mm
and the isolation system force was less than 0.33 W. More-
over, this enhanced system appeared to be insensitive to
the frequency content of the input motion.
The tests demonstrated how a selective direction of seis-
mic forces to the various elements of the bridge substruc-
ture can be achieved. Moreover, the tests determined that
the vertical ground excitation has minor effects on the
response of the tested isolated bridge.
An analytical model of the tested bridge was developed
and shown to be capable of predicting the observed
response. An example of the preliminary design of isolation
systems by utilizing design spectra has been presented. A
design with high friction bearings and fluid viscous dam-
pers has been shown to have a significant advantage over
a Menshin design in terms of capability to reduce the sub-
structure seismic forces.
Moreover, results have been presented which demon-
strate that a sliding system enhanced with fluid viscous
dampers and designed to work for a strong ground motion
is also effective in frequently occurring weak ground
motions. The reason for this desirable behaviour is the velo-
city dependence of both the friction force and viscous
damping force. It is not difficult to envisage that elasto-
meric isolation systems can also be enhanced with fluid
dampers and result in similarly effective isolation systems.
Acknowledgments
This work has been supported by the National Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research, the Taisei Corporation,
Japan and Taylor Devices, Inc., N. Tonawanda, New York.
References
1 Kawashima, K. and Unjoh, S. 'Menshin design of highway bridges
in Japan', Proc. 3rd US-Japan Workshop on Earthquake Protective
Systems for Bridges, Berkeley, CA, Report NCEER-94-0009,
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State Univer-
sity of New York, Buffalo, NY, 1994
2 Mayes, R. L. 'Seismic isolation of bridges in the USA', Proc., 3rd
US-Japan Workshop on Earthquake Protective Systems for Bridges,
Berkeley, CA, Report NCEER-94-0009, National Center for Earth-
quake Engineering Research, State University of New York, Buffalo,
NY, 1994
3 Soong, T. T. and Constanfinou, M. C. (Eds) Passive and active struc-
tural vibration control in civil engineering, Springer-Verlag, Vienna-
New York, 1994
4 Constantinou, M. C., Kartoum, A., Reinhorn A. M. and Bradford, P.
'Experimental and theoretical study of a sliding isolation system for
bridges'. Report NCEER-91-0027, National Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research, State University of New York, Buffalo
NY, 1991
5 Medeot, R. 'The evolution of seismic devices for bridges in Italy',
3rd World Congress on Joint Sealing and Bearing Systems for Con-
crete Structures, Toronto, Canada, 1991, Vol. 2 of Preprints,
pp 1295-1320
6 Tsopelas, P. and Constantinou, M. C. 'NCEER-Taisei Corporation
research program on sliding seismic isolation systems for bridges-
experimental and analytical study of a system consisting of lubricated
PTFE sliding bearings and mild steel dampers', Report NCEER-94-
0022, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State
University of New York, Buffalo, NY, 1994
7 Civil Engineering Research Center-CERC, Manual of Menshin
design method for highway bridges, Ministry of Construction, Japan
1992 (in Japanese)
8 Constantinou, M. C., Tsopelas, P., Kim, Y.-S. and Okamoto, S.
'NCEER-Taisei Corporation research program on sliding seismic iso-
lation systems for bridges-experimental and analytical study of Fric-
tion Pendulum System (FPS)', Report NCEER-93-0020, National
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of
New York, Buffalo, NY, 1993
9 Constantinou, M. C., Mokha, A. and Reinhorn, A. M. 'Teflon bear-
ings in base isolation II: modeling'. J. Struct. Engng, ASCE 1990,
116(2), 455-474
l0 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), Guide specifications for seismic isolation design, Wash-
ington, DC, 1991
11 Constantinou, M. C. and Symans, M. D. 'Experimental and analytical
investigation of seismic response of structures with supplemental
fluid viscous dampers'. Report NCEER-92-0032, National Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York,
Buffalo, NY, 1992
12 Tsopelas, P., Okamoto, S., Constantinou, M. C., Ozaki, D. and Fujii,
S. 'NCEER-Taisei Corporation research program on sliding seismic
isolation systems for bridges-experimental and analytical study of
systems consisting of sliding bearings, rubber restoring force devices
and fluid dampers', Report NCEER-94-0002, National Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York,
Buffalo, NY, 1994
13 Gates, J. H. 'Factors considered in the development of the California
seismic design criteria for bridges', Proc., Workshop on Earthquake
Resistance of Highway Bridges, Applied Technology Council, Palo
Alto, CA, 1979, pp 141-162