Dissertation2007 Dimitriadou

Istituto Universitario
Universit degli
di Studi Superiori
Studi di Pavia
EUROPEAN SCHOOL FOR ADVANCED STUDIES IN

REDUCTION OF SEISMIC RISK
ROSE SCHOOL
EFFECT OF ISOLATION
ON BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN AND RESPONSE
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Master Degree in
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
by
OLYMPIA DIMITRIADOU
Supervisor: Prof. MICHAEL FARDIS
May, 2007
The dissertation entitled Effect of isolation on bridge seismic design and response, by
Olympia Dimitriadou, has been approved in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering.
Prof. M.N. Fardis
Abstract
ABSTRACT
The aim of this document is to evaluate the seismic performance of an existing bridge after the
implementation of lead-rubber bearings on top of its piers. In order to achieve this, a computational
capability, developed in the University of Patras, was used for the seismic assessment of the bridge
and the response -nonlinear dynamic- analyses. Based on these results and the performance levels of
the bridge in different PGAs, a detailed design and modeling of the seismic isolation was performed
as to upgrade the seismic performance in a certain level.
The dynamic response of the bridge is presented before and after the implementation of the leadrubber bearings as well as comparative results.
Finally, some conclusions are given regarding the analytical results, the modeling issues, the
effectiveness of seismic isolation and some practical issues.
Keywords: bridge; lead-rubber bearings, isolation, seismic assessment, performance level, damage
index.
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Vassilis Bardakis, PhD student of the
University of Patras, the person who helped me more in the fulfilment of this work. His suggestions
and advices, his continuous support and most of all his giving character gave me both knowledge and
confidence to proceed.
My gratitude to my professor M.N. Fardis for his trust and the opportunity given to work on
something I really wanted.
Also, I would like to thank all the staff of the University of Pavia, the ROSE and MEEES students, my
friends. I am also thankful for the MEEES scholarship that made the effort much easier.
Finally, I thank my family and the people I love for their constant support, gaiety and guidance.
ii
Index
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................iii
LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................................................vi
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................................xi
LIST OF SYMBOLS ............................................................................................................................xii
1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................15
1.1 Assessment of seismic performance of RC bridges.................................................................15
1.2 Seismic isolation ......................................................................................................................15
1.3 Analyzed structure ...................................................................................................................16
1.4 Organization of the thesis ........................................................................................................18
2 MODELING....................................................................................................................................19
2.1 The computational capability...................................................................................................19
2.2 Modeling aspects .....................................................................................................................21
iii
Index
2.3 Estimation of effective stiffness...............................................................................................23

3 ANALYSIS RESULTS ...................................................................................................................26
3.1 Original design of the bridge ...................................................................................................26
3.2 Assessment of the bridge performance ....................................................................................26
3.3 Accelerograms .........................................................................................................................27
3.4 Chord rotations and damage indices ........................................................................................29
3.4.1 Analytical results for the 0.25g PGA level ....................................................................30
3.5 Performance of the bridge members in cyclic flexure .............................................................46
3.6 Performance of bridge members in cyclic shear ......................................................................47
3.7 Conclusions from the analyses.................................................................................................54
4 SEISMIC ISOLATION ...................................................................................................................55
4.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................55
4.2 Seismic retrofit.........................................................................................................................55
4.3 Upgrading the performance by using isolation devices ...........................................................56
4.4 Isolation devices.......................................................................................................................56
4.4.1 Lead-plug bearings.........................................................................................................57
4.5 Implementation of seismic isolation in bridges .......................................................................57
4.6 Mechanical characteristics of lead-plug bearings ....................................................................58
4.7 Design of the bearings .............................................................................................................60
4.7.1 Preliminary design .........................................................................................................62
4.7.2 Final design....................................................................................................................66
5 IMPLEMENTATION OF BASE ISOLATION IN THE BRIDGE MODEL .................................68
5.1 Modeling aspects of base isolation ..........................................................................................69
iv
Index
5.2 Analytical results .....................................................................................................................72

5.2.1 Damage indices..............................................................................................................73
5.3 Shear force in connection to the PGA level and direction .......................................................75
5.4 Influence of the isolation in the Imperial Valey (1879), California eartquake ........................78
5.4.1 Longitudinal direction (x) ..............................................................................................79
5.4.2 Transverse direction (z) .................................................................................................80
5.5 Influence of the PGA level n the Imperial Valley (1879), California earthquake ...................82
5.6 Influence of the isolation for the 0.35g PGA level related to the time-history realized ..........83
5.7 Influence of the isolation on the shear forces for the 0.35g PGA level in the Kalamata (1986),
Greece earthquake.................................................................................................................................90
5.8 Energy dissipation in the Loma Prieta (1989) earthquake .......................................................91
5.9 Effect of the isolation on energy dissipation............................................................................93
5.10 Conclusions from the analyses.................................................................................................94
6 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................95
7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................97
APPENDIX A: ACCELEROGRAMS .................................................................................................98
APPENDIX B: SHEAR FORCE COMPARISONS...........................................................................102
APPENDIX C: DISPLACEMENT COMPARISONS .......................................................................125
APPENDIX D: ENERGY DISSIPATION.........................................................................................137
Index
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1.1. Analyzed bridge......................................................................................................16

Figure 1.2. Section of the analyzed bridge- Transverse direction ...........................................17
Figure 1.3. Reinforcement details of the deck section at the midspan .....................................17
Figure 1.4. Section of the piers- Reinforcement .......................................................................18
Figure 2.1. Bridge design to be modeled ..................................................................................21
Figure 2.2. Discretization of the bridge ....................................................................................22
Figure 2.3. Discretization of the piers- Lumped masses...........................................................22
Figure 3.1. Time histories used for the analysis modified to conform to the 5% damped EC8
spectrum............................................................................................................................28
Figure 3.2. Bridge response in the longitudinal (x) direction in the 0.25g PGA level .............30
Figure 3.3. Bridge response in the transverse (z) direction in the 0.25g PGA level.................31
Figure 3.4. Energy dissipation in the Loma Prieta (1989) earthquake (Ca) 0.25g(x)...........33
Figure 3.5. Energy dissipation in the Loma Prieta (1989) earthquake (Ca) 0.25g (z)..........34
Figure 3.6. Moment variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- x direction (0.25g).34
Figure 3.7. Moment variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- z direction (0.25g).35
Figure 3.8. Bridge response in the longitudinal (x) direction in the 0.35g PGA level .............36
Figure 3.9. Bridge response in the transverse (z) direction in the 0.35g PGA level.................36
vi
Index
Figure 3.10. Energy dissipation in the Loma Prieta (1989) Earthquake (Ca) 0.35g (x) .......38
Figure 3.11. Energy dissipation in the Loma Prieta (1989) Earthquake (Ca) 0.35g (z) .......39
Figure 3.12. Moment variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- x direction (0.35g)
...........................................................................................................................................40
Figure 3.13. Moment variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- z direction (0.35g)
...........................................................................................................................................40
Figure 3.14. Bridge response in the longitudinal (x) direction in the 0.45g PGA level ...........41
Figure 3.15. Bridge response in the transverse (z) direction in the 0.45g PGA level...............42
Figure 3.16. Energy dissipation in the Loma Prieta (1989) Earthquake (Ca) - 0.45g (x)........44
Figure 3.17. Energy dissipation in the Loma Prieta (1989) Earthquake (Ca) - 0.45g (z)........44
...........................................................................................................................................45
...........................................................................................................................................45
Figure 3.20. Damage indices in flexure (a) 0.25g, (b) 0.35g, (c) 0.45g ...................................47
Figure 3.21. Ductile shear failure .............................................................................................48
Figure 3.22. Damage indices in shear (a) 0.25g, (b) 0.25g, (c) 0.45g .....................................50
Figure 3.23. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- x direction
(0.25g)...............................................................................................................................51
Figure 3.24. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- z direction
(0.25g)...............................................................................................................................51
(0.35g)...............................................................................................................................52
(0.35g)...............................................................................................................................52
(0.45g)...............................................................................................................................53
(0.45g)...............................................................................................................................53
Figure 4.1. Lead Rubber Bearing..............................................................................................57
vii
Index
Figure 4.2. Bilinear approximation of hysteretic force-displacement behaviour .....................58

Figure 4.3. Elastic Response Spectrum (EC8-1:2004), Period Shift ........................................60
Figure 4.4. Plan view of the isolated pier section .....................................................................65
Figure 4.5. Section through the final lead-plug bearing ...........................................................67
Figure 5.1. Analyzed structure after the implementation of seismic isolation .........................68
Figure 5.2. Isolated bridge section............................................................................................68
Figure 5.3. 3D model of the isolated bridge .............................................................................69
Figure 5.4. Model of the isolated bridge xy plane .................................................................70
Figure 5. 5. Properties of the shear spring ................................................................................70
Figure 5.6. Detail of the bearings modeling in the two transverse directions- restrains .........71
Figure 5.7. Detail of the shear springs that model the LRBs in the two directions.................71
Figure 5.8. Damage indices of the isolated bridge in flexure in a) 0.25g, b) 0.35g and c) 0.45g
PGA level..........................................................................................................................73
Figure 5.9. Damage indices of the isolated bridge in shear in a) 0.25g, b) 0.35g and c) 0.45g
PGA level..........................................................................................................................74
(0.25g)...............................................................................................................................75
(0.25g)...............................................................................................................................76
(0.35g)...............................................................................................................................76
(0.35g)...............................................................................................................................77
(0.45g)...............................................................................................................................77
(0.45g)...............................................................................................................................78
Figure 5.16. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Imperial
Valley (1879) earthquake, Ca 0.25g (x).........................................................................79
viii
Index
Valley (1879) earthquake, Ca 0.25g (z).........................................................................80
Figure 5.22. Influence of the ground acceleration on the isolation displacement in the x
direction ............................................................................................................................82
Figure 5.23. Influence of the ground acceleration on the isolation displacement in the z
direction ............................................................................................................................82
Figure 5.24. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Loma
Prieta (1989) earthquake, Ca 0.35g (x)..........................................................................83
Figure 5.25. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Loma
Prieta (1989) earthquake, Ca 0.35g (z) ..........................................................................84
Figure 5.26. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Kalamata
(1986) earthquake, Greece 0.35g (x) .............................................................................84
Figure 5.27. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Kalamata
(1986) earthquake, Greece 0.35g (z)..............................................................................85
Figure 5.28. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the
Montenegro (1979) earthquake 0.35g (x) ......................................................................85
Montenegro (1979) earthquake 0.35g (z) ......................................................................86
Figure 5.30. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Friuli
(1976) earthquake 0.35g (x)...........................................................................................86
Figure 5.31. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Friuli
(1976) earthquake 0.35g (z)...........................................................................................87
Montenegro (1979) earthquake 0.35g (x) ......................................................................87
ix
Index
Montenegro (1979) earthquake 0.35g (z) ......................................................................88
Figure 5.36. Response of the isolated bridge to various earthquakes in 0.45g PGA................89
Figure 5.37. Isolation influence on shear force at the top of the left pier in the Kalamata
(1986) earthquake, Greece 0.35g (x) .............................................................................90
Figure 5.38. Isolation influence on shear force at the top of the left pier in the Kalamata
(1986) earthquake, Greece 0.35g (z)..............................................................................90
Figure 5.39. Energy dissipation by the isolated bridge at the 0.25g PGA level of the Loma
Prieta (1989) earthquake in the longitudinal direction .....................................................91
Figure 5.40. Energy dissipation by the isolated bridge at the 0.35g PGA level of the Loma
Figure 5.41. Energy dissipation by the isolated bridge at the 0.45g PGA level in the Loma
Figure 5.42. Comparison of the energy dissipation between the monolithic and the isolated
model at 0.25g PGA..........................................................................................................93
model at 0.35g PGA..........................................................................................................93
model at 0.45g PGA..........................................................................................................94
Index
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1. Typical sections and corresponding moment-curvature diagrams (a) deck near the
support to the pier, (b) deck near mid-span, (c) the base of pier ......................................23
Table 3.1. Relationship between the Park and Ang damage index and pier damage state.......30
Table 3.2. Moment vs end-chord rotations diagrams and failure surfaces of the left pier and
the right-side central span deck in the longitudinal and transverse direction ...................32
the middle of the central span deck in the longitudinal and transverse direction .............37
the middle of the central span deck in the longitudinal and transverse direction .............43
Table 4.1. Spectral acceleration Se and displacement dcd (Table 7.1 EC8)..............................61
Table 4.2. Values of the parameters describing the elastic response spectra of EC8 ...............61
Table 4.3. Bearings properties.................................................................................................63
Table 4.4. Preliminary LRB design ..........................................................................................64
Table 4.5. Improved preliminary LRB design ..........................................................................65
Table 4.6. Final LRB design .....................................................................................................66
Table 4.7. Basic parameters of the LRB design........................................................................67
Table 5.1. Typical diagrams of moment vs end-chord rotations and failure surfaces of the left
pier in the longitudinal and transverse direction...............................................................72
xi
Index
LIST OF SYMBOLS
(EI)c
(EI)eff
Ac
ag,R
=Stiffness of the uncracked member

=Effective stiffness
= Cross-sectional area
= ground acceleration on rock
Aplug
= Area of the plug
Arub
= Area of the rubber
Asw
= Cross-sectional area of a circular stirrup
ay
= Yield displacement
= Depth of circular section
dbd
= Design displacement
dy
= Yield displacement
ED
= Dissipated energy
F0
= Force at zero displacement
fc
FLy
Fmax
Fy
= Concrete strength
= Yield force of lead core
= Maximum force
= Yield force
xii
Index
fyw
= Yield stress
Gb
= Shear modulus
Gg
= Apparent conventional shear modulus
h
Ke
Keff
Kp
Krub
Ls
= Depth of rectangular cross-section

= Elastic stiffness
= Effective stiffness of isolation system
= Post-yield stiffness
= Stiffness provided by the rubber
= Shear span
Md
= Mass of the superstructure
My
= Yield moment
= Axial Force
= Post-yield ratio
Se
= Spectral acceleration
sh
= Centerline spacing of stirrups
= Fundamental period
= Thickness
Teff
= Effective period
VR
= Shear strength
Vw
= Shear resistance due to transverse reinforcement
Vy
= Flexural yielding
= Compression zone depth
pl
= Plastic rotation
= Chord rotation at the yielding end
pl
= Ratio of post-elastic to the yielding end chord rotation
xiii
Index
eff
= Effective damping
tot
= Total longitudinal reinforcement ratio
= Yield curvature
xiv
Chapter 1. Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Assessment of seismic performance of RC bridges
Bridges are the most vulnerable components of the transportation system and a vital
component, the disruption of which would pose a threat to emergency response and recovery
as well as serious economic losses after a strong earthquake.
Many of the bridges constructed during the last decades in Greece were designed with little
seismic consideration. Awareness of the potential hazard has increased in the past years. This
coupled with the recommendation of a design spectrum based on a longer return period
characteristic earthquake has initiated seismic evaluations, as well as prompted concern over
the cost of the large number of bridges that may need to be retrofitted.
A seismic assessment analysis of an existing bridge is an essential means of evaluating the
level of risk associated with the loss of serviceability, severe damage, or collapse. With the
risk quantified, rational decisions can be made as to whether the bridge should be retrofitted
or replaced or to accept the risk and leave the bridge in the existing state.
There are several levels and approaches for assessment of structural systems, ranging from
physical inspection or using a code expression to compare supply and demand. The
assessment of any bridge analyzed involves a detailed structural analysis.
According to Eurocode 8, two are the basic requirements:
1. No-collapse requirement and
2. Damage limitation requirement. In general the criteria, while aiming explicitly at satisfying
the non-collapse requirement, implicitly cover the damage requirement as well.
When these requirements are not fulfilled, retrofit activities should take place in order to
satisfy the performance criteria regarding the safety and the serviceability.
1.2 Seismic isolation
In the last decades, various retrofit techniques are being used, one of which is the use of
seismic isolation. The latter has received an increased attention from designers for the seismic
hazard mitigation of bridges. This technique, having the main aim to protect relatively low
mass elements as piers and foundations, makes use of seismic isolators located between
15
bridge deck and piers. Therefore, the use of aseismic devices is very simple in bridges,
because these can be easily placed replacing conventional bearings, adopted to accommodate
thermal variations. So, apart from its use in new bridges, it can help in upgrading the seismic
performance and improve the response of existing bridges as well.
The main feature of the seismic isolation is the reduction of seismic forces to or near the
elastic limit capacity of structural elements so as to avoid or limit inelastic deformations and
related damage phenomena. In bridges, by using seismic isolation, shear forces transmitted
from the superstructure to the piers are reduced by shifting the natural period of the bridge
away from the frequency range where the energy content of earthquakes is high. As a result,
the superstructure motion is decoupled from the piers motion during the earthquake, thus,
producing an effect of the reduction of inertia forces. At the same time, the seismic energy
demand of the bridge is also reduced as a consequence of dissipation energy concentrated in
isolators that are suitably designed for this purpose. The main characteristic of isolation
devices, whose constitutive law is approximately of a linear type, is exactly the augmentation
of the natural period of the protected system. Damping, mainly of a hysteretic kind, may be
small or large.
1.3 Analyzed structure
The bridge which is analyzed here is presented in Figure 1.1. It is a 120m long 3-span freecantilever bridge (bridge T6 of the Egnatia Motorway in Northern Greece) supported by 2
abutments and 2 reinforced concrete piers. The abutments and piers rest on 4 direct
foundations. The bridge has a central span of 49.60 m and two side spans of 35.20 m each,
two short piers having height 7.05m and 6.39m, sliding supports at the abutments in the
longitudinal direction and full restraint in the transverse direction (Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1. Analyzed bridge
The superstructure consists of a prestressed concrete box girder deck, with 12.0m width at the
top and 5.5m at the bottom or 8.44m above the abutments. Its depth is 2.5m, constant over the
length of the bridge. The deck section is solid above the abutments and base of the piers and
reduces into a hollow one soon after and along the span (Figure 1.3). The two piers are short,
with heights 7.08m and 6.39m respectively, ending in a pile- foundation as shown in Figure
1.3. The pier section is circular with 2.4m diameter (Figure 1.4).
16
The bridge has been designed for the 5%-damped Type 1 elastic spectrum of soil type C
(medium-stiff soil) in Eurocode 8 and a peak ground acceleration (PGA) on rock of 0.16g,
which, according to Eurocode 8, produces a PGA on top of soil type C equal to
1.15x0.16g=0.184g. For the design, the 5%-damped elastic spectrum was reduced by a
behavior factor q equal to 1.54 for the x direction and 2.05 for the y direction.
Figure 1.2. Section of the analyzed bridge- Transverse direction
Figure 1.3. Reinforcement details of the deck section at the midspan
17
Figure 1.4. Section of the piers- Reinforcement
1.4 Organization of the thesis

In an effort to mitigate potential damage to existing bridges, this thesis focuses on the
assessment of the seismic performance of a bridge constructed as part of the Egnatia
motorway in northern Greece through reliable methodologies and with the help of an
advanced computational capability. Then a practical and effective technique for the seismic
upgrade of this structure using seismic isolation devices will be developed. The isolation
devices will be designed and modeled. Analytical results will be presented in order to estimate
the favorable effect of seismic isolation and the extent of the upgrade.
In Chapter 2, the modeling issues and the assumptions made for the assessment of the
earthquake performance of the bridge are developed. In Chapter 3, analytical results from the
analyses are presented and conclusions are made for the seismic performance of the bridge as
designed. In Chapter 4, general features of seismic isolation are briefly presented to the
reader, as well as the procedure of selecting the isolation devices to be used. There is an
extended presentation of the modeling of the devices and their mechanical characteristics. In
Chapter 5, analytical results from the analyses of the retrofitted bridge model are presented
and comparative results are given. The final conclusions are presented in Chapter 6.
18
Chapter 2. Modeling
2 MODELING
2.1 The computational capability
For the modeling and the analysis of the concrete bridge, a computational capability was used.
The computational tool was the computer program ANSRuop-Bridges, developed in the
laboratory of Structures, University of Patras as an improved and expanded version of ANSRI program developed at UC Berkeley for the nonlinear response analysis of structures in 3D
(Mondkar and Powell, 1975).
The seismic response analysis capabilities of the expanded version of ANSR include:
1. Linear static analysis, under lateral forces proportional to nodal masses and a specified
force pattern, including inverted triangular forces (transverse or parallel to the bridge axis) or
a modal force pattern, derived from user-specified or default response spectra, given the
internally determined value of the fundamental translational periods in the directions of
application of the forces.
2. Eigenmode/eigenvalue calculation and response spectrum elastic analysis for user-specified
or default response spectra, with Complete Quadratic Combination of modes.
3. Nonlinear static (pushover) analysis, under increasing lateral forces proportional to
specified force patterns as in 1 above and
4. Nonlinear dynamic (response-history) analysis, under one or two horizontal ground motion
components (transverse or parallel to the bridge axis).
A fully object-oriented approach was adopted in the development of ANSRuop-Bridges from
ANSR-I. A user-friendly graphical user interface was developed and implemented. It includes
a full-feature pre-processor that allows a fully graphical definition of the bridge structure
(geometry, connectivity, sections, prestressing tendons and reinforcement, point and
distributed loads).
The types of sections commonly encountered in concrete bridges were implemented:
- For piers: circular or rectangular sections (solid or hollow), with the common arrangements
of vertical and transverse reinforcement.
19
Chapter 2. Modeling
- For the deck: single-cell box section with vertical or inclined webs, tapered outhangs and
internal haunches in the box, or T-beam.
In both cases user-friendly generation capabilities are available for the placement of
longitudinal and transverse reinforcement and of prestressing tendons.
The pre-processor allows construction of moment-curvature diagrams of the pier or deck
sections for given value of axial force and of the pre-strain of prestressing tendons, and
identification of characteristic points therein (decompression, cracking, yielding and flexural
failure of the section). The curvature is incremented and the corresponding value(s) of the
bending moment(s) are determined from moment equilibrium and the nonlinear stress-strain
laws of steel and concrete, after the position of the neutral axis has been iteratively
determined on the basis of axial force equilibrium. The effective secant stiffness to
characteristic points of the moment-curvature diagram is determined, as well.
The pre-processor allows also calculation of the rigidity of the section in shear or torsion,
including the possibility of modification for the effects of cracking. The default option is to
take the torsional and shear rigidities equal to a user-specified fraction of the full elastic
torsional or shear rigidity of the uncracked gross section.
A full-feature post-processor (Kosmopoulos and Fardis 2006) allows a fully graphical display
of plots of force, displacement, deformation or damage (demand-capacity ratio in flexure or in
shear) from the analysis. If the analysis is nonlinear dynamic for a set of strong motion
components, the minimum, the maximum and the mean value of the force, displacement,
deformation or damage ratio for the suite of the motions are displayed, along with the
coefficient-of-variation of each quantity. Video output is also possible, displaying normal
modes, the response from pushover or dynamic time-history analysis and the time-evolution
of plastic hinges or member damage (Kosmopoulos and Fardis 2006).
The post-processor includes evaluation of the deck and of the pier on the basis of the analysis
results. Flexural behavior and failure are evaluated in terms of chord-rotations at member
ends or of section curvatures), while the behavior and failure in cyclic shear (diagonal tension
failure before or after flexural yielding, web crushing or diagonal compression failure) are
evaluated in terms of forces. For the piers, this is done on the basis of expressions developed
in (Biskinis and Fardis 2006) for:
- the pier yield moment,
- the effective stiffness at yielding of the pier end section(s), including effects of shear and
pull-out of vertical bars from their anchorage beyond the pier end,
- the shear resistance, including its reduction after flexural yielding with the magnitude of
cyclic inelastic deformation, and
- the ultimate chord-rotation capacity at the pier end under cyclic loading.
20
Chapter 2. Modeling
These performance measures depend on the geometry and the mechanical properties of the
pier and of its reinforcement, and on certain quantities that vary during the seismic response:
- the axial force, N,
- the moment-to-shear ratio (shear span Ls ),
- the compression zone depth and the location of the neutral axis with respect to the
longitudinal reinforcing bars, and
- the maximum inelastic deformation demand to the present point of the response, etc. When
the analysis is nonlinear, in increments (steps) of loading (for nonlinear static analysis) or of
time, this part of the post-processor operates during the calculation of the response and the
value of the performance measure is updated, whenever the value of the response quantity on
which the performance measure depends, changes beyond a certain tolerance.
2.2
Modeling aspects
Figure 2.1. Bridge design to be modeled
Prismatic beam elements in 3D are used for the deck and the piers. Inelasticity is lumped at
point hinges at the ends of each element, with a bi- or tri-linear moment-rotation envelope and
modified-Takeda-type hysteresis rules.
The treatment of inelasticity in the two transverse directions is independent and uncoupled.
However, in each direction the M-N interaction is considered (My-N and Mz-N), as well as the
effect of the variation of axial force during the response.
Tributary masses are automatically lumped at the nearest node of the model.
P- (2nd-order) effects are included.
Figure 2.1. Bridge design to be modeled shows the discretization of the deck and the piers
used in the analysis.
Piers were considered as fixed and the bridge as simply supported to the abutments.
21
Chapter 2. Modeling
Figure 2.2. Discretization of the bridge
The deck was discretized longitudinally into a series of nonlinear elements, with separate and
uncoupled behavior in the two main directions of bending of the deck section (about the
horizontal cross-sectional axis for the response within a vertical plane through the
longitudinal axis, about the vertical axis for the response within a horizontal plane in the
transverse direction of the bridge). Likewise, the two piers were also discretized as shown in
Figure 2.3. Discretization of the piers- Lumped masses, demonstrating also the tributary
masses lumped at the nodes.
Figure 2.3. Discretization of the piers- Lumped masses
The moment-rotation relations at the two ends of each element simulating a segment of the
deck in the longitudinal direction were taken as multilinear, with corners at cracking and
yielding of the box section, fitted to the moment-curvature relationship of the cross-section.
This relationship is derived through an algorithm that takes into account the longitudinal
reinforcement and prestressing and comes from a section analysis based on the plane sections
hypothesis.
Moment-curvature diagrams at typical sections of the deck near the support to the pier or near
mid-span and at the base of the piers are shown in the figures of Table 2.1: (a), (b) and (c)
respectively. In these diagrams, it is noted the effect of prestress in the deck sections as well
as the one of symmetry of the pier sections on the moment-curvature figures.
With yellow dots are denoted the yield moment M y in the corresponding yield
curvatures y .For the deck, yielding of the section on the side where the mean tendon is,
22
Chapter 2. Modeling
essentially corresponding to concrete cracking, i.e. for zero presumed tensile strength of
concrete coincides with decompression. Red dots are used for section ultimate curvature.
a)
b)
c)
Table 2.1. Typical sections and corresponding moment-curvature diagrams (a) deck near the support to
the pier, (b) deck near mid-span, (c) the base of pier
Torsional stiffness about the longitudinal axis of the deck and the pier was taken equal to the
full elastic torsional stiffness of the uncracked section. The joint region of the deck and the
pier was considered as rigid, but slippage of pier vertical bars from that joint was accounted
for, by including the effect of the resulting fixed-end rotation of the pier top sections within
the corresponding secant-to-yielding stiffness of that end of the pier. Fixed-end rotation was
similarly included at the bottom section, where the pier was considered fixed at its (pile)
foundation.
2.3 Estimation of effective stiffness
It has recently been recognized that displacements and deformations- rather than strength-,
demands and capacities, determine seismic performance and safety. In order to account for the
inelastic deformations, various types of analyses use ductility factors which however, are poor
descriptors of deformation capacity. These analyses are based on the equal-displacement
approximation (with a correction factor, in those cases where the fundamental period of the
23
Chapter 2. Modeling
building, T , is shorter than TC ) and they use as input a global seismic displacement demand
derived from the 5%-damped elastic response spectrum.
On the other hand, another way of estimation of the inelastic local displacement and
deformation demands, throughout the structure via linear static, modal response spectrum
analyses and even time-history analysis, is to use a realistic estimate of the global elastic
stiffness. For concrete structures this means using realistic values of the effective cracked
stiffness of concrete members at yielding.
According to Eurocode 8 and other recent codes, the global inelastic response of the structure
to monotonic lateral forces is bi-linear, close to elastic-perfectly-plastic. The elastic stiffness
used in analysis should correspond to the stiffness of the elastic branch of such a bi-linear
global force-deformation response. This means that the use of the full elastic stiffness of
uncracked concrete or masonry in the analysis is inappropriate. So, Eurocode 8 requires that
the seismic analysis of concrete buildings should be based on member stiffness taking into
account the effect of cracking. Thus, that the stiffness of concrete members corresponds to the
initiation of yielding of the reinforcement (secant stiffness to the yield-point).
Unless a more accurate modeling of the cracked member is performed, Eurocode 8 allows
taking that stiffness equal to 50% of the corresponding stiffness of the uncracked member,
( EI ) c , neglecting the presence of the reinforcement. This is unconservative within the
framework of displacement-based seismic assessment and retrofitting of existing structures
and member seismic deformation demands are seriously underestimated. The best way to
realistically estimate the effective elastic stiffness of the shear span of a concrete member
(moment-to-shear ratio at the end, Ls = M V ) in a bilinear force-deformation model under
monotonic loading, is to use the value of the secant stiffness of the shear span at member
yielding:
EI eff =
M y Ls
3 y
(2.1)
where M y is the value of the yield moment in the bilinear M- model of the shear span and
y is the chord rotation at the yielding end, both from first principles with empirical
corrections obtained from calibrations with relevant test results. For circular piers:
y = y
y db f y

Ls + av z
L
+ 0.0022 max 0, 1 s + asl
3
8 fc
6D
(2.2)
Calculation of the effective stiffness, from Eq. 2.1, using the values of M y and y , requires
knowledge of the amount and arrangement of the longitudinal reinforcement. So this approach
can be conveniently used for displacement-based seismic assessment of existing buildings,
but does not lend itself for displacement-based seismic design of new structures. For this
latter purpose a purely empirical effective stiffness may be more convenient, expressed in
terms of geometric etc. characteristics of the member which are known before dimensioning
of its reinforcement.
24
Chapter 2. Modeling
The following expression was fitted by Biskinis et al. [2006] to the available experimental
data. For the common in practice case, that slip of the longitudinal bars from their anchorage
beyond the member end section is physically possible, the effective stiffness at member
yielding based on Eq. 2.2 is:
L
EI eff = 0.09 1 + 0.7 s (1 + 3.5v)(1 0.37 sl )( EI ) c
D
(2.3)
where = N Ac f c , D the depth of the section, asl is a zero-one coefficient taken equal to
zero if pull-out is not physically possible and ( EI ) c denotes the stiffness of the uncracked
gross concrete section.
In this thesis, the establishment of the effective stiffness of the piers and of the deck EI eff was
done as follows:
Regarding the deck, cracking was expected to take place under this combination of the
design seismic action and gravity loads. So, the cracked stiffness of the deck section was
used, evaluated from a moment-curvature diagram of the section under the action of the
pertinent prestressing force. In the -unsymmetrical- box sections about their horizontal
centroidal axis, the mean value of the cracked stiffness for positive or negative bending was
used. This, however, was not the case for sections near the supports (piers) were stiffness was
evaluated from negative bending and in the region of midspans were stiffness from positive
bending was evaluated from negative bending respectively, due to the effect of tendons
prestressing.
Regarding the piers, the value of EI eff was the secant stiffness to yielding of the end
sections where plastic hinges were expected to develop under the combination of the design
seismic action with the relevant gravity loads: at the base of each pier and at its connection to
the deck for the longitudinal seismic action, or at the base of each pier alone for the transverse
seismic action. The secant stiffness to yielding of the plastic hinge sections, EI eff , depended
not only on the geometry of the pier section and on its axial load, but also on the moment-toshear ratio (shear span) at these sections, as well as on the amount and arrangement of
longitudinal reinforcement.
Since the deck is monolithically connected to an arrangement of more than one pier in its
transverse direction, then Ls is equal to half the clear height of the pier in that direction as
well.
25
Chapter 3. Analysis Results
3 ANALYSIS RESULTS
3.1 Original design of the bridge
The bridge was designed for the 5%-damped Type 1 elastic spectrum of soil type C (mediumstiff soil) in Eurocode 8 and a peak ground acceleration (PGA) on rock of 0.16g, which,
according to Eurocode 8, produces a PGA on top of soil type C equal to 1.15x0.16g=0.184g.
For the design, the 5%-damped elastic spectrum was reduced by a behavior factor q equal to
1.54 for the x direction and 2.05 for the y direction.
From a modal analysis, the natural vibration period in the z (transverse) direction was found
to be T ( z ) = 0.9163 sec and in the x (longitudinal) direction T ( x) = 0.6493 sec , with a
percentage of effective mass equal to 82.2 % and 94.4 % respectively.
The expected values of material strengths used in the analysis were: 35.5 or 43 MPa for the
concrete of the piers and the deck, respectively (27.5 or 35 MPa nominal values) and 575
MPa for the reinforcing steel (500MPa nominal value).
Taking into account overstrength of the materials alone, the bridge would be expected to
develop first yielding at a PGA on rock of about (1.5/1.54)x0.16g 0.156g in the x direction
and (1.5/2.05)x0.16g 0.12g in the z direction. The assumptions made in the seismic design
of the bridge, regarding the effective stiffness of the deck and the piers, which were taken
equal to 60% and 100% of the uncracked section stiffness, respectively, in a force-based,
intentionally overestimated the stiffness. Hence, the design values of seismic internal forces
were on the safe (i.e. conservative) side.
3.2 Assessment of the bridge performance
There are several levels and approaches for assessment of structural systems. Inelastic timehistory analysis is the most sophisticated method available for assessing bridge performance.
To determine the response corresponding to different specified limit states, a series of
analyses at different intensity of seismic input is needed, given that plastic rotations and other
magnitudes are not in general linearly related to seismic input intensity.
Thus, nonlinear time-history analyses were performed, for seven acceleration time-histories
emulating the strongest among the two horizontal components of seven historic earthquakes,
but modified to conform to the 5%-damped Type 1 elastic spectrum for soil type C in
Eurocode 8. Each of the seven motions was applied in the longitudinal direction and in the
transverse direction of the bridge for peak ground acceleration on rock: 0.25g, 0.35g and
26
0.45g, corresponding to effective ground acceleration on top of soil type C about 0.29g, 0.40g
and 0.52g, respectively. Each motion was applied in the positive and in the negative sense,
giving at the end 84 nonlinear analyses.
3.3 Accelerograms
Each time-history motion emulates the strongest among the two horizontal components of
seven historic earthquakes, but was modified to conform to the 5%-damped Type 1 elastic
spectrum for soil type C in Eurocode 8. The seven historic records emulated are:
Bonds Corner, Imperial Valley (1979) earthquake, Ca

Capitola building, Loma Prieta (1989) earthquake, Ca
Kalamata (1986) earthquake, Greece
Herceg Novi, Montenegro (1979) earthquake
Tolmezzo, Friuli (1976) earthquake
Ulcinj, Montenegro (1979) earthquake
El Centro, Ca. Imperial Valley (1940) earthquake, Ca
The motions and spectra shown in Figure 3.1, refer to a PGA on rock of 0.25g, which,
according to Eurocode 8, produces an effective ground acceleration on top of soil type C
which is higher by 15% (i.e., 0.2875g).
Each of the seven motions was applied separately in the longitudinal direction of the bridge
(defined by the chord connecting the middle of the deck section at the two abutments) and in
the orthogonal transverse direction. Due to the asymmetry of the bridge in the
longitudinal direction, each motion was applied in the positive and in the negative sense,
giving at the end 14 nonlinear analyses for each of the two orthogonal horizontal directions.
27

0.2
0.15
0.15
0.2
0.1
Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)
0.1
0.05
-0.05
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.1
-0.15
-0.15
-0.2
-0.2
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
Time (sec)

0.2
0.15
0.15
10
11
12
13
14
15
11
12
13
14
15
13
14
15
0.1
Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)
0.2
0.1
0.05
-0.05
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.1
-0.15
-0.15
-0.2
-0.2
10
11
12
13
14
15
Time (sec)
10
Time (sec)

0.2
0.15
0.15
0.2
0.1
0.1
Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)
Time (sec)
0.05
-0.05
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.1
-0.15
-0.15
-0.2
-0.2
10
11
12
13
14
15
Time (sec)
10
11
12
Time (sec)

0.2
0.15
Acceleration (g)
0.1
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
Time (sec)
Figure 3.1. Time histories used for the analysis modified to conform to the 5% damped EC8 spectrum.
28
In a seismic design procedure in which inelastic deformation demands are estimated through
appropriate linear-elastic seismic response analyses, of prime interest is the magnitude of
chord rotation demands predicted through nonlinear time-history analyses.
3.4 Chord rotations and damage indices

Chord rotation at member ends is the most important and convenient deformation measure for
concrete members. This is because both in the elastic and inelastic range, the chord rotation
demands at the two ends which are due to flexure alone determine the distribution of bending
moments along the full length of the member. Also, in member type models they are equal to
the nodal rotations of the ends and it is in terms of them that the stiffness relation of the
member is formulated and finally, unlike curvatures which lack of physical meaning,
deflections are easily measured experimentally which in turn are converted into chord
rotations.
An additional checking of the seismic performance was done by the computational capability,
which uses indices directly referring to a performance based design. Performance levels and a
viable procedure for identifying them by analytical methods, is at the heart of all bridge
assessment procedures. Eurocode 8 provides for two limit states of performance: the Damage
Limit State (DLS) and the Ultimate Limit State (ULS). Limit States are defined in terms of
(acceptable) degree of damage and associated implications on the functionality of the bridges
In the DLS, damage indices both at member and in global level should be less than 20 % and
plastic rotations pl at the ends of every member should be less than 6 y -the chord rotation at
first yielding. In the ULS, these damage indices should be between 20 % and 60 % and the
plastic rotations should be less than 8 y . Table 1 shows the relationship between the Park and
Ang damage index and pier damage state.
The computational capability uses the terms DL to express Damage Limitation, SD for
Serious Damage and NC for Near Collapse performance level. In the latter one the structure
is heavily damaged, at the verge of local collapse or even of total collapse. The structure may
have large permanent drifts, and may retain little residual strength and stiffness against lateral
loads, but its vertical elements can still carry the gravity loads. It is unsafe, as it may not
survive another earthquake, not even a strong aftershock. Repair may not be technically
feasible and certainly is not economically justified.
29
Table 3.1. Relationship between the Park and Ang damage index and pier damage state
3.4.1 Analytical results for the 0.25g PGA level

Figure 3.2 shows the typical response of the bridge in the longitudinal direction under PGA
0.25g induced motions. In all cases, plastic hinging was caused at the bottom of both piers.
Over the central span of the deck and next to the right- shorter- pier, cracking at both top and
bottom of the box and yielding of the reinforcement and/or the tendons at the top took place
most of the times. 0.25g motions in the longitudinal direction induced shear failure of both
piers in most of the cases. In the transverse direction (Figure 3.3) and only in a few cases
plastic hinging at the bottom of the left pier occurred. Shear failure did not take place either in
the deck or in the piers.
Figure 3.2. Bridge response in the longitudinal (x) direction at the 0.25g PGA level
30
Figure 3.3. Bridge response in the transverse (z) direction at the 0.25g PGA level
In Table 3.2, there are presented typical diagrams of moment versus end-chord rotations (a),
(c) and of the failure surfaces of the left pier and the right-side central span deck (b), (d) in the
longitudinal and transverse direction respectively. Regarding the pier, a small amount of
energy was dissipated in the longitudinal direction and almost double in the transverse
direction. In the transverse direction, chord rotations were slightly bigger. In the deck, there
was observed a remarkable difference between the two directions. The response of the deck in
the transverse direction was ductile, whereas in the longitudinal direction, the energy
dissipated was small and yielding of the section occurred after relatively few cycles. The
results can easily be explained taking into account the different overstrength provided to the
bridge in its two transverse directions.
31
Longitudinal direction (x)
Transverse direction (z)

Left pier (bottom)
Deck (right side of central span)
Table 3.2. Moment vs end-chord rotations diagrams and failure surfaces of the left pier and the right-side
central span deck in the longitudinal and transverse direction
32
Figures 3.4 and 3.5 show the amount of energy dissipated from the bridge in the Loma Prieta
(1989) California earthquake in the 0.25g PGA level in the x and z direction respectively.
Notable is the response of the bridge in the transverse direction which resembles the response
of a perfect solid. This behavior is expected, given that the PGA level is very close to the one
the bridge was designed for.
Energy dissipation 0.25g (x) - Monolithic bridge

15000
10000
Force (KN) .
5000
z
0
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0.05
0.1
0.15
-5000
-10000
-15000
Displacement (m)
Figure 3.4. Energy dissipation in the Loma Prieta (1989) earthquake (Ca) 0.25g(x)
33
Energy dissipation 0.25g (z) - Monolithic bridge

5000
4000
3000
Force (KN) .
2000
1000
z
0
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0.05
0.1
0.15
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
Displacement (m)
Figure 3.5. Energy dissipation in the Loma Prieta (1989) earthquake (Ca) 0.25g (z)
Figure 3.6 shows the variation of moment versus the steps of the time-history of the Kalamata
(1986) earthquake in Greece in the longitudinal direction and Figure 3.7, the one of the
transverse direction during the simulated time-history.
Moment 0.25g(x) - Kalamata (1986) earthquake, Greece
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-10000
-20000
-30000
-40000
-50000
Time (sec)
34
Moment 0.25g(z) - Kalamata (1986) earthquake, Greece

10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
-8000
-10000
Time (sec)

For the 0.35g PGA motions in the longitudinal direction, plastic hinges were formed at both
the top and the bottom of the piers. Yielding of the reinforcement and/or tendons and cracking
of the top and bottom of the box extends from the internal part of the central span- next to the
piers- further into the middle of the span. Shear failure took place in all cases in the piers in
the longitudinal direction.
A typical performance of the bridge under the 0.35g motion is shown in Figure 3.8. In the
transverse direction plastic hinging was induced only at the bottom of both piers and
decompression of the prestressing tendons took place in most of the cases in the middle of the
central span of the bridge as shown in Figure 3.9.
35
36

Left pier (bottom)
Deck (middle of central span)
Table 3.3. Moment vs end-chord rotations diagrams and failure surfaces of the left pier and the middle of
the central span deck in the longitudinal and transverse direction
37
Table 3.3 presents typical diagrams of moment versus end-chord rotations (a), (c) and of the
failure surfaces of the left pier and the right-side central span deck (b), (d) in the longitudinal
and transverse direction respectively. Regarding the pier, a significant amount of energy was
dissipated in the longitudinal direction. In the transverse direction, chord rotations were
larger, as well as the energy dissipated in this direction. At any rate, energy dissipation was
much larger in both directions than under the 0.25g PGA level. In the deck, there was
observed a remarkable difference between the two directions. The response of the deck in the
transverse direction was similar to the one of the 0.25g PGA level with smooth loops
replacing the purely elastic response. In the longitudinal direction, there was pinching in the
loops and small energy dissipation. Yielding of the section occurred after a relatively few
cycles.
Figures 3.10 and 3.11 show the amount of energy dissipated from the bridge in the Loma
Prieta (1989) California earthquake under the 0.35g PGA level in the x and z direction
respectively.
15000
10000
Force (KN) .
5000
0
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0.05
0.1
0.15
-5000
-10000
-15000
Displacement (m)
Figure 3.10. Energy dissipation in the Loma Prieta (1989) Earthquake (Ca) 0.35g (x)
38

6000
4000
Force (KN) .
2000
0
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0.05
0.1
0.15
-2000
-4000
-6000
Displacement (m)
Figure 3.11. Energy dissipation in the Loma Prieta (1989) Earthquake (Ca) 0.35g (z)
Figure 3.12 shows the variation of moment versus the steps of the time-history of the
Kalamata (1986) earthquake in Greece in the longitudinal direction and Figure 3.13, the one
of the transverse direction during the simulated time-history.
39
Moment 0.35g (x) - Kalamata (1986) earthquake, Greece

60000
40000
20000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-20000
-40000
-60000
Time (sec)
Moment 0.35g (z) - Kalamata (1986) earthquake, Greece
15000
10000
5000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
40

Figure 3.14, shows the typical response of the bridge in the longitudinal direction under PGA
0.45g induced motions, which caused plastic hinging at the base of both piers and the tops as
well. As under the 0.35g PGA motions, plastic hinging of the reinforcement and/or tendons,
and cracking of the top and bottom of the box extended from the central part of the middle
span further. Shear failure of both piers occurred. By increasing the PGA the Eurocodes 8
Serious Damage limit state was exceeded. As in the other PGA levels, there was no shear
failure in the transverse direction. Plastic hinging was induced only at the bottom of both
piers. The most remarkable feature at this PGA level in the transverse direction is that the
Near Collapse limit state of the Eurocode was exceeded (Figure 3.15).
41
Table 3.4 presents typical diagrams of moment versus end-chord rotations (a), (c) and of the
failure surfaces of the left pier and the right-side central span deck (b), (d) in the longitudinal
and transverse direction respectively. Regarding the pier, a relatively large amount of energy
was dissipated both directions. In the transverse direction, chord rotations were larger. The
hysteresis loops were wider than under the previous PGA level but still keeping their
characteristic shape. Longitudinally, hysteresis loops were less smooth. In the deck, there was
observed a small difference between the two directions.
42

Left pier (bottom)
Deck (middle of central span)
Table 3.4. Moment vs end-chord rotations diagrams and failure surfaces of the left pier and the middle of
the central span deck in the longitudinal and transverse direction
43
Figures 3.16 and 3.17, show the amount of energy dissipated from the bridge under the Loma
Prieta (1989) California earthquake at the 0.45g PGA level in the x and z direction
respectively.
15000
10000
Force (KN) .
5000
z
0
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0.05
0.1
0.15
-5000
-10000
-15000
Displacement (m)
Figure 3.16. Energy dissipation in the Loma Prieta (1989) Earthquake (Ca) - 0.45g (x)

6000
4000
Force (KN) .
2000
0
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
z0
-0.05
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
-2000
-4000
-6000
-8000
Displacement (m)
Figure 3.17. Energy dissipation in the Loma Prieta (1989) Earthquake (Ca) - 0.45g (z)
44
Figure 3.18 and 3.19 show the variation of moment versus the steps of the time-history of the
Kalamata (1986) earthquake in Greece in the longitudinal and transverse direction
respectively.
Moment 0.45g(x) - Kalamata (1986) earthquake, Greece
60000
40000
20000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-20000
-40000
-60000
Time (sec)
Moment 0.45g(z) - Kalamata (1986) earthquake, Greece

15000
10000
5000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
45
3.5 Performance of the bridge members in cyclic flexure

Flexural damage was concentrated at the end region of the piers and in some cases it caused
yielding of the reinforcement and/or tendons and cracking of the top and bottom of the box
sections next to the piers. Members were detailed for earthquake resistance with a minimum
ductility of 1.5. Normally, members do not fail abruptly under cyclic loading, so flexural
failure is typically gradual, controlled by progressive deterioration of the compression zone.
There was loss of stiffness, strength and energy dissipation capacity but that could not be
considered as member failure.
Figure 3.20 shows the mean value of the ratio of the inelastic chord rotation demands from the
84 nonlinear time-history analyses in the longitudinal and transverse direction of the bridge to
the corresponding capacity for PGA on rock: 0.25g, 0.35g and 0.45g, corresponding to
effective ground acceleration on top of soil type C about 0.29g, 0.40g and 0.52g, respectively
in flexure. Namely, they give the damage indices for each PGA.
As the PGA level increased, both displacements and induced forces increased proportionally.
The response values of the demand to capacity ratios in Figure 3.20 that reflect the response
of the bridge, increased respectively. Under ground motions about twice or three times as
strong as the design seismic action, the bridge did not exceed the ultimate conditions in all
time-history analysis in flexure, apart from the connection of the deck with the piers.
46
Figure 3.20. Damage indices in flexure (a) 0.25g, (b) 0.35g, (c) 0.45g
3.6 Performance of bridge members in cyclic shear

If it precedes flexural yielding, ultimate failure of concrete members in shear occurs at
relatively low deformations and is associated with a large drop in lateral load resistance; so, it
is considered as a brittle failure mode. On the contrary, when concrete members subjected
to cyclic loading first yield in flexure but ultimately fail in shear, the so-called ductile shear
failure takes place (Fig. 3.21). During the performed analyses, this kind of shear failure was
observed. Failure in shear under cyclic loading after initial flexural yielding is attributed to
faster degradation of shear strength with load cycling than of flexural strength. Degradation of
shear strength with cyclic loading is associated with diagonal tension and yielding of web
reinforcement.
47
Figure 3.21. Ductile shear failure
In regions within flexural plastic hinges, flexural cracks develop into large and intersecting
diagonal ones, the damage of the compression zone and the reduction of its size suffered are
larger, longitudinal bars develop inelastic strains, or even buckle, and lose most of their
effectiveness in dowel action. At the end sections the compression zone should also resist the
effects of the diagonal strut of the truss mechanism of shear resistance.
The phenomenon is normally expressed quantitatively as a reduction of shear strength with
cyclic inelastic deformations, until the so-reduced shear strength, VR , drops below the value of
shear force corresponding to flexural yielding, V y = M y Ls . The value of member
deformation where this takes place may be considered as its deformation capacity, as
controlled by shear.
Biskinis et al [2006] proposed the following alternative models for the degradation with
cyclic inelastic deformations of the shear resistance due to diagonal tension within the plastic
hinge zone:
48
VR =
hx
min( N ;0.55 Ac f c ) + 0.16 1 0.095 min 5, pl max(0.5,100 tot )
2 Ls
Ls
1 0.16 min 5;
h
VR =
))
(3.1)
f c Ac + Vw
hx
min( N ;0.55 Ac f c ) + (1 0.05 min (5, pl ))
2 Ls
Ls
0.16 max(0.5,100 tot )1 0.16 min 5;
h
f c Ac + Vw
(3.2)
Where for circular sections:

h is the depth of the cross-section, equal to the diameter,
x is the compression zone depth, N is the compressive axial force,
Ls
is the shear span ratio at the member end,
h
Ac is the cross-sectional area,
f c is the concrete strength in MPa,
tot is the total longitudinal reinforcement ratio,
pl = 1 is the ratio of the post-elastic chord rotation at ductile shear failure by diagonal
tension, to the chord rotation y and
Vw is the contribution of transverse reinforcement to shear resistance:

Vw =
Asw
2 sh
f yw (D 2c )
(3.3)
Asw is the cross-sectional area of a circular stirrup , f yw is the yield stress, sh is the centerline
spacing of stirrups of transverse reinforcement to shear resistance
Figure 3.22 shows the mean value of the ratio of the inelastic chord rotation demands from the
84 nonlinear time-history analyses in the longitudinal and transverse direction of the bridge to
the corresponding capacity for PGA on rock: 0.25g, 0.35g and 0.45g, corresponding to
effective ground acceleration on top of soil type C about 0.29g, 0.40g and 0.52g, respectively
in shear. Namely, they give the damage indices for each PGA.
49
As the PGA level increased, the response values of the demand to capacity ratios in Figure
3.22 that reflect the response of the bridge, increased respectively in the piers with the
corresponding values in the deck remaining at the same level. From the above it is clear that
the bridge may be prone to shear failure.
Figure 3.22. Damage indices in shear (a) 0.25g, (b) 0.25g, (c) 0.45g
50
Figures 3.23 - 3.28 show the variation of shear force in both directions and for every PGA
level during the simulated time-history of the Kalamata (1986) earthquake in Greece.
Shear 0.25g(x) - Kalamata (1986) earthquake, Greece
15000
10000
5000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Figure 3.23. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- x direction (0.25g)
Shear 0.25g(z) - Kalamata (1986) earthquake, Greece

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
Time (sec)
Figure 3.24. Shear force variation in Kalamata (1986) time-history analysis- z direction (0.25g)
51

15000
10000
5000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
6000
4000
2000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
52

15000
10000
5000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-5000
-10000
-15000
-20000
Time (sec)

6000
4000
2000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
53
3.7 Conclusions from the analyses

As the PGA level increased, the response of the bridge, increased respectively in the piers
with the corresponding values in the deck remaining at the same level.
All the results presented above for the left pier, vary only 10% in the right pier maintaining
the same pattern of response.
Energy dissipation in the shear mechanism was negligible and its behavior did not possess the
characteristics required for ductile behavior under cyclic loading mostly in the longitudinal
(x) direction, which was designed with the smallest ductility factor q. Limited ductile
designed bridges, as the one analyzed, may suffer failure by shear, since the shear strength
corresponding to the maximum (not design) flexural strength is not considered. Shear failure
mechanisms are not usually suitable for ductile seismic response, because of the low levels of
deformation corresponding to failure. Short piers are particularly susceptible to such effects.
As a result, shear behavior should be limited in the elastic region. What is of primary interest
is the cyclic shear resistance of concrete members and in particular of the piers. In order to
upgrade the seismic response of the particular bridge, retrofit was considered as an option.
54
Chapter 4. Seismic Isolation
4 SEISMIC ISOLATION
4.1 Introduction
Seismic isolation aims at the decoupling of the building or the structure from the horizontal
components of the ground motion by interposing structural elements with low horizontal
stiffness between the structure and the foundation. This gives the structure a fundamental
frequency that is much lower than both its fixed-base frequency and the predominant
frequencies of the ground motion.
The first dynamic mode of the isolated structure involves deformation only in the isolation
system, the structure above responding to all intents and purposes as rigid. The higher modes
that produce deformation in the structure are orthogonal to the first mode and, consequently,
to the ground motion and do not participate in the motion. So, the high energy in the ground
motion related to these frequencies cannot be transmitted into the structure.
The lengthening of the first-mode period results into the reduction of the earthquake-induced
forces in the structure, but only for short period structures. For long period structures, this
effect might be negligible. The shear forces transmitted to the structure are limited by the
amount of force that can be transmitted across the dense, which allows the isolation device to
act as a fuse for the structure. The lengthening of the period necessitates larger system
displacements. Inelasticity, however, is confined to the dense, allowing elastic design of the
remainder of the structure. The damping in the isolation system and the associated energy
dissipation is a secondary factor in reducing structural response.
4.2 Seismic retrofit
During the last decades seismic requirements increased and a large number of bridges which
fail to meet the current level of seismic requirements need retrofit. Seismic retrofitting of
existing bridges is generally more difficult than design of new bridges, because there are
various constraints. Main structural components cannot be changed or replaced in seismic
retrofit, which narrows possible options of design and construction.
Reinforced concrete piers which were designed in accordance with old codes or did not take
account of the importance of plastic deformation and ductility capacity are often deficient in
flexural ductility, shear strength and flexural strength under strong seismic excitation. The
analyzed bridge as already illustrated thoroughly in the previous chapter has limited shear
strength.
55
4.3 Upgrading the performance by using isolation devices

Mitigation of seismic response of bridges using dampers and seismic isolation is an
alternative approach to seismic retrofitting. Direct retrofit is costly and if the seismic response
of a bridge can be mitigated by using dampers to a level which does not require any direct
retrofit of structural components under the design ground motions, there is a significant cost
benefit and time-saving for seismic retrofit.
There are variety of applications of dampers and seismic isolations for seismic retrofit. Some
are direct application based on the original concept of seismic isolation while others are
indirect application.
Given the fact that bearings in general are shear elements, the option chosen to retrofit the
bridge was by using isolation bearings on top of the existing piers.
4.4 Isolation devices
Since the first use of seismic isolation in bridges in the early 1970s, many devices have been
proposed and implemented for the isolation of structures:
Sliding systems are simple in concept. A layer with a defined coefficient of friction will
limit the accelerations to this value. The forces which can be transmitted will also be limited
to the coefficient of friction times the weight.
Elastomeric bearings are formed of horizontal layers of natural or synthetic rubber in thin
layers bonded between steel plates. The steel plates prevent the rubber layers from bulging.
So the bearing is able to support higher vertical loads with only small deformations. Under a
lateral load the bearing is flexible. Plain elastomeric bearings provide flexibility but no
significant damping and will move under service loads
Springs. There are some proprietary devices based on steel springs but are not widely
used. Their most likely application is for machinery isolation.
Rolling devices include cylindrical rollers and ball races. As for springs, they are most
commonly used for machinery applications.

The flexibility may be provided by pin ended structural members such as piles inside a
sleeve that allows movement. These elements provide flexibility but no damping or service
load resistance. So they are used in parallel with other devices to provide these functions.
Rocking isolation systems are a special case of energy dissipation that does not fit the
classic definition of isolation by permitting lateral translation. The rocking system is used for
slender structures and is based on the principle that for a rocking body the period of response
increases with increasing amplitude of rocking. This provides a period shift effect. Resistance
to service loads is provided by the weight of the structure. Damping can be added by using
devices such as yielding bolts or steel cantilevers.
Supplementary devices:
56
Viscous dampers. These devices provide damping but no service load resistance. They
have no elastic stiffness and so add less force to the system than other devices.
-
Yielding steel devices, configured as either yielding cantilevers acting in flexure or

beams yielding in torsion. They provide stiffness and damping.
-
Lead yielding devices, acting in shear, provide stiffness and damping.
- Lead extrusion devices, where lead is forced through an orifice. They provide added
stiffness and damping.
4.4.1 Lead-plug bearings

In this project, lead rubber bearings were used in the upgrade of the seismic behavior of the
bridge. The lead plug provides energy dissipation for seismic response and stiffness for static
loads. As a result, most of the requirements for a good isolation system are obtained. For
these reasons, plus the fact that lead plug bearings do not require mechanical connectors and
routine maintenance, they have been used extensively in practical applications to bridge
structures.
Lead-plug bearings are laminated rubber bearings that consist of low-damping elastomeric
bearings, but contain one or more lead plugs (cylindrical core) that are inserted into holes as
shown in the figure below.
Figure 4.1. Lead Rubber Bearing
The steel plates in the bearing force the lead plug to deform in shear. The lead in the bearing
deforms physically at a flow stress of 10 MPa. Yielding of the lead core provides such
devices with substantial hysteretic behavior.
4.5 Implementation of seismic isolation in bridges
The isolation system does not absorb the earthquake energy, but rather deflects it through the
dynamics of the system. In this manner, a building is isolated from its foundations, and the
superstructure of a bridge is isolated from the piers.
57
In bridges, the isolation concept is very different compared to the one in buildings. In bridges,
most of the weight is concentrated in the superstructure, in a single horizontal plane. The
superstructure is robust in terms of resistance to seismic loads but the substructures (piers and
abutments) are vulnerable. Also, the seismic resistance is often different in the two orthogonal
horizontal directions, longitudinal and transverse. Also, the bridge must resist significant
service lateral loads and displacements from wind and traffic loads and from creep, shrinkage
and thermal movements.
As a result, the objective of isolating a bridge structure differs. In a building, isolation is
installed to reduce the inertia forces transmitted into the structure above in order to reduce the
demand on the structural elements. A bridge is typically isolated immediately below the
superstructure. The purpose of the isolation is to protect the elements below the isolators by
reducing the inertia loads transmitted from the superstructure.
4.6 Mechanical characteristics of lead-plug bearings
Lead-plug bearings are modeled as bilinear elements, with their characteristics based on three
parameters K e , K p and Fy . The elastic stiffness K e is difficult to be measured. It is usually
taken to be an empirical multiple, K p , of the post-yield stiffness, which can be accurately
estimated by the shear modulus of the rubber and the bearing design. The characteristic
strength Fy is the intercept of the hysteresis loop and the force axis and is accurately
estimated from the yield strength of the lead (10 MPa) and the lead-plug area. This hysteretic
behavior of this type of bearings, represented by the bilinear approximation, is shown in
Figure 4.2 with the following parameters:
Figure 4.2. Bilinear approximation of hysteretic force-displacement behaviour
Elastic stiffness: K e = K L + K R , where K R and K L are the shear stiffnesses of the elastomeric
and lead parts o the device, respectively
Post-elastic stiffness: K p = K R
Yield force: Fy = FLy (1 + K R / K L ) , where FLy is the yield force of the lead core.
58
Note that when K R << K L , then K E K L and Fy = FLy

The parameters of the bi-linear approximation are the following:
a y : yield displacement
d bd : design displacement of the isolator, corresponding to the design displacement d cd of
the isolating system

E D : dissipated energy per cycle at the design displacement d bd , equal to the area enclosed
by the actual hysteresis loop = 4( Fy d bd Fmax d y )
Fy : yield force under monotonic loading
F0 : force at zero displacement under cyclic loading = Fy K p d y
Fmax : maximum force, corresponding to the design displacement d bd
K e : elastic stiffness at monotonic loading = Fy / d y , equal also to the unloading stiffness in
cyclic loading
K p : post-elastic (tangent) stiffness = ( Fmax Fy ) ( d bd d y ) .
The effective stiffness of a lead-plug bearing, defined on the basis of peak-to-peak loads,
steadily reduces with displacement. In terms of the basic parameters K e , K p and Fy , it is
equal to K eff = K p + Fy / d bd , for d bd d y where d y is the yield displacement.
The effective period T is T = 2 .
The effective damping eff for d d y is defined to be:
eff = Area of hysteresis loop/(2K ef fd bd2 )
(4.1)
The area of the hysteresis loop is given by:

E D = 4 Fy (d bd d y )
(4.2)
d y = Fy ( K e K p )
(4.3)
and
Using the definition of eff and the result of equation ( K eff = K p + Fy d bd ) for K eff , we have:
eff = 4Fy (d bd d y ) [2 ( p d bd + Fy )d bd ]
(4.4)
As a general rule of thumb, elastic stiffness K1 is taken as 10 K p , so that d y = Fy / 9 K p ,

giving:
eff = 4Fy (d bd Fy / 9 K p ) [2 ( p d bd + Fy )d bd ]
(4.5)
59
4.7 Design of the bearings

The assumptions that were made in the design procedure are the following:
1)
The deck superstructure was assumed to move as a rigid body.
2) The pier was assumed to have a linear behavior. This is a reasonable assumption, since
the isolation technique attempts to reduce the earthquake response in such a way that the pier
remains within the elastic range. One of the performance objectives of the present design is
to require the pier to remain within the elastic range.
3)
The pier was assumed to vibrate in its first mode.
4) The effects of the incoherence of support motion and of the soil-structure interaction
were ignored, as well as the vertical motion and its effects on the bridge.
The key parameter in the design was to define the design displacement of the structure. This
was done by considering the bridge as a single-degree-of-freedom system and using the
effective stiffness of the isolation system, K eff , the effective damping of the isolation system,
eff , the mass of the superstructure, M d and the spectral acceleration S e (Teff , neff ) .
From the ANSRuop program (analysis mode) the mass of the superstructure, including the
service loads was calculated. The effective period, which is practically the isolation period of
the system, was selected to be above 2 sec i.e. in the constant displacement part of the
spectrum. So, an effective period Teff = 2.1 sec was selected. Figure 4.3 presents the elastic
spectrum of the Eurocode 8 in which the period shift attempted by using the seismic isolation
in the bridge is evident.
Figure 4.3. Elastic Response Spectrum (EC8-1:2004), Period Shift
60
Teff
Se
d cd
TC Teff TD
2.5
TC
neff a g S
Teff
Teff
dc
TC
TD Teff 4sec
2.5
TCTD
neff a g S
2
Teff
TD
dc
TC
Table 4.1. Spectral acceleration Se and displacement dcd (Table 7.1 EC8)
Ground type
TB
TC
TD
1,15
0,20
0,6
2,0
Table 4.2. Values of the parameters describing the elastic response spectra of EC8
Given the ground type and the spectrum (elastic response spectrum of the EC8- type1), the
displacement was calculated according to Table 4.1 (Table 7.1 of EC8-7.5.4.3).
The maximum design ground acceleration on rock a g , R = 0.45 g was used. This is done to
ensure that the response of the bridge will be limited in the elastic range (assumption 2).
The design ground acceleration on type A ground corresponding to the importance category
of the bridge is: a g = I a g , R = 1.0 0.45 g = 0.45 g , where I = 1.0 is the importance factor of
the bridge. From Chapter 7 of Eurocode 8- Part 2:
d c = (0.625 2 ) a g S neff Tc2 = (0.625 2 ) 0.45 9.81 1.15 0.69 0.6 2 = 0.08m , where:
neff =
0.10
=
0.05 + eff
0.10
= 0.69
0.05 + 0.16
Since TD Teff 4sec , from Table 4.1:

S e = 2.5
d cd =
TC TD
Teff
neff a g S = 2.5
0.6 2
1.15 = 1.192m/sec 2
2.1
TD
2.1
dc =
0.00815 = 0.2795 = 0.280 m
TC
0.6
The nominal design properties of simple low-damping elastomeric bearings in accordance

with EN1998-2:2005, clause 7.5.2.3.3(5) and (6), may be assumed as follows:
Shear modulus Gb = 1.1G g
61
where G g is the value of the apparent conventional shear modulus in accordance with
EN 1337-3:2005.
Being on the safe side, at first, it was considered that also in the case of LR Bearings the shear
modulus Gb = 1.1Gg = 1320 MPa
4.7.1 Preliminary design

It should be noted that K eff is the composite stiffness of the isolator unit and the
corresponding substructure (pier). The flexibility of the isolator is typically much larger than
the other components of the superstructure displacement. For this reason, the effective
damping of the system depends only on the sum of dissipated energies of the isolators,
EDi .
From the equation of the single-degree-of-freedom system, the composite stiffness was
computed as:
Teff = 2
Md
Md
K eff = 4 2 2
K eff
Teff
(4.6)
The design displacement was multiplied by a safety factor, taken as 1.5 d bd and eff was
taken 16% for being lead-rubber bearings. The energy dissipated by each bearing was such
expressed by both equations (4.7) and (4.8).
E D = 2K eff d bd2 eff
(4.7)
E D = 4 Fy (d bd d y )
(4.8)
If we neglect d y , we have a first approximation for Fy :

Fy =
ED
4d bd
(4.9)
It follows that:
K p = K eff Fy
d bd
(4.10)
Correcting the first estimate of Fy for d y gives: d y = Fy 9 K p and Fy = E D 4(d bd d y ) .

The same procedure is continued until the iterations converge with a tolerance of 10 6 .
From the final estimation, the parameters K eff , Fy and p are defined, where p is the postyield ratio p = K p / K e .
62
At first, it is supposed that on the top of each pier a single isolation device is placed. This
assumption, although oversimplified, is deliberate in order to use these results in the
implementation of the bearings to the initial mode of the bridge and run the analysis for the
isolated bridge model.
Then, the properties for each bearing are:
Bearings' properties
K eff
Ke
Fy1
Fy 2
p1
17625.19
117125.6
1933.434
5241.76
0.11
Table 4.3. Bearings properties
The yield level of lead is around 10 MPa so that the area of the plug needed
was A plug = Fy / 10 . The design philosophy for lead plugs is that they should not be too slender
or too squat. So, lead plugs should have a diameter between 1 / 6 and 1 / 4 of the rubber
diameter.
Considering that the post-elastic stiffness is basically the stiffness provided by the rubber only
(the lead-plug has already yielded), then K rub = K eff Fy / d bd .
K rub =
G Arub
t
t =
d bd
(4.11)
(4.12)
where is the shear strain of the bearing, Arub the rubber area of the bearing and G the shear
modulus of the rubber. The procedure described below is given in the Table 4.4.
63
M b (KNsec2 / m)
1968.85
2
K eff = M b 4 2 /Teff
(KN/m)
17625.2
EDi (KNm)
3114.994
Fyin1 (KN)
Fy 3
1857.314
1933.42
K pin = K eff - Fy /d bd
K p 3 = K eff - Fy3/d bd
13195.496
13013.98
D yin
Dy3
0.0156
0.016507
Fy1
Fy 4
1929.276
1933.43
K p1 = K eff - Fy1/d bd
K p 4 = K eff - Fy4 /d bd
13023.868
13013.95
D y1
Dy 4
0.0165
0.016507
Fy 2
Fy 5
1933.20
1933.43
13014.501
13013.9512
Dy2
Dy5
0.016505
0.016507
Table 4.4. Preliminary LRB design
Due to the very large vertical loads of the bridge deck, the magnitude of a possible isolation
device and its lead plug were excessive. As a result, there were considered 4 lead-plug
bearings on each pier, 8 in total (Figure 4.4). By using the same procedure, rational values for
the bearings were reached as shown in the following Table 4.5.
64
Figure 4.4. Plan view of the isolated pier section
M b (KNsec2 / m)
492.21
2
K eff = M b 4 2 /Teff
(KN/m)
4406.3
EDi (KNm)
778.748
Fyin1 (KN)
Fy 3
464.329
483.36
K pin = K eff - Fy /d bd
3298.874
3253.50
D yin
Dy3
0.0156
0.0165
Fy1
Fy 4
482.319
483.36
K p1 = K eff - Fy1/d bd
3255.967
3253.49
D y1
Dy 4
0.0165
0.0165
Fy 2
Fy 5
483.30
483.36
3253.625
3253.4878
Dy2
Dy5
0.0165
0.0165
Table 4.5. Improved preliminary LRB design
65
4.7.2 Final design

The final properties of the bearings were selected from the values of Table 4.5 using the
equations above. Table 4.6 presents the initial values from the expressions above as well as
the finally selected values.
Initial values
Selected values
Lead Area ( Fy / py ) m 2
Lead Area ( Fy / py ) m 2
0.0483
0.0491
Lead Diameter ( m)
Lead Diameter ( m)
0.24808
0.25
Rubber Area ( m 2 )
Rubber Area ( m 2 )
0.6459
0.6362
Rubber Diameter ( m)
Rubber Diameter ( m)
0.9069
0.900
t1 ( mm)
t1 ( mm)
15.1
No layers
17.3
15
No layers
18
t s1 ( mm)
t s1 ( mm)
Total height ( mm)
Total height ( mm)
344.7
344.0
Table 4.6. Final LRB design
66
In Table 4.7 the basic parameters of the values of seismic isolation used are concentrated.
Initial
values
Teff
Selected
values
2.1 sec
eff
16%
16%
S
G
15
15
1320
1340
d bd
160%
161.3%
t = d bd /
0.262
0.26
0.419 m
Table 4.7. Basic parameters of the LRB design
Figure 4.5 shows the section of each LRB device after the final design.
Figure 4.5. Section through the final lead-plug bearing
67
Chapter 5. Implementation of base isolation in the bridge model
5 IMPLEMENTATION OF BASE ISOLATION IN THE

BRIDGE MODEL
Figure 5.1. Analyzed structure after the implementation of seismic isolation
Figures 5.1 and 5.2 show the analyzed bridge after the implementation of seismic isolation on
top of the piers.
Figure 5.2. Isolated bridge section
68
5.1 Modeling aspects of base isolation

1) Rigid elements connecting the decks center of mass and the piers were deleted. Instead
the top of each pier was constrained in the y direction as the lead-plug bearings have very
high vertical stiffness.
2) Two general shear springs available from the computational capability were used, one
in each direction at the top of each pier, with the same characteristics as shown in the table
below. The values used were the same as in the preliminary design of the lead-plug bearings,
as the set of four bearings of each pier was modeled as one single bearing working in the two
transverse directions.
3) The deck and the corresponding nodes of the shear spring elements in the longitudinal
and vertical were constrained in the respective directions. The shear spring element in the
longitudinal direction was restrained in all directions apart from the x (longitudinal).
Accordingly the spring in the transverse direction (z) was treated. Rotations were also
restrained.
Figure 5.3. 3D model of the isolated bridge
69
Figure 5.4. Model of the isolated bridge xy plane
Figures 5.3 and 5.4 present the restrains of the nodes were seismic isolation is implemented.
Figure 5. 5 is taken from the program used for the analyses and shows the properties used to
model the bi-linear behavior of the bearings, discussed in detail in the previous chapter.
Figure 5. 5. Properties of the shear spring
70
Figures 5.6 and 5.7 show details of the isolated bridge model. Namely, the restrains of the
nodes.
Figure 5.6. Detail of the bearings modeling in the two transverse directions- restrains
Figure 5.7. Detail of the shear springs that model the LRBs in the two directions
71
5.2 Analytical results

As stated in the previous chapter, many assumptions have been made in order to develop a
simple design procedure. It is therefore of fundamental importance to check the structural
response using a nonlinear dynamic (time-history) analysis approach, which is the most
sophisticated method of analysis.
Table 5.1 presents typical diagrams of moment versus end-chord rotations and failure surfaces
of the left pier in the longitudinal and transverse direction. At every PGA level the response is
similar.
Longitudinal direction(x)
Table 5.1. Typical diagrams of moment vs end-chord rotations and failure surfaces of the left pier in the
longitudinal and transverse direction
72
5.2.1
Damage indices
5.2.1.1 In flexure
a)
b)
c)
Figure 5.8. Damage indices of the isolated bridge in flexure in a) 0.25g, b) 0.35g and c) 0.45g PGA level
In flexure, a very large reduction was noticed, that is reflected also in the damage indices in
Figure 5.8 above. A reduction on the order of 10-45% in damage was attained. However the
main interest is focused on shear. As clearly shown in Figure 5.9, a remarkable reduction in
the volumes of the damage indices in shear by 70-80% was accomplished with the use of the
Lead-Rubber Bearings on top of the piers.
73
5.2.1.2 In shear
a)
b)
c)
Figure 5.9. Damage indices of the isolated bridge in shear in a) 0.25g, b) 0.35g and c) 0.45g PGA level
74
5.3 Shear force in connection to the PGA level and direction

Figures 5.10 - 5.15 show the variations of the shear force developed on top of the left pier in
the isolated bridge model in the longitudinal and transverse direction for every PGA level,
used in the analyses. The characteristic Kalamata (1986) earthquake of Greece was used to
present the results for every step of the time-history.
Shear - Kalamata (1986) earthquake, Greece

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
Time (sec)
75
Shear (z) - Kalamata (1986) earthquake, Greece

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
Time (sec)
Shear (x) - Kalamata (1986) earthquake, Greece

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
Time (sec)
76
Shear (z) - Kalamata (1986) earthquake, Greece

3000
2000
1000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-1000
-2000
-3000
Time (sec)
Shear (x)- Kalamata (1986) earthquake, Greece
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
Time (sec)
77
Shear (z)- Kalamata (1986) earthquake, Greece

3000
2000
1000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-1000
-2000
-3000
Time (sec)
5.4 Influence of the isolation in the Imperial Valey (1879), California eartquake
The following figures present comparisons regarding the isolation effect in the bridge
displacements during the time-history of the Imperial Valley earthquake. The increase of the
displacement magnitude is obvious, as well as the phase lag, features of seismic isolation that
were discussed in the previous chapter. First, there are presented the graphs for the
longitudinal direction and later the transverse, for all PGA levels.
78
5.4.1
Isolation influence 0.25g (x)

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
122
245
367
487
610
732
852
975
1097
1217
1340
1462
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
Figure 5.16. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Imperial Valley (1879)
earthquake, Ca 0.25g (x)

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
79

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
5.4.2
Isolation influence 0.25g (z)

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
earthquake, Ca 0.25g (z)
80

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
81
5.5 Influence of the PGA level n the Imperial Valley (1879), California earthquake
In Figures 5.22 and 5.23, the effect of the PGA level in the response of the isolated system is
presented for the longitudinal and transverse direction. The same pattern is followed and the
maximum values increase proportionally.
Influence of ground acceleration into the isolation displacement in the x direction

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
Time (sec)
0.25g
0.35g
0.45g
Figure 5.22. Effect of the ground acceleration on the isolation displacement in the x direction
Influence of ground acceleration into the isolation displacement in the z direction

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
Time (sec)
0.25g
0.35g
0.45g
Figure 5.23. Effect of the ground acceleration on the isolation displacement in the z direction
82
5.6
Influence of the isolation for the 0.35g PGA level related to the time-history
realized
As it is implied from the previous graphs, the PGA level does not change much the pattern of
the response; only the peak values. It is interesting to show the response of the isolated system
to different earthquake motions, which although modified to conform to the EC8 spectrum,
has different waveforms causing the system to respond differently. The results for the 0.35g
PGA level follow below. Results not presented here are given in the Appendix.
0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
122
245
367
487
610
732
852
975
1097
1217
1340
1462
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
Figure 5.24. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Loma Prieta (1989)
83

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
122
245
367
487
610
732
852
975
1097
1217
1340
1462
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
Figure 5.25. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Loma Prieta (1989)

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
Figure 5.26. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Kalamata (1986)
earthquake, Greece 0.35g (x)
84

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
Figure 5.27. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Kalamata (1986)
earthquake, Greece 0.35g (z)

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
Figure 5.28. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Montenegro (1979)
earthquake 0.35g (x)
85

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
earthquake 0.35g (z)

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
Figure 5.30. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Friuli (1976)
86

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
Figure 5.31. Isolation influence on the displacement of the top of the left pier in the Friuli (1976)

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
87

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
88

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
In order to present the differences of the isolated systems response to the various timehistories, Figure 5.36 gives in a single plot the response of the top of the right pier to the
ground motions of 0.45g.
Response of isolated bridge(top of right pier) in ground motion 0.45g
0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
122
245
367
487
610
732
852
975
1097
1217
1340
1462
Time (sec)

Figure 5.36. Response of the isolated bridge to various earthquakes in 0.45g PGA
89
5.7
Influence of the isolation on the shear forces for the 0.35g PGA level in the
Kalamata (1986), Greece earthquake
Figures 5.37 and 5.38 show the dramatic reduction of the shear force in the Kalamata (1986)
earthquake in the longitudinal and transverse direction. The reduction of the magnitude as
well as the decoupling, was achieved and the behavior of the isolation system is the desirable
one.
Shear force comparison (x)
15000
10000
5000
0
1
58
115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
Figure 5.37. Isolation influence on shear force at the top of the left pier in the Kalamata (1986)
earthquake, Greece 0.35g (x)
Shear force comparison (z)

6000
4000
2000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
Figure 5.38. Isolation influence on shear force at the top of the left pier in the Kalamata (1986)
earthquake, Greece 0.35g (z)
90
5.8 Energy dissipation in the Loma Prieta (1989) earthquake

Figures 5.39 -5.41 present the energy dissipated by the isolated system during the Loma Prieta
(1989) earthquake for all levels of PGA used in the analyses. The amount of energy
dissipation increased proportionally to the PGA.
In 0.35g and 0.45g there was noted a permanent drift. The lead-rubber bearings core was
designed to yield in order for the pier to remain in the elastic region. The figures of the upper
PGA levels show the design successfully achieved the goal set.
Energy dissipation 0.25g (x) - Isolated bridge

3000
2000
Force (KN)
1000
0
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
-1000
-2000
-3000
Displacement (m)
Figure 5.39. Energy dissipation by the isolated bridge at the 0.25g PGA level of the Loma Prieta (1989)
earthquake in the longitudinal direction
91

3000
2000
Force (KN)
1000
0
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
-1000
-2000
-3000
Displacement (m)
Figure 5.40. Energy dissipation by the isolated bridge at the 0.35g PGA level of the Loma Prieta (1989)

3000
2000
Force (KN)
1000
0
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
-1000
-2000
-3000
Displacement (m)
Figure 5.41. Energy dissipation by the isolated bridge at the 0.45g PGA level in the Loma Prieta (1989)
92
5.9 Effect of the isolation on energy dissipation

Figures 5.42 5.44 compare the energy dissipated in the monolithic and isolated bridge
model. These figures present in a condensed way all the effects of seismic isolation when
imposed to a system, such as the lengthening of the period, the reduction of the forces
induced, the increase of displacements realized, as well as the energy dissipation.
Comparison of energy dissipation - 0.25g

15000
10000
Force (KN)
5000
0
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
Figure 5.42. Comparison of the energy dissipation between the monolithic and the isolated model at 0.25g
PGA
15000
10000
Force (KN)
5000
0
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
PGA
93

15000
10000
Force (KN)
5000
0
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
PGA
5.10 Conclusions from the analyses

By the implementation of seismic isolation to the system, a very important reduction in the
flexure damage indices was achieved on the order of 10-45% and a remarkable reduction of
70-80% of the shear damage indices.
The effect of seismic isolation met the goals: the period was lengthened, the shear forces were
reduced and the energy dissipation increased, as shown by the wider hysteresis loops.
The response followed the same pattern at all PGA levels only with the peak values increasing
proportionally.
94
Chapter 6. Conclusions
6 CONCLUSIONS
This thesis focused on the assessment of the seismic performance of a bridge constructed as
part of the Egnatia motorway in northern Greece through time-history analyses.
For the modeling and the analysis of the concrete bridge, a computational capability was used.
The computational tool was the computer program ANSRuop-Bridges, developed in the
laboratory of Structures, University of Patras which is an improved and expanded version of
ANSR-I program developed at UC Berkeley for the nonlinear response analysis of structures
in 3D (Mondkar and Powell, 1975).
In the modeling, the estimation of the effective elastic stiffness of the shear span of the
concrete members was done by using the value of the secant stiffness of the shear span at
member yielding.
The assessment showed that energy dissipation capacity of shear mechanism was negligible
and its behavior did not possess the characteristics required for ductile behavior under cyclic
loading mostly in the longitudinal (x) direction, which was designed with the smallest
ductility factor q.
In an effort to mitigate damage to the bridge, a practical and effective technique for the
seismic upgrade of this structure using seismic isolation devices was developed.
Lead-rubber bearings were used in order to upgrade the seismic behavior of the bridge. The
lead plug provided energy dissipation for seismic response and stiffness for static loads. The
devices were designed in order for the piers to remain in the elastic range. Their size was big
in general. Lead rubber bearings could have been smaller, if there was accepted a minimum
degree of failure, in case that they were designed for a lower performance level.
By the implementation of seismic isolation to the system, a very important reduction in the
flexure damage indices was achieved on the order of 10-45% and a remarkable reduction of
70-80% of the shear damage indices.
The effect of seismic isolation met the goals: the period was lengthened, the shear forces were
reduced and the energy dissipation increased as shown by the wider hysteresis loops.
The response followed the same pattern at all PGA levels, with the peak values increasing
proportionally.
95
Chapter 6. Conclusions
In practice, the implementation of isolation technology to the existing bridge may face certain
restrictions. The first is the restriction on the leveling of bridge surface and the second is the
restriction on the gaps at the abutments, which were not designed to have such large
displacements.
96
References
7 REFERENCES
Bardakis V.G. [2006] Modelling and Inelastic Seismic Response Analysis in 3D of Concrete Bridges
Having monolithic Connection Between Deck and Piers Proceedings of the 6th International PhD
Symposium in Civil Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland.
Biskinis, D., Fardis, M.N.[2006] Effective Stiffness, Lateral Resistance and Cyclic Deformation
Capacity of Bridge Piers Proceedings of the 2nd fib International Congress , Naples, Italy
CEN [2003] Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General rules,
seismic actions and rules for buildings, prEN 1998-1, Brussels, Belgium.
CEN [2005] Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 2: Bridges, EN 19982, Brussels, Belgium.
Chopra, A. K. [2001] Dynamics of Structures Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering,
Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.
Naeim, F., Kelly, J. M. Design of Seismic Isolated Structures: From Theory to Practice, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., USA.
Panagiotakos, T.B., Bardakis, V., Fardis, M.N. [2006] Displacement-based Seismic Design
Procedure for Concrete Bridges with Monolithic Connection between Deck Proceedings of the
2nd fib International Congress , Naples, Italy
Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F., Calvi, G.M. [1996] Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., USA.
Skinner, R.I., Robinson, W.H., McVerry, G.H. [1993] An Introduction to Seismic Isolation, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., West Sussex, England.
Structural Laboratory Department of Civil Engineering University of Patras [2003] Users manual
ANSRuop: A Computer Program for the Assessment of Nonlinear Seismic Response, University of
Patras, Greece.
97
Appendix A
APPENDIX A: ACCELEROGRAMS

0.2
0.15
Acceleration (g)
0.1
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
Time (sec)
A98
Appendix A

0.2
0.15
Acceleration (g)
0.1
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
11
12
13
14
15
Time (sec)

0.2
0.15
Acceleration (g)
0.1
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
0
10
Time (sec)
A99
Appendix A

0.2
0.15
Acceleration (g)
0.1
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
11
12
13
14
15
Time (sec)

0.2
0.15
Acceleration (g)
0.1
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
0
10
Time (sec)
A100
Appendix A

0.2
0.15
Acceleration (g)
0.1
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
13
14
15
Time (sec)

0.2
0.15
Acceleration (g)
0.1
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
0
10
11
12
Time (sec)
A101
Appendix B
APPENDIX B: SHEAR FORCE COMPARISONS
Effect of isolation on shear force - 0.25g (x)

15000
10000
5000
0
1
58
115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated
A102
Appendix B

15000
10000
5000
0
1
58
115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated

15000
10000
5000
0
1
58
115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated
A103
Appendix B

15000
10000
5000
0
1
58
115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated

15000
10000
5000
0
1
58
115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated
A104
Appendix B

15000
10000
5000
0
1
58
115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated

15000
10000
5000
0
1
58
115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated
A105
Appendix B
Effect of isolation on shear force - 0.25g (z)

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated
A106
Appendix B

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated
A107
Appendix B

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated
A108
Appendix B

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated

15000
10000
5000
0
1
58
115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated
A109
Appendix B

15000
10000
5000
0
1
58
115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated

15000
10000
5000
0
1
58
115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
A110
Appendix B

15000
10000
5000
0
1
58
115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated

15000
10000
5000
0
1
58
115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated
A111
Appendix B

15000
10000
5000
0
1
58
115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated
A112
Appendix B

15000
10000
5000
0
1
58
115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated

6000
4000
2000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated
A113
Appendix B

6000
4000
2000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated

6000
4000
2000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
A114
Appendix B

6000
4000
2000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated

6000
4000
2000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated
A115
Appendix B

6000
4000
2000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated

6000
4000
2000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated
A116
Appendix B

15000
10000
5000
0
1
58
115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated

15000
10000
5000
0
1
58
115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated
A117
Appendix B

15000
10000
5000
0
1
58
115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated

15000
10000
5000
0
1
58
115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated
A118
Appendix B

15000
10000
5000
0
1
58
115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated

15000
10000
5000
0
1
58
115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated
A119
Appendix B

15000
10000
5000
0
1
58
115 172 229 286 343 400 457 514 571 628 685 742 799 856 913 970 1027 1084 1141 1198 1255 1312 1369 1426 1483
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated
A120
Appendix B

6000
4000
2000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated

6000
4000
2000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated
A121
Appendix B

6000
4000
2000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated

6000
4000
2000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated
A122
Appendix B

6000
4000
2000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated

6000
4000
2000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated
A123
Appendix B

6000
4000
2000
0
1
57
113 169 225 281 337 393 449 505 561 617 673 729 785 841 897 953 1009 1065 1121 1177 1233 1289 1345 1401 1457
-2000
-4000
-6000
Time (sec)
Fixed
Isolated
A124
Appendix C
APPENDIX C: DISPLACEMENT COMPARISONS
Response of isolated bridge in ground motion 0.45g

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
122
245
367
487
610
732
852
975
1097
1217
1340
1462
Time (sec)

A125
Appendix C

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
1101
1201
1301
1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
A126
Appendix C

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
1101
1201
1301
1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
A127
Appendix C

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
1101
1201
1301
1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
A128
Appendix C

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
122
245
367
487
610
732
852
975
1097
1217
1340
1462
1097
1217
1340
1462
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
122
245
367
487
610
732
852
975
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
A129
Appendix C

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
122
245
367
487
610
732
852
975
1097
1217
1340
1462
1097
1217
1340
1462
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
122
245
367
487
610
732
852
975
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
A130
Appendix C

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
122
245
367
487
610
732
852
975
1097
1217
1340
1462
1097
1217
1340
1462
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
122
245
367
487
610
732
852
975
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
A131
Appendix C

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
1101
1201
1301
1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
A132
Appendix C

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
A133
Appendix C

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
A134
Appendix C

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
A135
Appendix C

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
1101
1201
1301
1401
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated

0.4
0.3
0.2
Displacement (m)
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
1
101
201
301
401
501
601
701
801
901
1001
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
A136
Appendix D
APPENDIX D: ENERGY DISSIPATION

15000
10000
Force (KN) .
5000
z
0
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0.05
0.1
0.15
-5000
-10000
-15000
Displacement (m)
A137
Appendix D

5000
4000
3000
Force (KN) .
2000
1000
z
0
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.1
0.15
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
Displacement (m)

15000
10000
Force (KN) .
5000
0
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0.05
-5000
-10000
-15000
Displacement (m)
A138
Appendix D

6000
4000
Force (KN) .
2000
0
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.1
0.15
-2000
-4000
-6000
Displacement (m)

15000
10000
Force (KN) .
5000
z
0
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0.05
-5000
-10000
-15000
Displacement (m)
A139
Appendix D

6000
4000
Force (KN) .
2000
0
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
z0
-0.05
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
-2000
-4000
-6000
-8000
Displacement (m)

3000
2000
Force (KN)
1000
0
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
-1000
-2000
-3000
Displacement (m)
A140
Appendix D

3000
2000
Force (KN)
1000
0
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
-1000
-2000
-3000
Displacement (m)

3000
2000
Force (KN)
1000
0
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
-1000
-2000
-3000
Displacement (m)
A141
Appendix D

15000
10000
Force (KN)
5000
0
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated

15000
10000
Force (KN)
5000
0
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
A142
Appendix D

15000
10000
Force (KN)
5000
0
-0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
-5000
-10000
-15000
Time (sec)
Monolithic
Isolated
A143

Dissertation2007 Dimitriadou

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Dissertation2007 Dimitriadou

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Istituto Universitario

EUROPEAN SCHOOL FOR ADVANCED STUDIES IN

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

Supervisor: Prof. MICHAEL FARDIS

Prof. M.N. Fardis

2.3 Estimation of effective stiffness...............................................................................................23

5.2 Analytical results .....................................................................................................................72

Figure 1.1. Analyzed bridge......................................................................................................16

Figure 4.2. Bilinear approximation of hysteretic force-displacement behaviour .....................58

=Stiffness of the uncracked member

= Area of the plug

= Area of the rubber

= Cross-sectional area of a circular stirrup

= Depth of circular section

= Force at zero displacement

= Apparent conventional shear modulus

= Depth of rectangular cross-section

= Mass of the superstructure

= Centerline spacing of stirrups

= Shear resistance due to transverse reinforcement

= Compression zone depth

= Chord rotation at the yielding end

= Ratio of post-elastic to the yielding end chord rotation

= Total longitudinal reinforcement ratio

Figure 1.1. Analyzed bridge

Figure 1.2. Section of the analyzed bridge- Transverse direction

Figure 1.3. Reinforcement details of the deck section at the midspan

Figure 1.4. Section of the piers- Reinforcement

1.4 Organization of the thesis

Figure 2.1. Bridge design to be modeled

Figure 2.2. Discretization of the bridge

Figure 2.3. Discretization of the piers- Lumped masses

Chapter 3. Analysis Results

Chapter 3. Analysis Results

Bonds Corner, Imperial Valley (1979) earthquake, Ca

Chapter 3. Analysis Results

Tolmezzo, Friuli (1976) earthquake

Bonds Corner, Imperial Valley (1979) earthquake, Ca

Capitola building, Loma Prieta (1989) earthquake, Ca

Ulcinj, Montenegro (1979) earthquake

Kalamata (1986) earthquake, Greece

El Centro, Ca. Imperial Valley (1940) earthquake, Ca

Herceg Novi, Montenegro (1979) earthquake

Chapter 3. Analysis Results

3.4 Chord rotations and damage indices

Chapter 3. Analysis Results

3.4.1 Analytical results for the 0.25g PGA level

Chapter 3. Analysis Results

Chapter 3. Analysis Results

Longitudinal direction (x)

Transverse direction (z)

Deck (right side of central span)

Chapter 3. Analysis Results

Energy dissipation 0.25g (x) - Monolithic bridge

Chapter 3. Analysis Results

Energy dissipation 0.25g (z) - Monolithic bridge

Chapter 3. Analysis Results

Moment 0.25g(z) - Kalamata (1986) earthquake, Greece

3.4.2 Analytical results for the 0.35g PGA level

Chapter 3. Analysis Results

Chapter 3. Analysis Results

Longitudinal direction (x)

Transverse direction (z)