Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
176]
On: 11 December 2014, At: 06:48
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
To cite this article: Stergios A. Mitoulis (2014): Uplift of elastomeric bearings in isolated bridges subjected to longitudinal
seismic excitations, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering: Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance,
DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2014.983527
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2014.983527
(Received 12 February 2014; final version received 21 August 2014; accepted 15 September 2014)
Bearings are used to isolate bridge substructures from the lateral forces induced by creep, shrinkage and seismic
displacements. They are set in one or two support lines parallel to the transverse axis of the pier cap and are typically
anchored to the deck and to the pier cap. This detailing makes them susceptible to possible tensile loading. During an
earthquake, the longitudinal displacements of the deck induce rotations to the pier caps about a transverse axis, which in turn
cause tensile (uplift) and compressive displacements to the bearings. Tensile displacements of bearings, due to the pier
rotations, have not been addressed before and questions about the severity of this uplift effect arise, because tensile loading
of bearings is strongly related to elastomer cavitation and ruptures. An extended parametric study revealed that bearing
uplift may occur in isolated bridges, while uplift effect is more critical for the bearings on shorter piers. Tensile
displacements of bearings were found to be significantly increased when the isolators were eccentrically placed with respect
to the axis of the pier and when flexible isolators were used for the isolation of the bridge. The results of this study cannot be
generalised as bridge response is strongly case-dependent and the approach has limitations, which are related to the
modelling approach and to the fact that emphasis was placed on the longitudinal response of bridges.
Keywords: bridges; bearings; uplift; longitudinal displacement; rotation; pier cap
1. Introduction
Seismic isolation has been used extensively during the last
years in bridges. An isolation system placed between the
bridge superstructure and its supporting substructure
lengthens the fundamental period of the bridge structure
such that the bridge does not respond to the most damaging
energy content of the earthquake input (Kunde & Jangid,
2003), while offering damping to the bridge. The
earthquake-resisting system (ERS) of isolated bridges
relies heavily on the isolators. For this reason, current code
design provisions for isolated bridges (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
[AASHTO], 2010; Eurocode 8-2, 2005; Japan Road
Association [JRA], 1997, 2002) are quite demanding,
especially on issues related to the reliability of the
isolation system, to prevent potential deck unseating that
jeopardise the integrity of the bridge (Imbsen, 2007;
National Institute for Standards and Technology [NIST],
1996), while EN 1337-3 (2005) section 8.2.1.2.7 and BS
EN 15129 (2009) require that tensile stresses should not be
greater than 2G, where G is the shear modulus measured at
100% shear strain, to avoid cavitation.
According to reconnaissance reports, among damaged
bridges, bearing uplift and ruptures and the consequent span
unseating as well as pounding effects were the most common
failure modes after the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, the
*Email: s.mitoulis@surrey.ac.uk
q 2014 Taylor & Francis
S.A. Mitoulis
(b)
Isolator
(one or more bearings)
keff
did
dbi,d
deck
Fi
Substructure
bearing
ksub
Hi
pier
di
dsub
d
Figure 1.
(a) AASHTO (2010) figure 7.1-1 and Eurocode 8 Part 2 (2005) key figure of section 7.5.4.
deck weight Wd
line 1
line 2
Vb1,0
Vb1,0
Vb2,0
r
Vb1,0 + Vb1,0
(compr.)
2
aver
Vb1,0 =
Vb2,0
aver
Vb2,0 =
Vb2,0 + Vb2,0
(compr.)
2
d1
(a)
ub,1
ub,1
(b)
d2
up,1
vb1,1
ub,2
ub,1
ub,1
vb2,1
vb1,1
ub,2
vb2,1
vb1,1=
aver
vb1,2
vb1,1 + v
2
aver
vb2,1 =
Detail
pier cap's upper face
1
vb2,1 + vb2,1
(compr.)
2
1
vp
aver
vb2,2=
(d)
d4
u b,4
u b,3
u p,3
v b1,3
r
u b,4
v b1,4
u b,3
u b,3
(compr.)
aver
r
vb2,3
aver
(tension)
vb2,3 =
2
u b,4
v b2,4
r
v b2,4
v b2,3
vb1,3 + v
2
u b,4
vb2,3 =0
u p,4
v b1,4
vb1,3
aver
vb2,2
(compr.)
2
d3
vb1,3 =
r
vb2,2
r
vb1,2 + vb1,2
(compr.)
2
2
(c)
aver
vb1,2 =
ub,2
eccentricity e
pier caps upper face
rotates clockwise
r
b1,3
ub,2
vb2,2
(compr.)
u b,3
up,2
vb1,2
r
b1,1
vb1,4 =
r
vb1,4 + vb1,4
(compr.)
2
4
r
aver
vb2,4 =
vb2,4 + vb2,4
(tension)
2
Figure 3. Description of progressive bearings shear, rotational and vertical (compressive and tensile) deformations due to the
longitudinal displacement (ud) of the deck and the rotation (w) of the pier cap about a transverse axis (indicative).
S.A. Mitoulis
The following description considered that the longitudinal, transverse and vertical axes are x, y and z,
respectively. When the deck displaces in along the
longitudinal direction x, either due to seismic movements
or due to thermal movements, creep and shrinkage
(Mitoulis, 2012), then the following sequential phases of
bearings deformation are anticipated: during Phase 1,
which is illustrated in Figure 3(a), the deck is displaced by
ud1 . The pier cap exhibits longitudinal (along x)
displacement up,1 and rotation w1 about its transverse
axis (y), due to the flexural deflection of the pier and the
rotation of the foundation.
This pier-cap rotation (w1) imposes both rotations and
vertical (along z) deformations to the bearings. The first
line of the bearings (on the left side of the pier cap, i.e. line
1 at Figure 3(a)) is likely to receive higher compression
aver
loads than in Phase 0 (i.e. vaver
b1 ;1 < vb1 ;1 ) as pier cap moves
upwards by vp, shown in the detail of Figure 3(a). The
opposite occurs at the right side of the pier cap. The pier
caps upper face moves downwards (along z) and pulls the
bearings downwards. Hence, the compressive deformation
of bearings at line 2 is expected to be reduced, i.e.
aver
vaver
b2 ;1 < vb2 ;0 . Apart from the shear (along x) and vertical
(along z) displacements of the bearings, the isolators are
also rotated about a transverse axis (y). The rotation of the
bearings induces differential vertical displacements at the
left vlb1 ;1 and right sides vrb1 ;1 of the isolators, shown in
Figure 3(a).
Progressively, the deck longitudinal displacements
increase ud1 , ud2 , ud3 , ud4 at Phases 1 4 correspondingly, as shown in Figure 3(a) (d). Hence, the pier-cap
rotation increases, i.e. w1 , w2 , w3 , w4. Likewise, the
bearings are sheared by gradually increased shear strains,
1s, and rotations, w. The bearings at line 1 are increasingly
compressed. Hence, their compressive deformation is
aver
aver
aver
expected to be increased vaver
b1 ;0 , vb1 ;1 , vb1 ;2 , vb1 ;3
aver
, vb1 ;4 . The bearings at line 2 are likely to gradually
reduce their compressive stresses. During Phase 2, which
is illustrated in Figure 3(b), the bearings at line 2 exhibit a
slight compressive deformation. During Phase 3, shown in
Figure 3(c), the bearings at line 2 are under a slight tensile
deformation, i.e. vrb2 ;3 . 0 at the right edge, while their left
side has almost zero vertical deformation (vlb2 ;3 < 0).
Under the maximum longitudinal displacement of the deck
ud4 (Phase 4), the bearings at line 2 are under tensile
loading. Both sides of the isolators exhibit tensile
displacements, namely both vlb2 ;4 and vrb2 ;4 are uplift
displacements.
2.2.
Sad
Vd=Wd g
deck weight Wd
N.A.
hd
deck
Mb2
Nb2
Vb2
line 2
Mb2
Nb2
Vb2
Mb1
Nb1
Vb1
bearings line 1
Mb1
Nb1
Vb1
e e
pier cap
hb
hp
C. G.
Mp
Np
Vp
pier
reference
fibre
Figure 4. The actions of the deck, the bearings, the pier cap and
the pier when the deck displaces in the longitudinal direction
(along x).
bearings, the pier cap and the pier when the deck
induces a vertical load Wd and a horizontal load Vd to
the bearings. The case of an isolated bridge with two
lines of bearings supporting the I-beams of the
superstructure spans is considered. This eccentricity e
of the bearings is the longitudinal distance of the
bearings with respect to the CG of the pier cap. The pier
cap has a depth equal to hp.
In Figure 4, Wd is the weight of the deck; Vd is the
longitudinal (along x) seismic loading of the deck, i.e.
Vd WdSad/g, where Sad is the deck acceleration and g the
acceleration of gravity. M bi , N bi and V bi are the total
bending moment, axial load and shear load of the bearings
at line i, respectively. Line i is parallel to the transverse
direction (y) of the pier cap and consists of n bearings
placed in line. Mp, Np and Vp are the bending moment, the
axial load and the shear of the pier cap and the pier,
respectively. Hence, the total vertical load N bi of n
bearings placed at line i is expressed as follows:
N bi
n
X
N bij :
j1
(4) e
(m)
(5) Sad
(m/s2)
(6) h
(m)
(9) %
Discrepancy
0.00 7141.9
1.50
1.91
1.0
9322.3
9057.7
1.50
3.95
1.0
7686.8
7248.0
Bearing line
that is uplifted
(1) Wd
(kN)
1 (Left)
7141.9
2 (Right)
7004.88 7004.90
(2) N b1
(kN)
0.00
Mp is dependent upon hd, hb and hp and the partial fixity of the pier by the bearings.
N b1 e V p hp 2 M p
:
e
Figure 5.
S.A. Mitoulis
The geometry of the BB: longitudinal section of the bridge, cross sections of the deck, the pier and the foundation.
Vb
shear Vb
ub
ub
5
(a )
6
7
8
Nb
tension
continuity slab
vb
compr.
(a)
axial Nb
tension
(b)
5 bearing link
(c) linear
rotational stiffness
6 rigid arm
(b)
P4
Detail 2
Detail 2
1 Pier
2 hinge of Pi
3 rigid arm
Detail 1
Pi (frame element)
Kxi,Kyi
P3
z x
y
bending moment of the pier
M (kNm)
compr.
P1
P2
pier's bottom
cross section
25000
20000
15000
pier 4
pier 1
pier 3
pier 2
10000
5000
0
0
0.02
0.04
hinge rotation (rad)
0.06
Figure 6. The stick model of the BB. Detail 1, modelling of the pier deck connection; detail 2, modelling of the foundation and the
bending moment versus rotations, u, bilinear curves of potential piers hinges (left).
8
Table 2.
S.A. Mitoulis
The stiffness values of the bearings of the BB (shown in detail 1 of Figure 5).
Bearing
Elastic
K1
Post-elastic
K2
Tensile elastic
K t1
Tensile post-elastic
K t2
Compressive
Kc
Kr
3129.8
2376.7
1564.9
1188.3
8377.6
10,602.9
502.7
636.2
303,470.4
291,660.5
998.4
1214.4
Kx (kN/m)
Ky (kN/m)
Kz (kN/m)
Krx (kN m/rad)
Kry (kN m/rad)
Krz (kN m/rad)
Pier 1
Pier 2
Pier 3
Pier 4
1.21 106
1.09 106
3.14 106
38.08 106
36.56 106
0.59 106
0.69 106
0.75 106
3.06 106
34.90 106
31.88 106
0.59 106
12.84 106
15.83 106
4.40 106
66.26 106
63.31 106
0.61 106
16.08 106
16.84 106
4.40 106
66.68 106
66.02 106
0.61 106
(a)
600
200
200
400
408mm
5
10
time (s)
15
left
bearing
(compr.)
u p1
right
bearing
(tension)
20
40
due to pier
cap rotations
30
vd1
vd2
20
(e)
10
d2
0
uz,EZ
0
d1
10
d1
time (s)
(c)
(d)
u d1 max positive displ. (+x)
457mm
400
600
(b)
80
5
61mmright bearing
60
10
15
20
left
bearing
(tension)
left bearing
up2
right
bearing
(compr.)
54mm
40
20
0
20
10
time (s)
15
20
Figure 7. Time histories of (a) the longitudinal deck movements; (b) the vertical deck movements due to the rotations of pier 4 cap beam
(dashed line) and due to the vertical component of the seismic action (continuous line); (c) the vertical displacements of the bearings on
the left (line 1) and on the right (line 2); (d) the deformed pier deck connection when the deck displaces on the right and (e) on the left
(PGA 0.5 g and ground type B).
10
S.A. Mitoulis
3
410 rad
31mm
36.5mm
before
and after
seismic excitation
4 10 rad
457mm
451mm
line 1
37mm
310mm
line 2
3
310mm 25 10 rad
before
and after
seismic excitation
310mm
37mm
3
2510 rad
2510 rad
e e=1.5m
support line 1:
total shear displ.: 141mm (e =1.28)
total vert. displ. : 0.5mm (compressive)
3
total rotation : 2110 rad (clockwise)
410 rad
24mm
451mm
support line 2:
total shear displ.: 141mm (es =1.28)
total vert. displ. : 61mm (tensile)
3
total rotation : 2110 rad (clockwise)
Ab.1
(a) 1000
900
800
700
600 14%
500
400
300
200
100
0
Figure 8. The deformed shape of the pier cap deck connection (pier 4) when the deck displaces with its maximum positive (x)
displacement.
bearings of:
Pier1 Pier2 Pier3 Pier4
Ab.2
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
BB
ground type B
ground type C
TD ground type B
ground type C
Ab.1
bearings of:
Pier1 Pier2 Pier3 Pier4
Ab.2
Figure 9. (a) The maximum shear displacements of the bearings of the benchmark and the TD case and (b) the maximum tensile
displacements of the bearings (PGA 0.5 g).
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
P2
P3
(b) 7000
P1
11
(a) 25000
P4
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
P1
P2
P3
Pier top section
P4
Figure 10. The maximum bending moments of the piers of the BB and the TD case: (a) bottom section and (b) top section (PGA 0.5 g,
soil type B).
12
S.A. Mitoulis
(b) 100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
tensile displacements (mm)
(a) 100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1.5m
e= 1.0m
0.5m
1.5m
e= 1.0m
0.5m
bearings of:
bearings of:
(a) 100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
(b) 100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
tensile displacemetns (mm)
Figure 11. The influence of the eccentricity e on maximum tensile displacements of the bearings of the BB: (a) normal seismic
excitation 0.25 g and (b) high seismic excitation 0.75 g (ground type B).
bearings of:
bearings of:
Figure 12. The influence of the bearings stiffness on their maximum tensile displacements. The bridge models were subjected to (a)
normal seismic excitation 0.25 g and (b) high seismic excitation 0.75 g (ground type B).
Case 4
(b) 100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Case 1 Case 2
bearings at:
Ab.1 Pier1 Pier2 Pier3 Pier4 Ab.2
Case 3
Case 4
(a) 100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
13
bearings at:
Ab.1
Ab.2
Figure 13. The maximum tensile displacements of the bearings for bridge models with either equal pier heights (Case 1 all piers have
height 10 m) or variable piers heights. Case 2 has piers with heights 10, 20, 20 and 10 m; Case 3 has 10, 20, 15.7 and 12.5 m and Case 4 has
10, 17.4, 25 and 12 m: (a) PGA 0.5 g and (b) PGA 0.75 g.
14
S.A. Mitoulis
Conclusions
Note
1.
References
Akiyama, M., Frangopol, D.M., & Mizuno, K. (2014).
Performance analysis of Tohoku-Shinkansen viaducts
affected by the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake. Structure
and Infrastructure Engineering, 10, 1228 1247.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials [AASHTO] (2010). Guide specifications for seismic
isolation design (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials [AASHTO] (2013). LRFD bridge design specifications. Customary U.S. units, 6th ed., with 2013 interim
revisions. Washington, DC: Author.
Aria, M., & Akbari, R. (2013). Inspection, condition evaluation
and replacement of elastomeric bearings in road bridges.
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 9, 918 934.
Artieda, C.C.M., & Whittaker, A.S. (2010). Theoretical studies
of the XY-FP seismic isolation bearing for bridges. Journal
of Bridge Engineering, 15, 631 638.
Buckle, I., Yen, W.-H.(.P.), Marsh, L., & Monzon, E. (2012).
Implications of bridge performance during Great East Japan
Earthquake for U.S. seismic design practice. In Proceedings
of the International Symposium on Engineering Lessons
Learned from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, March
1 4, 2012, Tokyo (pp. 1363 1374). Tokyo: Japan
Association for Earthquake Engineering. Retrieved from
http://nisee.berkeley.edu/elibrary/getpkg?id201203281
15
16
S.A. Mitoulis