Seismic Response Analysis of Multi-Span Isolated Bridges: A Case Study

SEISMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS OF
MULTI-SPAN ISOLATED BRIDGES: A

CASE STUDY
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements

for the Master Degree in
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology
By
Dimitra Angelopoulou
Supervisor: Professor Nicos Makris
May, 2009
Department of Civil Engineering

University of Patras
The dissertation entitled “Seismic Response Analysis of Multi-Span Isolated Bridges: A Case
Study”, by Dimitra Angelopoulou, has been approved in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology.
Professor Nicos Makris

University of Patras
Index
ABSTRACT
This report investigates the seismic response and performance of a nine-span railway bridge
to be constructed from presstresed concrete. The bridge is seismically isolated with friction
pendulum bearings (FPS) and non-linear hydraulic dampers and is part of a new railway
under construction in Greece. This report is part of a general effort aiming to the
instrumentation and monitoring of the bridge response due to: a) live loads due to train
passage, and b) seismic loads which engage the seismic isolation system.
The mechanical behavior of each substructure element (pile group foundations, center
piers, bearings-dampers, deck) is described by macroscopic force-displacement
constitutive laws. The bridge is modeled with a simple stick model that synthesizes the
individual mechanical behavior of the various substructural elements. The eigenvalue analysis
of the bridge gives mode shapes and modal frequencies for small displacements (without
activating the isolation system), as well as different mode shapes and modal frequencies when
the isolation devices have been activated using linear analysis accounting for the effects of
soil structure interaction. The modal analysis indicates the number and position of the sensors
needed for the significant modes of the bridge to be identified through monitoring. For the
seismic response of the bridge 11 historical records have been selected, three from Greece,
one from Turkey and 7 from North America which have rich frequency content and express
satisfactorily the seismic hazard of the area. The seismic response analysis is conducted in the
time domain with nonlinear time history analysis in order to show the influence of the non-
linear behavior of the seismic isolation system.
The investigation proceeds with an in-depth parametric study of the response accounting for
the effects of soil structure interaction and leads to displacement and load demands for the
service and seismic loads which are compatible with the design spectrum.
v
Index
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Professor Nicos Makris for
his commitment to guiding me throughout my master’s thesis. He provided me with important advice,
invaluable knowledge and constant encouragement during my master’s degree.
I am especially grateful to my friend and PhD candidate Georgios Kampas for his kind assistance and
continuous support during all the stages of my thesis.
I would like to express special thanks to my friends and PhD candidates, Seokho Jeong for his
valuable advice and his great help with the Matlab files and Michalis Vassiliou for his critical
suggestions during the analyses.
This thesis is dedicated to my parents and my sister, without the support, caring and encouragement of
whom, none of this would have been possible.
vii
Index
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ...........................................................................................................................................v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................................................................vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................................................ix
LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................................................xi
LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................................xxi
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1
2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION..........................3
2.1. Layout of the Bridge .................................................................................................... 3
2.2. Geotechnical Information ............................................................................................. 3
2.3. Structural Configuration............................................................................................... 3
3. DYNAMIC STIFFNESSES OF PILE FOUNDATIONS...........................................................11
4. MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR OF CENTER PIERS..................................................................21
4.1. Configuration - Dimensions ....................................................................................... 21
4.2. Mechanical Behavior ................................................................................................. 21
4.2.1. Lateral Resistance - Flexure ..........................................................................21
4.2.2. Shear Resistance of Center Piers ...................................................................21
5. SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................29
6. DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF THE BRIDGE WITHOUT SEISMIC ISOLATION....................47
6.1. Modal analysis .......................................................................................................... 47
7. MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR OF SEISMIC ISOLATION SYSTEM.......................................51
7.1. Spherical Sliding Bearings ......................................................................................... 51
7.2. Hydraulic Dampers .................................................................................................... 53
8. SEISMIC RESPONSE OF THE SEISMICALLY ISOLATED BRIDGE .................................59
ix
Index
8.1. Modal Analysis ......................................................................................................... 59

8.2. Nonlinear Time History Analysis................................................................................ 64
9. MONITORING OF BRIDGE RESPONSE AND SENSOR INSTALLATION ......................121
9.1. Monitoring during construction ................................................................................ 121
9.1.1. Piers ..........................................................................................................121
9.1.2. Deck..........................................................................................................121
9.2. Initial Measurements ............................................................................................... 121
9.3. Continuous In-Service Monitoring ............................................................................ 124
10. CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................................125
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................127
x
Index
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1 Plan view of ΣΓ14 bridge ..........................................................................................5
Figure 2.2 Elevation of ΣΓ14 bridge from upstream (top), from downstream (centre) and plan
view of foundation (bottom) ...............................................................................................6
Figure 2.3 Cross-section of the deck at the location of abutment A0 which restricts the
transverse displacements.....................................................................................................7
Figure 2.4 Typical deck cross-section ........................................................................................7
Figure 2.5 Layout of seismic protective systems at abutment Α0, Top: Plan view, Bottom:
Cross-section.......................................................................................................................8
Figure 2.6 Layout of seismic protective systems at center piers. Top: Plan view, Bottom: Side-
view along transverse direction. .........................................................................................9
Figure 3.1 Pile group configurations at the abutments Α0 and Α9...........................................14
Figure 3.2 Pile group configurations at the center piers Μ1, Μ2, Μ3, Μ4, Μ5, Μ6, Μ7, Μ8.
...........................................................................................................................................15
Figure 3.3 Dynamic stiffness (top) and damping (bottom) for the vertical pile group motion
against the dimensional frequency of the pile group of the center piers and abutments for
ratio EP/ES=100. ................................................................................................................16
Figure 3.4 Dynamic stiffness (top) and damping (bottom) for the horizontal pile group motion
ratio EP/ES=100. ................................................................................................................17
Figure 3.5 Dynamic stiffness (top) and damping (bottom) for the rocking pile group motion
ratio EP/ES=100. ................................................................................................................18
xi
Index
Figure 3.6 Dynamic stiffness (top) and damping (bottom) for the cross-horizontal rocking pile
group motion against the dimensional frequency of the pile group of the center piers and
abutments for ratio EP/ES=100..........................................................................................19
Figure 4.1 Cross-sections of piers Μ1, Μ3, Μ7 and Μ4, Μ5 at the pile cap level. ................24
Figure 4.2 Cross-section of piers Μ6 and Μ2, Μ8 at the pile cap level...................................25
Figure 4.3 Arrangement of the transverse reinforcement of the center piers of ΣΓ14 bridge. .26
Figure 4.4 Moment–curvature diagrams of the cross-sections at the base of center piers Μ1,
Μ2, Μ3, Μ4, Μ5, Μ6, Μ7 and Μ8. The axial load for the analysis is taken as equal to
the self weight of the structure that corresponds to each center pier. ...............................27
Figure 4.5 Lateral Resistance diagrams of the piers Μ1, Μ2, Μ3, Μ4, Μ5, Μ6, Μ7 and Μ8
along the longitudinal (strong-top) and transverse (weak-bottom) direction. ..................28
Figure 5.1 Horizontal components of the acceleration time histories of the records listed in
Table 5.1 (continues). .......................................................................................................31
Table 5.1 (continues). .......................................................................................................32
Table 5.1 (continues). .......................................................................................................33
Table 5.1 (continues). .......................................................................................................34
Figure 5.5 Comparison of the elastic response spectra for 5% viscous damping ratio of the 11
acceleration histories used for the response analysis against the design spectrum offered
by the Greek Seismic Code (EAK2000)...........................................................................35
Figure 5.6 Acceleration, velocity and displacement response spectra of motions recorded at
ΟΤΕ station during 1986 Kalamata earthquake................................................................36
ΟΤΕ station during 1995 Aigion earthquake. ...................................................................37
ΟΤΕ station during 2003 Lefkada earthquake. .................................................................38
Gilroy Array #6 station during 1979 Coyote Lake earthquake.........................................39
El Centro Array #5 station during 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake. ..............................40
xii
Index
Oil City Station during 1983 Coalinga earthquake...........................................................41
Transmitter Hill station during 1995 Coalinga earthquake...............................................42
Jensen Filter Plant station during 1994 Northridge earthquake........................................43
North Palm Springs during 1986 North Palm Springs earthquake. ..................................44
95 Erzikan station during 1992 Erzikan earthquake. ........................................................45
Pacoima Dam station during 1971 San Fernando earthquake ..........................................46
Figure 6.1 Finite element model of the hypothetical bridge without seismic isolation............47
Figure 6.2 The first eight modal periods of the hypothetical bridge computed with the
uncracked stiffness of the piers and their dependence on the soil-structure interaction...48
Figure 6.3 The first eight modeshapes of the hypothetical bridge without seismic isolation
computed with uncracked stiffness of piers and monolithic supports. .............................49
computed with uncracked stiffness of piers including the soil-structure interaction effect
(Ep/Es=100). ......................................................................................................................50
Figure 7.1 Force-displacement hysteresis loop of the spherical sliding bearings.....................53
Figure 7.2 Force-displacement hysteresis loops that result from the damper and the virtual
elasto-plastic model (Coulomb friction). ..........................................................................55
Figure 8.1 Finite element model of the seismically isolated ΣΓ14 bridge................................59
Figure 8.2 The first eight modal periods of the seismically isolated bridge computed with the
uncracked stiffness of the piers and their marginal dependence on the soil-structure
interaction. ........................................................................................................................61
Figure 8.3 The first eight modeshapes of the seismically isolated bridge computed with the
uncracked stiffness of the piers for the case of monolithic supports. ...............................62
uncracked stiffness of the piers including the soil-structure interaction effect
(Ep/Es=100). ......................................................................................................................63
xiii
Index
Figure 8.5 Longitudinal response of pier Μ3 with seismic isolation when the bridge is excited
by the motion recorded at ΟΤΕ station during the 1995 Aigion earthquake (Ep/Es =100).
...........................................................................................................................................66
...........................................................................................................................................67
...........................................................................................................................................68
Figure 8.8 Transverse response of pier Μ3 with seismic isolation when the bridge is excited
...........................................................................................................................................69
...........................................................................................................................................70
...........................................................................................................................................71
Figure 8.11 Absolute accelerations along the height of pier Μ3 with seismic isolation in the
longitudinal direction when the bridge is excited by the motion recorded at ΟΤΕ station
during the 1995 Aigion earthquake (Ep/Es =100). ...........................................................72
Figure 8.12 Absolute accelerations along the height of pier Μ5 in the longitudinal direction
with seismic isolation when the bridge is excited by the motion recorded at ΟΤΕ station
during the 1995 Aigion earthquake (Ep/Es =100). ............................................................73
longitudinal direction when the bridge is excited by the motion recorded at ΟΤΕ station
Figure 8.14 Absolute accelerations along the height of pier Μ3 in the transverse direction with
seismic isolation when the bridge is excited by the motion recorded at ΟΤΕ station
ιFigure 8.15 Absolute accelerations along the height of pier Μ5 in the transverse direction
with seismic isolation when the bridge is excited by the motion recorded at ΟΤΕ station
xiv
Index
Figure 8.16 Absolute accelerations along the height of pier Μ7 in the transverse direction with
seismic isolation when the bridge is excited by the motion recorded at ΟΤΕ station
Figure 8.17 Longitudinal response of pier Μ3 with seismic isolation when the bridge is
excited by the motion recorded during the 1992 Erzincan earthquake (Ep/Es =100). ......78
by the motion recorded during the 1992 Erzincan earthquake (Ep/Es =100). ...................81
by the motion recorded during the 1992 Erzincan earthquake (Ep/Es =100). ...................82
by the motion recorded during the 1992 Erzincan earthquake (Ep/Es =100)...................83
longitudinal direction when the bridge is excited by the motion recorded during the 1992
Erzincan earthquake (Ep/Es =100). ..................................................................................84
Erzincan earthquake (Ep/Es =100). ...................................................................................85
transverse direction when the bridge is excited by the motion recorded during the 1992
Erzincan earthquake (Ep/Es =100). ..................................................................................87
xv
Index
Figure 8.29 Maximum base shears of pier Μ2 (top) in the transverse direction when the
bridge with seismic isolation (sliding bearings and dampers) is excited by the 11
earthquake records (bottom). ............................................................................................90
Figure 8.39 Maximum deck displacements of pier Μ2 (top) and maximum bearing
displacements of pier Μ2 (centre) in the longitudinal direction when the bridge with
xvi
Index
seismic isolation (sliding bearings and dampers) is excited by the 11 earthquake records
(bottom)...........................................................................................................................100
(bottom)...........................................................................................................................101
(bottom)...........................................................................................................................102
(bottom)...........................................................................................................................103
(bottom)...........................................................................................................................104
displacements of pier Μ2 (centre) in the transverse direction when the bridge with
(bottom)...........................................................................................................................105
(bottom)...........................................................................................................................106
(bottom)...........................................................................................................................107
xvii
Index
(bottom)...........................................................................................................................108
(bottom)...........................................................................................................................109
Figure 8.49 Maximum absolute deck accelerations of pier Μ2 (top) in the longitudinal
direction when the bridge with seismic isolation (sliding bearings and dampers) is
excited by the 11 earthquake records (bottom)...............................................................110
Figure 8.54 Maximum absolute deck accelerations of pier Μ2 (top) in the transverse direction
when the bridge with seismic isolation (sliding bearings and dampers) is excited by the
11 earthquake records (bottom). .....................................................................................115
xviii
Index
Figure 9.1 Enlargement of Figure 4.5 (bottom) in the small loading-displacement range.....122
Figure 9.2 Proposed locations of the accelerometers for the monitoring of ΣΓ14 bridge. .....123
xix
Index
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 3.1 Spring and dashpot values of the abutments and center piers for the pile group vibration
modes and the equivalent beam model properties of ΣΓ14 bridge. .............................................. 20
Table 5.1 Selected ground motions for the seismic response of the bridge........................................... 30
Table 6.1 Modal frequencies and modal periods of the hypothetical bridge without seismic isolation,
for the case of monolithic supports (Fixed) and of soil-structure interaction (Ep/Es=100),
computed with the initial stiffness of the center piers (uncracked)............................................... 48
Table 7.1 Nominal values of damper properties for the longitudinal direction. .................................... 54
Table 7.2 Nominal values of damper properties for the transverse direction. ....................................... 54
Table 7.3 Additional friction coefficient values which replace the presence of the nonlinear dampers
with very small exponent α=0.02.................................................................................................. 57
Table 8.1 Modal frequencies and modal periods of the seismically isolated bridge, for the case of
monolithic supports (Fixed) and of soil-structure interaction (Ep/Es=100), computed with the
initial stiffness of the center piers (uncracked). ............................................................................ 60
xxi
Chapter 1. Introduction
1. INTRODUCTION
Earthquake damage in most highway and railway bridges is the result of excessive seismic
displacements and large force demands that have been substantially underestimated during
design. Most of the failures that are the result of geometric inconsistencies (limited sitting
length, pounding-abutment slumping), bridges also fail due to inadequate strength and
ductility of columns, cap-beams, and foundations (Priestley et al. 1996).
Traditionally, many conventionally designed bridges use elastomeric bearings (pads) between
the deck and its supports to accommodate thermal movements. The long experience with this
technology has had a positive role on the implementation of modern seismic protection
technologies in bridges. Several bridges worldwide are now equipped with seismic protective
bearings that involve some energy-dissipation mechanism (Skinner et al. 1993). The most
commonly used seismic isolation system consists of lead-rubber bearings that combine the
function of isolation and energy dissipation in a single compact unit, while also supporting the
weight of the superstructure and providing restoring force. Sliding bearings allow for
appreciable mobility and provide energy dissipation through friction. In this case an additional
restoring mechanism is often added to provide the structure with some recentering capacity.
Spherical sliding bearings provide a restoring mechanism because of their curvature while at
the same time dissipating energy.
The increasing need for safer bridges in association with the rapid success of energy-
dissipation devices in buildings has accelerated the implementation of large-capacity damping
devices in bridges. The Vincent Thomas suspension bridge in southern California (Smyth et
al. 2000), the Rion-Antirion cable-stayed bridge in western Greece (Papanikolas 2002), the
San Francisco- Oakland Bay Bridge in the San Francisco Bay Area (Caltrans 2002), the
Coronado Bridge near San Diego, California, and the 91/5 highway overcrossing in southern
California (Delis et al. 1996, Zhang and Makris 2000, Makris and Zhang 2004) are examples
of bridges that have been or will be equipped with fluid dampers.
Modern bridges equipped with isolation bearings and energy dissipation devices may achieve
high performance levels. Nevertheless, their high performance depends on the proper
functioning of the seismic protection devices. Accordingly, the trend for modern bridges is to
be monitored with sensors that will record the bridge response during service and earthquake
loads. This study investigates the seismic response of a nine span bridge by constructing a
realistic dynamic model that will support the system identification studies of the bridge.
1
Chapter 2. General Description and Geotechnical Information
2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND GEOTECHNICAL

INFORMATION
2.1. Layout of the Bridge
The plan view of the bridge under investigation follows an arch of radius R=900m, as
shown in Figure 2.1, while along its length is inclined with an upward 2% slope. The bridge
is a continuous 9-span, prestressed concrete bridge with total length 393.5m (39.25+
7x45.0+39.25) measured between the expansion joints.
2.2. Geotechnical Information

As is reported in demonstration and evaluation documents of the Geotechnical Studies, the
area is covered by ophiolites and ophiolithic mélange with dolerite as the main component.
These formations due to their tectonic setting, they form irregular thrusts and intercalations.
This irregularly shaped profile is due to weathering and alteration of the formations described
above.
The superficial layer of the foundation of the bridge is constituted by the weathering profile
of the dolerites, which show medium to high degree of alteration.
The foundation of all the piers of the construction has been designed on pile groups of
diameter Φ120 or Φ150 and length 20.0m, so that the piles will go through the low
strength material and reach safely the healthier rock mass.
Due to the aforementioned inhomogeneity the parametric analysis that follows shows the
results for monolithic foundation of the piers as well as for ratio ΕΡ/ΕS =100 where ΕΡ is the
modulus of elasticity of the piers and ΕS is the modulus of elasticity of the soil.
2.3. Structural Configuration

ΣΓ14 is a continuous prestressed concrete 9-span bridge from which the 7 spans between the
center piers have 45m length while the two spans from the center pier to the abutments
have length 39.25m. The center bents Μ1, Μ2, Μ3, Μ4, Μ5, Μ6, Μ7 and Μ8 are
supported on pile group foundations and have the following heights respectively 12.95m,
16.65m, 9.45m, 2x31.95m, 25.95m, 10.95m και 16.65m, as shown in Figure 2.2. In each
abutment and center bent the deck rests on a pair of Friction Pendulum System, (FPS).
Especially in the abutments, the support allows the sliding only along the longitudinal
direction and blocks the displacement along the transverse direction as shown in Figure 2.3.
3
The total breadth of the bridge deck is equal to 13.90m, from which the 8.70m are occupied
by the railway ballast together with the two railway lines, while the rest 5.20m from the two
sidewalks (2x2.60m). The cross-section of the deck is a single-cell prestressed concrete
box girder, the web slope of which is 15o off the vertical, as shown in Figure 2.4.
At each abutment and center bent the deck is connected with two dampers along the
longitudinal direction while at each center bent the deck is restricted with two additional
transverse dampers. Figure 2.5 shows the plan view (top) and the cross-section (bottom) of
the deck along the longitudinal axis of the bridge of abutment Α0. Figure 2.6 shows the plan
view (top) and the side-view (bottom) along the transverse direction of the bridge of
each center pier where the configuration of the seismic isolation system is also shown.
4
Figure 2.1 Plan view of ΣΓ14 bridge
5
Α0 Μ1 Μ2 Μ3 Μ4 Μ5 Μ6 Μ7 Μ8 Α9
Α9 Μ8 Μ7 Μ6 Μ5 Μ4 Μ3 Μ2 Μ1 Α0
Α9 Μ8 Μ7 Μ6 Μ5 Μ4 Μ3 Μ2 Μ1 Α0
Figure 2.2 Elevation of ΣΓ14 bridge from upstream (top), from downstream (centre) and plan view of foundation (bottom)
6
Figure 2.3 Cross-section of the deck at the location of abutment A0 which restricts the
transverse displacements.
Figure 2.4 Typical deck cross-section
7
Figure 2.5 Layout of seismic protective systems at abutment Α0, Top: Plan view, Bottom:
Cross-section
8
Figure 2.6 Layout of seismic protective systems at center piers. Top: Plan view, Bottom:
Side-view along transverse direction.
9
Chapter 3. Dynamic Stiffnesses of Pile Foundations
3. DYNAMIC STIFFNESSES OF PILE FOUNDATIONS
The dynamic stiffnesses of pile groups along the various vibration modes are computed by the
method that was developed by Dobry and Gazetas (1988). The application of this method for
the estimation of the dynamic response in bridges is described in detail in the publication of
Makris et al. (1994). Figure 3.1 shows the configuration of the piles at the abutments A0 and
A9 while Figure 3.2 shows the configuration of the piles at the center piers Μ1, Μ2, Μ3,
Μ4, Μ5, Μ6, Μ7 and Μ8.
The dynamic stiffnesses of pile groups are estimated based on the theory of pile-soil-pile
dynamic interaction together with the dynamic stiffness of the single pile (Makris et al. 1994,
Eurocode 8, 1998).
Figure 3.3 shows the vertical dynamic stiffness, KzG, and damping CzG of the pile groups
at the abutments and center piers as a function of the dimensionless frequency α0=ωd/Vs. The
static (α0= 0) pile group stiffness is only a fraction of the sum of the individual pile static
stiffnesses as a result of interaction between piles.
Due to the relatively large shear velocity, Vs, of the soil, the dimensionless frequency,
α0=ωd/Vs, takes small values and even if the dynamic stiffnesses depend on the
frequency, in the analysis that follows we consider that the stiffnesses are independent of
the frequency and equal to their value at the static limit α0→0. Figure 3.4 shows the lateral
dynamic stiffness, KxG, and damping CxG of the pile groups at the abutments and center
piers as a function of the dimensionless frequency, α0. Similarly the figures Figure 3.5 and
Figure 3.6 show the dynamic stiffnesses and dampings of the pile groups along the
rocking and cross-rocking vibration mode. Table 3.1 summarises the values of spring and
dashpot which approach the stiffness and damping of pile groups for ΣΓ14 bridge for soil-
structure interaction ratios Εp/Es=100 and Εp/Es=1000.
In finite element analysis of the bridge system, the stiffnesses of the pile group should be
included by an element whose stiffness matrix reads as
11
⎡ K [G ] [G ]
K xr 0 ⎤
⎢ x ⎥
[G ] ⎢ [G ] [G ]
K = K xr Kr 0 ⎥ (3.1)
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 [G ] ⎥
0 Kz
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
where Kx[G], Kz[G], Kr[G] and Kxr[G] are the real part of the static group stiffnesses (spring
values in Figure 3.3 to Figure 3.6). The cross-rocking term Kxr[G] in the stiffness matrix of
equation(3.1), can not be modeled by adding a rotational spring or a displacement spring. To
overcome this limitation the non-diagonal term is taken into account by introducing a
flexural-shear beam (Zang and Makris 2001), which replaces the pile group. The stiffness
matrix of the flexural-shear beam is (Ketter 1979):
⎡K K 0 ⎤
⎢ 11 12 ⎥
b
K = ⎢K K 0 ⎥ (3.2)
⎢ 21 22 ⎥
⎢⎣ 0 0 K ⎥
33 ⎦
where
12GAEI
K = (3.3)
11
L3GA + 12λ LEI
−6GAEI
K = =K (3.4)
12 2 21
L GA + 12λ LEI
4( L2GA + 3λ LEI )( EI )2
K = (3.5)
22 2
L3GAEI + 12λ L EI ( )
EA
K = (3.6)
33 L
and λ=1 for a wide-flange cross section By matching the stiffnesses of the equivalent beam
element and those of the pile group, in equation (3.2) and (3.1) respectively, one can solve for
beam length, L, cross-section area, A, moment of inertia, I, and shear modulus, G, of the
aforementioned shear-flexural beam,
12
[G ]
K
L = −2 xr (3.7)
[G ]
Kx
[G ] [G ]
2 K z K xr
A=− (3.8)
E K [G ]
x
⎡ [G ] 2 [G ] ⎤
2 [G ] ⎢⎛ K xr ⎞ Kr ⎥
I = K xr ⎢⎜ ⎟ − (3.9)
E ⎜ K [G ] ⎟ [G ] ⎥
⎢⎝ x ⎠ Kx ⎥
⎣ ⎦
( )
2
[G ] K [xr
G] [G ] [G ]
− Kr K x
Kx
G = 3E λ (3.10)
[G ] [G ] [G ] [G ]
K z 4( K xr )2 − 3K r K x
The values of which are summarised in Table 3.1 for soil-pile interaction ratios Εp/Es=100
and Εp/Es=1000.
13
Abutment Α0 Abutment Α9
Figure 3.1 Pile group configurations at the abutments Α0 and Α9.
14
Center Piers Μ1, Μ2, Μ8 Center Piers Μ3, Μ4, Μ5, Μ6, Μ7
Figure 3.2 Pile group configurations at the center piers Μ1, Μ2, Μ3, Μ4, Μ5, Μ6, Μ7, Μ8.
15
A0, A9: 3×5, L/d=16.7, S/d=2.6 M1, M2, M8: 4×5, L/d=13.3, S/d=2.00 M3, M4, M5, M6, M7: 4×5, L/d=16.7, S/d=2.5
1.5 1.5 1.5
Group pile Group pile Group pile
Single Pile Single Pile Single Pile
1 1 1
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
10 10 10
0.5 5 0.5 5 0.5 5
Spring value 0 Spring value 0 Spring value 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Transverse Transverse Transverse
0 0 0
−0.5 −0.5 −0.5

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
1.5 1.5 1.5

Group Pile Group Pile Group Pile
Single Pile Single Pile Single Pile
1 1 1
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
10 10 10
5 5 5
0 0 0
0.5 0 5 10 15 0.5 0 5 10 15 0.5 0 5 10 15
Dashpot value Dashpot value Dashpot value

0 0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
α 0 = ω d / VS α 0 = ω d / VS α 0 = ω d / VS
Figure 3.3 Dynamic stiffness (top) and damping (bottom) for the vertical pile group motion against the dimensional frequency of the pile group
of the center piers and abutments for ratio EP/ES=100.
16
1.2 1.2 1.2
1.5 Transverse 1.5 Transverse 1.5 Transverse
1 1 1
Group pile
Longitudinal Group pile
Longitudinal Group pile
Longitudinal
0.8 SinglePile
Single Pile 0.8 SinglePile
Single Pile 0.8 SinglePile
Single Pile
1 1 1
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
0.6 0.6 0.6
10 10 10
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
0.4 Spring value 5
10 0.4 5
10 0.4 Spring value 5
10
Spring value
0.5 05 0.5 05 0.5 05
0.2 Spring value 00 5 10 15 0.2 00 5 10 15 0.2 00 5 10 15
Spring value Spring value
0 5 10 15
Transverse 0 5 10 15
Transverse 0 5 10 15
Transverse
0 Transverse 0 Transverse 0 Transverse
0 0 0
−0.2 −0.2 −0.2
−0.4 −0.4 −0.4
−0.50 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 −0.50 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 −0.50 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
1 1 1
Group Pile
Longitudinal Group Pile
Longitudinal Group Pile
Longitudinal
0.8 0.8 0.8
SinglePile
Single Pile SinglePile
Single Pile SinglePile
Single Pile
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
0.61 0.61 0.61
10 10 10
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
5
10 5
10 5
10
0.4 05 0.4 05 0.4 05
00 5 10 15 00 5 10 15 00 5 10 15
0.5 0 5 10 15
Transverse 0.5 0 5 10 15
Transverse 0.5 0 5 10 15
Transverse
Dashpot value Dashpot value Dashpot value
0 Dashpot value 0 Dashpot value 0 Dashpot value
00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Figure 3.4 Dynamic stiffness (top) and damping (bottom) for the horizontal pile group motion against the dimensional frequency of the pile
group of the center piers and abutments for ratio EP/ES=100.
17
1.5 1.5 1.5
Group pile Group pile Group pile
1.2 Single Pile 1.2 Single Pile 1.2 Single Pile
1 Longitudinal 1 Longitudinal 1 Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
10 10 10
0.5 5 0.5 5 0.5 5
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
0.8 Spring value 0
10 0.8 0
10 0.8 0
10
Spring value Spring value Spring value
50 5 10 15 50 5 10 15 Spring value 50 5 10 15
0Transverse Spring value 0Transverse 0Transverse
0
0.6 0 5 10 15 0
0.6 0 5 10 15 0
0.6 0 5 10 15
0.4 0.4 0.4
−0.5 −0.5 −0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0.2 0.2 0.2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
1.5 1.5 1.5

Group Pile Group Pile Group Pile
0.4 Single Pile 0.4 Single Pile 0.4 Single Pile
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
0.3 0.3 0.3
10 10 10
5 5 5
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
0
10 0
10 0
10
0.2
0.5 50 5 10 15 0.2
0.5 50 5 10 15 0.2
0.5 50 5 10 15
0Transverse 0Transverse 0Transverse
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Dashpot
Dashpot value
value Dashpot
Dashpot value
value Dashpot
Dashpot value
value
0 0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 0 0
0 0.1 α 0.2
0 = ω d / VS
0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 α 00.2= ω d0.3
/ VS 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 α 0 0.2
= ω d /0.3
VS 0.4 0.5
Figure 3.5 Dynamic stiffness (top) and damping (bottom) for the rocking pile group motion against the dimensional frequency of the pile group
of the center piers and abutments for ratio EP/ES=100.
18
1.5 1.5 1.5
1 Group pile 1 Group pile 1 Group pile
Single Pile
Transverse Single Pile
Transverse Single Pile
Transverse
0.8 0.8 0.8
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
10 10 10
0.6
0.5 510 0.6
0.5 10
5 0.6
0.5 10
5
5 5 5
Spring
Spring valuevalue 00 Spring value 00 Spring value 00
00 55 10 Spring value Spring value
1015
15 00 55 10
1015
15 00 55 10
10 15
15
0.2 0.2 0.2

−0.5 −0.5 −0.5
00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
1.5 1.5 1.5

1 Group Pile 1 Group Pile 1 Group Pile
Transverse
Single Pile Transverse
Single Pile Transverse
Single Pile
0.8 Longitudinal 0.8 Longitudinal 0.8 Longitudinal
1 1 1
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
10
10 10
10 10
10
0.6 0.6 0.6
55 55 55
00 00 00
0.5
0.4 00 55 10
1015
15
0.5
0.4 00 55 10
1015
15
0.5
0.4 00 55 10
10 15
15
Transverse
Transverse Transverse
Transverse
0.2 0.2 0.2

Dashpot
Dashpotvalue
value Dashpot
Dashpotvalue
value Dashpot
Dashpot value
value
0 0 0
00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Figure 3.6 Dynamic stiffness (top) and damping (bottom) for the cross-horizontal rocking pile group motion against the dimensional frequency
of the pile group of the center piers and abutments for ratio EP/ES=100.
19
Table 3.1 Spring and dashpot values of the abutments and center piers for the pile group vibration modes and the equivalent beam model
properties of ΣΓ14 bridge.
Ep = 29GPa Spring and dashpot values

Ep/Es = 100 Ep/Es = 1000
Ml, M2, A0, Ml, M2, M3,M4,M5,M6,
A0, A9 M3,M4,M5,M6,M7
M8 A9 M8 M7
Kxx(MN/m) 2885.62 3543.69 3080.60 512.06 628.07 546.17
Kzz(MN/m) 6771.15 8231.60 7177.30 2167.49 2636.07 2294.99
Krr,tran (MN m/rad) 243870.20 329533.91 269974.69 78223.03 105828.11 86547.14
Krr,long (MN m/rad) 74180.50 237280.85 190883.45 23746.60 76213.15 61191.91
Kxr(MN/rad) -6879.60 -11033.25 -7760.93 -2181.00 -3501.72 -2462.75
C xx (MNs/m) 90.71 130.81 105.82 46.24 66.39 55.20
CZZ(MNs/m) 246.54 342.81 284.28 256.55 372.80 320.45
C rr,tran(MN·m·s/ rad ) 5839.40 8610.84 6579.09 5977.62 8627.79 6730.90
Crr,long(MN·m·s/ rad ) 2600.47 5620.97 4294.63 2662.06 5632.10 4393.68
C xr (MN·s/rad) -94.82 -207.00 -127.33 -94.83 -207.82 -126.49
Equivalent beam properties
Ep/Es = 100 Ep/Es = 1000
Ml, M2, M3,M4,M5,M6, A0, Ml, M2, M3,M4,M5,M6,
A0, A9
M8 M7 A9 M8 M7
L(m) 4.77 6.23 5.04 8.52 11.15 9.02
A(m2) 1.11 1.77 1.25 0.64 1.01 0.71
Itran (m4) 37.40 63.38 43.51 20.25 33.18 23.46
Ilong (m4) 9.50 43.57 29.77 4.25 21.80 15.58
Gtran(MPa) 12663 12988 12780 7173 7473 7258
Glong(MPa) 13650 13231 12939 8719 7806 7452
20
Chapter 4. Mechanical Behavior of Center Piers
4. MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR OF CENTER PIERS

4.1. Configuration - Dimensions
The center piers cross-section of the bridge is a single-cell orthogonal section the web
girders of which along the longitudinal direction of the bridge, are slightly sloped. Along the
longitudinal direction the width of all the center piers at their top is 4.0m while the width at
the base of the center piers Μ1, Μ2, Μ3, Μ4, Μ5, Μ6, Μ7, Μ8 depends on their height and
is 4.36m, 4.48m, 4.24m, 4.99m, 4.99m, 4.79m, 4.29m and 4.48m respectively. Along the
transverse direction the width of the cross-section is constant and equal to 6. Figure 4.1
shows the cross-sections of the center piers Μ1, Μ3, Μ7 and Μ4, Μ5 while Figure 4.2
shows the cross-sections of the center piers Μ2, Μ8 and Μ6 at the level of their pile caps.
4.2. Mechanical Behavior
4.2.1. Lateral Resistance - Flexure

The lateral resistance of the bridge is governed by the moment curvature diagrams of the
center piers. The compressive strength and ductility of the concrete depends primarily on the
transverse reinforcement. Figure 4.3 shows the arrangement of the transverse reinforcement
of the center piers of the bridge. The mechanical behavior of the confined concrete is
described with Mander’s model (Mander et al 1988), while the moment curvature diagrams
are computed with OpenSees (McKenna 1997, http://opensees.berkeley.edu). Figure 4.4 plots
the moment curvature diagrams of the center piers of the bridge along the transverse (strong)
and longitudinal (weak) direction while Figure 4.5 plots the lateral resistance diagrams at the
head of the piers when the bridge is loaded with an incremental load pattern that corresponds
to the lower mode shape.
4.2.2. Shear Resistance of Center Piers

The shear resistance of the piers is computed according to the provisions of Eurocode2.
The shear resistance of a member is the superposition of its transverse reinforcement
resistance and the shear resistance of the concrete. The contribution of concrete in the shear
resistance is given by the following expression:
⎡ 1 ⎤
⎢
(
VRd ,c = ⎢CRd ,c k 100 ρl f ck ) 3 + k σ cp ⎥ bwd
1 ⎥
(4.1)
⎣ ⎦
21
which can not be less than the minimum value,
( )
VRd ,c = ν min + k1σ cp bwd (4.2)
where:
fck is the characteristic value of the compressive strength of the concrete in MPa.
k = 1 + 200 ≤ 2.0 , where d is the effective depth of the cross-section in mm.

d
A
ρl = sl ≤ 0.02.
bwd
Asl is the total area of the tensile reinforcement, which extends κατά ≥ (lbd+d) beyond the
section considered.
bw is the smallest width of the cross-section in the tensile area (mm).
σcp = ΝΕd/Ac < 0.2fcp in MPa.
NEd is the axial force in the cross-section due to loading in Newtons.
Ac is the area of concrete cross section in mm2.
Recommended value for CRd,c is 0.18/γc.
Recommended value for νmin is 0.035k3/2fck1/2.
Recommended value for k1 is 0.15.
For example the concrete contribution in the shear resistance at the head of each pier along
the strong and weak axis is, VRd,c=4.23MN ≥ VRd,cmin=3.82MN (transverse) and
VRd,c=3.10MN ≥ VRd,cmin=2.53MN (longitudinal) respectively.
When the transverse reinforcement is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the member
and we consider that the shear cracks form an angle of 45ο with its axis, the component of the
transverse reinforcement shear resistance is given by the expression:
A
VRd ,s = sw
s zf yw (4.3)
where:
Αsw is the area of the transverse reinforcement.
22
s is the distance between stirrups.
fyw is the yield strength of stirrups.
For the center piers of the bridge the shear strength due to stirrups was computed. Thus for
each pier at the section of its head we compute VRd,s=16.74MN (transverse) and
VRd,s=11.47MN (longitudinal).
The total resistance that the cross-section of the piers offers against the shear loading is:
VRd = VRd ,s + VRd ,c (4.4)
and is computed as VRd=20.97MN for the strong axis and VRd=14.57MN for the weak axis.
23
Pier Μ1, Μ3, Μ7 Pier Μ4, Μ5
Figure 4.1 Cross-sections of piers Μ1, Μ3, Μ7 and Μ4, Μ5 at the pile cap level.
24
Pier Μ6 Pier Μ2, Μ8
Figure 4.2 Cross-section of piers Μ6 and Μ2, Μ8 at the pile cap level.
25
Figure 4.3 Arrangement of the transverse reinforcement of the center piers of ΣΓ14 bridge.
26
Pier M1, M3, M7 Pier M2, M8

300 300
Longitudinal Longitudinal
250 250
Moment (MNm)
Moment (MNm)
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Curvature (rad/m) Curvature (rad/m)
Pier M4, M5 Pier M6

300 300
Longitudinal Longitudinal
250 250
Moment (MNm)
Moment (MNm)
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Curvature (rad/m) Curvature (rad/m)
Figure 4.4 Moment–curvature diagrams of the cross-sections at the base of center piers Μ1, Μ2, Μ3, Μ4, Μ5, Μ6, Μ7 and Μ8. The axial load
for the analysis is taken as equal to the self weight of the structure that corresponds to each center pier.
27
Transverse
30
M1
M2, M8
25 M3
M4,M5
VRd=20.97MN M6
20 M7
Force (MN)
VRd,s=16.74MN
15
10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Displacement (m)
Longitudinal
20
M1
18 M2, M8
M3
16 M4,M5
VRd=14.57MN M6
14 M7
VRd,s=11.47MN
Force (MN)
12
10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Displacement (m)
Figure 4.5 Lateral Resistance diagrams of the piers Μ1, Μ2, Μ3, Μ4, Μ5, Μ6, Μ7 and Μ8
along the longitudinal (strong-top) and transverse (weak-bottom) direction.
28
Chapter 5. Seismic Hazard Analysis
5. SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS
The successful estimate of the seismic response of a structure depends primarily on: (a) the
adequate composition of the structural model; and (b) a realistic selection of the earthquake
excitation. In order to evaluate the seismic performance of the bridge we select a family of
historic records which represent, as far as possible, realistically the seismic hazard of the area.
The seismic hazard for a given site is a probabilistic quantity which can be defined for various
levels of ground shaking as the probability that during a known period of time (usually the life
span of the structure) a certain measure of the ground shaking (ground acceleration, velocity
or displacement) should not be exceeded. For sites which are close to known active faults the
seismic hazard can be estimated without probabilistic analysis based on mechanical models
that govern the generation mechanism and wave propagation.
Due to the lack of sufficient number of historic records in the greater area of the bridges, the
selections of the records is based on the design spectrum that is proposed by the Greek
Seismic Code (E.A.K. 2000) in association with the associated zones of seismic hazard. For
the seismic analysis of the ΣΓ14 bridge, 11 records were selected from historic earthquakes
with magnitudes that range from Mw = 5.2 to Mw = 6.9. The pertinent characteristic of the
records are listed in Table 5.1. The records of Table 5.1 were selected not only according to
their peak ground acceleration (0.27g ≤ PGA ≤ 1.23g) but also according to their coherent
frequency content. The acceleration histories of most records contain distinct acceleration
pulses with durations that reach 3sec.
Ground motions with long period acceleration pulses (Makris and Black 2004) are in general
more destructive due to the prolonged monotonic loading that they impose on the structure ,
while in some cases they result in unusual large deformation demands in seismic isolated
structures (Makris & Chang 1998).
Figures 5.1 to 5.4 show the two horizontal components of the records listed in Table 5.1 while
Figure 5.5 compares the elastic response spectra for 5% viscous damping with the design
spectrum offered by EAK 2000 for q=R=1 and seismic zone II. In
Figure 5.6 to Figure 5.16 the acceleration, velocity and displacement elastic response spectra
are plotted for 5% and 25% viscous damping and for friction coefficient μ=5%.
29
Table 5.1 Selected ground motions for the seismic response of the bridge.
PGA (g) PGV (m/s)

Magnitude
Earthquake Record Station Distance (kM)
Mw
Direction 1 Direction 2 Direction 1 Direction 2
1971 San Fernando Pacoima Dam 6.6 11.9 1.23 1.26 112.50 54.30
1979 Coyote Lake Gilroy Array #6 5.7 4.4 0.43 0.32 49.20 24.50
1979 Imperial Valley El Centro Array #5 6.5 27.8 0.38 0.52 90.50 46.90
1983 Coalinga Oil City 5.8 4.6 0.87 0.45 42.20 24.80
1983 Coalinga Transmitter Hill 5.8 6 0.84 1.08 44.10 39.70
1986 Kalamata OTE Building 5.5 11 0.23 0.27 30.93 23.99
1986 North Palm Springs North Palm Springs 6.1 10.6 0.59 0.69 73.30 33.80
1992 Erzincan 95 Erzincan 6.9 13 0.52 0.50 83.90 64.30
1994 Northridge Jensen Filter Station 6.7 13 0.42 0.59 106.2 99.30
1995 Aigion OTE Building 6.2 20 0.54 0.50 52.0 40.90
2003 Lefkada OTE Building 6.3 24.7 0.43 0.30 - -
30
1986 Kalamata – OTE 1986 Kalamata – OTE

East - West North - South
0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4
0 0
g
g
−0.4 −0.4
−0.8 −0.8
0 10 20 0 10 20
sec sec
1995 Aigion – OTE 1995 Aigion – OTE

Fault Normal Fault Parallel
0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4
0 0
g
−0.4 −0.4
−0.8 −0.8
0 10 20 0 10 20
sec sec
2003 Lefkada 2003 Lefkada

Table 5.1 (continues).
31
1992 Erzincan – 95 Erzincan 1992 Erzincan – 95 Erzincan

North - South East - West
0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4
0 0
g
g
−0.4 −0.4
−0.8 −0.8
0 10 20 0 10 20
sec sec
1979 Coyote Lake – Gilroy Array #6 1979 Coyote Lake – Gilroy Array #6
0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4
0 0
g
g
−0.4 −0.4
−0.8 −0.8
0 10 20 0 10 20
sec sec
1979 Imperial Valley – El Centro 1979 Imperial Valley – El Centro

Array #5 Array #5
0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4
0 0
g
−0.4 −0.4
−0.8 −0.8
0 10 20 0 10 20
sec sec
32
1983 Coalinga – Oil City 1983 Coalinga – Oil City

90o – 270o 0o – 180o
0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4
0 0
g
g
−0.4 −0.4
−0.8 −0.8
0 10 20 0 10 20
sec sec
1995 Coalinga – Transmitter Hill 1995 Coalinga – Transmitter Hill
90o – 270o 0o – 180o
0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4
0 0
g
−0.4 −0.4
−0.8 −0.8
0 10 20 0 10 20
sec sec
1986 North Palm Springs – 1986 North Palm Springs – North

Palm Springs North Palm Springs
30o – 210o 120o – 300o
0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4
0 0
g
−0.4 −0.4
−0.8 −0.8
0 10 20 0 10 20
sec sec
33
1994 Northridge – Jensen Filter Plant 1994 Northridge – Jensen Filter Plant
22o – 202o 112o – 292o
0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4
0 0
g
g
−0.4 −0.4
−0.8 −0.8
0 10 20 0 10 20
sec sec
1971 San Fernando – Pacoima Dam 1971 San Fernando – Pacoima Dam
164o – 344o 74o – 254o
1.2
0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4
0 0
g
−0.4 −0.4
−0.8 −0.8
−1.2
0 10 20 0 10 20
sec sec
34
2.5
2
g
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
sec
Figure 5.5 Comparison of the elastic response spectra for 5% viscous damping ratio of the 11
acceleration histories used for the response analysis against the design spectrum
offered by the Greek Seismic Code (EAK2000).
35
1986 Kalamata – OTE 1986 Kalamata – OTE

East – West North - South
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
m
m
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
sec sec
Figure 5.6 Acceleration, velocity and displacement response spectra of motions recorded at ΟΤΕ station during 1986 Kalamata earthquake.
36
1995 Aigion – OTE 1995 Aigion – OTE

Figure 5.7 Acceleration, velocity and displacement response spectra of motions recorded at ΟΤΕ station during 1995 Aigion earthquake.
37
2003 Lefkada 2003 Lefkada

2 2
m/s
m/s
1 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
sec sec
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
m
m
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
sec sec
Figure 5.8 Acceleration, velocity and displacement response spectra of motions recorded at ΟΤΕ station during 2003 Lefkada earthquake.
38
1979 Coyote Lake – Gilroy Array #6 1979 Coyote Lake – Gilroy Array #6
0.1 0.1
m
m
0.05 0.05
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
sec sec
Figure 5.9 Acceleration, velocity and displacement response spectra of motions recorded at Gilroy Array #6 station during 1979 Coyote Lake
earthquake.
39
1979 Imperial Valley – El Centro Array #5 1979 Imperial Valley – El Centro Array #5
50o – 230o 140o – 320o
1.5 1.5
1 1
m
m
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
sec sec
Figure 5.10 Acceleration, velocity and displacement response spectra of motions recorded at El Centro Array #5 station during 1979 Imperial
Valley earthquake.
40
1983 Coalinga – Oil City 1983 Coalinga – Oil City

90o – 270o 0o – 180o
0.1 0.1
m
m
0.05 0.05
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
sec sec
Figure 5.11 Acceleration, velocity and displacement response spectra of motions recorded at Oil City Station during 1983 Coalinga earthquake.
41
1995 Coalinga – Transmitter Hill 1995 Coalinga – Transmitter Hill

90o – 270o 0o – 180o
0.2 0.2
0.1
m
0.1
m
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
sec sec
Figure 5.12 Acceleration, velocity and displacement response spectra of motions recorded at Transmitter Hill station during 1995 Coalinga
earthquake.
42
1994 Northridge – Jensen Filter Plant 1994 Northridge – Jensen Filter Plant
(22o – 202o component) (112o – 292o component)
0.5
m
0
0 1 2 3 4
sec
Figure 5.13 Acceleration, velocity and displacement response spectra of motions recorded at Jensen Filter Plant station during 1994 Northridge
earthquake.
43
1986 North Palm Springs – North Palm Springs 1986 North Palm Springs – North Palm Springs
0.2 0.2
m
m
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
sec sec
Figure 5.14 Acceleration, velocity and displacement response spectra of motions recorded at North Palm Springs during 1986 North Palm
Springs earthquake.
44
1992 Erzikan – 95 Erzikan 1992 Erzikan – 95 Erzikan

(North-South) (East-West)
0.5 0.5
m
m
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
sec sec
Figure 5.15 Acceleration, velocity and displacement response spectra of motions recorded at 95 Erzikan station during 1992 Erzikan earthquake.
45
1971 San Fernando – Pacoima Dam 1971 San Fernando – Pacoima Dam
0.5 0.5
m
m
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
sec sec
Figure 5.16 Acceleration, velocity and displacement response spectra of motions recorded at Pacoima Dam station during 1971 San Fernando
earthquake
46
Chapter 6. Dynamic Analysis of the Bridge without Seismic Isolation
6. DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF THE BRIDGE WITHOUT

SEISMIC ISOLATION
This thesis supports the wider effort for the monitoring of the bridge response due to live
loads from the train passage and seismic loads as well. The service loads do not engage the
seismic isolation system because the inertial loads remain small. In this case we are interested
in the dynamic characteristics of the bridge, the deck of which is monolithically connected to
the piers. Figure 6.1 shows a schematic of the hypothetical model of the bridge (without
seismic isolation). The modal characteristics of the structure are computed with open source
code OpenSees (McKenna 1997, http://opensees.berkeley.edu).
Figure 6.1 Finite element model of the hypothetical bridge without seismic isolation.
6.1. Modal analysis

The modal analysis is conducted considering the initial stiffness of the center piers before
cracking. Table 6.1 shows the modal frequencies and modal periods of the hypothetical bridge
without seismic isolation taking into account the soil-structure interaction for Ep/Es=100.
Figure 6.2 shows the sensitivity of the eight first modal frequencies due to the soil-structure
interaction. The first eight mode shapes of the hypothetical bridge are shown in Figure 6.3 and
Figure 6.4, which are computed with the uncracked pier stiffness, assuming monolithic
supports (Figure 6.3) as well as soil-pile group interaction (Ep/Es=100, Figure 6.4).
47
Table 6.1 Modal frequencies and modal periods of the hypothetical bridge without seismic
isolation, for the case of monolithic supports (Fixed) and of soil-structure
interaction (Ep/Es=100), computed with the initial stiffness of the center piers
(uncracked).
ωj (rad/sec) T
(sec)
Modes Fixed Ep/Es=100 Fixed Ep/Es=100
1 5.9764 5.3133 1.051328 1.182544
2 10.527 9.4106 0.596855 0.667669
3 13.988 11.128 0.449198 0.564624
4 16.388 12.343 0.383401 0.509039
5 18.199 15.659 0.345241 0.401252
6 18.803 16.104 0.334155 0.390158
7 19.994 18.421 0.314247 0.341091
8 20.52 18.711 0.306205 0.335797
1.4
Fixed
1.2 Ep/Es=100
1
Modal Period (sec)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Mode
Figure 6.2 The first eight modal periods of the hypothetical bridge computed with the
uncracked stiffness of the piers and their dependence on the soil-structure
interaction.
48
Mode 1: 1st transverse Mode 2: 2nd transverse

T1= 1.051s T2= 0.597s
Mode 3: 3rd transverse Mode 4: 4th transverse

T3= 0.449s T4=0.383s
Mode 5: 5th transverse Mode 6: 1st vertical

T5=0.345s T6=0.334s
Mode 7: 2nd vertical Mode 8: 3rd vertical

T7=0.314s T8=0.306s
computed with uncracked stiffness of piers and monolithic supports.
49
Mode 1: 1st transverse Mode 2: 2nd transverse

T1= 1.183s T2=0.668s
Mode 3: 3rd transverse Mode 4: 4th transverse

T3=0.565s T4=0.509s
Mode 5: 5th transverse Mode 6: 1st longitudinal

T5=0.401s T6=0.390s
Mode 7: 6th transverse Mode 8: 1st vertical

T7=0.341s T8=0.336s
computed with uncracked stiffness of piers including the soil-structure
interaction effect (Ep/Es=100).
50
Chapter 7. Mechanical Behavior of Seismic Isolation System
7. MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR OF SEISMIC ISOLATION

SYSTEM
The seismic protection of the bridge is achieved by the seismic isolation of the deck through
spherical sliding bearings. The deck is also connected to the piers with hydraulic dampers
which act as shock transmission units with bounded force. The implementation of spherical
sliding bearings increases the natural period of the system while the use of hydraulic dampers
increases the damping of the system. Moreover, hydraulic dampers allow the build-up of
thermal movements with very small reaction, undertakιng entirely the departure-braking loads
limiting the displacements of the bridge to roughly 10mm, while they have nonlinear viscous
behavior under the seismic excitation.
At each abutment the superstructure is restrained transversally by two vertical sliding bearings
installed at each side of deck, as shown in Figure 2.3. At each center pier and abutment the
deck rests on two spherical sliding bearings (Friction Pendulum System-FPS). Moreover at
each abutment and center pier two longitudinal dampers are installed and at each center pier
two additional transverse dampers are installed, Figure 2.5 and Figure 2.6.
7.1. Spherical Sliding Bearings

The spherical sliding bearings are sliding devices which consist of an articulated part with a
spherical surface covered with a special sliding material which slides on a spherical surface
from stainless steel. Sliding bearings allow for appreciable mobility and provide energy
dissipation through friction. In this case an additional restoring mechanism is often added to
provide the structure with some recentering capacity. Spherical sliding bearings provide a
restoring mechanism because of their curvature while at the same time dissipating energy.
The friction coefficient μd depends mainly on the sliding velocity, the pressure and the
temperature. The average nominal value of the friction coefficient is selected as μd=0.045
(4.5%). This value of the friction coefficient can be achieved at the interface sliding material-
stainless steel without the use of lubricant and with average pressure in the order of 40MPa.
The range of the nominal value of the friction coefficient is defined as +/- 25% of the average
value, namely from 0.03375 to 0.05625. This range should include the uncertainties that affect
the friction coefficient. The spherical sliding bearings provide the recentering force through
the spherical sliding surface with a radius of curvature R. The force-deformation relation for
one direction case can be expressed as
51
N
F (t ) = u (t ) + μd N sgn ⎡⎣u (t ) ⎤⎦ (7.1)
R
In equation(7.1), the term N/R=K is the bearing stiffness. Figure 7.1 shows the hysteresis loop
of the bearing due to harmonic motion u(t)=uosinωt, of amplitude uo=0.15m and period
T=2π/ω=2sec when the vertical force Ν=21ΜΝ equals the vertical load at the top of pier Μ1.
The radius of curvature of the spherical sliding surface has been determined as R=2.2m which
corresponds to the period
R
T = 2π = 2.976s ≈ 3.0s (7.2)
g
The spherical sliding bearings exhibit very small displacements before the start of the sliding
which depends on the thickness of the special sliding material. In this case uy=0.25mm. The
seismic response of the bridge is computed for horizontal bidirectional excitation and in this
case the force-displacement relation of equation (7.1) is generalised to the vector equation
⎡ Fx ⎤ N ⎡u x ⎤ 1 ⎡u x ⎤
⎢ ⎥= ⎢ ⎥ + μN ⎢ ⎥ (7.3)
F
⎣⎢ y ⎦⎥ R ⎣⎢u y ⎦⎥ u (t ) ⎢⎣u y ⎥⎦
52
1
Force (MN)
−1
−2
−0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2

Displacement (sec)
Figure 7.1 Force-displacement hysteresis loop of the spherical sliding bearings.
7.2. Hydraulic Dampers

The hydraulic dampers are special steel pistons, which dissipate through hydraulic action part
of the kinetic energy, of the structure during seismic excitation. The constitutive law of the
nonlinear behavior of hydraulic dampers is given by the expression:
a
FD = Ca u (t ) sgn ⎡⎣u (t ) ⎤⎦ (7.4)
where Cα is the damping constant of the device, u (t ) is piston velocity and α is fractional
exponent (0 ≤ α ≤ 1) with regular values between 0.10 and 0.5.
The range of the nominal values of the damping coefficient Cα is defined as +/- 10% of the
average value. In the following table are given the maximum and minimum nominal values of
the properties of the dampers which are selected for the two horizontal directions:
53
Table 7.1 Nominal values of damper properties for the longitudinal direction.
Property Average nominal Lower limit Upper limit
value
Damping coefficient C 500 KN (s/m)α 450 KN (s/m)α 550 KN (s/m)α
Exponent α 0.02 0.02 0.02
Table 7.2 Nominal values of damper properties for the transverse direction.
Property Average nominal Lower limit Upper limit

value
Damping coefficient C 750 KN (s/m)α 675 KN (s/m)α 825 KN (s/m)α
Exponent α 0.02 0.02 0.02
The very small exponent α=0.02 results to marginal force increase for as the piston velocity
increases (force limitation). The behavior of dampers for velocities smaller than 1mm/sec
corresponds to sock transmission units. Quasi-static displacements due to temperature
fluctuations, creep and dry contraction induce very small response force from the device. For
the case of sudden imposed loading the dampers “lock” and significant force is transmitted by
the device. For the case of seismic excitation the developing damping force is limited and
nonlinear viscous behavior appears.
Figure 7.2 shows the hysteresis loop which is developed on the damper due to the imposed
harmonic displacement u(t)=u0sinωt, with amplitude, uo=15m, and period T=2π/ω=2sec. In
the same Figure appears a ideal friction loop equal to the maximum force that develops from
the damper
a
F = Ca u (t ) (7.5)
Due to the very small exponent value α=0.02, the two loops are practically the same for every
practical application, because u0 (t ) 0.02 ≈ 1 almost everywhere.
54
0.5
MN
−0.5
−1
−0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2
m
Figure 7.2 Force-displacement hysteresis loops that result from the damper and the virtual
elasto-plastic model (Coulomb friction).
This observation allows us to assume that the nonlinear dampers with exponent α=0.02 are in
fact friction dampers, where the additional friction force Fj at each location j where dampers
are placed is expressed as:
F j (t ) = Ca sgn ⎡⎣u (t ) ⎤⎦ = μC N j sgn ⎡⎣u (t ) ⎤⎦ (7.6)
In equation (7.6), μC is the additional friction coefficient which replaces the presence of the
nonlinear hydraulic dampers and Nj is the vertical reaction in location j. Table 7.3 presents
the additional friction coefficient along the longitudinal and transverse direction at abutments
and center piers of the bridge.
An alternative way, but less accurate, to approach the nonlinear hydraulic dampers is by
replacing them with equivalent viscous dampers with constitutive law
F (t ) = C1u (t ) (7.7)
where C1 is the equivalent damping constant of the viscous damper which depends on the
loading frequency, ω, and the amplitude of motion of the piston uo. For harmonic loading,
u(t)=u0sinωt the equivalent damping constant of the viscous damper is computed by the
expression
55
C1 = Ca
2 a
22+a a−1 a−1 Γ 2 + 1
ω u0
( ) (7.8)
π Γ ( a + 2)
When the bridge is excited by the seismic loading ω=ω1=2π/Τ1, where Τ1 is the first modal
period of the bridge, and u0=2/3umax, where umax is the maximum deck displacement without
dampers along the direction of interest.
56
Table 7.3 Additional friction coefficient values which replace the presence of the nonlinear dampers with very small exponent α=0.02.
Pier Vertical load Ν (ΚΝ) Cx Cy μCx μCy μbearing total μx total μy
Α0 11576 1000 restrained 0.086 - 0.045 0.131 -

Μ1 25284 1000 1500 0.040 0.059 0.045 0.085 0.104
Μ2 27416 1000 1500 0.036 0.055 0.045 0.081 0.100
Μ3 27416 1000 1500 0.036 0.055 0.045 0.081 0.100
Μ4 27416 1000 1500 0.036 0.055 0.045 0.081 0.100
Μ5 27416 1000 1500 0.036 0.055 0.045 0.081 0.100
Μ6 27416 1000 1500 0.036 0.055 0.045 0.081 0.100
Μ7 27416 1000 1500 0.036 0.055 0.045 0.081 0.100
Μ8 25284 1000 1500 0.040 0.059 0.045 0.085 0.104
Α9 11576 1000 restrained 0.086 - 0.045 0.131 -
57
Chapter 8. Seismic Response of the Seismically Isolated Bridge
8. SEISMIC RESPONSE OF THE SEISMICALLY ISOLATED

BRIDGE
In this chapter we examine the response of the bridge with seismic isolation (as built). Figure
8.4 shows a schematic of the finite element model of the seismically isolated bridge. The
seismic response of the bridge and the bridge interaction with the soil is computed with the
methodologies described in the previous chapters. The modal characteristics and the response
of the structure are computed with OpenSees (McKenna 1997, http://opensees.berkeley.edu).
Figure 8.1 Finite element model of the seismically isolated ΣΓ14 bridge.
8.1. Modal Analysis

The modal analysis is conducted with the initial uncracked stiffness of the center piers. The
behavior of the seismic isolation system is considered elastic with stiffness equal to the
stiffness of the seismic isolation system that results from the curvature of the bearings
N
KI = (8.1)
R
where Ν is the vertical load and R is the radius of curvature of the spherical sliding bearing.
Table 8.1 shows the modal frequencies and modal periods of the bridge with seismic isolation
taking into account the soil-structure interaction for Ep/Es=100. Figure 8.2 shows the
59
sensitivity of the first eight modal periods due to the soil-structure interaction. From Table 8.1
and Figure 8.2 results that the soil-structure interaction has a marginal effect on modal
frequencies of the seismically isolated bridge. The modes of the bridge they are presented in
Figure 8.3 and Figure 8.4 which show the first eight modes of the seismically isolated bridge
computed with the uncracked stiffness of the piers assuming monolithic foundation (Figure
8.3), as well as soil-pile group interaction (Ep/Es=100, Figure 8.4). From Figure 8.4 it is
revealed that the first mode is the longitudinal with period Τ1=3.16sec, which is close to the
theoretical value of the isolation period offered by the spherical bearing T1 = R g = 2.98sec .
The next four modes are the first, second, third and fourth transverse mode with the periods
T2=3.13sec, T3=2.29sec, T4=1.38sec and Τ5=0.84sec respectively. It should be pointed that
the soil-structure interaction does not affect the shape of the eight (8) first modes.
Table 8.1 Modal frequencies and modal periods of the seismically isolated bridge, for the
case of monolithic supports (Fixed) and of soil-structure interaction (Ep/Es=100),
computed with the initial stiffness of the center piers (uncracked).
ωj (rad/sec) T
(sec)
Modes Fixed Ep/Es=100 Fixed Ep/Es=100
1 2.0156 1.9898 3.117255 3.157707
2 2.0337 2.0059 3.089491 3.132366
3 2.7523 2.7389 2.282849 2.294052
4 4.5693 4.5534 1.375079 1.379904
5 7.5034 7.4816 0.837377 0.839821
6 9.5824 8.7964 0.655702 0.714287
7 9.5951 8.8129 0.654834 0.712954
8 11.329 10.993 0.554599 0.571546
60
.
3.5
Fixed
3 Ep/Es=100
Modal Period (sec)
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Mode
Figure 8.2 The first eight modal periods of the seismically isolated bridge computed with the
uncracked stiffness of the piers and their marginal dependence on the soil-structure
interaction.
61
Mode 1: 1st Longitudinal Mode 2: 1st Transverse

T1=3.117s T2=3.089s
Mode 3: 2nd Transverse Mode 4: 3rd Transverse

T3=2.283s T4=1.375s
Mode 5: 4th Transverse Mode 6: 1st Bending of piers out of phase

T5=0.837s T6=0.656s
Mode 7: 2nd Bending of piers Mode 8: 5th Transverse

in phase
T7=0.655s T8=0.556s
uncracked stiffness of the piers for the case of monolithic supports.
62
Mode 1: 1st Longitudinal Mode 2: 1st Transverse

T1=3.158s T2=3.132s
Mode 3: 2nd Transverse Mode 4: 3rd Transverse

T3=2.294s T4=1.380s
Mode 5: 4th Transverse Mode 6: 1st Bending of piers out of phase

T5=0.840s T6=0.714s
Mode 7: 2nd Bending of piers Mode 8: 5th Transverse

in phase
T7=0.713s T8=0.572s
uncracked stiffness of the piers including the soil-structure interaction effect
(Ep/Es=100).
63
8.2. Nonlinear Time History Analysis

Seismic response of the seismically isolated bridge when it is excited by the seismic
excitations that are listed in Table 5.1, is conducted in the time domain to capture the
nonlinear behavior of the protective system (sliding bearings and nonlinear dampers - see
constitutive equations (7.3) and (7.4).
In this chapter two analyses are presented: (a) the response of the seismically isolated bridge
without dampers and (b) the response of the seismically isolated bridge where the role of the
nonlinear hydraulic dampers has been modeled with the additional friction coefficient that
corresponds to each pier.
Figure 8.5 and Figure 8.7 show the relative displacement time histories of the deck uss,
relative to the pile cap displacements of the pile group uPC, bearing displacements uBearing,
head of pier displacements uPier and the base shear of the center piers Μ3, Μ5 and Μ7 when
the bridge is excited by the earthquake motion recorded at ΟΤΕ station during 1995 Aigion
earthquake for EP/ES=100.
From Figure 8.5 to Figure 8.7 it is shown that the deck displacements along the longitudinal
direction (Τ1≈3.2s) of the piers Μ3, M5 and Μ7 are almost identical (a result that is expected
as the deck is displaced in its plane) while the lateral displacement of the taller- more flexible
pier Μ5 (h=31.95m) is by far larger than the corresponding displacements of the shorter-more
rigid piers Μ3 (h=9.45m) and Μ7 (h=10.95m). The displacements of the bearings atop the
piers are equal to the difference between the displacements of the deck and the piers.
Consequently, the displacements of the bearings atop the piers Μ3 (h=9.45m) and Μ7
(h=10.95m) is about 10cm (0.1m) while the displacement of the bearings in the flexible pier
does not exceed the 6cm (0.06m). The base shear of the piers is about 3.0ΜΝ. Specifically, in
pier Μ5 in the longitudinal direction the base shear of the bridge with dampers is 3.5ΜΝ
while without dampers is 2.5ΜΝ. These values are near the values that one calculates with
equivalent static analysis from equation (7.1) for the pier Μ5 in the longitudinal direction for
the bridge with dampers
N 27 MN
V= u (t ) + μd N sgn ⎡⎣u (t ) ⎤⎦ = 0.032m + 0.081× 27 MN = 2.58MN (8.2)
R 2.2m
and for the bridge without dampers
N 27 MN (8.3)
V = u ( t ) + μ d N sgn ⎡⎣ u (t ) ⎦⎤ = 0.06 m + 0.045 × 27 MN = 1.95 MN
R 2.2 m
From Figure 8.8 to Figure 8.10 the corresponding displacement time histories and base shears
of the center piers Μ3, Μ5 and Μ7 along the transverse direction are shown.
64
In figures from Figure 8.11 to Figure 8.16 are presented the corresponding longitudinal
(Figure 8.11 to 8.13) and transverse (Figure 8.14 to 8.16) absolute acceleration time histories
in free-field (üg=recorded acceleration), in the pile cap of the pile group (üPC), in the top of
the pier under the bearings (üPier) and in the deck over the bearings (üss) of the center piers
Μ3, Μ5 and Μ7, when the bridge is excited by the motion recorded at ΟΤΕ station during
1995 Aigion earthquake for EP/ES=100.
From Figure 8.17 to Figure 8.28 it is presented respectively the response of the isolated bridge
when it is excited by the motion recorded during 1992 Erzincan earthquake. The response of
the seismically isolated bridge with and without dampers is summarised in figures Figure 8.29
to Figure 8.58, where there are shown the maximum values of the base shear that is developed
in piers Μ2, Μ3, Μ5, Μ6 and Μ7, as well as the displacements and accelerations of the deck
over the bearings when the bridge is excited by the 11 recorded strong motions listed in Table
5.1.
65
Longitudinal Response of pier M3

0.2
uSS – uPC (m)
with dampers
no dampers
0
−0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.1
with dampers
uBearing (m)
no dampers
0
−0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.01 with dampers
no dampers
uPier (m)
−0.01
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
5
Base Shear (ΜΝ)
with dampers
no dampers
0
−5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
0
üg (t)
−0.5 1995 Aigion EQ., OTE record

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
by the motion recorded at ΟΤΕ station during the 1995 Aigion earthquake (Ep/Es
=100).
66

uSS – uPC (m)
0.2
with dampers
no dampers
0
−0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.1
uBearing (m)
with dampers
no dampers
0
−0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.1
with dampers
uPier (m)
no dampers
0
−0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
Base Shear (ΜΝ)
4
with dampers
2 no dampers
−2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
üg (t)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
=100).
67
`
0.2
uSS – uPC (m)
with dampers
no dampers
0
−0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.1
uBearing (m)
with dampers
no dampers
0
−0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.02
with dampers
uPier (m)
0.01 no dampers
0
−0.01
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
Base Shear (ΜΝ)
5
with dampers
no dampers
0
−5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
g (t)
ügü(t)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
=100).
68
Transverse Response of pier M3

0.1
uSS – uPC (m)
with dampers
no dampers
0
−0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.1
with dampers
uBearing (m)
no dampers
0
−0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
−3
x 10
5
with dampers
uPier (m)
no dampers
0
−5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
Base Shear (ΜΝ)
5
with dampers
no dampers
0
−5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
üg (t)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
=100).
69

0.1
uSS – uPC (m)
with dampers
no dampers
0
−0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.1
with dampers
uBearing (m)
no dampers
0
−0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.05
with dampers
uPier (m)
no dampers
0
−0.05
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
Base Shear (ΜΝ)
5
with dampers
no dampers
0
−5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
üg (t)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
=100).
70

0.1
uSS – uPC (m)
with dampers
no dampers
0
−0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.1
with dampers
uBearing (m)
no dampers
0
−0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.01
with dampers
uPier (m)
no dampers
0
−0.01
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
Base Shear (ΜΝ)
5
with dampers
no dampers
0
−5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
üg (t)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
by the motion recorded at ΟΤΕ station during the 1995 Aigion earthquake
(Ep/Es =100).
71

0.2
with dampers
0.1 no dampers
ü SS (g)
−0.1
−0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
1
with dampers
no dampers
0
ü Pier (g)
−1
−2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
1
with dampers
no dampers
0
ü PC (g)
−1
−2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
üg (t)
−0.5
1995 Aigion EQ., OTE record
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
longitudinal direction when the bridge is excited by the motion recorded at ΟΤΕ
station during the 1995 Aigion earthquake (Ep/Es =100).
72

0.2
with dampers
0.1 no dampers
ü SS (g)
−0.1
−0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.4
with dampers
0.2 no dampers
ü Pier (g)
−0.2
−0.4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
1
with dampers
no dampers
0
ü PC (g)
−1
−2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
üg (t)
−0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
Figure 8.12 Absolute accelerations along the height of pier Μ5 in the longitudinal direction
with seismic isolation when the bridge is excited by the motion recorded at ΟΤΕ
73

0.2
with dampers
0.1 no dampers
ü SS (g)
−0.1
−0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
1
with dampers
no dampers
0
ü Pier (g)
−1
−2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
1
with dampers
no dampers
0
ü PC (g)
−1
−2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
üg (t)
−0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
longitudinal direction when the bridge is excited by the motion recorded at ΟΤΕ
74

0.4
with dampers
0.2 no dampers
ü SS (g)
−0.2
−0.4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
2
with dampers
no dampers
1
ü Pier (g)
−1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
2
with dampers
no dampers
1
ü PC (g)
−1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
üg (t)
−0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
Figure 8.14 Absolute accelerations along the height of pier Μ3 in the transverse direction
75

0.2
with dampers
0.1 no dampers
ü SS (g)
−0.1
−0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
1
with dampers
no dampers
0.5
ü Pier (g)
−0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
1
with dampers
no dampers
0.5
ü PC (g)
−0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
üg (t)
−0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
ιFigure 8.15 Absolute accelerations along the height of pier Μ5 in the transverse direction
with seismic isolation when the bridge is excited by the motion recorded at
ΟΤΕ station during the 1995 Aigion earthquake (Ep/Es =100).
76

0.4
with dampers
0.2 no dampers
ü SS (g)
−0.2
−0.4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
2
with dampers
no dampers
1
ü Pier (g)
−1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
2
with dampers
no dampers
1
ü PC (g)
−1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
üg (t)
−0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
Figure 8.16 Absolute accelerations along the height of pier Μ7 in the transverse direction
77

uSS – uPC (m)
0.5
with dampers
no dampers
0
−0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
uBearing (m)
with dampers
no dampers
0
−0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.01
with dampers
uPier (m)
no dampers
0
−0.01
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
Base Shear (ΜΝ)
10
with dampers
no dampers
0
−10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
üg (t)
−0.5 1992 Erzincan EQ., 95 Erzincan

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
excited by the motion recorded during the 1992 Erzincan earthquake (Ep/Es
=100).
78

uSS – uPC (m)
0.5
with dampers
no dampers
0
−0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
uBearing (m)
with dampers
no dampers
0
−0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.2
with dampers
uPier (m)
no dampers
0
−0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
Base Shear (ΜΝ)
5
with dampers
no dampers
0
−5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
üg (t)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
=100).
79

uSS – uPC (m)
0.5
with dampers
no dampers
0
−0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
uBearing (m)
with dampers
no dampers
0
−0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.02
with dampers
uPier (m)
no dampers
0
−0.02
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
Base Shear (ΜΝ)
10
with dampers
no dampers
0
−10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
üg (t)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
=100).
80

0.2
uSS – uPC (m)
with dampers
no dampers
0
−0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.2
uBearing (m)
with dampers
no dampers
0
−0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.02
with dampers
uPier (m)
0.01 no dampers
0
−0.01
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
Base Shear (ΜΝ)
10
with dampers
no dampers
0
−10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
üg (t)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
by the motion recorded during the 1992 Erzincan earthquake (Ep/Es =100).
81

0.2
uSS – uPC (m)
with dampers
no dampers
0
−0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.2
uBearing (m)
with dampers
no dampers
0
−0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.2
with dampers
uPier (m)
no dampers
0
−0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
Base Shear (ΜΝ)
10
with dampers
no dampers
0
−10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
üg (t)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
82

0.2
uSS – uPC (m)
with dampers
no dampers
0
−0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.2
uBearing (m)
with dampers
no dampers
0
−0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.02
with dampers
uPier (m)
no dampers
0
−0.02
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
Base Shear (ΜΝ)
10
with dampers
no dampers
0
−10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
üg (t)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
83

0.2
with dampers
0.1 no dampers
ü SS (g)
−0.1
−0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
1
with dampers
0.5 no dampers
ü Pier (g)
−0.5
−1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
1
with dampers
0.5 no dampers
ü PC (g)
−0.5
−1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
üg (t)
−0.5
1992 Erzincan EQ., 95 Erzincan
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
longitudinal direction when the bridge is excited by the motion recorded during
the 1992 Erzincan earthquake (Ep/Es =100).
84

0.6
with dampers
0.4 no dampers
ü SS (g)
0.2
−0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
with dampers
no dampers
ü Pier (g)
−0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
1
with dampers
0.5 no dampers
ü PC (g)
−0.5
−1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
üg (t)
−0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
85

0.2
with dampers
0.1 no dampers
ü SS (g)
−0.1
−0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
1
with dampers
0.5 no dampers
ü Pier (g)
−0.5
−1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
1
with dampers
0.5 no dampers
ü PC (g)
−0.5
−1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
üg (t)
−0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
86

1
with dampers
0.5 no dampers
ü SS (g)
−0.5
−1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
5
with dampers
no dampers
ü Pier (g)
−5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
5
with dampers
no dampers
ü PC (g)
−5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
üg (t)
−0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
transverse direction when the bridge is excited by the motion recorded during the
1992 Erzincan earthquake (Ep/Es =100).
87

0.5
with dampers
no dampers
ü SS (g)
−0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
2
with dampers
1 no dampers
ü Pier (g)
−1
−2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
2
with dampers
1 no dampers
ü PC (g)
−1
−2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
üg (t)
−0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
88

1
with dampers
0.5 no dampers
ü SS (g)
−0.5
−1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
5
with dampers
no dampers
ü Pier (g)
−5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
5
with dampers
no dampers
ü PC (g)
−5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
0.5
üg (t)
−0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
89
M2 (h=16.65m) Longitudinal Base Shear

12
nono dampers
damper
11
with dampers
additional friction
Yield strength of M2
10
9
Base Shear (MN)
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Longitudinal Excitation
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3
1986 N.Palm Springs EQ.
1979 Imperial Valley EQ.
1971 San Fernando EQ.

1983 Coalinga O.C. EQ.
1983 Coalinga T.H. EQ.
1979 Coyote Lake EQ.
1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
bridge with seismic isolation (sliding bearings and dampers) is excited by the
11 earthquake records (bottom).
90

12
nono dampers
damper
11
additional friction
with dampers
10
9
Base Shear (MN)
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3

1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
earthquake records (bottom).
91

12
nono dampers
damper
11
additional friction
with dampers
10
9
Base Shear (MN)
7
6
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3

1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
92

12
no damper
11
additional friction
10
9
Base Shear (MN)
8
7
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3

1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
93

12
nono dampers
damper
11
with dampers
additional friction
10
9
Base Shear (MN)
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3

1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
94
M2 (h=16.65m) Transverse Base Shear

15
14
Yield strength of M2 nono dampers
damper
additional friction
with dampers
13
12
11
Base Shear (MN)
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Transverse Excitation
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3


1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
95

15
14 nono dampers
damper
additional friction
with dampers
13
12
11
Base Shear (MN)
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3


1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
96

15
14 nono dampers
damper
additional friction
with dampers
13
12
11
Base Shear (MN)
10
9
8
7 Yield strength of M5
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3


1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
97

15
14 no damper
additional friction
13
12
11
Base Shear (MN)
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3


1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
98

15
14 nono dampers
damper
additional friction
with dampers
13
12
11
Base Shear (MN)
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3


1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
99
M2 (h=16.65m) Longitudinal Deck Displacement

0.4
no
nodamper
dampers
additional friction
with dampers
Displacement (m)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
M2 (h=16.65m) Longitudinal Bearing Displacement

0.4
no
nodamper
dampers
additional friction
with dampers
Displacement (m)
0.3 Bearing Capacity=0.25m
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3

1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
displacements of pier Μ2 (centre) in the longitudinal direction when the bridge
with seismic isolation (sliding bearings and dampers) is excited by the 11
100

0.4
no dampers
with dampers
Displacement (m)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

0.4
no dampers
with dampers
Displacement (m)
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3

1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
101

0.4
no
nodamper
dampers
additional friction
with dampers
Displacement (m)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

0.4
nodamper
no dampers
additional friction
with dampers
Displacement (m)
0.3
Bearing Capacity=0.20m
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3

1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
102

0.4
nodamper
no dampers
additional friction
with dampers
Displacement (m)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

0.4
no
nodamper
dampers
additional friction
with dampers
Displacement (m)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3

1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
103

0.4
no dampers
with dampers
Displacement (m)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

0.4
no dampers
with dampers
Displacement (m)
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3

1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
104
M2 (h=16.65m) Transverse Deck Displacement

0.8
nono
damper
dampers
0.7 additional friction
with dampers
Displacement (m)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
M2 (h=16.65m) Transverse Bearing Displacement

0.7
no
nodamper
dampers
with dampers
Displacement (m)
0.5
0.4

0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3


1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
displacements of pier Μ2 (centre) in the transverse direction when the bridge
105

0.8
no damper
Displacement (m)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

0.7
no dampers
0.6 with dampers
Displacement (m)
0.5
0.4

0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3


1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
106

no dampers
0.8 with dampers
nodamper
no dampers
0.7 with dampers
additional friction
Displacement (m)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

0.7
nodamper
no dampers
with dampers
Displacement (m)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3


1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
107

0.8
no
nodamper
dampers
with dampers
Displacement (m)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

0.7
nodamper
no dampers
with dampers
Displacement (m)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3


1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
108

0.8
no dampers
0.7 with dampers
Displacement (m)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

0.7
no dampers
0.6 with dampers
Displacement (m)
0.5
0.4

0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3


1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
109
M2 (h=16.65m) Longitudinal Deck Acceleration

0.4
no
nodamper
dampers
additional friction
with dampers
Acceleration (g)
0.2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3

1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
direction when the bridge with seismic isolation (sliding bearings and
dampers) is excited by the 11 earthquake records (bottom).
110

0.4
nodamper
no dampers
additional friction
with dampers
Acceleration (g)
0.2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3

1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
111

0.4
nodamper
no dampers
additional friction
with dampers
Acceleration (g)
0.2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3

1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
112

0.4
nodamper
no dampers
additional friction
with dampers
Acceleration (g)
0.2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3

1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
113

0.4
nodamper
no dampers
additional friction
with dampers
Acceleration (g)
0.2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3

1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
114
M2 (h=16.65m) Transverse Deck Acceleration

1
nodamper
no dampers
additional friction
with dampers
0.8
Acceleration (g)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3


1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
when the bridge with seismic isolation (sliding bearings and dampers) is excited
by the 11 earthquake records (bottom).
115

1
no
nodamper
dampers
additional friction
with dampers
0.8
Acceleration (g)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3


1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
116

1
nodamper
no dampers
additional friction
with dampers
0.8
Acceleration (g)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3


1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
117

1
nodamper
no dampers
additional friction
with dampers
0.8
Acceleration (g)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3


1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
118

1
nodamper
no dampers
additional friction
with dampers
0.8
Acceleration (g)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.2
0.9
PGA (g)
0.6
0.3


1994 Northridge EQ.

1986 Kalamata EQ.
1992 Erzincan EQ.

2003 Lefkada EQ.
1995 Aigion EQ.
119
Chapter 9. Monitoring of Bridge Response and Sensor Installation
9. MONITORING OF BRIDGE RESPONSE AND SENSOR

INSTALLATION
The monitoring system of the bridge response as it is described in the technical specifications
of the construction is divided in three tasks: (1) monitoring of the response during
construction, (2) initial response measurements and (3) in-service monitoring of response.
9.1. Monitoring during construction
9.1.1. Piers
During the incremental launching bridge construction, the lateral loading and the deformation
of the piers will be monitored with optical devices, which have measurement accuracy below
1mm. Figure 4.5 (bottom) plots the lateral resistance diagrams of the piers. Figure 9.1 is the
enlargement of Figure 4.5 in the range of small loading-displacements. In the lower limit of
the measurement accuracy with optical devices (<1mm) the base shear of the center piers is
indifferently small ≈0.5ΜΝ. Therefore we deduce that the optical monitoring devices with
measurement accuracy lower of 1mm are suitable for the monitoring of the piers during the
bridge deck launching.
9.1.2. Deck
During the bridge deck launching, the potential torsion of the deck will be monitored with a
pair of accelerometers which will be placed at the deck shoulders.
9.2. Initial Measurements

The initial measurements will start from low amplitude vibrations which will not engage the
seismic isolation system. Consequently, we are interested in the modal frequencies and modal
shapes of the bridge without the sliding of the bearings taking place (isolation system
"locked"). Figure 6.2 presents the computed modal periods of ΣΓ14 bridge for small
vibrations (without engagement of the seismic isolation system) taking into account the soil-
structure interaction while Figure 6.3 and Figure 6.4 show the first eight modes for monolithic
pier foundation but for EP/ES=100 (EP=Young’s Modulus of pile, ES= Young’s Modulus of
soil) as well.
121
2.5
2
Force (MN)
M1
M2, M8
1.5
M3
M4,M5
1 M6
M7
0.5
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Displacement (m)
Figure 9.1 Enlargement of Figure 4.5 (bottom) in the small loading-displacement range.
Independently of the level of soil-structure interaction Figure 6.3 and Figure 6.4 show that the
first five modes of the bridge without seismic isolation are transverse, while in the higher
modes vertical vibrations participate noticeably. When the seismic isolation system is
engaged the first mode is the longitudinal while the five transverse occupy the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th
και 8th position.
According to the aforementioned observations are required at least 28 accelerometers so that

the significant modes of the bridge could be identified. Figure 9.2 shows the proposed
arrangement of the 28 three-dimensional accelerometers.
122
Α0 Μ1 Μ2 Μ3 Μ4 Μ5 Μ6 Μ7 Μ8 Α9
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
16 17 9
12 13 14 15
1 10 11 8
2
7
3
6
5
4
Α0 Μ1 Μ2 Μ3 Μ4 Μ5 Μ6 Μ7 Μ8 Α9
20 23 26
Figure 9.2 Proposed locations of the accelerometers for the monitoring of ΣΓ14 bridge.
123
9.3. Continuous In-Service Monitoring

During the permanent monitoring we are interested not only in the small amplitude vibration
measurements, but in vibrations from potential earthquakes which would engage the seismic
isolation system as well. Together with the 28 three-dimensional accelerometers will also be
installed 18 displacement sensors (Linear Variable Displacement=LVDT). In every support
where bearings are placed will be installed 2 sensors perpendicular to each other between
upper and lower level of the isolators, which will record the potential engagement and
displacement of the bearings.
124
Chapter 10. Conclusion
10. CONCLUSION
The current technical report studies the dynamic response of a newly (under construction)
nine-span prestressed concrete railway bridge. The bridge is seismically isolated with sliding
bearings and nonlinear hydraulic dampers. The bridge response is computed for a) service
loads due to the train passage and b) seismic loads which mainly engage the seismic isolation
system.
The mechanical behavior of each substructure element-device (pile groups, piers, deck,
dampers) is described by validated macroscopic force-displacement laws.
Since the service loads principally do not engage the seismic isolation system the bridge was
firstly analysed as a deck monolithically connected to the piers (isolation system “locked”). In
this case it is observed that:
• The modes of the bridge are affected by the soil-structure interaction (see
Figure 6.2). The first mode of the bridge without engagement of the seismic isolation
is about Τ1=1.18s, while the first and second mode is the first and second transverse
mode.
For the seismically isolated bridge (as built) the design reaches the following conclusions:
• The modes of the bridge show insignificant dependence on the soil-structure

interaction (see Figure 8.2).
• The first mode of the seismically isolated bridge is the longitudinal mode with
period Τ1=3.16s, which is quite close to the theoretical value of the isolation period
offered by the spherical bearings T1 = R g = 2.98s . The next three modes are the first,
second and third transverse mode with corresponding periods T2=3.16s, Τ3=3.13s and
Τ4=2.29s.
• The seismic isolation reduces significantly the base shears and the deck
accelerations as well.
• Along the longitudinal direction none of the 11 earthquake records exhaust the
displacement capacity of the bearings at center piers and abutments (see Figure 8.40 to
Figure 8.44).
• Along the transverse direction from the 11 earthquake records the three (1979
Imperial Valley, 1994 Northridge and 1971 San Fernando) exhaust the displacement
capacity of the bearings at the center piers Μ3, Μ5 and Μ6 while at center piers Μ2
and Μ7 the displacement capacity of the bearings it is exceeded only by one
earthquake record (1971 San Fernando). These earthquake records are exceptionally
strong and exceed by far the seismic hazard of the wider area of Domokos but of
Greece as well.
125
Chapter 10. Conclusion
• The dampers reduce slightly the bearing displacements which, for the strong
Greek earthquakes that were used in the analyses, are already smaller by far than the
available displacement capacity of the bearings.
126
References
REFERENCES
Eurocode 2 [1992] “Design of concrete structures.” European Standard, prEN 1992-1-2.
Delis, E.A., Malla, R.B., Madani, M. and Thompson, K.J. (1996), “Energy dissipation devices in
bridges using hydraulic dampers”, Proc. Structures Congress XIV, Chicago, IL, Vol. 2, pp. 188-
1196.
Dobry, R. and Gazetas, G. [1988] “Simple method for dynamic stiffness and damping of floating pile
groups.” Geotechnique 38(4):557-574.
Greek Seismic Code [2000] (Ε.Α.Κ 2000).
Ketter et al. [1979]. Structural analysis and design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Makris, N., Badoni, D., Delis, E., and Gazetas G. [1994] Prediction of observed bridge response with
soil-pile-structure interaction. Journal of Structural Engineering 120(10): 2992–3011.
Makris, N., Chang, S.P. [1998] “Effect of damping mechanisms on the response of seismically
isolated structures.” Technical Report PEER 1998/06, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley, November 1998.
Makris, N., and Zhang J. [2004] “Seismic Response Analysis of Highway Overcrossings Equipped
with Elastomeric Bearings and Fluid Dampers.” Journal of Structural Engineering , ASCE,
Vol.130, No.6, pp.830-845
Makris, N., Black, C.J. [2004] “Evaluation of Peak Ground Velocity as a "Good" Intensity Measure
for Near-Source Ground Motions”. Journal of Engineering Mechanics. 130(9):1032-1044.
Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N, and Park, R. [1988] “Observed stress-strain behavior of confined
concrete.” Journal of Structural Engineering, 114(8):1827-1849.
McKenna, F.T. [1997]. “Object-Oriented Finite Element Programming: Frameworks for Analysis,
Algorithms and Parallel Computing”. PhD thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
Papanikolas, P.K. [2002], “Deck superstructure and cable stays of the Rion-Antirion bridge”, Proc. 4th
National Conference on Steel Structures, Patras, Greece.
Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., and Calvi, G. M. [1996], Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges, John
Wiley, New York, NY.
Skinner, R.I., Robinson, W.H., and McVerry, G.H. [1993], An introduction to seismic isolation, John
Wiley & Sons, Chichester, U. K. and New York, NY.
127
References
Symth A.W., Masri, A.F., Abdel-Ghaffar, A.M., and Nigbor, R.N. [2000], “Development of a
nonlinear multi-input.multi-output model for the Vincent Thomas Bridge under earthquake
excitations”, Proc. 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 2211, Upper
Hutt, New Zealand.
Zhang, J. and Makris, N. [2000], “Seismic protection of highway overcrossings using modern
technologies”, Proc. Bridge Engineering Conference, Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt.
Ζhang, J., and Makris, N. [2001] “Seismic response analysis of highway overcrossings including soil-
structure interaction.” PEER 2001/02, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of California, Berkeley.
128

Seismic Response Analysis of Multi-Span Isolated Bridges: A Case Study

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

Seismic Response Analysis of Multi-Span Isolated Bridges: A Case Study

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SEISMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS OF

MULTI-SPAN ISOLATED BRIDGES: A

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements

Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology

Supervisor: Professor Nicos Makris

Department of Civil Engineering

Professor Nicos Makris

8.1. Modal Analysis ......................................................................................................... 59

2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND GEOTECHNICAL

2.2. Geotechnical Information

2.3. Structural Configuration

Figure 2.1 Plan view of ΣΓ14 bridge

Figure 2.4 Typical deck cross-section

3. DYNAMIC STIFFNESSES OF PILE FOUNDATIONS

Figure 3.1 Pile group configurations at the abutments Α0 and Α9.

−0.5 −0.5 −0.5

1.5 1.5 1.5

Dashpot value Dashpot value Dashpot value

1.5 1.5 1.5

0.2 0.2 0.2

1.5 1.5 1.5

0.2 0.2 0.2

Ep = 29GPa Spring and dashpot values

4. MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR OF CENTER PIERS

4.2. Mechanical Behavior

4.2.1. Lateral Resistance - Flexure

4.2.2. Shear Resistance of Center Piers

which can not be less than the minimum value,

k = 1 + 200 ≤ 2.0 , where d is the effective depth of the cross-section in mm.

bw is the smallest width of the cross-section in the tensile area (mm).

σcp = ΝΕd/Ac < 0.2fcp in MPa.

NEd is the axial force in the cross-section due to loading in Newtons.

Ac is the area of concrete cross section in mm2.

Recommended value for CRd,c is 0.18/γc.

Recommended value for νmin is 0.035k3/2fck1/2.

Recommended value for k1 is 0.15.

Αsw is the area of the transverse reinforcement.

s is the distance between stirrups.

fyw is the yield strength of stirrups.

VRd = VRd ,s + VRd ,c (4.4)

Pier Μ1, Μ3, Μ7 Pier Μ4, Μ5

Pier Μ6 Pier Μ2, Μ8

Pier M1, M3, M7 Pier M2, M8

Pier M4, M5 Pier M6

5. SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS

PGA (g) PGV (m/s)

1986 Kalamata – OTE 1986 Kalamata – OTE

1995 Aigion – OTE 1995 Aigion – OTE

2003 Lefkada 2003 Lefkada

1992 Erzincan – 95 Erzincan 1992 Erzincan – 95 Erzincan

1979 Imperial Valley – El Centro 1979 Imperial Valley – El Centro

1983 Coalinga – Oil City 1983 Coalinga – Oil City

1986 North Palm Springs – 1986 North Palm Springs – North

1986 Kalamata – OTE 1986 Kalamata – OTE

1995 Aigion – OTE 1995 Aigion – OTE

2003 Lefkada 2003 Lefkada

1983 Coalinga – Oil City 1983 Coalinga – Oil City

1995 Coalinga – Transmitter Hill 1995 Coalinga – Transmitter Hill

1992 Erzikan – 95 Erzikan 1992 Erzikan – 95 Erzikan

6. DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF THE BRIDGE WITHOUT

6.1. Modal analysis

Mode 1: 1st transverse Mode 2: 2nd transverse

Mode 3: 3rd transverse Mode 4: 4th transverse

F j (t ) = Ca sgn ⎡⎣u (t ) ⎤⎦ = μC N j sgn ⎡⎣u (t ) ⎤⎦ (7.6)