See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236154556

A design method for seismically isolated

bridges with abutment restraint

Article in Engineering Structures · March 2011

DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.12.002

CITATIONS READS

7 66

2 authors:

Enrico Tubaldi Andrea Dall'Asta

Imperial College London University of Camerino
40 PUBLICATIONS 163 CITATIONS 88 PUBLICATIONS 724 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrea Dall'Asta on 18 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 786–795

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

A design method for seismically isolated bridges with abutment restraint

E. Tubaldi a,∗ , A. Dall’Asta b
a
Dipartimento di Architettura Costruzione e Strutture, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy
b
ProCAM, Dipartimento di Progettazione e Costruzione dell’Ambiente, University of Camerino, Viale della Rimembranza, 63100, Ascoli Piceno (AP), Italy

article info abstract

Article history: Seismic isolation is a commonly used technique for protecting new and existing bridges. It usually consists
Received 2 July 2010 of introducing isolation bearings between the superstructure and the substructures in order to decouple
Received in revised form their motion and reduce the force demand due to the earthquake action. This paper deals with partially
24 September 2010
restrained seismically isolated continuous bridges, which are a particular class of isolated bridges whose
Accepted 1 December 2010
Available online 6 January 2011
transverse motion is restrained at the abutments.
In this study a method is proposed for the preliminary design of these systems, which can be applied to
Keywords:
both new and existing bridges. The dynamic problem is described in a variational form in order to obtain
Seismic isolation of bridges a simplified solution based on a pre-fixed transverse deformed shape of the deck. The objective of the
Transverse seismic response design procedure is to control the internal actions on the piers by means of an appropriate configuration
Partial restraint of the isolation bearings. Simple formulas for estimating the forces transmitted to the abutments and
Visco-elastic model the superstructure transverse curvature demand are also derived, which account for the contribution of
higher modes of vibration.
Validation studies are undertaken for different bridge configurations, in order to assess the ability of
the simplified method to control the force demand at the piers.
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In the last three decades the introduction of seismic isolation
devices between the superstructure and substructures has become
a widely used tool for the protection and retrofit of bridges in
seismic areas [1,2]. The basic aims of the seismic isolation of
bridges are (a) decoupling the movement of the substructures
from that of the superstructure, (b) increasing the fundamental
period of the bridge and thus shifting the fundamental frequency of
vibration to a range where the energy content of the earthquake is
reduced and (c) providing additional sources of damping. There are
however some drawbacks to using isolation bearings on pier and
abutment tops. In some situations, the period shift due to isolation
may lead to excessive displacements of the deck. Moreover,
bridge isolation requires the use of expensive bidirectional
joints at the abutments in order to accommodate superstructure
displacements. These aspects may lead to the choice of restraining
the transverse motion of the superstructure at the abutments, in
both seismically isolated [1,3–5] and non-isolated bridges [6–8].
The seismic response of isolated bridges with transverse restraint
at abutments, also called ‘‘partially restrained seismically isolated’’
(PRSI) bridges in [5], is significantly different from that of fully
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 3396413360.
E-mail addresses: etubaldi@libero.it (E. Tubaldi), a.asta@tin.it (A. Dall’Asta).
0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.12.002
isolated bridges, with isolation bearings placed both at the piers
and abutments. In PRSI bridges, two different load paths may
be identified under transverse seismic excitation. The first path
involves the abutments and superstructure, which under inertia
forces shows significant bending, while the second path involves
the piers/bearings system. The assumption of rigid displacement
of the superstructure, which simplifies the design of fully isolated
bridges, is not applicable to the case of PRSI bridges. Moreover, the
period elongation effect may at times be limited in partial isolation.
In fact, an upper bound to the fundamental period of vibration
is given by the fundamental period of the superstructure free to
move at the piers, which behaves as a beam simply supported at
the abutments. Furthermore, in the case of dissipative isolation
bearings, the global dissipation capacity of PRSI bridges may be
reduced as a result of the strain energy contribution due to deck
elastic deformation. This structural solution is however often
adopted thanks to its capability to involve the highest number of
substructures in resisting the inertia forces and to avoid the use of
expensive bidirectional joints at the abutments.
To date, many simplified models and procedures have been
proposed for the analysis and design of fully isolated bridges
[6,9,10]. These methods are mainly based on a rigid behaviour
of the superstructure in the transverse direction, which usually
yields the same isolator characteristics in the case of piers with
equal height. In PRSI bridges, however, the deck shows a bending
deformation in the transverse direction so that the rigid model
 E. Tubaldi, A. Dall’Asta / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 786–795 787

to adopt bearings with different characteristics of stiffness and

Notations maximum allowable displacement in order to accommodate these
displacements. Recently, some studies have been developed in
A: Area order to define a simplified model of PRSI bridges which may
EI: Constant deck stiffness be used for understanding their dynamic behaviour and for
G: Shear modulus performing preliminary seismic analyses [5,11].
L: Bridge length This paper presents an innovative preliminary design procedure
M: Transverse bending moment for PRSI bridges that accounts for the specific aspect of deck
Mv : Superstructure transverse viscous moment transverse bending. Its objective is to control the maximum values
N: Number of piers of internal actions acting on each pier (target parameters) by
Rab : Abutment shear means of a proper design of the isolation bearing characteristics
Sd : Spectral displacement (variable design parameters). The design procedure is based on
T: Vibration period a model that presents some improvements with respect to other
U: Space of displacement functions existing models already employed for simplified analyses of PRSI
V: Transverse shear bridges [5]. More precisely, the contribution of piers to the
WE : External work global damping, usually neglected by other authors, is considered.
WS : Maximum strain attained in a cycle Moreover, more refined expression are proposed for assessing
WI : Internal work relevant quantities strongly affected by higher vibration modes,
Wξ : Energy dissipated per cycle such as abutment reactions and deck transverse bending moments.
ÿg : The ground input motion Given its capability of controlling the pier internal actions, the
Z: Generalized coordinate procedure may be of interest both for designing new bridges,
a: Deck damping function where it may be convenient to adopt the same geometry for
b: Constant deck stiffness the pier cross-sections, reinforcements and foundations, and for
c: Damping coefficient retrofitting existing bridges, where the stiffness and resistance of
d: Displacement each pier is prefixed and it is often quite expensive to improve their
f: Resisting force performance.
h: Height The simplified PRSI bridge model is based on a variational
k: Spring stiffness formulation of the dynamic problem, and on a series expansion
m: Deck mass per unit length of the solution. In particular, a sinusoidal series is adopted, based
meff : Effective mass on previous studies proposing simplified models for assessing
t: Time the transverse behaviour of PRSI bridges. The design performance
x: Longitudinal coordinate objective is accomplished by means of an iterative procedure
y: Motion which is based on the first term approximation. This procedure
γ: Bearing shear strain leads to an optimal distribution of the isolation bearing properties,
η: Virtual displacement given the target bending moment distribution at the piers.
µ: Transverse curvature Other quantities must be checked in the design, such as the
ξ: Damping factor maximum deck curvature and the abutment reactions. Since these
ϕ: First function of the series quantities cannot usually be satisfactorily described by the first
ρ: Participation factor sinusoidal term approximation, refined expressions are proposed
ψ: Displacement series function for assessing these quantities that include the higher terms
ω: Circular frequency. contribution.
Finally, some validation studies are reported. In particular, the
Subscripts procedure is applied to the preliminary design of the isolation bear-
ing system for two bridges with steel–concrete composite deck:
i: Pier-isolation bearing system index
the former is a ‘‘regular’’ bridge, where the piers have the same ge-
n: Series index
ometry, while the latter is an ‘‘irregular’’ bridge, where the piers
0: Isolation bearing
have different geometry and are distributed according to an asym-
p: Pier
metric scheme. The approximated results from the design are then
d: Deck
compared with the results provided by modal analysis with re-
c: Pier-isolation bearing system
sponse spectrum, time history analyses with artificial accelero-
max: Maximum over time value.
grams and time history analyses with natural accelerograms. These
results are discussed in order to evidence differences due to the
Acronyms
simplification introduced in the design method.
FE: Finite element
MDA: Modal dynamic analysis 2. Design procedure
PRSI: Partially restrained seismically isolated
SCC: Steel–concrete composite 2.1. Design aim
SM: Simplified model
THA: Time history analysis with artificial ground motion The method can be applied to the preliminary design of partially
records restrained seismically isolated continuous bridges with abutment
THN: Time history analysis with natural ground motion restraint. It assumes that bridge geometry, mass distribution and
records. transverse bending stiffness of the deck and height of the piers
are initially known. The method is based on an iterative procedure
which makes it possible to design an isolation system (bearing
has to be dropped. Furthermore, the displacements at the supports stiffness and dissipative properties) such that prefixed internal
are not uniform and it may be either convenient or necessary actions are obtained for the piers subjected to the seismic action.
788 E. Tubaldi, A. Dall’Asta / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 786–795
Fig. 1. (a) Bridge idealization and (b) pier-bearing system idealization.
The procedure can be applied both to new bridges and existing
bridges. For example, when designing a new bridge, it may be
necessary to obtain the same value of transverse bending moment
at the base of the piers since this would result in the same amount
of longitudinal reinforcement and the same foundation for all the
piers. When retrofitting an existing bridge, it is often useful to
design the bearing system in such a way that the bending moment
demand at the base of each pier is sufficiently smaller than the
bending moment capacity.
The proposed method is based on an approximate single degree
of freedom (SDOF) description of the dynamic behaviour of the
PRSI bridge. The dynamic problem is posed in a variational form
and the solution is sought in a reduced functional space generated
by only one function. For this purpose, a half-cycle sinusoidal curve
may be conveniently assumed as displacement shape function of
the bridge in transverse direction. Once the properties (stiffness
and damping factor) of the equivalent SDOF are evaluated, the
displacement and force demands on the bridge components can
be determined by comparison with the design demand spectrum.
The bearing properties are iteratively adjusted in order to ensure
the desired performance of the piers. Only at the end, is the
performance of the superstructure and abutments checked.
2.2. Bridge model
The partially restrained bridge is modelled as a 2-dimensional
beam resting on discrete visco-elastic supports representing the
pier-bearing systems and pinned at the abutments (Fig. 1(a)). The
i-th pier-bearing system is idealized as a series arrangement of
two Kelvin-type models (Fig. 1(b)), respectively describing the pier
(subscript ‘‘p’’) and the bearing (subscript ‘‘0’’). Each Kelvin-type
model is a parallel arrangement of a spring with stiffness k and
a damper with damping coefficient c. The dissipative property of
each component may also be described in terms of the damping
factor ξi , defined as:
ci ω Wξ ,i
ξi = = (1)
2ki 4π WS ,i
where Wξ is the energy dissipated by the damper per cycle and WS
is the maximum strain energy stored in the spring, evaluated for a
harmonic motion with circular frequency ω.
Since the piers are assumed not to yield, their behaviour may
be described as linear elastic with kp,i equal to their effective
flexural stiffness. The values of kp,i depend on the pier height, pier
cross-section shape and the amount of longitudinal reinforcement.
The effective value of kp,i accounting for concrete cracking may
be evaluated based on moment–curvature analysis. The damping
factor ξp,i associated to piers is usually in the range 2%–5% [6].
Commonly used isolation bearings are characterized by differ-
ent behaviours, which may be one or a combination of hysteretic,
viscous or friction behaviour [6,12]. In preliminary design and of-
ten in current practice, equivalent linear visco-elastic models are
usually adopted to represent the isolation devices. The stiffness of
the equivalent model k0,i is usually posed equal to the secant stiff-
ness at maximum displacement while the damping factor ξ0,i de-
scribes the dissipative properties and is usually derived from cyclic
tests at a given oscillatory frequency. Different formula may be
used [9,10,13–15] to estimate k0,i and ξ0,i , depending on the de-
vice used.
A simplified model is derived by reducing the global degree
of freedoms (DOFs) of the system to the deck DOFs only. For this
scope, the pier-bearings system is condensed by substituting the
series arrangement of the two Kelvin-type models by an equivalent
single Kelvin-type model (subscript ‘‘c’’) with stiffness kc ,i and
damping constant cc ,i , so that the force fc ,i resisting the deck
motion in the transverse direction in correspondence of the i-th
pier-bearing is equal to:
fc ,i = kc ,i yi + cc ,i ẏi (2)
where yi and ẏi are the displacement and the velocity of the
superstructure in correspondence with the isolation bearings.
The equivalence between the two visco-elastic systems in
Fig. 1(b) may be stated for a stationary oscillatory motion with
circular frequency ω. The motion of the top of the i-th pier-bearing
system, yi = eiωt , is the sum of the two contributions due to the
pier and the bearing. These systems vibrate at the same circular
frequency and their motion can be posed in the form yp,i = yp,i eiωt
and y0,i = y0,i eiωt . Thus, yi can be expressed as:
fp,i f0,i
yi = yp,i + y0,i = + . (3)
kp,i + iωcp,i k0,i + iωc0,i
Recalling that fp,i = f0,i in a series system, it is possible to express
these forces in function of the total displacement yi as
(kp,i + iωcp,i )(k0,i + iωc0,i )
fp,i = f0,i = yi . (4)
(kp,i + k0,i ) + iω(cp,i + c0,i )
On the other hand, the response of the equivalent system is:
fc ,i = (kc ,i + iωcc ,i )yi . (5)
The original and equivalent systems provide the same response
only if the real and imaginary parts of the resisting forces coincide.
This permits obtaining the following expressions for the stiffness
and damping constant of the equivalent system
kp,i k0,i (kp,i + k0,i + 4ξp2,i kp,i + 4ξ02,i k0,i )
k c ,i = (6)
(kp,i + k0,i )2 + (2ξp,i kp,i + 2ξ0,i k0,i )2
(ξp,i k0,i + ξ0,i kp,i − 4kp,i ξp2,i ξ0,i − 4k0,i ξp,i ξ02,i )
ξ c ,i = (7)
(kp,i + k0,i + 4ξp2,i kp,i + 4ξ02,i k0,i )
where ξc ,i = cc ,i ω/2kc ,i .
The isolator damping factor ξ0,i is generally larger than the
pier damping factor ξp,i and the global damping ξc ,i assumes
intermediate values controlled by the stiffness ratio k0,i /kp,i . If the
damping provided by the isolation system is not very high with
respect to the pier damping and if the ratio between the bearing
and the pier stiffness is low, Eqs. (6) and (7) may be reduced to the
simplified formula already used in [5,10]:
1
k c ,i ∼
= 1 1
(8)
kp,i
+ k0,i
ξp,i k0,i + ξ0,i kp,i
ξ c ,i ∼
= . (9)
kp,i + k0,i
Fig. 2 shows the normalized values of damping factor ξc ,i /ξ0,i
(Fig. 2(a)) and of stiffness kc ,i /k0,i (Fig. 2(b)) of the pier-bearing
 E. Tubaldi, A. Dall’Asta / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 786–795 789

Fig. 2. Damping ratio ξc ,i /ξ0,i (a) and stiffness ratio kc ,i /k0,i (b) vs. ratio k0,i /kp,i for different ξ0,i /ξp,i ratios and ξp,i = 5%.

system, versus the ratio of bearing to pier stiffness, for different slender and heavy piers), this contribution cannot be neglected and
values of bearing damping factor ξ0,i and assuming ξp,i = 5%. can be accounted for by adding the relevant term in Eq. (12).
The simplified formulas of Eqs. (8) and (9) (dashed line in The internal and external actions are expressed in terms of the
Fig. 2) overestimate the system damping and underestimate the displacements based on the following constitutive relations:
system stiffness with respect to Eqs. (6) and (7). The error in
Md (x, t ) = b(x)y′′ (x, t )
estimating ξc ,i may be up to 15%–20% for high values of bearing (13)
Mv (x, t ) = a(x)ẏ′′ (x, t )
damping factor and k0,i /kp,i ratios. The error in the approximation
of kc ,i introduced using Eq. (8) is usually smaller, and increases where b(x) represents the stiffness of the deck section for trans-
for increasing values of k0,i /kp,i ratios and for increasing values verse bending and a(x) is the deck damping function.
of ξ0,i . A relative error of 10% is observed for k0,i /kp,i = 0.4 and By substituting Eqs. (2) and (11)–(13) into Eq. (10), the following
ξ0,i /ξp,i = 6. expression is obtained:
∫ L ∫ L

2.3. Generalized SDOF for approximating structural behaviour b(x)y′′ (x, t )η′′ (x)dx + a(x)ẏ′′ (x, t )η′′ (x)dx
0 0
N
The properties of the equivalent SDOF system are obtained −
according to the Lagrange–D’Alembert principle [16]. Let U be a
+ [kc ,i y(xi , t ) + cc ,i ẏ(xi , t )]η(xi )
suitable space of real-valued displacement functions u(x):(0, L) →
i=1
∫ L
R defined along the bridge length L and satisfying the kinematic
=− m(x)[ÿ(x, t ) + ÿg (x, t )]η(x)dx ∀η ∈ U ; t ∈ [t0 , t1 ].
(essential) boundary conditions. Let y(x, t ) : [t0 , t1 ] → U 0
be the motion, defined in the time interval considered [t0 , t1 ]. (14)
The variational principle states that the external virtual work
δ WE (y, η) resulting from external and inertia forces acting through A series decomposition may be used to express the motion
every virtual displacement η ∈ U is equal to the internal virtual y(x, t ) as the product between the generalized coordinates Zn (t )
work δ WI (y, η) resulting from the stresses acting through the (depending only on time) and the associated functions ψn (x)
corresponding virtual strains: which serve as a base for the space U (repeated index denotes
summation):
δ WE (y, η) = δ WI (y, η) ∀η ∈ U ; t ∈ [t0 , t1 ]. (10)
y(x, t ) = Zn (t )ψn (x). (15)
It is assumed that the internal virtual work δ WI has the following
In order to approximate the system to a SDOF system, a reduced
expression:
space is considered which consists only of the first function of
L L the series, ϕ(x) = ψ1 (x). The balance condition is expressed as
∫ ∫
δ WI (t ) = Md (x, t )η′′ (x)dx + Mv (x, t )η̇′′ (x)dx follows:
0 0
N mZ̈ (t ) + (c d + c c )Ż (t ) + (kd + kc )Z (t ) = −meff ÿg (t ) (16)
−
+ fc ,i η(xi ) (11) in which:
i =1 ∫ L
where N is the number of piers, Md (x, t ) is the superstructure m= m(x)ϕ 2 (x)dx (17)
elastic transverse bending moment and Mv is the superstructure 0

viscous moment [16], introduced in order to account for internal

∫ L

energy dissipation in the deck. kd = b(x)[ϕ ′′ (x)]2 dx (18)

The external work δ WE is performed by the inertia forces acting
0
N
trough their corresponding virtual displacements: −
kc = kc ,i ϕ 2 (xi ) (19)
∫ L
i=1
δ WE (t ) = −m(x)[ÿ(x, t ) + ÿg (x, t )]η(x)dx. (12) ∫ L
0
cd = a(x)[ϕ̇ ′′ (x)]2 dx (20)
In Eq. (12), m(x) is the deck mass per unit length and ÿg (x, t ) 0
is the ground input motion. The piers and the cap beam inertial N
contribution are neglected here because it is often small in isolated
−
cc = cc ,i ϕ 2 (xi ) (21)
bridges. In some rather unusual cases (isolated bridges with i=1
790 E. Tubaldi, A. Dall’Asta / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 786–795

L
Based on Eq. (29), the damping factor ξ of the equivalent
∫
meff = m(x)ϕ(x)dx. (22) system, evaluated according to Eq. (24), may be also expressed as
0
The circular frequency of the equivalent SDOF system is expressed N  π xi 
ωd2 ξd + 2ωc2,i ξc ,i sin2
∑
as ω2 = (kd + kc )/m. L
i=1
Since the expression for the damping function a(x) is often not ξ= . (30)
known, the contribution of the deck to the generalized damping ω 2

may be expressed by assuming a prefixed ratio between the energy
dissipated by the deck and the maximum energy stored in a cycle
at the circular frequency ω. This ratio can be related to the damping
factor ξd and the relative damping coefficient c d may be coherently
expressed as c d = 2kd ξd /ω. Estimated values of ξd based on
dynamic tests may be found in [17]. Usually, ξd assumes values in
the range 2%–5% [6].
The SDOF problem is usually expressed by dividing Eq. (16) by
m, thus obtaining
Z̈ (t ) + 2ξ ωŻ (t ) + ω2 Z (t ) = −ρ ÿg (t )
where ρ is the participation factor, defined as ρ = meff /m.
In Eq. (23), the global dissipative properties of the SDOF system
are described in terms of the generalized mass m and stiffness
kd + kc as
The SDOF approximation generally provides a satisfactory local
description of the displacement field, y(x, t ), and of relevant
derived quantities, as the elastic reaction and viscous force at the
i-th pier-bearing system. It is however evident that the quantities
related to higher order spatial derivatives cannot be described
locally with the same accuracy and a less satisfactory estimation
is obtained by considering the first term of the series only. In
particular, it can be interesting to evaluate in a more refined way
the deck’s transverse curvatures (bending moments), related to the
second order derivative of the displacements, and the abutment
(23) reactions, which can be obtained by the deck shear at the end
points and, therefore, are related to the third order derivative of the
displacements. In order to estimate these quantities with a better
degree of accuracy, the contribution of higher terms of the series
may be included, based on the derivations reported in Appendix.

N
2.4. Design algorithm
ξd kd + kc ,i ξc ,i ϕ 2 (xi )
∑
(c d + c c )ω i =1
ξ= = (24) The bridge geometry and material characteristics are assumed
2(kd + kc ) kd + kc to be known, so that the deck stiffness can be evaluated. Suitable
where the global damping factor ξ results from the weighted sum values for structural damping ξd and ξp,i are assumed for the deck
of the contribution of the deck and pier-bearing system. and piers. The damping properties of the isolation bearings are
Different choices may be made for the base series ψn (x) and its known and are described by ξ0,i , which eventually depends on the
first term ϕ(x) = ψ1 (x). A convenient choice for the problem is the displacement amplitude and on the bridge oscillatory frequency.
sine-only Fourier series: The target values of internal actions in the piers are chosen by
 nπ x  assigning the values of bending moment Mp,i or shear Vp,i =
ψn (x) = sin . (25) Mp,i /hp,i that must be transmitted to each pier, whose height is
L denoted by Hi . The pier stiffness is evaluated based on the amount
The functions of this Fourier series coincide with the vibration of reinforcement provided at the base of the pier following the
shapes of a simply-supported beam with a uniformly distributed prescriptions of EC8-part 2 [18]. The values of displacement at the
mass and uniformly distributed stiffness. If the superstructure’s pier top are equal to dp,i = Vp,i /kp,i .
stiffness is significantly higher than the pier-isolation bearing In accordance with a displacement based design framework [6],
system’s stiffness, then the influence of the restraint exerted by the seismic demand is described by means of the displacement
the pier-bearing system on the dynamic transverse deformed response spectrum Sd (ω, ξ ), where ω is the circular frequency of
shape is small and the scatter between the vibration shapes of the SDOF system and ξ is the damping coefficient. For the case
the bridge and the functions of the Fourier series is quite small. considered, given a reference input spectrum, the maximum value
As a consequence, the first term of the series ϕ(x) = sin(π x/L) of the displacement experienced by the bridge’s midspan point
is adopted to represent the transverse deformed shape and the during the design seismic action can be evaluated as
parameters describing the equivalent SDOF system can be obtained
according to Eqs. (17)–(22). These can be made explicit in the case ymax = max(Z (t )) = ρ Sd (ω, ξ ) (31)
t
of constant stiffness b(x) = EId and constant mass m(x) = md :
where ρ = 4/π for stiffness and mass constant along the deck.
md L The stiffness and dissipative properties of the isolation system
m= (26) can be obtained by means of the following steps:
2
0. The maximum displacement ymax at midspan is assumed
π 4 EId N
− πx 
i as the parameter describing the displacement field. An initial
kd + kc = + kc ,i sin2 (27)
2L3 L value may be chosen by considering the deck contribution only
in the evaluation of the SDOF system properties, kd and ξ d ,
i=1

2md L and by deriving the maximum displacement from the design

meff (t ) = − (28)
π displacement spectrum (ω2d = kd /m)
thus resulting in a value of ρ = 4/π . The circular frequency of ymax = ρ Sd (ωd , ξ d ). (32)
the bridge ω can be expressed as the sum of the contribution from
the superstructure alone plus a contribution due to pier-bearing 1. Displacements. The maximum displacement of the deck at the
system: i-th support is:
πx 
i
π 4 EId N
− 2kc ,i πx 
i yc ,i,max = sin ymax (33)
ω =
2
+ sin 2
L
m d L4 md L L
i =1 while the relative displacement of each isolator may consequently
N πx  be evaluated as follows:
i
−
= ωd2 + 2ωc2,i sin2 (29) d0,i = yc ,i,max − dp,i . (34)
i =1
L
2. Stiffness. The stiffness of the i-th pier-bearing system kc ,i that
where ωc2,i = kc ,i /md L. must be provided in order to transmit the target value of shear for
 E. Tubaldi, A. Dall’Asta / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 786–795 791

the given displacement is: Table 1

Deck cross sections: stiffness values.
Vp,i b(x)(kN/m2 )
kc ,i = . (35) Section () x1 (m) x2 (m)
yc ,i,max 1 0 8 8.35E+08
2 8 22 8.77E+08
The stiffness kd + kc and circular frequency ω of the equivalent 3 22 36 1.03E+09
SDOF system can be obtained from Eqs. (27) and (29), respectively. 4 36 44 1.39E+09
3. Damping and Isolation system. The damping factor of each 5 44 52 1.100E+09
isolation device is calculated based on the circular frequency ω and 6 52 60 9.75E+08
7 60 80 1.00E+09
amplitude d0,i . The damping properties ξc ,i of the i-th pier-isolation 8 80 88 8.85E+08
bearing can be obtained, together with the isolation bearing’s 9 88 96 1.18E+09
stiffness k0,i , by solving Eqs. (6) and (7) or approximate Eqs. (8) and 10 96 100 1.658E+09
(9). Finally, the global damping ξ can be evaluated by Eq. (30).
4. Convergence. A new value of the maximum displacement transverse behaviour. The bridges have a SCC deck whose total
is deduced from the design spectrum by using the updated length is 200 m, divided into four span with lengths L1 = 40 m
parameters kc + kd (step 2) and ξ (step 3) of the equivalent SDOF and L2 = 60 m. The superstructure, designed according to the
system. Steps 1–4 are repeated until the difference between the Eurocodes, consists of a reinforced concrete slab of width equal to
new and previous displacement values is sufficiently small. 12 m, and of two steel girders with a height of 1.7 m and variable
Once convergence is achieved on the displacements, the properties web and flange thicknesses, optimized for the non-seismic load
and dimensions of the bearings are designed based on the values combination.
of the bearing stiffness k0,i and damping factor ξ0,i obtained from
It is worth mentioning that the sinusoidal shape function is very
the previous procedure.
satisfactory for cases involving transversally stiff deck (short spans,
Finally, other derived quantities related to ymax , such as
prestressed concrete deck) while it may be inadequate for a very
the deck’s transverse curvature (bending moment) demand and
deformable superstructure. The cases considered, i.e. long bridges
the maximum force transmitted to the each abutment can be
with a fairly narrow deck, may therefore be useful to highlight the
estimated and compared to their respective capacities.
suitability of the selected deformation field.
A satisfactory estimation of the abutment reactions can be
In both the cases analyzed, the piers have a circular section with
obtained by considering the contribution of the third vibration
diameter D = 1.5 m. In the regular configuration piers have an
mode, in addition to the first mode contribution, according to
equal height hp = 6 m while in the irregular configuration piers
Appendix. The forces at the abutments Rab,1,max and Rab,3,max
have different heights with hp,1 = 6 m, hp,2 = 8 m, hp,3 =
corresponding to the maximum values of the displacements
10 m. Class C30/37 and C40/50 concrete is used for the piers and
ymax,1 = ymax and ymax,3 = ρ3 Sd (ω3 , ξ 3 ) observed for the first and
the superstructure slab, respectively. The reinforcement bars are
the third vibration modes are
made of grade B450C steel, while the deck girders are made of
π3 grade S355 steel. The longitudinal reinforcement provided at the
Rab,1,max = b(xab )ymax,1 (36) superstructure slab is in the range between 1% (hogging regions)
L3
and 0.5% (sagging regions), as required by the design for non-
π3 seismic load combinations.
Rab,3,max = 27 b(xab )ymax,3 . (37)
L3 In this application high damping rubber (HDR) based isolators
These values may be combined according to the SRSS rule, thus are considered. They are described by means of equivalent visco-
yielding a value of the maximum abutment reactions equal to: elastic models based on the equivalent stiffness k0,i and damping
 factor ξ0,i . These parameters are strain and strain-rate dependent
Rab,max ∼
= R2ab,1,max + R2ab,3,max . (38) [14,15,18]. Thus, the value of ξ0,i is initially assumed as equal
to 15% and adjusted during the following iterations. The target
The value µd,max of the maximum deck curvature demand µd (t ) is bending moment of the piers Mp,i is chosen by assuming that steel
obtained as follows: longitudinal reinforcement amounts to 1% of the gross section. A
 π 2 value Mp,i = 6000 kNm is adopted for all the piers. This value is
µd,max = ymax . (39) slightly lower than the piers resisting moment, which shows only
L small variations due to the difference in the axial forces. The values
Also in this case, the contribution of higher order terms may be of the target shear force Vp,i derive for the different pier heights.
included to estimate the curvature demand with better accuracy, The pier’s effective stiffness kp,i is based on the value of the secant-
in a way similar to that described above for abutment reactions. to-yielding stiffness EIeff ,p,i of the base section [18]. In calculating
Usually, contribution of vibration modes higher than the third are kp,i , the additional flexibility due to the eccentricity between the
negligible. superstructure centre of the mass and the pier tops, which is equal
to 2.1 m, is taken into account. The following values of Vp,i , kp,i and
3. Case studies dp,i = Vp,i /kp,i are obtained:

3.1. Design examples Vp,1 = 740.74 kN kp,1 = 14863.25 kN/m dp,1 = 0.0498 m
Vp,2 = 594.06 kN kp,2 = 7352.94 kN/m dp,2 = 0.0808 m (40)
Two twin-girder steel–concrete composite (SCC) bridges are Vp,3 = 495.87 kN kp,3 = 4198.15 kN/m dp,3 = 0.118 m.
chosen intentionally as a case study in order to illustrate the
application of the procedure and investigate the limits of the The superstructure has a variable effective stiffness b(x). The
proposed design method. The cases considered are a regular bridge values corresponding to the different cross-sections (distributed
configuration (Fig. 3(a)), where all the piers have the same height, symmetrically with respect to deck midspan) are reported in
and an irregular bridge configuration (Fig. 3(b)), where the piers Table 1.
have different heights. The second configuration is selected in For design purposes, the weighted mean value of deck’s
order to highlight the ability of the procedure to regularize the effective stiffness EId = 1.1E + 09 kNm2 is considered. The deck’s
792 E. Tubaldi, A. Dall’Asta / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 786–795

Fig. 3. Bridge configurations analyzed: (a) regular bridge and (b) irregular bridge.

Table 2
Bearing properties at the different pier-bearing locations.
i-th pier Regular bridge Irregular bridge
1 2 3 1 2 3

γmax,i (%) 100 100 100 100 100 100

G(γmax,i )(kN/m2 ) 800 800 800 800 800 800
h0,i (m2 ) 0.162 0.263 0.162 0.172 0.296 0.103
A0,i (m2 ) 0.459 0.461 0.455 0.459 0.368 0.304
D0,i (m) 0.765 0.766 0.765 0.764 0.685 0.622

= 2192.2 kN (regular bridge) (41)

 
Rab,max = R2ab,1,max + R2ab,3,max = (1607.7)2 + (1612)2
∼

= 2276.7 kN (irregular bridge). (42)

Fig. 4. Design midspan displacement vs. iterations.
The value of the abutment shear considering also the 5th and the
curvature limit, evaluated from moment–curvature analysis of the 7th term increases up to 2240.3 kN and 2246.9 kN respectively,
midspan section, which is the most vulnerable, is µd,c = 3.75E − in the case of the regular bridge, and up to 2323.1 kN and 2329.5
04 m−1 . Based on the assumed sinusoidal curvature distribution kN, in the case of the irregular bridge. Thus, the contribution to the
and on the limit curvature values, the maximum displacement abutment shear of vibration modes higher than the third can be
yd,max allowed at deck midspan is yd,max = µd,c πL 2 ∼
2
neglected.
= 0.642 m.
The maximum value of midspan bending moment Md,max
The total distributed mass corresponding to the permanent
considering the first and third term are:
loads acting on the deck is md = 16.24 kN/m/s2 . The circular fre- 
quency corresponding to the first mode of vibration of the super- Md,max ∼ Md2,1,max + Md2,3,max
=
structure alone and the damping factor are ω2d = π 4 EId /md L4 =
4.1248 s−2 and ξ d = ξd = 0.02. The seismic input is described

= (97817.3)2 + (14747.3)2
by the Eurocode 8-1 [18] design spectrum, corresponding to a site = 98922.7 kN (regular bridge) (43)
with a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.35Sg where S is the 
soil factor, assumed to be equal to 1.15 (ground type C), and g is Md,max ∼
= Md2,1,max + Md2,3,max
the gravity acceleration. 
The initial value of the displacement ymax = ρ Sd (ωd , ξ d ), = (102328.6)2 + (15203.4)2
obtained by neglecting the pier-bearing systems’ contribution, is = 103451.8 kN (irregular bridge). (44)
equal to 0.457 m. In both the cases of regular and non-regular
bridges, convergence is attained after 2–3 iterations, as shown by Given the value of the maximum shear strain γmax,i the HDR is
Fig. 4, where the values of ymax are plotted vs. the iterations. At expected to experience during the seismic excitation, the bearing’s
convergence, in the case of the regular bridge ymax = 0.36 m, height h0,i and cross-section area A0,i may be evaluated according
T = 2π /ω = 2.39 s and ξ = 0.0624 while in the case of the to the following expressions:
irregular bridge ymax = 0.377 m, T = 2π/ω = 2.51 s and d0,i,max k0,i h0,i
ξ = 0.0528. It is observed that the global damping factor is quite h 0 ,i = and A0,i = (45)
γmax,i G(γmax,i )
low in both the cases.
It is noteworthy that the contribution of piers and bearings where G(γmax,i ) is the shear modulus corresponding to the desired
to the global stiffness results in a reduction of the midspan shear strain γmax,i .
displacement with respect to the initial value of ymax . Since this Table 2 shows the characteristics of the bearings placed at the
value is significantly smaller than yd,max , based on the first term top of the piers in order to ensure the required behaviour. At each
approximation only of the curvature demand, it can be said that pier it is assumed that two equal bearings are provided.
deck yielding does not occur.
The design values of the abutment reactions for the regular and 3.2. Verifications
irregular case, accounting for the contribution of the first and the
third term of the series, are: The design method is based on a simplified model whose limits
  are related to the reduced description of the displacement field
Rab,max ∼
= R2ab,1,max + R2ab,3,max = (1536.5)2 + (1563.6)2 and to the simplified dynamic behaviour described by the SDOF
 E. Tubaldi, A. Dall’Asta / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 786–795 793

Fig. 5. Design response spectrum vs. response spectra of (a) artificially generated and (b) natural records.

Table 3
Comparison of design vs. analysis results for the regular configuration.
Analysis method ymax (m) Mp,1,max (kNm) Mp,2,max (kNm) Mp,3,max (kNm) Rab,max (kN) d0,1,max (m) d0,2,max (m) d0,3,max (m) Md,max (kNm)

SM 0.3603 6000.0 6000.0 6000.0 2192.2 0.1619 0.3104 0.1619 98922.7

MDA 0.3607 6158.2 6818.81 6158.2 2292.1 0.1629 0.3095 0.1629 101819.4
THA 0.359 6682.5 6531.3 6682.5 2529.7 0.1531 0.307 0.1531 114588.1
THN 0.3586 6627.1 6742.7 6627.1 2355.3 0.1548 0.3067 0.1548 115748.9

Table 4
Comparison of design vs. analysis results for the irregular configuration.
Analysis method ymax (m) Mp,1,max (kNm) Mp,2,max (kNm) Mp,3,max (kNm) Rab,max (kN) d0,1,max (m) d0,2,max (m) d0,3,max (m) Md,max (kNm)

SM 0.377 6000.0 6000.0 6000.0 2276.7 0.172 0.296 0.103 103451.8

MDA 0.378 6326.9 6862.65 6878.9 2256.9 0.1699 0.2938 0.100 104804.2
THA 0.391 6908.3 6910. 6962.3 2777.7 0.172 0.303 0.099 123045.4
THN 0.372 6525.5 6676.2 6608.7 2474.9 0.1640 0.2858 0.0954 119065.5

equivalent system. In order to evaluate the level of approximation
obtained, the response of the simplified model (SM) is compared
with the results provided by a 3-dimensional finite element (FE)
model with a more refined description of the displacement field.
The dynamic response under seismic input of the FE model is
evaluated by means of modal dynamic analysis (MDA), time
history analysis with artificial accelerograms (THA) and time
history analysis with natural accelerograms (THN). While MDA is
performed to highlight the contribution of higher vibration modes,
THA and THN are employed to highlight the effects related to the
non-classical nature of the damping. In MDA, the design spectrum
is defined in such a way that the damping factor corresponding
to the first mode of vibration is ξ while the damping factor
corresponding to the higher modes is equal to ξ d = 0.02. In
the case of THA and THN, the results are deduced from a set of 7
accelerograms and the mean values are reported. The 7 artificial
spectrum-compatible accelerograms are generated according to
Eurocode 8 (ECS 2005) so that no value of the mean 5% damping
elastic spectrum, calculated from all time histories, is less than
90% of the corresponding value of the 5% damped elastic response
spectrum (ECS 2005). Natural accelerograms have been selected
from the European strong motion Database [19] in order to satisfy
the requirements of Eurocode 8 [18] and minimise the scatter from
the code spectrum. The spectra of the ground motion record sets
are compared with the design spectrum in Fig. 5.
The open source finite element program OpenSees [20] is used
to perform the time history analyses while SAP2000 [21] is used for
dynamic modal analysis. In both the simulation platforms a three-
dimensional model of the bridges is employed. In the time history
analyses the bearings are represented by means of springs and
dampers acting in parallel while the dissipative properties of the
piers and deck are described by the Rayleigh damping matrix [16].
The seismic response obtained from the different models and
analysis methods are reported in Table 3 (regular bridge) and in
Table 4 (irregular bridge). The following quantities are compared:
the maximum value of the deck midspan displacement ymax , the
pier base moment Mp,i,max , the abutment reactions Rab,max , the
relative bearing displacements d0,i,max and the transverse bending
moment demand Md,max at the deck’s midspan.
Globally, satisfactory agreement between the design values and
the calculated values is observed. The relative error between the
measured and design quantities is quite low, especially when SM
and MDA are considered. The estimate of the abutment reactions
is quite accurate. Significant scatter between the design and
obtained values is experienced only for the values of Mp,i . The
maximum relative difference between pier moment demand and
the corresponding design value is about 10%–15%. It is however
noteworthy that pier base moment demands is influenced by
superior modes of vibration of the piers which are not taken into
account in the design procedure, although simplified procedures
to include their influence may be considered [6].
In order to evaluate the approximation in the response evalu-
ation due to the assumed displacement field, the normalized di-
agrams of displacements and transverse bending moments along
the deck due to MDA, THA and THN are reported in Fig. 6 and com-
pared with the normalized corresponding design values. Only the
results for the irregular bridge configuration are shown, due to lack
of space.
Again, satisfactory agreement is observed between the shape
according to SM and according to THA and THN (Fig. 6(a)). Bending
moment demands (Fig. 6(b)) according to MDA, THN and THA
analysis show some deviation from the SM shape, denoted by SM
(1). After including the contribution of the third vibration mode,
the shape according to the SM, denoted by SM (1+3), becomes very
close to the shape according to MDA. Thus, the variation of deck
794 E. Tubaldi, A. Dall’Asta / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 786–795
Fig. 6. (a) Normalized deformed shape and (b) normalized transverse bending moments along the deck according to the various analysis methods.
stiffness does not affect significantly the bending moment shape.
The scatter between MDA and THA or THN may be attributed to
the non-classically damped nature of the problem, not accounted
by MDA, and by the simplified rule used to combine the modal
responses. Finally, it is observed that the pier-bearing system does
not significantly influence the deck moment shape, as expected.
It is noteworthy that the design procedure leads to a more
regular bridge behaviour, where the deformed shape and the
transverse bending moments have an approximately symmetric
shape, despite the non regular piers configuration.
3.3. Conclusion
A simple method for the preliminary design of the isolation
system in ‘‘partially restrained seismically isolated’’ (PRSI) bridges
with continuous deck and abutment restraint is proposed. The
objective of the method is to design bearing characteristics such
that target values of the internal actions in the piers (shear
and bending moment) due to an earthquake are achieved. Other
relevant quantities, such as displacement demand, abutment
reactions and deck (moment) curvature demand can also be
evaluated by means of the simple expressions proposed. The
design procedure is based on a simplified SDOF description of
the transverse behaviour of the bridge which is derived from
the Lagrange–D’Alembert principle. The pier-bearing system is
described by an equivalent Kelvin type model accounting for the
stiffness and dissipative properties of both the components.
The application of the design procedure to a regular and an
irregular bridge is illustrated. The results of the simplified model
employed for the design are compared with the results deriving
from more refined finite element models and analysis methods,
in order to evaluate the level of approximation of the proposed
method. Satisfactory results are obtained in the estimation of
the target quantities (internal actions on the piers) and other
information of design interest.
Appendix. Influence of higher modes of vibration on the
system response
Let the solution of the dynamic problem be described by the
first terms of the sine-only Fourier series y(x, t ) = Zn ψn (repeated
index denotes summation and dependence of Zn on t and of ψn on
x is omitted). The dynamic problem assumes the form:
MZ̈(t ) + (Cc + Cd )Ż(t ) + (Kc + Kd )Z(t ) = −Meff ÿg (t )
where:
∫ L
[M]ij = m(x)ψi ψj dx (A.2)
0
N
−
[Kc ]ij = kc ,p ψi (xp )ψj (xp ) (A.3)
p=1
∫ L
[Kd ]ij = b(x)ψi′′ ψj′′ dx (A.4)
0
N
−
[Cc ]ij = cc ,p ψi (xp )ψj (xp ) (A.5)
p=1
[Cd ]ij = α[M]ij + β[Kd ]ij (A.6)
∫ L
[Meff ]i = m(x)ψi dx (A.7)
0
having described the superstructure’s contribution to damping Cd
by means of the Rayleigh damping matrix. The factors α and β are
such that the damping factor due to the deck only corresponding
to the first two modes with highest participating mass in the
transverse direction is equal to ξd .
Considering two or more terms of the series leads to a system
of coupled equations which is not suitable for preliminary design
purposes. The problem may however be conveniently described
in simple form, coherently with the paper aims, by neglecting
some terms having a minor importance in the particular structural
system considered here.
Since mass m(x) and stiffness b(x) do not significantly vary
along the deck, they may be approximately assumed constant and
equal to md and EId in evaluating the properties of the simplified
system. Consequently, the matrices M, Kd and Cd become diagonal
operators. Finally, the equations of motion can be uncoupled by
neglecting the terms of Cc and Kc which are out of the diagonal. The
latter approximation is not expected to induce a significant error in
the evaluation of PRSI bridges’ seismic response because the major
contribution to stiffness is provided by the deck and the terms
related to the pier-bearing system’s stiffness, responsible of the
coupling, can be neglected. It is noteworthy that the contribution
to stiffness of the pier-bearing system must be reduced in order
to achieve a high isolation period and the limit case of zero pier-
bearing system’s stiffness corresponds to the diagonal dynamic
problem of a homogeneous simply supported beam.
Having assumed a constant deck mass, the effective mass
described by Eq. (A.7), and, thus, the seismic input corresponding
to the i-th term of the series, are equal to zero for even terms of the
series. Thus, only odd terms of the series should be considered.
(A.1) The uncoupled equation corresponding to the n-th function of
the Fourier series ψn (x) = sin(nπ x/L) describes the dynamic
behaviour of an SDOF system with the following parameters:
 E. Tubaldi, A. Dall’Asta / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 786–795 795

[Kd ]nn + [Kc ]nn (n)4 π 4 EId − N

2kc ,i
ω2n = = 4
+ sin2 (xi )
[M]nn md L i=1
md L
([Cd ]nn + [Cc ]nn )
ξn =
2[M]nn ωn
[Meff ]n 2md L 2 4 review. Electron J Struct Eng 2003;3:140–70.
ρn = = = . (A.10)
[M]nn nπ m d L nπ
As further simplification, the term [Kc ]nn (proportional to the
square of ψn , with an increase rate of the order of n0 ) may be
neglected with respect to [Kd ]nn (proportional to the square of ψn′′ ,
with an increase rate of the order of n4 ), for n ≥ 3, in consequence
of the higher increase rate of the latter.
Thus, the frequency of vibration for the terms of the series with
n ≥ 3 coincides with the vibration frequency of the deck only
(homogeneous beam simply supported at the abutments).
The contribution of the higher terms of the series to the
superstructure transverse curvature and to the abutment reactions
can be obtained based on the strains resulting from the assumed
deformed shape ψn (x) and the maximum displacement ymax,n
according to the input spectrum as follows:
n2 π 2
µd,n (x) = b(x) ymax,n
L2
n3 π 3
Rab,n,max = b(xab ) ymax,n .
L3
Assuming a flat, constant acceleration response spectrum Sa for the
seismic input, it can be shown that the contributions to maximum
displacement, transverse curvature and abutment shear of the
higher terms of the series are inversely proportional respectively
to n5 , n3 and n2 . Although the input spectrum is usually not flat
for a wide range of vibration periods, it still can be concluded that
the contribution of higher terms to the quantities of interest is
lower and lower with increasing n. A similar behaviour is observed
in a homogeneous simply supported beam under a concentrated
dynamic load at midspan, as described in [16].
In conclusion, considering the different decay rates, the authors
suggest to take into account the second odd term (e.g., the
third term) only for those quantities with a lower decay rate
(bending moments and shear) and to evaluate their contribution
by neglecting the coupling (out of diagonal) terms.
References
(A.8)
[1] Lee GC, Kitane Y, Buckle IG. Literature review of the observed performance
of seismically isolated bridges. Report on progress and accomplishments:
2000–2001. MCEER Publications. State University of New York, Buffalo (USA);
(A.9)
2001.
[2] Kunde MC, Jangid RS. Seismic behavior of isolated bridges: a state-of-the-art
[3] Boroschek RL, Moroni MO, Sarrazin M. Dynamic characteristics of a long span
seismic isolated bridge. Eng Struct 2003;25(12):1479–90.
[4] Shen J, Tsai MH, Chang KC, Lee GC. Performance of a seismically isolated
bridge under near-fault earthquake ground motions. J Struct Eng 2004;130(6):
861–8.
[5] Tsai MH. Transverse earthquake response analysis of a seismically isolated
regular bridge with partial restraint. Eng Struct 2008;30(2):393–403.
[6] Priestley MJN, Calvi GM, Kowalsky MJ. Displacement-based seismic design of
structures. Pavia (Italy): IUSS Press; 2007.
[7] Calvi GM. Recent experience and innovative approaches in design and
assessment of bridges. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on
earthquake engineering. Paper No. 5009. 2004.
[8] Tubaldi E, Barbato M, Dall’Asta A. Transverse seismic response of continuous
steel–concrete composite bridges exhibiting dual load path. Earthq Struct
2010;1(1):21–41.
[9] Jara M, Casas JR. A direct displacement-based method for the seismic design
of bridges on bi-linear isolation devices. Eng Struct 2006;28(6):869–79.
[10] Cardone D, Dolce M, Palermo G. Direct displacement-based design of
seismically isolated bridges. Bull Earthq Eng 2009;7(2):391–410.
[11] Makris N, Kampas G, Angelopoulou D. The eigenvalues of isolated bridges with
transverse restraints at the end-abutments. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2009;39(8):
(A.11) 869–86.
[12] Fédération international du béton (Fib) task group 7.4 (2007). Seismic bridge
design and retrofit: structural solutions. Fib Bulletin 39; 2007.
[13] Hwang JS, Chiou JM. An equivalent linear model of lead-rubber seismic
(A.12) isolation bearings. Eng Struct 1996;18(7):528–36.
[14] Dall’Asta A, Ragni L. Dynamic systems with high damping rubber: non-linear
behaviour and linear approximation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2008;37(13):
1511–26.
[15] Dall’Asta A, Ragni L. Experimental tests and analytical model of high damping
rubber dissipating devices. Eng Struct 2006;28(13):1874–84.
[16] Clough RW, Penzien J. Dynamics of structures. New York (USA): McGraw-Hill;
1993.
[17] Green MF. Bridge dynamics and dynamic amplification factors — a review of
analytical and experimental findings: discussion. Can J Civ Eng 1993;20(5):
876–8.
[18] European Committee for Standardization (ECS). Eurocode 8 — design of
structures for earthquake resistance. EN1998. Brussels; 2005.
[19] Ambraseys N, Smith P, Bernardi R, Rinaldis D, Cotton F, Berge-Thierry C.
Dissemina of European strong-motion data. CD-ROM collection. European
Council. Environment and Climate Research Programme; 2000.
[20] McKenna F, Fenves GL, Scott MH. OpenSees: open system for earthquake
engineering simulation. Berkeley (CA): Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center,
University of California; 2006.
[21] SAP2000. Version 8. Analysis reference manual. Berkeley (California, USA):
Computers and Structures Inc.; 2002.