EngineeringStructures,Vol.

ELSEVIER

0141-0296(95)00147-6

18, No. 4, pp. 301-310, 1996 Copyright 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0141-0296/96 $15.00 + 0.00

Experimental study of bridge seismic sliding isolation systems

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

S. Okamoto, S. Fujii and D. Ozaki

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

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

Keywords: seismic isolation, bridges, earthquakes, sliding bearings, fluid dampers, testing, shaking table

1.

Introduction

Contemporary techniques for seismic hazard mitigation in bridges include seismic isolation, energy dissipation and the distribution of seismic forces to elements of the substructure in accordance to their strength. The latter approach has been applied in a large number of bridges in Japan j. In these bridges, unidirectional sliding bearings and viscous dampers allow longitudinal deck motion due to temperature changes. The viscous dampers provide resisting force when subjected to high velocity, seismic motion, thus evenly distributing the longitudinal seismic forces to the elements of the bridge substructure. Seismic isolation is a strategy which attempts to reduce the seismic forces to or near the elastic capacity of a bridge, thus eliminating or reducing inelastic deformation and damage to the substructure. "]?his technique also permits distribution of the lateral forces to the various elements of the substructure. Seismic isolation systems which are characterized by a strong restoring force have been employed in bridges in New Zealand and the United States 2,3. Currently, about 60 isolated bridges in the United States, comprising a total deck length exceeding 12 km are either complete or under construction. The isolation system of the majority of

these bridges consists of lead-rubber bearings2; the rest being sliding isolation systems 3,4. Italian engineers championed a different approach to seismically isolating bridges. They constructed over 150 bridges with a total length exceeding 150 km, the vast majority of which exhibit nearly elastoplastic behaviours. Typically, they consist of lubricated sliding bearings and yielding mild steel dampers. Such systems restrict the force transmitted to elements of the substructure to a predetermined level, which is independent of the seismic action. They are, however, characterized by a large dispersion in peak displacements and the development of permanent displacements 6. Japan recently moved towards a different approach to protecting bridges, called 'Menshin', which utilizes isolation bearings to enhance energy dissipation capability and to distribute the lateral forces to elements of the substructure 1. Bridges in Japan are designed for strong seismic excitation (magnitude 8 or larger), which is characterized by strong long period components. Figure 1 presents the level 2 bridge design spectra for Japan 7. Evidently, for effective seismic isolation it is necessary to lengthen the period to values beyond 3 s, which is both very difficult to achieve and results in large displacements. Such displacements are

301

302
~ , 1.2 , A I ol z1.0 I [ " = ~ ' ~ < ~ ' ~ " ~ v ' ~ A v ~ ' ~ ~..:V^A,.~_AW~ ^ ~ "~ h0.8 , ,

Bridge seismic sliding isolation systems: P. Tsopelas

5% -DAMPED DESIGN'SPECTRUM SIMULATED MOTION

e t al.

w,

~_)0.6 0 <

LEVEL2 G.C.I
er I--n 0.0

LEVEL2 G.C.2 j LEVEL2 G.C3 ~

~/

2 PERIOD

(sec)

Figure I Level 2 bridge design spectra for Japan (ground condition 1 = stiff soil; ground condition 3 = deep alluvium soil)
undesirable because they require large expansion joints, which have maintenance problems, are costly, affect driving comfort and result in noise pollution. Based on these considerations Japanese engineers adopted the Menshin design method. In 1991, the University at Buffalo and Taisei Corporation, Japan began a collaborative research programme on earthquake protective systems for bridges. The main objective of the project was to produce and experimentally verify a class of protective systems for use in areas of strong seismic action such as California and Japan. A specific goal was to produce a system capable of reducing the forces transmitted to the elastic substructure to about one-third of the deck weight, while allowing bearing displacements of less than 200 mm. These requirements should be met for all ground (soil) conditions of the Japanese level 2 bridge design motions (see Figure 1 for spectra). Other objectives of the project were to study the developed systems under seismic actions that are less than those of the Japanese level 2 bridge design spectra and to study established systems which have not previously been tested within a bridge model. These included the Italian elastoplastic systems and the spherical sliding FPS systemr, 8. This paper presents the composition, design, experimental results and analytical modelling of one of the systems studied. The system consisted of sliding bearings and rubber restoring force devices. Moreover, fluid viscous dampers were added in order to meet the aforementioned strict requirements for the Japanese level 2 bridge design motions.

of the gravity load applied as horizontal load at each bearing location. Identification of the model was conducted by exciting the shake table with a 0-20 Hz banded white noise of 0.03 g peak acceleration. Acceleration transfer functions of each free standing pier and of the assembled bridge model with all bearings fixed against translational movement (but not rotation) revealed the following properties. For the free standing pier there was a fundamental period of 0.096 s and a damping ratio equal to 0.015 of the critical value. For the nonisolated bridge model, there was a fundamental period in the longitudinal direction equal to 0.26 s and damping ratio equal to 0.02 of the critical value. These values are in excellent agreement with the design values of 0.1 s and 0.25 s, respectively. Additional identification tests of the model were also conducted with white noise input of 0.1 g peak table acceleration to obtain a fundamental period of 0.25 s and a corresponding damping ratio of 0.04 of critical. The increased damping was the result of hysteretic action, not in the columns of the model but in the overhangs of the concrete extension of the shake table. During shake table testing of the nonisolated model, the recorded loops of shear force versus displacement of the piers displayed hysteretic action. Estimates of damping ratio from these loops were in the range 0.04-0.08 of critical. Thus while the columns of the piers remained elastic, the pier system displayed realistic hysteretic action with an equivalent damping ratio of at least 5% of critical. The entire weight of the deck was supported by four multidirectional sliding bearings of the disc type. The beatings were identical to those utilized by Constantinou et al. 4 Each bearing consisted of an upper plate faced with a polished, stainless steel plate and a bottom plate which was supported by an Adiprene disc which allowed for rotation. The bottom plate of the sliding bearing was delivered with a circular recess, which could accept plates faced with PTFE or other materials. This facilitated replacement of the sliding interface in order to achieve a friction coefficient at large sliding velocity in the range 0.07-0.15. Table 1 lists these materials, the bearing pressure and the parameters in the model of friction. The coefficient of sliding friction, p~, followed the relation9
=fmax -- (fmax

- fmi.)exp(-alt~l)

(1)

2.

Bridge model and isolation system

Figure 1 shows the tested bridge model. It was designed to have flexible piers so that under nonisolated conditions the fundamental period of the model in the longitudinal direction was 0.25 s (or 0.5 s in prototype scale). At quarter-length scale, it had a clear span of 4.8 m ( 15.7 ft), height of 2.53 m (8.3 ft) and total weight of 157.8 kN (35.5 kips). The deck consisted of two AISC W1490 sections which were transversely connected by beams. Additional weights were added to reach the model deck weight of 143 kN (32.1 kips), as determined by the similitude requirements. The piers were designed to have in their free standing cantilever position a period of 0.1 s (0.2 s in prototype scale) when fully loaded (load cells and bottom part of bearings). Furthermore, the piers were detailed to yield under the combined effects of gravity load (40 kN each column) and 50%

where f m a x is the coefficient of friction at a high velocity of sliding, f m i n is the coefficient of friction at essentially zero velocity of sliding, a is a parameter controlling the variation of the coefficient of friction with velocity of sliding and u is the velocity of sliding. The PTFE-based composite material used in bearing C1 was identical to the material No. 1 used in the tests of the FPS bridge isolation system8 and also used in the beatings of the US Court of Appeals building in San Francisco. The glass-filled PTFE and the PTFE-based composite exhibited remarkably stable properties over a large number of tests. However, the unfilled PTFE exhibited some scatter in the recorded values of the coefficient of friction, which had the tendency to reduce with an increasing number of cycles. Restoring force capability was provided with rubber devices acting as horizontal springs with displacement restraint. Figure 3 shows the construction of a rubber restoring force device. It provided stiffness by deforming in the manner shown in Figure 4, that is, by imposing tension to the elements of the device. The rubber elements

Bridge seismic sliding isolation systems: P. Tsopelas et al.

Table 1 Properties of sliding disc bearings
Contact area (mm 2) 7090 2040 320 Bearing pressure (MPa) 5.0 17.6 111.0

303

Bearing T1 T2 C1

Characterization of friction High Medium Low

Material Unfilled PTFE Glass-filled PTFE PTFE-based composite

fm.x 0.150 0.138 0.068

fmin 0.055 0.055 0.040

a (s/m) 23.7 75.0 130.0

l
--

I II
--

I Ill I
B.9

143 k. D C BK

2 JdSC Wl4xg0

Table2 Properties of rubber restoring force devices

Period of isolatedi bridge (s) 2.47 1.60 1.33

I1~

II

Ill

I
I/3AD

fl~

I
BEARING

R U B B E R DEVICE AND FLUID DA[WPEBS PIER

k N

No.
F

Rubber hardness (shore A) 45 67 80

Characterization of stiffness Low Medium High

Stiffness* (kN/m) 46.9 112.3 162.2

i 1.0 r.

""'. ".../- D,^C~,Gt~ArIO, --~... ..-""

r2s^~.5/ le

1 2 3

CONCRETE E~rENS[ON

*Each device. Stiffness is secant at displacement of 35 mm tin model scale for two devices I~
I~=

3ee m
#,.80 m

=1
=

',

Figure 2 Schematicof quarter-scale bridge model

O.,T,.',.,.

s.75 -/~

Figure3 Construction of rubber restoring force device

I
RBEE~ URMT B LN EE

~ ~

NEC E IN Y R RN L I D -''UE C E D TR Y R ' N L I D

Devices with three values of stiffness were used in the testing. The different values of stiffness were achieved by using natural rubber of different hardness as shown in Table 2. Figure 5 shows the representative force displacement loops of the three devices. The devices exhibited nearly linear behaviour to displacements of about 35 mm. Beyond this limit they displayed increasing stiffness to the limit of about 50 mm. After that the devices exhibited nearly rigid behaviour. The mechanical properties of the rubber devices were only marginally affected by the frequency of motion. Rubber devices were installed one at each pier location. For this configuration, the period of vibration of the isolated model deck is given in Table 2. This period is not the effective period in accordance with the definition of AASHTO ]. Rather, it is the period when friction is neglected. The effective stiffness and effective damping ratio of the devices were dependent on the amplitude of motion. To obtain a measure of the energy dissipation capability of the rubber devices, the effective damping ratio (defined in accordance with AASHTO ~) was obtained in tests at an amplitude of 35 mm, thus prior to the initiation of stiffening of the devices. It was found to be in the range 2.4-3.8% for the low stiffness device, 4.0-5.8% for the medium stiffness device and 6.5-7.8% for the high stiffness device. This range of values was obtained in cyclic tests with frequency varying from 0.01 Hz (static) to 2 Hz.
15 10 -5 LU o nO iJ. 0 -S -10 FREQUENCY: 0.5 Hz AMPLITUDE : 38.t mm / No. 3 No 2 No"1

I)-RBE N UNE T EN R L N I COMPRESSIONBO E TS EIM

EXPERIMENTAL i / ANALYTICALFOR DEVICEN o y ~ .

Figure4 Operation of rubber restoring force device

on the compression side were ineffective until they were compressed against the outer steel cylinder. At that stage, the device exhibited increased stiffness and acted as a displacement restrainer. It allowed a maximum displacement of about 50 ram.

-50

-25

25

50

DISPLACEMENT (mm)

Figure 5 Force-displacement loops of rubber restoring force devices

304

Bridge seismic sliding isolation systems: P. Tsopelas et al.

A total of 369 seismic tests were conducted with a variety of combinations of isolation system properties and bridge configurations. These combinations are listed in Table 3. Tests were conducted with only horizontal input and with combined horizontal and vertical input. The earthquake signals and their characteristics are listed in Table 4. The earthquake signals consisted of historic earthquakes and artificial motions compatible with (a) The Japanese bridge design spectra for level 1 and level 2 and ground conditions 1 (rock), 2 (alluvium) and 3 (deep alluvium) 7 (b) The California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) bridge spectra ~3. These motions were identical to those used in the testing of another bridge model by Constantinou et al. 4 Each record was compressed in time by a factor of two to satisfy the similitude requirements.

In certain tests, the energy dissipation capability of the isolation system was enhanced by the addition of four fluid dampers, which were identical to those used by Constantinou and Symans ~ in the testing of a building model. Each damper behaved as a linear viscous device with output force P proportional to the velocity of the piston rod with respect to the housing t~ P = Co/~ (2)

where the constant C,, had a value of 15.5 N-s/mm at an ambient temperature of about 25C. These dampers were used in a configuration of the isolation system in which medium stiffness rubber devices (No. 2 in Table 2) and high friction sliding bearings (T1 in Table 1) were utilized. When friction in the system is neglected, the viscous damping ratio provided by the dampers may be calculated to be approximately equal to 0.50 of critical. However, the effective period and damping of the isolation system in accordance with AASHTO ~ were estimated in the model scale and at displacement of 40 mm to be 0.85 s (1.7 s in prototype scale) and 0.75 of critical, respectively. These properties fall within a range (period of 1 to 2 s and damping of 0.7 to 0.8 of critical) for which the high damping spectra of the Japanese level 2 bridge design motions have a nearly constant spectral acceleration at 0.3 g and a spectral displacement of less than 200 mm. Thus this system could meet the aforementioned performance criteria. The instrumentation consisted of displacement transducers, accelerometers, load cells for measuring the force transmitted through the sliding bearings and strain gauges for measuring the shear forces in the pier columns. Details of the instrumentation and interpretation of measurements may be found in the report by Tsopelas et al. ~2

4.

Test results

3.

Test programme

Testing of the bridge model was performed in five different bridge configurations and seven different isolation system configurations. The five bridge configurations were (a) The sliding bearings were locked by side plates to represent a nonisolated bridge. In this configuration, the structure was identified in tests with banded white noise table motion. Furthermore, a selected number of seismic tests was conducted. (b) Braces were installed to stiffen the piers and the deck was connected by stiff rods to a nearby reaction wall. In this configuration, the shake table was driven in displacement-controlled mode with specified frequency and amplitude of harmonic motion. Loops of bearing horizontal force versus bearing displacement were recorded and used to extract the frictional properties of the sliding bearings. (c) Both piers were stiffened by braces so that they represented stiff abutments. In this configuration, the model resembled a single-span isolated bridge. (d) The south pier was stiffened by braces so that it represented a stiff abutment. In this configuration, the model resembled a two-span bridge with two stiff abutments and a centrally located flexible pier. (e) A configuration with two flexible piers which resembled a portion of a multiple-span bridge between expansion joints.

The report by Tsopelas et al. ~2 contains a detailed presentation of the experimental results. Herein results are primarily presented in condensed graphical form for the bridge model with two flexible piers. One of the tested isolation systems consisted of low friction (fmax= 0.068) bearings and high stiffness (No. 3) rubber restoring force devices. The system had a period of 1.33 s (or 2.66 s in prototype scale). It was designed for application in areas of weak to moderate seismic excitation. Figure 6 compares the substructure peak response of the bridge with this isolation system to the response of the comparable nonisolated bridge. The results in the latter case have been extrapolated (assuming linear behaviour) to the theoretical yield limit of the piers. The seismic input consisted of historic earthquakes (El Centro, Taft, Hachinohe, Miyagiken-Oki; some with vertical component) and simulations of the Japanese level 1 bridge design spectra. The comparison demonstrates the significant benefits offered by the isolation system. The peak bearing displacement in these tests was recorded in the long period Hachinohe motion (scaled up by a factor of two). It was 28.2 mm or 112.8 mm in prototype scale. The largest permanent displacement was recorded in the same motion. It was 4.1 mm (or 16.4 mm in prototype scale). Another tested system utilized medium friction (type T2) bearings which delivered a coefficient of friction at high velocity of sliding fmax -- 0.138. This was not very different from that delivered by the type Tl-high friction bearings ~n~x = 0.150). The results obtained with the medium friction system were qualitatively the same as those obtained with the high friction system. A comparison of the substructure responses of the isolated and nonisolated bridges is presented in Figure 7. The tests were conducted with the earthquake motions listed in Table 4 except the Japanese level 2 simulated motions, for which the bearing displacement demand exceeded the capacity of the restoring force devices and the pier shear forces nearly reached the yield limit. The peak force transmitted through the isolation system did not exceed 0.35 times the deck weight in all of the tests shown in Figure 7. However, the pier shear force reached slightly higher peak values due to the effect of the inertia forces of the pier top. Peak bearing displacements were less than 50 mm (or 200 mm in prototype scale).

Bridge seismic sliding isolation systems: P. Tsopelas e t al. Table 3 Tested bridge and isolation system configurations
Rubber restoring force devices (stiffness) South pier Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High High Low Low High High High High North pier Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High High Low Low Medium Medium High High Fluid viscous dampers (number) South pier 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North pier 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

305

Pier condition Number of tests South 26 39 14 34 33 27 38 27 32 18 18 23 22 Stiff Flexible Flexible Stiff Flexible Stiff Flexible Stiff Flexible Stiff Flexible Stiff Flexible

Sliding bearings (type)

North Stiff Flexible Flexible Stiff Flexible Stiff Flexible Stiff Flexible Flexible Flexible Stiff Flexible

South pier T1 T1 T1 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 C1 C1

North pier T1 T1 T1 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 T2 C1 C1 C1 C1

Period* of vibration (s) 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.33 1.33 2.47 2.47 1.45 1.45 1.33 1.33

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

Table4 Earthquake motions used in test programme and characteristics in prototype scale
Notation El Centro S00E Taft N21E Mexico S90W Pacoima $16E Pacoima $74W Hachinohe N-S Miyagiken OKI Akita N-S JP. L1G1 JP. L1G2 JP. L1G3 JP. L2G1 JP. L2G2 JP. L2G3 CalTrans 0.6g A2 CalTrans 0.6g $2 CalTrans 0.6g $3 CalTrans 0.6g R1 CalTrans 0.6g R2 CalTrans 0.6g R3 Record Imperial Valley, 18 May 1940, component S00E Kern County, 21 July 1952, component N21E Mexico City, 19 September 1985, SCT building, component N90W San Fernando, 9 February 1971, component $16E San Fernando, 9 February 1971, component $74E Tokachi, Japan, 16 May 1968 Hachinohe, component N-S Miyaki, Japan, 12 June 1978 Ofunato-Bochi, component E-W Nihonkai Chuubu, Japan, 23 May 1983 component N-S Artificial corn )atible with Japanese level 1 ground condition 1 Artificial com )atible with Japanese level 1 ground condition 2 Artifici.al corn )atible with Japanese level 1 ground condition 3 Artificial corn )atible with Japanese level 2 ground condition 1 Artificial corn ~atible with Japanese level 2 ground condition 2 Artifici~l corn )atible with Japanese level 2 ground condition 3 Artificial com )atible with CalTrans 0.6g 80"-150' alluvium spectrum, No. 2 Artificial com )atible with CaITrans 0.6g 10"-80' alluvium spectrum, No. 2 Artificial corn )atible with CalTrans 0.6g 10'-80' alluvium spectrum, No. 3 Artificial com )atible with CalTrans 0.6g rock spectrum, No. 1 Artificial corn )atible with CalTrans 0.6g rock spectrum, No. 2 Artificial corn )atible with CalTrans 0.6g rock spectrum, No. 3 Peak acc. (g) 0.34 0.16 0.17 1.17 1.08 0.23 0.16 0.19 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.37 0.43 0.45 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Peak vel. (mm/s) 334.50 157.20 605.00 1132.30 568.20 357.10 141.00 292.00 215.00 251.00 274.00 864.00 998.00 1121.00 836.40 765.00 778.00 530.90 510.00 571.00 Peak dis. (mm) 108.70 67.10 212.00 365.30 108.20 118.90 50.80 146.00 90.00 69.00 132.00 526.00 527.00 700.00 282.90 248.90 438.90 443.80 274.30 342.40

The results of Figure 7 show a significant property of the tested systems. The force transmitted to the substructure is maintained within a narrow range (approximate 0.25 to 0.35 times the weight) for a wide range of strength of excitation (0.2 to 1 g peak ground acceleration) and content in frequency (motions of Table 4). This desirable behaviour resembles that of elastoplastic systems. However, the systems tested had restoring force capability which prevented the development of large permanent displacement or the accumulation of permanent displacements in sequential earthquakes 12. Moreover, the tested isolated bridge exhibited better behaviour than the nonisolated bridge in weak seismic excitation. As an example, Figure 8 compares recorded loops of pier shear force versus pier drift of the nonisolated and isolated (system with medium stiffness rubber devices) bridges in the weak Japanese level 1 motions. It can be observed that the response of the isolated bridge is lower than that of the nonisolated bridge and also completely

insensitive to the soil conditions (ranging from rock to deep alluvium). Identical responses were recorded in tests with restoring force devices having lower (No. 1) and larger (No. 3) stiffnesses. This desirable property is the result of velocity dependency of the friction force in the sliding bearings. Hence, the characteristic strength of the isolation system is dependent on the strength of the excitation. This strength is less than the maximum value (fma~ times the deck weight) in weak seismic excitation. Testing with the demanding Japanese level 2 motions was restricted to only the high friction-medium stiffness (T1-No. 2) isolation system. The top left graph of Figure 9 shows the recorded isolation system force-bearing displacement loop of the system in the Japanese level 2, ground condition 1 (rock) motion. Displacements reached the capacity of 50 mm and a force nearly equal to 0.5 times the deck weight was transmitted to the substructure. The system did not fulfil the design requirement for a force less than one-third of the deck weight. The isolation system was

306
a 0.75

Bridge seismic sliding isolation systems: P. Tsopelas et al.

NONISOlaTEDBRIDGE'(FROMTESTSi
o NsOoLe NI TS~EDLATEDB;IDGE(EXTRAPOLATEDFROMTESTS) 0.50 ~ O.~ ~ CO k THEORETICAL YIELD LIMIT

rr ~< 0.25

0 ~

~
0.5 (n

00 i ST i//1I/
JP. LEVEL 1 G.C. 1

JP. LEVEL 1 G.C. 2

JP. LEVEL 1 G.C. 3

IT
m 0.00

i
0.0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

~ -0.4

1.00 0
W. 0.75 < n" t - 0,50 ii DRIFT RATIO= DRIFT / HEIGHT

41t ISOLATED T2 - No, 2

E.

C--

(=1290ram)

0.0

/
0.0 0.7 -0.7 0.0 PIER DRIFT RATIO (%)

/
0.0 0.7

O0 :~
n" LU 0.25

O O OOjDD O O
-0.4 -0.7 0.5 0.7 -0.7

E o.oo

0.0

0.1

0.2 0.3 0.4 T A B L E A C C E L E R A T I O N (g)

Figure 6 Comparison of response of nonisolated and isolated

bridges. Case of system with low friction bearings (C1), high stiffness rubber devices ( N o . 3) and flexible piers
E3 ~) 1.00 <C 0.75
"~" 0.50

Figure8 Comparison of substructure response of nonisolated and isolated bridges in weak Japanese level 1 bridge design motions
I-"r kg 0.5 0.3 0.1 -0.1 -0,3
.J 0

INON IS'OLATEDBRID(3E(FROMTESTS) NON ISOLATEDBRIDGE(EXTRAPOLATEDFROMTESTS) [:] ISOLATEDBRIDGE T2 - No. 1 o ISOLATEDBRIDGE T2 - No. 2 THEORETICAL A ISOLATEDBRIDGE T2 - No. 3 .~ YIELDLIMIT
mnllu ii ......... e

WITHOUT FLUID DAMPERS / JP I-2 G.C.1 _~___/

WITH FLUIDDAMPERS JP I-2 G.C.1

0 nO

.......

o
O3 ntu 0.00 0.25

o A

f
-30 -10 10 30 50

-0,5 -50 0.5 0,3

-50

-30

-10

10

30

50

E o

0.0
1.00 0.75 0.50

0:2
lqi:> ~ II
l/ II' /

o:,

o:5

0:8

1.0

I"1-

[]
DRIFT RATIO= DRIFT/HEIGHT (=1290 ram) O n- 0.1 O LL -0.1 -0.3

WITH FLUID DAMPERS JP L 2 ~

WITH FLUID DAMPERS JP L2 G.C.3

UJ

n-

~'"

OoZ~^

0
--i O

r',, 0.25 nUJ

i
0,0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 T A B L E A C C E L E R A T I O N (g) 1.0

-0.5 -50

-30

- 10

10

30

50

-50

-30

- 10

10

30

50

~" o.oo

SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (ram)

Figure 7 Comparison of response of nonisolated and isolated

bridges. Case of system with medium friction bearings ( T 2 ) , rubber devices N o . 1, 2 a n d 3, and flexible bridge piers

Figuro 9 Isolation system force-bearing displacement loops of system T1-No. 2 (high friction-medium stiffness) without and with fluid viscous dampers in testing of bridge with flexible piers and Japanese level 2 bridge motions
The effect of vertical ground motion was assessed by conducting pairs of tests, one without and the other with the vertical input included. Typically, the vertical input had a minor effect on the recorded response. This effect appeared as waviness in the loops of isolation system force-displacement due to fluctuations in the friction force. As an example, Figure 10 shows the recorded response of the high friction-medium stiffness isolation system (T1No. 2) in the E1 Centro earthquake, scaled up by a factor of two. In this test the peak vertical table acceleration reached 0.38 g. The effect on the pier peak force and drift was negligible. A number of tests were conducted to demonstrate the distribution of seismic loads to various elements of the substructure. In these tests the bridge model was fitted with medium friction (type T2) bearings and medium stiffness (No. 2) rubber devices at the south pier and low friction (type C1 ) bearings and low stiffness (No. 3) rubber devices at the north pier. Figure 11 shows the recorded response of this system in a test with the E1 Centro motion, scaled

then enhanced with fluid dampers and tested with the same motion and the ground condition 2 and 3 (deep alluvium) motions. The results are presented in Figure 9. The enhanced system allowed a peak bearing displacement of only 40 mm (or 160 mm in prototype scale) and a peak isolation system force of about 0.3 times the deck weight. It fulfilled the set performance criteria for the Japanese level 2 motions of all soil conditions. The insensitivity of the peak force and displacement response of this enhanced isolation system to the significantly different details of the three input motions, is particularly interesting. The authors investigated the possibility of redesigning the sliding isolation system to meet the performance criteria in the long period Japanese level 2 motions without adding fluid dampers. This could be accomplished with the use of very high friction bearings (value offmax exceeding 0.20). This option was not pursued because it would have required the use of bimetallic or other sliding interfaces, which exhibit Coulomb-type friction 3. This would have rendered the isolation system ineffective in weak ground motions.

Bridge seismic slidir,,g isolation systems: P. Tsopelas et al.

~"

307

40.

SYSTEMT1 - No.2 EL CENTRO200%

_i o. ,O Z
r r

< LU m
CO

-HORIZONTALONLY - - - HORIZONTAL+ VERTICAL

-40.
0.3

10

20 TIME (sec)

30

I"r (.9

where p,; = coefficient of sliding friction at pier i, W* = normal load on two sliding interfaces at pier i, F , = restoring force from the rubber device at pier i, n = number of fluid dampers at pier i (either 0 or 2) and Co; = damping constant of one fluid damper. Furthermore, Lib; is the bearing displacement at pier i. The coefficient of sliding friction follows relation (1) and the normal load, W;, is given by W* = IV;(l+(]vi/g), where W; = weight carried by pier i, and ~ ; is the table (ground) vertical acceleration of pier i. Furthermore, variable Z; in equation (3) satisfies the following equationg:

uJ O O LL
rr

0.0

r;z,
0

+ 71b.Iz;Iz;I

L;.; =

(4)

if5 >CO J co

-0.3

-40

40

SW BEARINGDISPLACEMENT(mm)

In this equation, Y; = 'yield' displacement (= 0.25 mm) and /3 and7 = parameters satisfying the condition/3+ 7 = 1. The force Fr; has been described as F.; = Fo;(Ub;) + ~Fo;( Ub;)Zri

Figure 10 Effect of vertical ground motion on response of isolated bridge with flexible piers and system T1-No. 2 (high friction-medium stiffness',, subjected to El Centro 200% input
I."r 0

(5)

0.3

[]

RUBBER DEV. No.2 0.1

RUBBER DEV. No.3 BEARING C1

I.u

0 ~,. 0 LI_

~A -0.1
._i o SOUTH PIER -0.3 -40 0.3
, , , f , _ l ,

where Fo;(Ub;) is the displacement-dependent skeleton curve and FD;(Uh;) is also the displacement-dependent difference between the loading and unloading branches of the hysteresis loop of a rubber restoring force device. F,,; and Fo; may be expressed as odd and even polynomial functions of displacement, respectively
20 40
N

NORTH PIER 40 ~.0 -20 0

-20

,~0

)
Inw Q.

SW BEARINGDISPL (ram)
i

NW BEARING DISPL (ram)

r I , ~ , i

Fo; = ~
n = 1 , 3 , 5 .... M

A.U~;

(6)

0.1 I
-0.1

/
NORTH PIER -4 -2 0 2 4 PIER DRIFT (ram) 6 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 PIER DRIFT (mm)

FDi=

~
m = 0 , 2 , 4 ....

B,.U~

(7t

-0.3 --6

Figure 11 Example of distribution of seismic forces to selected elements of substructure in test with El Centro 200% motion

up by a factor of two. The transfer of more force to the south pier and the associated relief of the north pier are demonstrated. Tests with model configurations with one stiff and one flexible pier and two stiff piers resulted, in general, in lower bearing displacements and lower force transmitted to the substructure.

Moreover, quantity Zr; in equation (5) is a new hysteretic variable which also satisfies equation (4) with/3+7-- 1 and Y; being a new 'yield' displacement. The model of restoring force devices described by equations (5)-(7) is capable of describing the complex behaviour which is depicted in Figure 5. However, for displacements below the limit at which stiffening occurs, it was found sufficient to model the devices as simple linear and viscous elements. Figures 12 and 13 present comparisons of experimental and analytical results in two selected tests. It should be noted that the analytical prediction is good.

6.

Design spectra

5.

Analytical prediction of response

The tested isolation bridge model was modelled in sufficient detail to account for the effects of pier flexibility, pier top rotation, dependency of friction force on sliding velocity and instantaneous normal force and hysteretic characteristics of rubber restoring force devices. Details of the analytical model may be found in Tsopelas et al. 12 Herein it is sufficient to describe the model for the isolation system. The horizontal force transmitted by the isolation system to each pier top has been expressed as
Fbi = ~,Li( ~Jbi) W * Z i Jr Fn + nCo;~Jbi

(3)

The experimental results demonstrated that it is possible to design effective isolation systems which meet stringent criteria in strong excitation with long period components. However, the reader should note that these results were obtained with a model in which the substructure was either nearly rigid or had only limited flexibility. The writers extended their experimental results to a range of parameters that it was not possible to test by conducting analytical studies. The results were presented in the form of response spectra, which may be used for preliminary design (see Tsopelas et al. 12 for a complete description). One of the bridge models used in the analytical study was termed the 'pier-deck model'. It is illustrated in Figure 14. In this model the isolated bridge is described by the coefficient of friction p~, period of isolation T, damping

308
5O

Bridge seismic sliding isolation systems: P. Tsopelas et

DECK (VEIGHT=Vd)

al.

(5 z 00 F."r" ILl

-10 -30 -50

0 0.5 0.3 or

SYSTEM T2-No. 2

ANALYTICAL

"

,
10 TIME (sees)
i i i

q---=px..._ ISnLATION
SSE YTM PIER
,

20

30

///////////////////

LU "1O3 -0.1 (/'j >CO -0.3 li -0.5 O J) -50 2.0 .J w o o < o. O p.. rr
LU

0.1

Uo
3~0

EFFECTIVE PIER STIFFNESS '~

50

~ - EI F E v I E T p R CT H F V
RSO I G E T RN FORCE DEVICE

-30 10 SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (ram)

- 110

'

1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2,0

v,
FRICTIONAL LINEAR E E E T LMN VISCOUS DME A PR

O..

4 5 TIME (sees)

\ EFFECTIVE .__3 PIER D M I G A PN C NTN O SA T

Figure 12 Comparison of experimental and analytical response of isolated bridge with system T2-No. 2 in test with Taft N21E input scaled up by factor 5
3O

Figure 14 Pier-deck model and mathematical representation

500

g
.d O. tj~ O (5 Z 10

~EY MS T S

T`'N' R 2/'FLUID DAMPERs

...~..... EA;;EL RY]'I:EAL A L

g
.J

400
300

--

~ = 0.4

~=0.0

........

-~--_

(.9 2O0 -10 ING -30

I , , i

_z

E<(

LU 113 I-"ILU

LU m 15
i-

100 0 1.5 0.6 .... , i , , J , , , , i .... 2.0 2.5 , . . . .

, . . . .

5 TIME (sees) i

10

i , , , , i , , 3.0 3.5
, . . . . ,

, , 4.0

0.4 0.2 0,0 -0.2 -0.4 -30

SW

. . . .

0.5
0.4

nr <~ w I o3 >co .J 0 I uJ

W
Tp--0.2s
L , , , , I , , , , I , , , , I

~: 0.3
-c 0.2 o3 .... ,,, 0.1 R" 1.5 2.0 2.5

.... 4.0

-10

1~0

'

30

3.0

3.5

BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)

Figure

ISOLATION SYSTEM PERIOD (sees)

15 Response spectra of pier-deck model of isolated b r i d g e w i t h / z = 0.15, W p / W d = 1/10, ~jp = 0 . 0 5 f o r J a p a n e s e l e v e l 2, g r o u n d c o n d i t i o n 1 i n p u t

0.4 NORTH PIER 0.2

0 w r~ < ILl I O9 rr Ill

0.0 -0.2 -0.4

i i L ~ _ , i I

CpgTp ~P - 4 7rWp
6

(9) (10) (11)

-6

-4

-2

0 2 PIER DRIFT (mm)

T = 2~ \~gg/

Comparison of experimental a n d a n a l y t i c a l resp o n s e o f i s o l a t e d b r i d g e w i t h v i s c o u s f l u i d d a m p e r s in t e s t w i t h J a p a n e s e l e v e l 2, g r o u n d c o n d i t i o n 1

Figure 13

ratio of isolation system ~, period of free standing pier Tp, damping ratio of free standing pier ~p and weight ratio

CgT = 4~-w,,

Wp/W~
Tp = 2w \~ng] (8)

Figure 15 presents an example of such spectra for the Japanese level 2, ground condition 1 input. It should be noted that these spectra are valid for elastic pier behaviour and for displacements below the stiffening limit of the restoring force devices.

Bridge seismic sliding isolation systems: P. Tsopelas

To illustrate the use o:f these spectra, consider the design of an isolation system for a bridge with piers having an elastic period Tp, equal to 0.2 s (this is also the case of the tested bridge with flexible piers when the properties are extrapolated to prototype scale). A maximum beating displacement of 200 mm is allowed. The design options are. (a) Sliding bearings wi[h friction coefficient at high veloc i t y / , = 0.15, isolation period T= 1.5 s and no viscous damping. The pier shear force for elastic conditions will be about 0.49 Wd (Wd=carried deck weight). The effective period at displacement d = 200 mm is (definition of AASHTO m) Teff= 27r ( ~ - +~-)l~g~-l/2 (12)

et al.

309

Figure 16 presents spectra for the Japanese level 1, ground

condition 1 input. This motion has a peak ground acceleration equal to 0.1 g and a spectral shape similar to that of Figure 1 but with a peak spectral acceleration of 0.2 g. It is regarded as a weak motion with high frequency of occurrence. The parameters in the model of the isolation system are identical to those used in the construction of the spectra in Figure 15. That is fm,x = 0.15,fmi, = 0.05 and a = 23 s/m. For comparison it is noted that a nonisolated bridge would experience a pier shear force of 0.2 times the deck weight. Therefore, the enhanced isolation system results in a reduction of the pier shear force in this minor ground motion although the system has been designed to work for a much stronger motion. The reason for this desirable behaviour is the velocity dependence of both the friction force and the viscous damping force.
7. Conclusions

or Teff = 1.26 s. A fi~asible design would be to design the piers with a yield strength of 0.35 Wd, allow limited inelastic action in the piers and provide for a stiffer isolation system so that the effective period is about 1 s. In Japan, this design would be called Menshin. (b) Sliding bearings with/z = 0.15, isolation system period T= 2.8 s and viscou,; dampers with ~= 0.40. The pier shear force will be. about 0.30Wd for elastic pier conditions. The effective period at displacement d = 2 0 0 m m (equation (12)) is 1.78s. It should be noted that this estimate of effective period does not include the contribution of the viscous damping force. The actual effective period may be calculated since the actual effective stiffness is known (0.3 Wd/d, where d = 200 mm). It is equal to 1.64 s. This design is preferable to the first one because it prevents inelastic action from occurring in the piers, The design is acceptable provided that it is shown to have sufficient restoring force to prevent the development of significant permanent displacements. The 1991 AASHTO m specifies that an isolation system has sufficient restoring figrce when the lateral force at the design displacement d is at least 0.025 Wa greater than the lateral force at 0.5d. This requirement may be expressed as ~2 g~ d ~-80~

An experimental study of an isolated bridge and a comparable nonisolated bridge has been conducted. The isolation system consisted of sliding bearings, rubber restoring force devices and fluid dampers in seven different configurations. Moreover, the bridge piers could be configured to be either flexible or stiff (representing abutments). One of the systems had low friction bearings and it was configured for application in areas of low and moderate seismicity. Another system was configured with different isolation system properties at the two piers in order to selectively direct the seismic forces to the elements of the substructure. All other systems were configured for areas of strong seismicity, such as California and Japan. In this case the design criteria called for a maximum bearing displacement of less than 200 mm (in prototype scale) and peak isolation system force less than one-third of the deck weight (0.33 W). The experimental results demonstrated a substantial reduction of the seismic substructure forces in comparison to the response of the nonisolated bridge. Bearing displacements were less than 160 mm in the prototype scale and the isolation system forces were less than 0.35 W for all seismic excitations, except those of the Japanese level 2 bridge design motions. For these long period motions it was necessary to enhance the energy dissipation capacity of the
g E

(13)

30 20

~.
_ _ - -

o14

....

~ = 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . .

3P -=-4s- . . . . . . . . . . . .

where T is defined by equation (10) (this is not the effective period). The writers ]2 proposed a different definition of a system with sufficient restoring force, which may be expressed as
d -> /xgT2

. (9 rr . . . . .

T_p_=O=2_s

. . . . . . . .

z__lO
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RIGI_D_PI_E _R

m
0 , , , , i , , , , i , , , , i , , , , i , , , ,

I-

1.5
. . . . ~

2.0
Tp=O,4s

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

_~ 0.2

12rr2

(14)

IJJ

The latter requirement appears as more rational because it accounts for the effect of the characteristic strength (or friction) of the isolation system. The two requirements are identical when/z = 0.15. Thus, either equation (12) or (13) predict for the second design that d should be larger than 97.4 mm. Since d = 200 mm, the system has sufficient restoring force. In order to further describe the performance of sliding isolation systems which are enhanced with fluid dampers,

0 uJ

"" 0.1
< LU I

i .

RIGID PIER

~ 0.0
E

1.5

'

2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 ISOLATION SYSTEM PERIOD (sees)

4.0

Figure 16 Response spectra of p i e r - d e c k model of isolated bridge w i t h / ~ = 0.15, WJWd= 1.10, ~p = 0.05 f o r Japane s e level 1, g r o u n d condition 1 input

310

Bridge seismic sliding isolation systems: P. Tsopelas et al.

quake Engineering Research, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, 1994 Soong, T. T. and Constanfinou, M. C. (Eds) Passive and active structural vibration control in civil engineering, Springer-Verlag, ViennaNew York, 1994 Constantinou, M. C., Kartoum, A., Reinhorn A. M. and Bradford, P. 'Experimental and theoretical study of a sliding isolation system for bridges'. Report NCEER-91-0027, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York, Buffalo NY, 1991 Medeot, R. 'The evolution of seismic devices for bridges in Italy', 3rd World Congress on Joint Sealing and Bearing Systems for Concrete Structures, Toronto, Canada, 1991, Vol. 2 of Preprints, pp 1295-1320 Tsopelas, P. and Constantinou, M. C. 'NCEER-Taisei Corporation research program on sliding seismic isolation systems for bridgesexperimental and analytical study of a system consisting of lubricated PTFE sliding bearings and mild steel dampers', Report NCEER-940022, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, 1994 Civil Engineering Research Center-CERC, Manual of Menshin design method for highway bridges, Ministry of Construction, Japan 1992 (in Japanese) Constantinou, M. C., Tsopelas, P., Kim, Y.-S. and Okamoto, S. 'NCEER-Taisei Corporation research program on sliding seismic isolation systems for bridges-experimental and analytical study of Friction Pendulum System (FPS)', Report NCEER-93-0020, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, 1993 Constantinou, M. C., Mokha, A. and Reinhorn, A. M. 'Teflon bearings in base isolation II: modeling'. J. Struct. Engng, ASCE 1990, 116(2), 455-474 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Guide specifications for seismic isolation design, Washington, DC, 1991 Constantinou, M. C. and Symans, M. D. 'Experimental and analytical investigation of seismic response of structures with supplemental fluid viscous dampers'. Report NCEER-92-0032, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, 1992 Tsopelas, P., Okamoto, S., Constantinou, M. C., Ozaki, D. and Fujii, S. 'NCEER-Taisei Corporation research program on sliding seismic isolation systems for bridges-experimental and analytical study of systems consisting of sliding bearings, rubber restoring force devices and fluid dampers', Report NCEER-94-0002, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, 1994 Gates, J. H. 'Factors considered in the development of the California seismic design criteria for bridges', Proc., Workshop on Earthquake Resistance of Highway Bridges, Applied Technology Council, Palo Alto, CA, 1979, pp 141-162

isolation system by fluid viscous dampers. Under these conditions, the bearing displacements were less than 160 mm and the isolation system force was less than 0.33 W. Moreover, this enhanced system appeared to be insensitive to the frequency content of the input motion. The tests demonstrated how a selective direction of seismic forces to the various elements of the bridge substructure can be achieved. Moreover, the tests determined that the vertical ground excitation has minor effects on the response of the tested isolated bridge. An analytical model of the tested bridge was developed and shown to be capable of predicting the observed response. An example of the preliminary design of isolation systems by utilizing design spectra has been presented. A design with high friction bearings and fluid viscous dampers has been shown to have a significant advantage over a Menshin design in terms of capability to reduce the substructure seismic forces. Moreover, results have been presented which demonstrate that a sliding system enhanced with fluid viscous dampers and designed to work for a strong ground motion is also effective in frequently occurring weak ground motions. The reason for this desirable behaviour is the velocity dependence of both the friction force and viscous damping force. It is not difficult to envisage that elastomeric isolation systems can also be enhanced with fluid dampers and result in similarly effective isolation systems.

3 4

7 8

9 l0 11

Acknowledgments
This work has been supported by the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, the Taisei Corporation, Japan and Taylor Devices, Inc., N. Tonawanda, New York.

12

References
1 Kawashima, K. and Unjoh, S. 'Menshin design of highway bridges in Japan', Proc. 3rd US-Japan Workshop on Earthquake Protective Systems for Bridges, Berkeley, CA, Report NCEER-94-0009, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, 1994 2 Mayes, R. L. 'Seismic isolation of bridges in the USA', Proc., 3rd US-Japan Workshop on Earthquake Protective Systems for Bridges, Berkeley, CA, Report NCEER-94-0009, National Center for Earth-

13