Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 641–656 | Cite as

Effects of isolation on the seismic response of bridges designed for two different soil types

Original Research Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of lead rubber isolators on the seismic response of bridges designed according to current codes for two different soil conditions: hard and medium type soils, in order to assess their applicability for the design of new bridges or retrofit of existing ones. The study was conducted for two levels of earthquake, one corresponding to a return period of 50 years and a service limit state, the other with a return period of 1,000 years and a failure limit state. Twenty one subduction earthquake records on the two types of soil were used to evaluate the linear and nonlinear dynamic response of a set of bridges designed for this purpose with and without base isolation. The response parameters evaluated are the maximum relative displacement on top of the piers, the maximum pier distortion, the maximum shear forces in the piers and the ductility demands for the isolators. The results presented are the average of these maxima for the various earthquakes. This study is an expansion of a previous one in which the seismic response of 36 bridges considering models with and without base isolators, structures with linear base isolators and bridges with nonlinear isolators. The results of this study confirm the conclusions previously obtained and show that the isolation can have beneficial effects even for bridges located in medium soil types.

Keywords

Bridges Lead-rubber bearings Seismic response of bridges on hard and medium soils Ductility demands 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (2005) Standard specifications for seismic design of highway bridges. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (2000) Guide Specifications for seismic isolation design. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Caltrans California Department of Transportation (1987) Bridge design specifications, State of California. Sacramento, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  4. CFE Comisión Federal de Electricidad (1993) Manual de diseño de Obras Civiles: Diseño por Sismo, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  5. Chaudhary MT, Abe M, Fujino Y (2001) Performance evaluation of base-isolated Yama-age bridge with high damping rubber bearings using recorded seismic data. Eng Struct 23: 902–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ciampoli M, Pinto P (1995) Effects of soil-structure interaction on inelastic seismic response of bridge piers. J Struct Eng 121(5): 806–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hosam-Eddin MA, Abdel-Ghaffar AM (1995) Modeling of rubber and lead passive-control bearings for seismic analysis. J Struct Eng 121: 1134–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hwang JS (1996) Evaluation of equivalent linear analysis methods of bridge isolation. J Struct Eng 122(8): 972–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hwang JS, Sheng LH (1994) Equivalent elastic seismic analysis of base-isolated bridges with lead-rubber bearings. Eng Struct 16(3): 201–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Imbsen RA (2001) Use of isolation for seismic retrofitting bridges. J Bridge Eng 6(6): 425–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jangid RS (2004) Seismic response of isolated bridges. J Bridges Eng 9: 156–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jara JM et al. (2009) Procedure for determining the seismic vulnerability of bridges in Mexico (in Spanish). Technical report to National Council for Science and Technology (CONACyT), MexicoGoogle Scholar
  13. NZMWD New Zealand Ministry of Works and Development: (1983) Design of lead-rubber bridge bearings. Civil Division Publication 818/A, WillingtonGoogle Scholar
  14. Olmos BA (2008) Nonlinear seismic response of Mexican bridges with base isolation accounting for soil structure interaction effects. Dissertation, Texas A&M UniversityGoogle Scholar
  15. Priestley MJN, Seible F, Calvi GM (1996) Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Saiidi M, Maragakis E (1999) Effect of base isolation on the seismic response of milti-colum bridges. Struct Eng Mech 8(4): 411–419Google Scholar
  17. Spyrakos CC, Vlassis AG (2002) Effect of soil-structure interaction on seismically isolated bridges. J Earthq Eng 6(3): 391–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Turkington DH, Cooke N, Moss PJ, Carr AJ (1989) Development of a design procedure for bridges on lead-rubber beatings. Eng Struct 11, January, 2–8Google Scholar
  19. Varum H, Sousa R, Delgado W, Fernandes C, Costa A, Jara JM, Jara M, Álvarez JJ (2009) Comparative structural response of two steel bridges constructed 100 years apart. Structure and infrastructure engineering: maintenance, management, life-cycle design and performance, Taylor & Francis, ISSN: 1573–2479, ISNN on line: 1744–8980, doi: 10.1080/15732470903059390
  20. Warn GP, Whittaker AS (2004) Performance estimates in seismically isolated bridge structures. Eng Struct 26: 1261–1278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wen Y (1976) Method for random vibration of hysteretic systems. J Eng Mech Div 102(EM2): 249–263Google Scholar
  22. Wen-I L, Chin-Hsiung L, Bor-Han L (2004) Comparison of dynamic response of isolated and non-isolated continuous girder bridges subjected to near-fault ground motions. Eng Struct 26: 2173–2183CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Facultad de Ingeniería CivilUniversidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de HidalgoMoreliaMéxico
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations