Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 51–69 | Cite as

Cost assessment of isolation technique applied to a benchmark bridge with soil structure interaction

  • Davide ForcelliniEmail author
Original Research Paper


Bridges are lifeline structures acting as an important link in surface transportation network and their collapse under seismic excitations affects social and civil functionality. Historical bridge seismic collapses under earthquake actions have proved the significant role of soil structure interaction. The paper aims at evaluating bridge protection and seismic strengthening applying isolation technique. It is based on the application of a Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering methodology, introduced by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. The study presents a representative two—span bridge with several isolated configurations as affected by soil deformability. Isolation technique contribution is assessed in terms of costs quantities with peak ground acceleration levels. The study can be considered a first attempt to evaluate seismic effects of SSI by taking into account economic performance.


Earthquake Bridge Isolation PBEE SSI Non-linearity 



The study was possible thanks to Professor Ahmed Elgamal and Dr. Jinchi Lu from University of California, San Diego, who helped the author to perform the interface and introduce the isolation device models inside the platform. The author wants to acknowledge Professor James M. Kelly from University of California, Berkeley. His assistance in the definition of isolators properties, gave determinant contributions to this paper. The author wants to thank Prof. Janette Mularoni for her help in reviewing the paper.


  1. Attewell P, Farmer IW (1973) Attenuation of ground vibrations from pile driving. Ground Eng 6(4):26–29Google Scholar
  2. Bousshine L, Chaaba A, De Saxcé G (2001) Softening in stress–strain curve for Drucker–Prager nonassociated plasticity. Int J Plast 17(1):21–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caltrans (1994) The northridge earthquake. Post earthquake investigation report. Caltrans seismic design criteria version 1.3, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, 2003Google Scholar
  4. Chaudhary MTA, Abe M, Fujino Y (2001) Identification of soil-structure interaction effect in base-isolated bridges form earthquake records. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 21:713–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dafalias YF (1986) Bounding surface plasticity I: mathematical formulation and hypoplasticity. J Eng Mech ASCE 112(9):966–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elgamal A, Yang Z, Parra E, Ragheb A (2003) Modeling of cyclic mobility in saturated cohesionless soils. Int J Plast 9(6):883–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elgamal A, Lu J, Forcellini D (2009) Mitigation of liquefaction-induced lateral deformation in sloping stratum: three-dimensional numerical simulation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 135(11):1672–1682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elgamal A, Forcellini D, Lu J, Mackie KR, Tarantino AM (2012) A parametric study on several bridge-abutment configurations adopting a performance-based earthquake engineering methodology. In: II international conference on performance-based design in earthquake geotechnical engineering, Taormina, 28–30 MayGoogle Scholar
  9. Forcellini D (2014) Seismic assessment of soil structure interaction on several isolated bridge configurations adopting a PBEE methodology. In: Second European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology Istanbul, 25–29 Aug 2014Google Scholar
  10. Forcellini D, Gobbi S (2015) Soil structure interaction assessment with advanced numerical simulations. In: Computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering (COMPDYN) conference, Crete Island, 25–27 May 2015Google Scholar
  11. Forcellini D (2016) A direct-indirect cost decision making assessment methodology for seismic isolation on bridges. J Math Syst Sci 4(03–04):85–95. doi: 10.17265/2328-224X/2015.0304.002 Google Scholar
  12. Forcellini D, Banfi M (2013) Case studies on several isolated bridge configurations adopting a performance based design approach. In: Proceedings of the 7th New York city bridge conference on durability of bridge structures, CRC Press, New York City. ISBN: 978-1-13-800112-1, pp 185–194Google Scholar
  13. Forcellini D, Kelly JM (2014) The analysis of the large deformation stability of elastomeric bearings. J Eng Mech ASCE 04014036:1–10. doi: 10.1061/EM.1943-7889.0000729 Google Scholar
  14. Forcellini D, Tarantino AM, Elgamal A, Lu J, Mackie K (2012) Seismic assessment of isolated bridge configurations on deformable soils adopting a PBEE methodology. In: Proceedings (N.260) of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon, 24–28 SeptGoogle Scholar
  15. Iwan WD (1967) On a class of models for the yielding behavior of continuous and composite systems. J Appl Mech ASME 34:612–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jesmani M, Fallahi AM, Kashani HF (2012) Effects of geometrical properties of rectangular trenches intended for passive isolation is sandy soils. Earth Sci Res 1(2):137–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kelly JM (1997) Earthquake-resistant design with rubber. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kelly JM (2003) Tension buckling in multilayer elastomeric bearings. J Eng Mech ASCE 129(12):1363–1368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ketchum M, Chang V, Shantz T (2004) Influence of design ground motion level on highway bridge costs. Report no. Lifelines 6D01, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, 2004Google Scholar
  20. Kondner RL (1963) Hyperbolic stress-strain response: cohesive soils. J Soil Mech Found Div 89(SM1):115–143Google Scholar
  21. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, p 653Google Scholar
  22. Kunde MC, Jangid RS (2003) Seismic behavior of isolated bridges: a state-of the art review. Electron J Struct Eng 3(2):140–170Google Scholar
  23. Law HK, Lam IP (2001) Application of periodic boundary for large pile group. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127–10:889–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee Z-K, Wu T-H, Loh C-H (2003) System identification on the seismic behavior of an isolated bridge. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32(14):1797–1812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liao WI, Loh CH, Wan S (2000) Responses of isolated bridges subjected to near-fault ground motions recorded in Chi-Chi earthquake. In: Proceedings of international workshop on annual commemoration of Chi-Chi earthquake, vol II, pp 371–380Google Scholar
  26. Lu J, Mackie KR, Elgamal A (2011) BridgePBEE: OpenSees 3D pushover and earthquake analysis of single-column 2-span bridges, User manual, beta 1.0. (
  27. Mackie KR, Stojadinovic B (2006) Fourway: a graphical tool for performance-based earthquake engineering. J Struct Eng 132(8):1274–1283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mackie KR, Wong J, Stojadinovic B (2008) Integrated probabilistic performance-based evaluation of benchmark reinforced concrete bridges. Report No. 2007/09, University of California Berkeley, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  29. Mackie KR, Wong J-M, Stojadinovic B (2010a) Post-earthquake bridge repair cost and repair time estimation methodology. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39(3):281–301Google Scholar
  30. Mackie KR, Lu J, Elgamal A (2010b) User interface for performance-based earthquake engineering: a single bent bridge pilot investigation. In: 9th US national and 10th Canadian conference on earthquake engineering: reaching beyond borders, Toronto, 25–29 JulyGoogle Scholar
  31. Mackie K, Lu J, Elgamal A (2012) Performance-based earthquake performance-based earthquake assessment of bridge systems including ground-foundation interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2(2012):184–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Makris N, Zhang J (2004) Seismic response analysis of a highway overcrossing equipped with elastomeric bearings and fluid dampers. J Struct Eng 130(6):830–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL (2009) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation, user command-language manual. ( Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, OpenSees version 2.0
  34. Morgan TA, Mahin SA (2011) The use of base isolation systems to achieve complex seismic performance objectives. Report No. 2011/06, University of California Berkeley, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  35. Mroz Z (1967) On the description of anisotropic work hardening. J Mech Phys Solids 15:163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nemat-Nasser S, Zhang J (2002) Constitutive relations for cohesionless frictional granular materials. Int J Plast 18(4):531–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Parra E (1996) Numerical modeling of liquefaction and lateral ground deformation including cyclic mobility and dilation response in soil systems. Ph.D. thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, TroyGoogle Scholar
  38. Prevost JH (1985) A simple plasticity theory or frictional cohesionless soils. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 4(1):9–17Google Scholar
  39. Radi E, Bigoni D, Loret B (2002) Steady crack growth in elastic-plastic fluid-saturated porous media. Int J Plast 18(3):345–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ryan KL, Kelly JM, Chopra AK (2005) Nonlinear model for lead-rubber bearings including axial-load effects. J Eng Mech 131(12):1270–1278. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thakkar SK, Maheshwari R (1995) Study of seismic base isolation of bridge considering soil structure interaction. In: Third international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, vol 1, pp 397–400Google Scholar
  42. Tongaonkar NP, Jangid RS (2003) Seismic response of isolated bridges with soil-structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 23(4):287–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ucak A, Tsopelas P (2008) Effect of soil-structure interaction on seismic isolated bridges. J Struct Eng 134(7):1154–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vlassis AG, Spyrakos CC (2001) Seismically isolated bridge piers on shallow soil stratum with soil-structure interaction. Comput Struct 79(32):2847–2861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yang Z, Elgamal A, Parra E (2003) A computational model for cyclic mobility and associated shear deformation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng (ASCE) 129(12):1119–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of San MarinoSan MarinoRepublic of San Marino

Personalised recommendations