Seismic Design of Lifeline Bridge using Hybrid

Seismic Isolation
Murat Dicleli, P.E., M.ASCE1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This paper presents the merits of a hybrid seismic isolation system used for the seismic design of a major bridge. The bridge
is analyzed for two different arrangements of seismic isolation systems. The first arrangement consists of friction pendulum bearings at all
substructure locations; the other incorporates a hybrid system where laminated elastomeric bearings are used at the abutments and friction
pendulum bearings at the piers. Analysis results have demonstrated that the hybrid seismic isolation system provided a structure with a
fundamental period long enough to attract smaller seismic forces, while controlling the magnitude of isolation bearings displacements. It
also provided a more uniform distribution of seismic forces among substructure elements. As a result, higher seismic forces on the piers
were reduced, allowing for a more economical design of substructures. The hybrid seismic isolation system helped to control the
wind-induced vibrations and reduced the sizes of the isolation bearings.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1084-0702共2002兲7:2共94兲
CE Database keywords: Seismic design; Bridges; Seismic isolation; Friction; Damping.

Introduction
Highway 17, in Ontario, Canada, forms part of the Trans-Canada
Highway and is a strategic link in the interprovincial highway
system. Along this route, a two-lane highway is currently serving
provincial, regional, and local traffic. In response to identified
capacity deficiencies and growing public concern, the construc-
tion of a four-lane highway system was initiated. This new high-
way system contains a number of structures, including the twin
structures of the Mississippi River crossing.
The design of the Mississippi River twin bridge presented a
number of unique challenges. The bridge is located in a valley
that, from a geological point of view, is famous for its sensitive
Leda clay and possesses the highest-risk seismic zone classifica-
tion in Ontario with a zonal acceleration of 0.2g 共Canadian 2000兲.
The bridge crosses a 78 m wide river and a Class A provincial
wetland. The substructures would not be allowed within the riv-
er’s watercourse, and their size and locations were restricted to
minimize the disturbance to the wetlands.
The relatively large size of the structures and the higher-risk
seismic zone classification of the area resulted in seismic forces
that could not be accommodated with a conventional structural
system and satisfy the imposed environmental constraints at the
same time 共the limitation on the footing plan area was 64 m2兲.
Therefore, a structure with a seismic isolation system was consid-
ered to reduce and evenly distribute the horizontal forces to the
substructures.
1 employed in the selection of the structural system will be ex-
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Construction,
Bradley Univ., Peoria, IL 61625. E-mail: mdicleli@bradley.edu
Note. Discussion open until August 1, 2002. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on December 8, 2000; approved on May 24, 2001. This
paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 2, March
1, 2002. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2002/2-94 –103/$8.00⫹$.50 per
page.
94 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MARCH/APRIL 2002
The concept of seismic base isolation has been adopted into
practice with the development of natural rubber bearings 共Kelly
1997; Naeim and Kelly 1999兲 and became more popular with
laminated elastomeric 共LE兲 bearings 共Derham et al. 1975; Naeim
and Kelly 1999兲. Other base isolation systems have also been
developed, including low damping natural rubber bearings 共Kelly
and Quiroz 1992兲; high damping natural rubber bearings 共Derham
et al. 1985兲, lead-plug bearings 共LEP兲, which were invented in
New Zealand 共Robinson and Tucker 1977, 1983兲 and have been
used extensively for the seismic base isolation of buildings 共Char-
leson et al. 1987兲 and bridges 共Built 1982兲; and friction pendulum
共FP兲 bearings 共Zayas et al. 1987, 1996兲, which have been used in
the seismic design of buildings 共Al-Hussaini et al. 1994兲 and
bridges 共Constantinou et al. 1993; Zayas et al. 1996兲. Both the FP
and LE bearings with or without a lead plug have been incorpo-
rated into design codes 共Blakeley 1982; Ministry 1983; Interna-
tional 1997; AASHTO 1999兲.
A number of different seismic isolation bearings mentioned
above were investigated, and a hybrid solution was deemed the
most appropriate for the seismic design of the bridges. The hybrid
system consists of FP bearings at the piers and LE bearings at the
abutments. This is the first bridge to be built with a seismic iso-
lation design of this kind in Canada and possibly in the United
States 共Michael Constantinou, personal communication, June 14,
2000兲.
This paper describes the step-by-step procedure for the seismic
design of the bridges and outlines the merits of hybrid seismic
isolation. In the subsequent sections, first the site and bridge prop-
erties will be defined, and then the preliminary design criteria
plained. The seismic isolation system, seismic loading, and struc-
tural model used in the analysis and design of the structure will
also be defined. These will be followed by the presentation of the
analysis results for the bridge with the FP bearings alone and the
hybrid system.
Site Geotechnical Properties
The results of geotechnical investigation at the locations of sub-
structures have indicated that the site soil profile consists of three

J. Bridge Eng., 2002, 7(2): 94-103

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Bridge geometry
separate layers of cohesive soil deposit overlying limestone bed-
rock. The first layer is a desiccated upper crust of silty clay ap-
proximately 4 m thick. The next layer of soil is roughly 30 m
thick and consists of firm to stiff silty clay to clay. The third layer
of soil extends for about 24 m down to the limestone bedrock and
consists of stiff to very stiff silty clay. The site soil condition is
assumed as stiff for analysis purposes.
The geotechnical analyses have demonstrated that, in the event
of an earthquake, the foundation soil may suffer a partial loss of
undrained shear strength and decrease in stiffness under cyclic
loading. For design purposes, it was estimated that the desiccated
upper crust of soil and underlying clay might suffer a loss of
respectively 10 and 25% in the undrained shear strength under
seismic conditions. This may produce permanent displacements
of foundation soil in the order of 50 to 100 mm. Consequently, a
possible formation of a gap between the piles and upper crust of
soil is anticipated.
Bridge Properties
The plan view and elevation of the twin bridges is illustrated in
Fig. 1. The total length of the bridge is 374 m and the width is
11.46 m. Each bridge has six spans carrying two traffic lanes. The
largest span is 85 m long and is located over the river. The spans
at the west and east ends of the bridge are respectively 54 and 40
m long. The rest of the spans are 65 m long. The bridge has a
slab-on-steel-girder deck. Four steel girders are supporting a 225
mm thick concrete slab and are spaced at 3.25 m. The girders are
haunched on the piers on both sides of the river. The depths of the
girders are 4.2 m at the haunches and 2.2 m elsewhere. The bridge
deck is continuous from one abutment to the other and supported
by five piers in between. The geometry and dimensions of the
piers is shown in Fig. 2. All piers have identical geometry. How-
ever, the height of the piers varies between 7.2 and 9.3 m along
the bridge. The piers and abutments are supported on piles ex-
tending down to the limestone bedrock. A total of 24 and 28
HP310⫻110 steel piles are used respectively under each abutment
and pier.
Preliminary Design Considerations
Abutments and Foundations
As mentioned earlier, a permanent displacement of foundation
soil of the order of 50 to 100 mm and a possible formation of a
J. Bridge Eng., 2002, 7(2): 94-103
Fig. 2. Pier geometry
gap between the pile and the upper crust of foundation soil are
anticipated in the case of an earthquake. A similar event was
observed in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, which resulted in
damage to the foundations of Struve Slough Bridge on Highway 1
共Mitchell et al. 1991兲. In the preliminary design stage, it was
planned to batter as many piles as possible to reduce permanent
lateral displacement of the foundations. The steel piles were de-
signed as laterally unsupported along the potentially unstable
upper crust of foundation soil. The piles are also embedded suf-
ficiently into the pile cap to prevent a possible pullout failure.
Additional measures were taken at the abutment foundations.
Dead-man anchors were used to tie back the abutment footings to
reduce the force and displacement demand on the piles. Light-
weight backfill material with a unit weight of 14 kN/m3 was used
behind the abutments to reduce the effect of dynamic soil pressure
in the event of an earthquake.
Pier Geometry
In the planning stage, a hammerhead pier was recommended for
aesthetic reasons. Hammerhead piers are simple cantilever struc-
tures. Rocking of such piers in the event of an earthquake is
usually more severe than that of piers with multiple columns due
to their narrower foundations and the presence of only a single
support. Although a rocking motion may favor the seismic per-
formance of a bridge if it can be controlled 共Priestley et al. 1996兲,
excessive rocking may result in large displacements at the super-
structure level and uplift of piles. This may lead to a potential
pullout failure of the piles, as observed in past earthquakes. Ad-
ditionally, relying on the skin friction between the piles and the
soil to resist such uplift forces is generally not recommended in
cohesive soils due to the possible formation of a gap between the
pile and the soil upon cyclic movements. The flexural demand at
the base of a single column is also quite large, as any lateral force
applied at the pier top will create a moment equal to its product
with the column height.
To overcome such performance deficiencies and to have an
aesthetic appearance similar to that of a hammerhead pier, two
smaller hammerhead piers were joined using a tie beam to obtain
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MARCH/APRIL 2002 / 95
 a moment-resisting frame, as shown in Fig. 2. This new pier may
not experience as much hysterical rocking movement due to the
presence of multiple supports and a wider foundation. Moreover,
the axial force couple generated at the pier supports reduces the
flexural demand on the columns as they offset some of the base
moment produced by lateral loads in the transverse direction. The
reduction in flexural moments also leads to an improvement in
shear resistance of the columns. Although, substructures of
bridges with seismic isolation systems are designed to remain
within the elastic range 共Priestley et al. 1996; Canadian 2000兲, the
energy dissipation due to possible cyclic deformation of column
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ends in this new rigid frame pier is an added safety if the isolation
system malfunctions. Note that if the substructures of a seismi-
cally isolated bridge is designed to have lateral resistance lower
than that of the isolator units and allowed to undergo inelastic
deformation, the seismic force level will be controlled by the
substructures, and the isolator units above will be rendered inef-
fective.
Inadequate ductility due to poor confinement has been respon-
sible for damage to bridge columns 共Mitchell et al. 1995兲. As
properly reinforced spiral or circular columns provide a superior
ductility at plastic hinging regions 共Priestley et al. 1996兲, a circu-
lar cross section was selected for the columns.
Expansion Joints
In the preliminary design stage, two alternative configurations
were considered for the expansion joints along the bridge deck.
The first alternative was to provide several expansion joints be-
tween the abutments to effectively accommodate the movements
due to temperature variations. The other was to build a continuous
superstructure with expansion joints only at the abutments. This
second alternative requires bearings and modular expansion joints
that can accommodate large thermal movements 共130 mm兲 due to
the substantial length of the structure.
It was anticipated that the first alternative might result in a
higher initial cost and expensive maintenance due to the presence
of a number of intermediate expansion joints 共Burke 1988兲. Such
bridges are also more vulnerable to seismic forces due to the lack
of superstructure continuity 共Dicleli and Bruneau 1995a; Priestley
et al. 1996兲 and may require larger support widths and restrainer
ties to accommodate the seismically induced relative displace-
ments at expansion joints 共Tseng and Penzien 1973; Penzien and
Chen 1975兲. Failures of this kind of bridges have been recurrently
observed in past earthquakes 共EERI 1991; Bruneau et al. 1996兲.
The elimination of the intermediate expansion joints may re-
sult in less-expensive maintenance and a lower initial cost as
smaller girder sizes may be obtained due to the effect of continu-
ity. Additionally, continuity provides a better distribution of seis-
mic forces to substructure elements 共FHWA 1987; Dicleli and
Bruneau 1995b兲 and reduces the vulnerability of the structure to
large ground displacements and liquefaction. Thus, a final deci-
sion was made to use a continuous superstructure based on the
above considerations.
Bearings
For the range of loads and thermal displacements, spherical and
pot bearings 共Watson 1992兲 were one of the few bearing types
available in the market at the time the structure was designed and
were initially considered. In the preliminary design stage, all the
bearings were fixed in the transverse direction of the bridge to
restrain the lateral movements due to wind-induced forces. This
96 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MARCH/APRIL 2002
J. Bridge Eng., 2002, 7(2): 94-103
produced a transverse direction fundamental period of 0.43 s, a
maximum seismic shear force of 7,690 kN at pier #2, and very
large pier sizes. In the longitudinal direction, several alternatives
were tried by fixing the bearings at only one or two piers to allow
the rest of the structure to expand or contract due to temperature
variations. This produced an uneven distribution of seismic forces
among the substructures and even larger pier sizes at the location
of longitudinally fixed bearings. Such large pier sizes would cause
significant disturbance to the wetlands and violate the imposed
environmental constraints. Furthermore, a poor structural behav-
ior was anticipated in the event of an earthquake due to the pos-
sibility of the bridge deck hammering the abutments. Based on
the above observations, a decision was made to use a seismic
isolation system.
Seismic Isolation Bearings
It has been proven that increasing the fundamental period of vi-
bration and energy dissipation capacity of a structure is an effi-
cient way of improving its seismic behavior 共Priestley et al. 1996;
Naeim and Kelly 1999兲. This can be achieved by using a seismic
isolation system that possesses a built-in energy dissipation
mechanism and is capable of providing a longer fundamental pe-
riod. As mentioned earlier, the fundamental period of the structure
without seismic isolation bearings is 0.43 s, and the bridge site
has stiff soil conditions. For design response spectra developed
for such soil conditions, an elongation of period beyond 0.6 s
generally results in a considerable reduction in spectral accelera-
tions 共International 2000; AASHTO 1998; Canadian 2000兲.
Therefore, using a seismic isolation system is appropriate.
A number of different seismic isolation bearings were investi-
gated: FP and LEP bearings were found to be the most commonly
used seismic isolation systems in North America 共Naeim and
Kelly 1999兲, and both of them have been incorporated into design
codes 共AASHTO 1999; International 1997兲. A decision was made
to use one of these bearings.
LEP Bearings
LEP bearings are made of vulcanized rubber laminated between
steel plates, confining a cylindrical lead core at the center of the
bearing. The rubber provides the lateral flexibility to elongate the
structure period. The steel plates prevent bulging of the rubber,
provide a high vertical stiffness, and confine the lead core. The
lead core dissipates energy upon cyclic movement and provides
resistance to wind. The plan area and the total height of the rubber
layers determine the flexibility of the bearing, and the diameter of
the lead core determines the desired level of energy dissipation or
equivalent hysteretic damping 共EHD兲.
FP Bearings
FP bearings are composed of an articulated slider coated with a
self-lubricated composite liner and a concave spherical surface as
shown in Fig. 3. A pendulum motion for the supported structure is
achieved as the articulated slider rides on the spherical surface
and at the same time dissipates energy due to friction. The weight
of the bridge also acts as a restoring force as the bridge rides on
the concave surface. The period and stiffness of the isolation bear-
ing are selected by choosing the appropriate radius of curvature.
The level of EHD is chosen by selecting an appropriate dynamic
friction for the bearing.
 Fig. 4. Hybrid design response spectrum
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

role in the selection of the isolation bearing. Table 1 clearly indi-

cates that the properties of the FP bearings are not affected by
temperature variation as much as those of LEP bearings. LEP
bearings are not recommended for temperatures below ⫺40°C as
glassification of rubber material may occur at such temperatures.
Additionally, the stiffness of the LEP bearings varies as a function
of temperature. A 60°C temperature variation may result in a 30%
change in bearing stiffness. Based on this information, FP bear-
ings were found to be more suitable for the bridge.
Fig. 3. Friction pendulum bearings

Design Response Spectrum

Selection of Isolation Bearings
The Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design 共AASHTO
1999兲 contains information for the designer to consider the effects
of aging, temperature, wear, contamination, and scragging on the
performance of the isolation system. These effects are reflected on
the stiffness and characteristic strength of the isolator using prop-
erty adjustment factors. These factors are provided for both elas-
tomeric bearings and sliding isolation systems with PTFE and
bimetallic interfaces. The composite liner used for the FP bear-
ings is different than those mentioned above and meets stringent
specifications for use in military applications. Therefore, the
guide specification was not used in the selection process. The
selection of the isolation bearings was based on the information
listed in Table 1, which was obtained from the manufacturers. The
size, cost, and energy dissipation properties of both LEP and FP
bearings are comparable 共Priestley et al. 1996兲. However, the un-
usually cold climatic conditions of the bridge site played a major
The bridge falls in seismic performance zone 3 where the multi-
mode response spectrum method is required for the seismic analy-
sis of the bridge by the code 共AASHTO 1998; Canadian 2000兲.
Therefore, an appropriate design response spectrum was required
for the analysis of the bridge. Preliminary analyses indicated that
the structure possesses different levels of damping for the struc-
tural and isolated modes of vibration. Structural modes primarily
represent the vibration of the substructure elements where a 5%
damping ratio is assumed. For the modes governed by the seismic
isolation system, the structure has an EHD ratio of 30%. Accord-
ingly, a hybrid response spectrum with different levels of damp-
ing ratio for structural and isolated modes of vibration is used in
the analysis 共AASHTO 1999兲. The response spectra that consti-
tute the hybrid response spectrum used in the analysis are shown
in Fig. 4. They are defined by the following expression 共Canadian
2000兲:

Table 1. Comparison of Seismic Isolaton Bearings

Characteristic LEP bearing FP bearing
Cost Comparable Comparable
Size Comparable Comparable
Energy Comparable Comparable
dissipation
Stability Stability problem under vertical Stability under vertical load is
load may exist at large not as much of a concern
displacements
Sensitivity to Not recommended for May be used at such
temperature temperatures lower than ⫺40°C as temperatures
glassification may occur
Stiffness Lateral stiffness is a function of Equivalent lateral stiffness
temperature 共30% change in slightly changes due to
stiffness for a temperature temperature variation
variation of 60°C兲

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MARCH/APRIL 2002 / 97

J. Bridge Eng., 2002, 7(2): 94-103

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Structural model of bridge deck
AS i A
C sm ⫽ ⭐2.5 (1)
BT e B
where C sm ⫽elastic seismic response coefficient for isolated struc-
tures; A⫽zonal acceleration ratio, S i ⫽site coefficient; T e ⫽period
of vibration; and B⫽damping coefficient listed for various damp-
ing ratios in the code 共Canadian 2000兲.
The zonal acceleration ratio is 0.2 g for the bridge site. For
stiff soil conditions with depth to rock larger than 60 m, the site
coefficient is 1.50. The damping coefficient is 1.0 for 5% damp-
ing and 1.7 for 30% damping.
Structure Model
A 3D model is necessary for a realistic representation of the be-
havior of the bridge and load distribution among its various com-
ponents when it is subjected to seismic loads. Some of the re-
search data on the correlation of computer analysis results with
actual seismic behavior 共Kawashima and Penzien 1976; Douglas
1979; Imbsen and Penzien 1979; Wilson 1986兲 were used to
model the structure. The analytical models for each component of
the bridge are presented in the following subsections.
Deck
The bridge superstructure is modeled as a 3D beam element, as
shown in Fig. 5. Full composite action between the slab and steel
girders is assumed in the model 共Douglas 1979; Dicleli 2000a,b兲.
The moment of inertia of the superstructure about the Y-axis (I y
⫽3.55 m4 ) is obtained by first calculating the moment of inertia
of each composite girder using an effective slab width 共Canadian
2000兲 and then multiplying the result by the number of girders.
The moment of inertia of the superstructure about the Z-axis (I z
⫽59.50 m4 ) is also calculated assuming full composite action
between the slab and the girders. The strong diaphragms provided
between the girders are assumed to help achieve this full compos-
ite action. The superstructure is divided into a number of seg-
ments, and its mass 共14,580 kg/m兲 is lumped at each nodal point
connecting the segments. Each mass was assigned four dynamic
degrees of freedom; translations in the X- and Y-directions of the
bridge and rotations about the X- and Z-axes, as shown in Fig. 5.
The remaining two dynamic degrees of freedom are
98 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MARCH/APRIL 2002
J. Bridge Eng., 2002, 7(2): 94-103
Fig. 6. Structural model of piers
ignored deliberately to avoid triggering unwanted modes of vibra-
tion that are not useful in the analysis. All six static degrees
of freedom were used in the analysis.
The in-plane translational stiffness of the deck is relatively
much higher than that of the other members of the bridge. Ac-
cordingly, at the abutment and pier locations, the bridge deck is
modeled as a transverse rigid bar of length equal to the deck
width, as shown in Fig. 5. This transverse rigid bar is used to
simulate the interaction between the axial deformation of the col-
umns and torsional rotation of the bridge deck, as well as the
interaction between the in-plane rotation of the deck and displace-
ments of the isolation bearings. The transverse rigid bar was el-
evated to the level of the center of gravity of the bridge deck
using a set of vertical rigid elements attached to it. This was done
to accurately define the vertical location of the mass of the bridge
deck. The rigid vertical elements are then connected to the isola-
tion bearings, as shown in Fig. 5.
Substructures
The total weight of the piers constitutes 20% of the total weight
of the bridge. Therefore, their influence on the structure response
could be significant. Each pier is modeled as a rigid frame, as
shown in Fig. 6. Both the cap-beam and the columns are divided
into a number of segments, and their tributary mass is lumped at
the nodes connecting each segment. The parts of the column and
cap-beam within the joint are modeled as rigid elements.
The columns are connected to a rigid pile cap that is modeled
using a horizontal and a vertical rigid bar, as shown in Figs. 5 and
6. The length of the vertical rigid bar is set equal to the footing
depth to accurately estimate the effect of seismic forces trans-
ferred to the piles 共Duan 1996兲. Rotational and translational
springs are connected at the end of the vertical rigid bar to simu-
late the effect of foundation stiffness on the structure response.
Two separate plane frame models for the foundations are con-
structed to calculate the stiffness of the springs in two orthogonal
directions. To obtain a plane frame structure, the piles in each row
perpendicular to the plane of the frame are lumped together and
represented by a single equivalent frame element, as shown in
Fig. 7. Each equivalent frame element is assigned 21 nodes, di-
viding it into 20 equal segments. The lateral stiffness of the foun-
dation soil is calculated at each node level using the coefficient of
 The above-horizontal force is the resistance of the bearing to
lateral loads and is directly proportional to the friction coefficient,
displacement, and reaction force applied on the bearing.
In the response spectrum analysis of the structure, an equiva-
lent bearing stiffness, k e , and an EHD ratio representing the en-
ergy dissipation of the bearing are used. The equivalent bearing
stiffness shown in Fig. 8 is obtained by simply dividing the maxi-
mum horizontal force by the corresponding maximum bearing
displacement, D max .
␮W W
k e⫽ ⫹ (3)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

D max R
The EHD ratio, B EH , is expressed as 共Earthquake 1999兲:

冉 冊
Fig. 7. Structural model to calculate spring constants at pier base 2 ␮
B EH ⫽ (4)
␲ D
␮⫹
R
subgrade reaction for the soil, which is recommended as a con- The bearings are modeled as 3D beam elements and connected
stant, 33 MN/m3, to a depth of 5 m and linearly increasing at a between the vertical rigid bars and the pier cap under each girder
rate of 5.80 MN/m3/m beyond 5 m. Spring elements with stiffness location as shown in Fig. 5. Pin connection is assumed at the
equal to that of the soil are then attached to each node. The joints linking the pier cap to the bearings. The product of the
stiffness of the springs is calculated by multiplying the coefficient elastic modulus, E eb , and moment of inertia, I be , of the beam
of subgrade reaction at each node level by the pile width 共0.30 element is obtained by setting the equivalent stiffness of the bear-
m兲, tributary length between the nodes 共2.25 m兲, and number of ing equal to the stiffness of the 3D beam element:
piles lumped to form a frame element. The equivalent frame ele-
ments are connected to the pile cap modeled as a beam element. k eq h 3b
The same procedure is repeated to obtain a plane frame model in E be I be ⫽ (5)
3
the other direction. The models are then assigned a unit horizontal
displacement and rotation to calculate the stiffness of translational where h b 共216 mm兲 is the actual height of the bearing.
and rotational springs. The stiffness of the translational springs in
the X- and Y-directions are calculated as 111,960 and 118,760 LE Bearings
kN/m, respectively. The stiffness of the rotational springs about
the X- and Y-axes are calculated as 19,445,000 and 5,688,160 For the analyses of the bridge with hybrid seismic isolation sys-
kN•m/rad, respectively. tem, the LE bearings at the abutments are idealized as elastic 3D
beam elements and connected to the rigid bars at girder locations.
Pin connection is assumed at the joints linking the bearings to the
FP Bearings supports. The product of the elastic modulus, E eb , and moment of
The force-displacement hysteresis loop for the FP bearing is inertia, I be , of the beam element is obtained by the following
shown in Fig. 8 共Earthquake 1999兲. There are three parameters expression 共Dicleli 2000a兲:
defining the hysteresis behavior: the radius, R, of the concave G b A b h 2b
surface, the friction coefficient, ␮, and the reaction force, W, act- E be I be ⫽ (6)
3
ing on the bearing, R and ␮ for the bridge bearings are 2,235 mm
and 0.07, respectively. The horizontal force, F, at any displace- where G b and A b are respectively the shear modulus and surface
ment D, is expressed as 共Earthquake 1999兲 area of the bearing. The shear modulus is 1.06 MPa at a tempera-
ture of 20°C. The bearings’ plan dimensions are 785⫻785 mm
W
F⫽␮W⫹ D (2) and the thickness is 285 mm.
R

Analysis of Bridge

The analyses of the bridge were conducted using the program

S-Frame 共Softek 2000兲. The bridge is analyzed for two different
configurations of base isolation systems: the first consists of FP
bearings at all substructure locations, and the second incorporates
a hybrid system where LE bearings are used at the abutments and
FP bearings at the piers.
An iterative multimode response spectrum analysis technique
is used to obtain the isolation bearing displacements and other
structural responses. First, a maximum displacement, D i max , is
assumed for each FP bearing, i. The assumed displacements, the
reactions due to the self weight of the structure, and the friction
Fig. 8. Force-displacement hysteresis loop for friction pendulum
coefficient of the bearings are substituted in Eq. 共3兲 to calculate
bearings
the equivalent stiffness for each FP bearing. The calculated

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MARCH/APRIL 2002 / 99

J. Bridge Eng., 2002, 7(2): 94-103

 Table 2. Modal Periods and Percentage of Mass Participation for
Friction Pendulum 共FP兲 and Hybrid Base Isolation Systems
Percentage of mass
participation
Period Longitudinal Transverse
Mode number FP Hybrid FP HYBRID FP Hybrid
1 2.09 1.96 0 0 23 64
2 1.98 1.75 0 80 43 0
3 1.95 1.56 80 0 0 1 Fig. 9. Modes of vibration for friction pendulum base isolation sys-
4 1.63 1.30 0 0 14 15 tem alone
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Higher modes T⬍1.30 T⬍1.30 20 20 20 20

modes of vibration with a 20% mass contribution, which is the

equivalent stiffness is then substituted in Eq. 共5兲 to obtain the
stiffness of the beam elements used in the model. The EHD ratio
for each bearing is also calculated by substituting the bearing
properties 共radius and friction coefficient兲 and displacements in
Eq. 共4兲. The average of the EHD ratios obtained for each bearing
is used in the analysis of the structure. The multimode response
spectrum analysis of the structure is conducted using the program
S-Frame 共Softek 2000兲. The new bearing displacements obtained
from the analysis are compared with the initially assumed bearing
displacements. If the difference is smaller than an assumed level
of accuracy, the iteration is stopped; otherwise the iteration is
continued manually with the new displacements until the desired
convergence is achieved.
As the EHD ratio is a function of bearing displacements, dif-
ferent values were obtained at each iteration step, but it eventually
converged to 30%. The 5% modal damping of the structure and
the 30% EHD of the isolation system is incorporated in the analy-
ses using a hybrid response spectrum. The final hybrid response
spectrum used in the design is composed of a mixture of spectral
accelerations for 5 and 30% damping ratios. The damping coeffi-
cients for damping ratios of 5 and 30% are respectively obtained
as 1.0 and 1.7 from the design code 共Canadian 2000兲 and substi-
tuted in Eq. 共1兲 to calculate the spectral accelerations. The spec-
tral accelerations for the 5% damping ratio are used for periods
(T e ⬍1.30 s) of the structural modes of vibration. Those for 30%
damping ratio are used for the larger periods of the isolated
modes of vibration. In the analysis of the structure with hybrid
seismic isolation system, the elastomeric bearings were assumed
to have a 5% damping ratio.
The magnitude of the vertical reaction force on the bearings
undoubtedly varies due to vertical ground accelerations, and con-
sequently so does the friction resistance throughout the earth-
quake. However, seismic vertical accelerations generally have a
much higher frequency content than the corresponding horizontal
ones. Thus, it is assumed that the resulting fluctuations of fric-
tional resistance will average themselves during any sliding ex-
cursion, simultaneously abating the significance of vertical accel-
erations 共Dicleli and Bruneau 1995c兲.
total mass of the substructure elements. Modes 1, 2, and 4 are the
transverse modes of vibration and mode 3 is the longitudinal. The
total mass contribution for the isolated modes of vibration in each
direction is 80% of the structure mass, which is the total mass of
the superstructure. The fundamental period of the structure is 2.09
s.
Maximum Isolation Bearing Displacements
In the longitudinal direction, all bearings have a relative uniform
displacement of 115 mm. The bearing displacements are identical
due to the large relative axial rigidity of the bridge deck and
lateral stiffness of substructures. In the transverse direction, how-
ever, the bearing displacements vary along the bridge. This results
from the unusual flexibility of the bridge in the transverse direc-
tion since the width of the bridge 共11.46 m兲 is relatively small
compared to its total length 共374 m兲. The iterative multimode
response spectrum analysis of the structure in the transverse di-
rection converged to 2 separate sets of bearing displacements, as
shown in Fig. 10. This may be due to the closely spaced modal
frequencies of the structure and the sensitivity of the relatively
small bearing stiffness to calculated displacements. As seen in
Fig. 10, the maximum bearing displacements at the west and east
abutments are respectively 213 and 236 mm and are much larger
than those at the piers. This results from the smaller bearing stiff-
ness at the abutments. The dead load reactions at the abutments
are only 20% of those at the piers due to the smaller tributary
weight of shorter end spans and the uplift reactions created by

Analysis Results for FP Bearings Alone

Mode Shapes and Periods of Vibration

A total of 25 modes of vibration are considered in the analysis of
the structure. Table 2 displays the periods of vibration of the
structure for the first four modes, and Fig. 9 displays the corre-
Fig. 10. Isolation bearings’ transverse direction displacements for
sponding mode shapes. The first four modes of vibrations are
friction pendulum base isolation system alone
those involving the isolation system. The rest are the nonisolated

100 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MARCH/APRIL 2002

J. Bridge Eng., 2002, 7(2): 94-103

 Table 3. Seismic Shear Forces Transferred to Substructures for Fric-
tion Pendulum 共FP兲 and Hybrid Base Isolation Systems
Seismic shear force 共kN兲
Longitudinal Transverse
Dead load reaction
Substructure 共kN兲 FP HYBRID FP HYBRID
East abutment 2,028 246 744 276 536
Pier 1 12,008 1,456 1,373 1,308 1,094
Pier 2 11,564 1,402 1,318 1,146 1,378
Pier 3 8,236 999 951 852 1,096 Fig. 11. Modes of vibration for hybrid base isolation system
Pier 4 9,680 1,174 1,112 1,086 1,173
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Pier 5 8,340 1,012 960 1,224 836

West abutment 1,712 207 744 299 480
much longer adjacent spans. Since the lateral resistance of FP
bearings is directly proportional to the dead load reactions acting
on the bearings, a very small equivalent stiffness or lateral resis-
tance is obtained at the abutments. Consequently, the end spans
behaved almost like a cantilever beam in the transverse direction.
This produced even larger bearing displacements as the seismi-
cally induced forces acquire the shape of the deflected structure
共Chopra 2001兲.
It is noteworthy that a time history analysis of the structure
would result in a more accurate estimate of the bearing displace-
ments. However, it is anticipated that the obtained displacements
are more conservative since the response spectrum analysis
method combines the modal displacements regardless of their di-
rection.
Seismic Shear Forces
The total dead load reactions and the maximum seismic shear
forces at each substructure location are displayed in Table 3. The
lateral resistance provided by FP bearings is proportional to the
dead-load reactions acting on the bearings. Thus, the seismic
shear forces are proportional to these reactions, as shown in the
table. Although the abutments are structurally stronger than the
piers due to their massive size, only 7% of the total seismic force
is transferred to the abutments. For example, the seismic shear
force in the longitudinal direction at the west abutment is 246 kN,
while the adjacent pier 1 attracts a seismic shear force of 1,456
kN. This uneven distribution of seismic shear forces among sub-
structures may result in larger pier sizes and needs to be avoided.
Remarks on Performance of Structure
The bearing displacements at the abutments are very large. Larger
bearings are needed to accommodate such displacements. This
may result in a higher structure cost. Therefore, a reduction in the
bearing displacements at the abutments is necessary. Moreover,
the abutments attract only a small fraction of the seismic forces
acting on the structure. A more uniform distribution of seismic
forces among substructure elements is needed for a superior struc-
ture performance and a more economical design.
The transverse shear forces due to the effect of wind were also
calculated at each substructure location. It was found that the
wind-induced forces at the abutments exceed the frictional resis-
tance provided by the FP bearings. This may produce wind-
induced vibrations at the end spans. Wind-locking devices need to
be installed at the abutments to prevent such vibrations.
Reducing the radius, R, of the friction pendulum bearings at
the abutments to obtain displacements in the same order as those
at the piers 共⬃134 mm兲 required bearings with a radius of 195
mm. Such bearings have a very steep riding surface due to their
small radius and require a vertical movement of 55 mm to accom-
modate a horizontal displacement of 134 mm. Therefore, it was
unfeasible to use such bearings at the abutments since the super-
structure must be designed to accommodate a relative vertical
displacement of 51 mm.
It was anticipated that the above problems might be addressed
if a seismic isolation system with lateral stiffness properties inde-
pendent of the magnitude of reaction force is used at the abut-
ments. Accordingly, it was decided to use a hybrid seismic isola-
tion system consisting of LE bearings at the abutments and FP
bearings at the piers.
Analysis Results for Hybrid Seismic Isolation
The lateral stiffness of LE bearings varies as a function of tem-
perature. Therefore, the structure was analyzed for a minimum
and a maximum stiffness corresponding to temperatures of re-
spectively 20 and ⫺40°C. The analysis results for the bearings
with the maximum stiffness are used to design the abutments and
those for the bearings with minimum stiffness are used to design
the piers and assess the displacement capacity of FP bearings.
A third analysis is also conducted using an average stiffness
obtained by increasing the minimum stiffness by 35%, as
recommended elsewhere 共Ministry 1996兲. The results from this
analysis are used to study the influence of the hybrid seismic
isolation system on the performance of the structure.
Mode Shapes and Periods of Vibration
Table 2 displays the periods of vibration of the structure for the
first four modes and Fig. 11 displays the corresponding mode
shapes. The first four modes of vibrations are those involving the
isolation system. The rest are the structural or nonisolated modes
of vibration with 20% mass contribution, as in the case of the
structure with FP bearings alone. Modes 1, 3, and 4 are the trans-
verse direction modes of vibration. The total mass contribution
for the isolated modes of vibration in each direction is 80% of the
Fig. 12. Isolation bearing’s transverse direction displacements for
hybrid base isolation system

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MARCH/APRIL 2002 / 101

J. Bridge Eng., 2002, 7(2): 94-103


Fig. 13. Seismic shear force distribution along bridge
structure mass. The fundamental period of the structure is 1.96 s,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
which is slightly smaller than 2.09 s of the system with FP bear-
ings alone.
Maximum Isolation-Bearing Displacements
In the longitudinal direction, all bearings have a uniform displace-
ment of 102 mm. This is slightly smaller than 115 mm displace-
ment of the system with FP bearings alone. The bearing displace-
ments in the transverse direction are shown in Fig. 12. These
displacements are considerably different than those of the system
with FP bearings alone. The LE bearings restrained the displace-
ments at the abutments due to their relatively larger lateral stiff-
ness compared to that of FP bearings. The bearing displacement at
the east abutment is now reduced from 236 to 66 mm. However,
those at piers 2, 3, and 4 are slightly increased. It is noteworthy
that, in this case, the iterative multimode response spectrum
analysis of the structure in the transverse direction converged to
only one set of bearing displacements.
Seismic Shear Forces
The seismic shear forces at each substructure location are tabu-
lated in Table 3. The shear forces are more evenly distributed
among substructure elements compared to those of the system
with FP bearings alone, as shown in Fig. 13. In the case of the
hybrid seismic isolation system, 21% of the total seismic force in
the longitudinal direction is transferred to the abutments. The use
of LE bearings at the end supports increased the abutment shear
force in the longitudinal direction from 246 to 744 kN, while the
force in pier 1 decreased from 1,456 to 1,373 kN. In the trans-
verse direction, the west abutment shear force increased from 276
to 536 kN, while the force in pier 5 decreased from 1,224 to 836
kN. The increase in the seismic shear force at the abutments did
not impact their design since their width is determined by the size
of the bearings and expansion joints.
Conclusions
• The hybrid seismic isolation system provided a structure with
a fundamental period long enough to attract smaller seismic
forces, while controlling the magnitude of bearing displace-
ments.
• It also resulted in a more uniform distribution of seismic
forces among substructure elements. Consequently, the higher
seismic forces on the piers were reduced, allowing for a more
economical design of substructures.
• The hybrid seismic isolation system helped to control the
wind-induced vibrations at end spans and reduce the bearing
sizes by 38%.
• At the end of a seismic excitation, if the ratio of the final
displacement to the radius of the friction pendulum bearing is
smaller than the friction coefficient, the system may not re-
102 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MARCH/APRIL 2002
J. Bridge Eng., 2002, 7(2): 94-103
center. The elastomeric bearings may provide a restoring force
to recenter the structure in such circumstances.
References
Al-Hussaini, T. M., Zayas, V. A., and Constantinou, M. C. 共1994兲. ‘‘Seis-
mic isolation of a multi-story frame structure using spherical sliding
isolation systems.’’ Technical Rep. NCEER-94-0007, National Center
for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, N.Y.
AASHTO. 共1998兲. LRFD bridge design specifications, Washington, D.C.
AASHTO. 共1999兲. Guide specifications for seismic isolation design,
Washington, D.C.
Blakeley, R. W. G. 共1982兲. ‘‘Code requirements for base isolated struc-
tures.’’ Proc., Int. Conf. on Natural Rubber for Earthquake Protection
of Buildings and Vibration Isolation, Malaysian Rubber Research and
Development Board, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 292–311.
Bruneau, M., Wilson, J. W., and Tremblay, R. 共1996兲. ‘‘Performance of
steel bridges during the 1995 Hyogoken Nanbu 共Kobe, Japan兲 earth-
quake.’’ Can. J. Civ. Eng., 23共3兲, 678 –713.
Built, S. M. 共1982兲. ‘‘Lead rubber dissipators for the base isolation of
bridge structures.’’ Rep. 289, School of Engineering, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Univ. of Auckland, New Zealand.
Burke, M. P., Jr. 共1988兲. ‘‘Bridge deck joints.’’ NCHRP Synthesis of High-
way Pract., No. 141, Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C.
Canadian Standards Association. 共2000兲. Canadian highway bridge
design code—Final draft, Toronto.
Charleson, A. W., Wright, P. D., and Skinner, R. I. 共1987兲. ‘‘Wellington
Central Police Station—Base isolation of an essential facility.’’ Proc.,
Pacific Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand National So-
ciety for Earthquake Engineering, Wairekei, New Zealand, 2, 377–
388.
Chopra, A. 共2001兲. Dynamics of structures: Theory and applications to
earthquake engineering, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.
Constantinou, M. C., Tsopelas, P., Kim, Y.,-S., and Okamoto, S. 共1993兲.
‘‘NCEER-Taisei Corporation research program on sliding isolation
systems for bridges: Experimental and analytical study of friction
pendulum system.’’ Rep. No. 93-0020, National Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research, Buffalo, N.Y.
Derham, C. J., Kelly, J. M., and Thomas, A. G. 共1985兲. ‘‘Nonlinear natu-
ral rubber bearings for seismic isolation.’’ Nucl. Eng. Des., 84共3兲,
417– 428.
Derham, C. J., Learoyd, S. B. B., and Wootton, L. R. 共1975兲. ‘‘Buildings
on springs to resist earthquakes.’’ Proc., 5th European Conf. on Earth-
quake Engineering, International Committee on Earthquake
Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey.
Dicleli, M. 共2000a兲. ‘‘A rational design approach for prestressed-
concrete-girder integral bridges.’’ Eng. Struct., 22共3兲, 230–245.
Dicleli, M. 共2000b兲. ‘‘Simplified model for computer-aided analysis of
integral bridges.’’ J. Bridge Eng., 5共3兲, 240–248.
Dicleli, M., and Bruneau, M. 共1995a兲. ‘‘Seismic performance of multi-
span simply supported slab-on-girder steel highway bridges.’’ Eng.
Struct., 17共1兲, 4 –14.
Dicleli, M., and Bruneau, M. 共1995b兲. ‘‘Seismic performance of single-
span simply supported and continuous slab-on-girder steel highway
bridges.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 121共10兲, 1497–1506.
Dicleli, M., and Bruneau, M. 共1995c兲. ‘‘An energy approach to sliding of
single-span simply supported slab-on-girder steel highway bridges
with damaged bearings.’’ Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 24共3兲, 395–
409.
Douglas, M. B. 共1979兲. ‘‘Experimental dynamic response investigations
of existing highway bridges.’’ Proc., Workshop on Earthquake Resis-
tance of Highway Bridges, Applied Technology Council, Palo Alto,
Calif., 497–523.
Duan, L. 共1996兲. ‘‘Bridge-column footings: An improved design proce-
dure.’’ Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 1共1兲, 20–24.
Earthquake Protection Systems Inc. 共1999兲. ‘‘Friction pendulum seismic
isolation bearing: Details and specifications for bridges.’’ Richmond,
Calif.
 EERI. 共1999兲. ‘‘Costa Rica earthquake reconnaissance report.’’ Earth-
quake Spectra, Special Supplement to Vol. 7.
Federal Highway Administration 共FHWA兲. 共1987兲. ‘‘Seismic design and
retrofit manual for highway bridges.’’ FHWA-IP-87-6, U.S. Dept. of
Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Imbsen, R. A., and Penzien, J. 共1979兲. ‘‘Evaluation of analytical proce-
dures used in bridge seismic design.’’ Proc., Workshop on Earthquake
Resistance of Highway Bridges, Applied Technology Council, Palo
Alto, Calif., 468 – 496.
International Code Council. 共2000兲. International building code, Falls
Church, Va.
International Conference of Building Officials. 共1997兲. ‘‘Earthquake
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
regulations for seismic-isolated structures.’’ Uniform building code,
Appendix Chapter 16, Whittier, Calif.
Kawashima, K., and Penzien, J. 共1976兲. ‘‘Correlative investigations on
theoretical and experimental dynamic behavior of a model bridge
structure.’’ Rep. No. UCB/EERC 76/26, Earthquake Engineering Re-
search Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Kelly, J. M. 共1997兲. Earthquake resistant design with rubber, 2nd Ed.,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, National Information Ser-
vice for Earthquake Engineering, Springer, London and Richmond,
Calif.
Kelly, J. M., and Quiroz, E. 共1992兲. Mechanical characteristics of neo-
prene isolation bearings.’’ Rep. No. UCB/EERC-92/11, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Ministry of Transportation. 共1996兲. Structural manual, Quality and Stan-
dards, Transportation Engineering Branch, Bridge Office,
St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada.
Ministry of Works and Development. 共1983兲. ‘‘Design of lead rubber
bearings.’’ Civil Division Publication CDP 818/A, Wellington,
New Zealand.
Mitchell, D., Bruneau, M., Williams, M., Anderson, D., Saatcioglu, M.,
and Sexsmith, R. 共1995兲. ‘‘Performance of bridges in the 1994
Northridge earthquake.’’ Can. J. Civ. Eng., 22共2兲, 415– 427.
J. Bridge Eng., 2002, 7(2): 94-103
Mitchell, D., Tinawi, R., and Sexsmith, R. 共1991兲. ‘‘Performance of
bridges in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake—Lessons for Canadian
designers.’’ Can. J. Civ. Eng., 18共4兲, 711–734.
Naeim, F., and Kelly, J. M. 共1999兲. Design of seismic isolated structures:
From theory to practice, Wiley, Chichester, U.K.
Penzien, J., and Chen, M. 共1975兲. ‘‘Seismic response of highway
bridges.’’ Proc., U.S. National Conf. on Earthquake Engineering,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., and Calvi, G. M. 共1996兲. Seismic design
and retrofit of bridges, Wiley, New York.
Robinson, W. H., and Tucker, A. G. 共1977兲. ‘‘A lead-rubber shear
damper.’’ Bull. New Zealand Natl. Soc. Eng., 10共3兲, 151–153.
Robinson, W. H., and Tucker, A. G. 共1983兲. ‘‘Test results for lead-rubber
bearings for the William M. Clayton Building, Toe Toe Bridge, and
Waiotukupuna Bridge.’’ Bull. New Zealand Natl. Soc. Eng., 14共1兲,
21–33.
Softek. 共2000兲. S-Frame: 3-D Structural Analysis Software, Richmond,
B.C., Canada.
Tseng, W. S., and Penzien, J. 共1973兲. ‘‘Analytical investigations of the
seismic response of long multiple span highway bridges.’’ Rep. No.
UCB/EERC 73/12, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of
California, Berkeley, Calif.
Watson Bowman Acme. 共1992兲. WABO-FYFE Structural Bearing
Product Data, Amherst, N.Y.
Wilson, J. C. 共1986兲. ‘‘Analysis of the observed seismic response of a
highway bridge.’’ Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 14共3兲, 339–354.
Zayas, V. A., Constantinou, M. C., Tsopelas, P., and Kartoum, A. 共1996兲.
‘‘Testing of friction pendulum seismic isolation bearings for bridges.’’
Proc., 4th World Congress on Joint Sealing and Bearing Systems for
Concrete Structures, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Mich.
Zayas, V. A., Low, S. S., and Mahin, S. A. 共1987兲. ‘‘The FPS earthquake
resisting system: Experimental report.’’ Rep. No. UCB/EERC 87/01,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California,
Berkeley, Calif.
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MARCH/APRIL 2002 / 103