Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
article
info
Article history:
Received 9 July 2007
Received in revised form
29 March 2008
Accepted 27 April 2008
Available online 9 June 2008
Keywords:
Seismic isolation
Bridge
Nonlinear analysis
Comparative modeling
Friction pendulum system
a b s t r a c t
Friction Pendulum Systems (FPS) are seismic isolation bearings that have been used as a means of bridge
retrofit in numerous cases around the world. To assess their impact on bridge performance, models are
needed to capture the intricate behavior of these highly nonlinear elements. In this paper, a new model for
the FPS that can represent the variation of the normal force and friction coefficient, bi-directional coupling
and large deformation effects during nonlinear dynamic analyses is presented. The paper also examines
the effect of modeling parameters on the response of a three dimensional multi-span continuous (MSC)
steel girder bridge model seismically isolated with the FPS.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Seismic isolation can be an effective tool for the earthquake
resistant design of bridges that can be used in both new
construction and retrofit. The Friction Pendulum System (FPS) is a
seismic isolation bearing, with a mechanism based on its concave
geometry and surface friction properties (Fig. 1) [7]. The supported
structure is administered into a pendulum motion as the housing
plate simultaneously glides on the concave dish and dissipates
hysteretic energy via friction [15].
A detailed inventory analysis of existing highway bridges in
the Central and Southeastern US (CSUS) shows that multi-span
continuous (MSC) and multi-span simply supported (MSSS) Steel
Girder bridges are among the most common classes of bridges
found in the CSUS inventory [2,16,17]. Previous research identified
significant vulnerabilities of the steel fixed and rocker bearings
employed in these bridges to seismic loads [10]. Seismic isolation
of these bridges via replacing the existing steel bearings with
the Friction Pendulum System (FPS) may be an effective tool for
improving the earthquake performance [5,22].
Characteristics of the FPS pertaining to durability under severe
environmental conditions, reduced height, and insensitivity to
fR
z }| { z}|{
+ N
f = N sgn()
R
(1)
3205
= fmax Df e(a||)
(3)
(4)
where fmax,0 and fmax,p are the values of fmax at very low and
high pressures respectively, Df max is the difference between fmax,0
and fmax,p , and is a constant that controls the variation of fmax
between very low and very high pressures. Typical values of
3206
Fig. 3. Deformed shape of the seismic isolator between the superstructure and the substructure with concave dish at the (a) bottom (b) top.
(5)
2x + 2y + (z R)2 = 0.
(7)
G
1
x
=
k Gk
R
(z R)
T
(8)
3207
and
x
cos
=
s=
k
k
y
k k
cos
sin
T
(9)
= arctan
x kk + y kk
R z
(10)
denotes the angle between the frictional force component and the
xy plane. The local slider restoring forces for all phases is:
f = fx
fy
fz
T
= Nr
(11)
normal component
z}|{
n
r=
z }| {
kk s
(12)
fg
(13)
rz
(14)
4. Evaluation platform
The Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation
(OpenSees) is an open source software framework for simulating the earthquake response of structural and geotechnical
systems [12]. OpenSees has an open source object-oriented architecture in the C++ programming language that maximizes its
modularity, thus making it a viable choice for research purposes.
Material and element models describing the hysteretic response of
new structural members can be developed as C++ classes in an
object-oriented platform and inserted into the existing library of
OpenSees without the need for performing changes in the existing
solution algorithms. Although OpenSees provides a variety of hysteretic uniaxial forcedeformation response models, none of them
was found to be capable of adequately representing the mathematical model described previously. Consequently, a 3-D zero-length
element class and a complimentary material class that can have the
option to include/exclude the modeling aspects of the FPS were implemented into the OpenSees library.
1 0
0
0 0 0 1
0
0
0
z y
1
0
0 0 0
0
1
0
z
0
x .
L = 0
0
0 1 0 0 0
0
0
1 y x
0
(15)
The top and bottom signs in Eq. (15) are used to differentiate
between the downward and upward positions of the FPS,
respectively. The transformation matrix, L , depends exclusively on
geometry and is nonlinear to account for the variation of the P
moments. The exclusion of the vertical rise in the concave dish
corresponds to z = 0, = 0, and N = fg . In this case Eq. (11)
becomes:
T
T
y
f = fx fy fz
= N x + x
(16)
+ y 1 .
R
5. Bridge modeling
The bridge type selected for the nonlinear time history (NLTH)
analysis is an MSC Steel Girder Bridge seismically isolated with
FPS isolators. The 3-D SIB model was developed in OpenSees.
This model includes material and geometric nonlinearities. The
geometry and modeling approach for the bridge is illustrated in
Figs. 6 and 7. The bridge has three spans and a continuous slabon-girder deck with a total of eight steel girders. The seismic
isolation of the bridge is achieved by placing FPS bearings under
each of the eight girders above the piers and abutments. The FPS
isolation bearings are selected to achieve approximately a 2.02.5
s fundamental period. The FPS bearings have R = 99 cm with
an in-plane displacement capacity of 23 cm and positioned as the
concave dish at the top. The slider diameter has 7.7 cm to ensure
pressures below 310 MPa under gravity, live and seismic loads in
3208
Fig. 6. Multi-span continuous (MSC) steel girder bridge general elevation and modeling details.
are 2.44 m square and use eight piles. The horizontal, kt , and
rotational, kr , stiffnesses of the foundation are 130.5 kN/mm and
(6.06)105 kN m/rad, respectively. It is assumed that the bridge
ends can tolerate maximum isolator movements in the plane of
the bridge deck and that pounding between the deck and the
abutments do not occur. Structural damping is assumed to be 5%.
6. FPS Modeling
Seven SIB models are generated with the above properties
where the only difference is in the FPS modeling assumptions. The
first model is theoretically exact, i.e., accounts for the variations
of the N and , has bi-directional coupling of the sliding forces
and incorporates P effects. The second model is a simplified
bilinear model that is insensitive to the variations in N and ,
with uncoupled bi-directional sliding forces and small deformation
assumptions. In Model 2, the constant value of N is taken as the
corresponding value after gravity load analysis and as 0.07.
The third model is developed to monitor the influence of not
accounting for the variations of N on the response of the FPS. It
is the same as Model 1 with the only difference of assuming a
constant N of the corresponding value after gravity load analysis.
The fourth model is developed to identify the influence of the bidirectional coupling in estimating the response of the FPS. It is
3209
Table 1
Summary of model properties
Modela
Modeling aspect
1
Normal force
Bi-directional coupling
Large deformations
Fiction coefficient
x
x
x
x
3
x
x
x
6b
7c
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
c Seven models with value of ranging from 0.05 to 0.12 with increments of 0.01.
Table 2
Ground motion suite
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Earthquake record
Scale
Longitudinal
Transverse
Vertical
0.098
1.285
0.304
0.473
0.718
0.492
0.173
0.453
0.978
0.721
0.069
1.585
0.199
0.411
0.608
0.612
0.15
0.501
1.096
0.785
0.092
1.229
0.227
0.209
1.264
0.471
0.102
0.507
2.086
0.818
7.932
0.767
3.279
1.263
0.421
1.434
3.654
1.248
0.787
0.552
3210
Fig. 10. Time history of the N/No for the FPS during the Nahanni earthquake NLTH
analysis.
vertical direction for all of the records except for the Loma Prieta,
Helena and Landers. The time-history of the N/No of the Model 1
FPS isolator for the Nahanni earthquake is given in Fig. 10. The
maximum allowable N is limited by the allowable pressure of 310
MPa on the slider, which corresponds to N/No = 5.4. This ratio was
not exceeded during any of the NLTH analyses, however, during the
Nahanni earthquake a peak value of N/No = 3.51 were reached.
This substantial increase is indicative of a proportional increase in
the post-yield stiffness and yield force of the isolator. It is observed
from Fig. 10 that the contact between the two sliding surfaces was
lost at least once which resulted in N/No = 0. This uplift caused
instantaneous yet complete loss of stiffness of the isolators during
the earthquakes. However, due to the indeterminacy of the model
there was no instability.
Fig. 11 shows the normalized forcedeformation (NF-ND)
histories of an FPS isolator on top of a pier among Models 1 to
Fig. 11. Force-deformation history of the FPS in the longitudinal directions on top of the pier for the N. Palm Springs earthquake record with (a) Model 1 (b) Model 2 (c)
Model 3 and; (d) Model 4.
Fig. 12. The influence of modeling assumptions on (a) MNF; (b) MND; and (c) dmax .
3211
Fig. 13. The influence of constant value of assumptions on (a) MNF; (b) MND;
and (c) dmax .
3212
median abutment forces from the isolators were approximately twice as large as those at the piers. This is a result of
the uneven distribution of isolator stiffness properties along
the bridge as a function of deck tributary mass. However, isolators acquired similar MND on the median at the abutments
and piers.
References
Fig. 14. Comparison of the (a) total MNF transferred to the pier, MNFpier , and the
total MNF transferred to the abutment, MNFabutment ; (b) MND on top of the pier,
MNDpier , and abutments, MNDabutments .
[1] Almazan J, De la Llera J. Physical model for dynamic analysis of structures with
FPS isolators. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 2003;32:115784.
[2] Choi E. Seismic analysis and retrofit of Mid-America bridges. Ph.D. thesis.
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology; 2002.
[3] Constantinou MC, Tsopelas P, Kim Y-S, Okamoto S. NCEER-Taisei corporation research program on sliding seismic isolation system for bridges: Experimental and analytical study of a frictional pendulum system (FPS). Technical
Report NCEER-93-0020. Buffalo (New York): National Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research; 1993.
[4] Constantinou MC, Mokha A, Reinhorn A. Teflon bearings in base isolation. II:
Modeling. J Struct Eng 1990;116(2):45574.
[5] Dicleli M, Mansour MY. Seismic retrofitting of highway bridges in Illinois using
friction pendulum seismic isolation bearings and modeling procedures. Eng
Struct 2003;25(9):113956.
[6] Dicleli M. Seismic design of lifeline bridge using hybrid seismic isolation.
J Bridge Eng 2002;7(2):94103.
[7] Earthquake Protection Systems. Technical Characteristics of Friction Pendulum Bearings, Vallejo, California. 2003.
[8] HITEC (Highway Innovative Technology Evaluation Center). Technical evaluation report: Evaluation findings for earthquake protection systems, inc. friction pendulum bearings. USA. 1998.
[9] Jangid RS. Optimum friction pendulum system for near-fault motions. Eng
Struct 2004;27(3):34959.
[10] Mander JB, Kim DK, Chem SS, Premus GJ. Response of steel bridge bearings to
the reversed cyclic loading. Report no. NCEER 96-0014. Buffalo (New York):
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research; 1996.
[11] Mayes R. Impediments to the implementation of seismic isolation. ATC
seminar on response modification technologies for performance-based
seismic design. 2002.
[12] Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL, Jeremic B. Open System for
Earthquake Engineering Simulation (Opensees). Berkeley, California. 2006.
[13] Mokha A, Constantinou M, Reinhorn A. Teflon bearings in base isolation. I:
Testing. J Struct Eng 1990;116(2):43854.
[14] Mosqueda G, Whittaker AS, Fenves GL. Characterization and modeling of
friction pendulum bearings subjected to multiple components of excitation.
J Struct Eng 2004;130(3):43342.
[15] Naeim F, Kelly J. Design of seismic isolated structures. 1st ed. New York: Wiley;
1996.
[16] Nielson B, DesRoches R. Influence of modeling assumptions on the seismic
response of multi-span simply supported steel girder bridges in moderate
seismic zones. Eng Struct 2006;28(8):108392.
[17] Nielson B. Analytical fragility curves for highway bridges in moderate seismic
zones. Ph.D. thesis. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia
Institute of Technology; 2005.
[18] Nakajima K, Iemura H, Takahashi Y, Ogawa K. Pseudo dynamic tests and
implementation of sliding bridge isolators with vertical motion. In: 12th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 2000.
[19] Park YJ, Wen YK, Ang AHS. Random vibration of hysteretic systems under bidirectional motions. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 1986;14(4):54360.
[20] Takahashi Y, Iemura H, Yanagawa S, Hibi M. Shaking table test for frictional
isolated bridges and tribological numerical model of frictional isolator. In: 13th
World conference on earthquake engineering. 2004.
[21] Tsopelas PC, Constantinou MC, Reinhorn AM. 3D-BASIS-ME: Computer
program for nonlinear dynamic analysis of seismically isolated single and
multiple structures and liquid storage tanks. Technical report MCEER94-0010. Buffalo (New York): Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research; 1994.
[22] Tsopelas PC, Constantinou MC, Okamota S, Fujii S, Ozaki D. Experimental study
of bridge seismic sliding isolation systems. Eng Struct 1996;18(4):30110.
[23] Warn PW, Whittaker AS. Performance estimates in seismically isolated bridge
structures. Eng Struct 2004;26(9):126178.
[24] Zayas VA, Low S. Seismic isolation for extreme cold temperatures. In: 8th
Canadian conference on earthquake engineering. Vancouver: Canadian
Association for Earthquake Engineering; 1999.