Iemura p98b PDF

Control of Seismic Energy Partitioning
of Bridge Piers with Sliding Rubber

Bearing
Hirokazu Iemura1, Yoshikazu Takahashi1 and Youzhen Chen1
1
Dept. of Civil Eng. Systems, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
ABSTRACT
Base isolation bearings have many good properties for seismic protection of bridges. Recently
a new sliding rubber bearing was developed, which has both characteristics of sliding and
rubber bearings. When we install these seismic isolation systems, reasonable inelastic design
method is required. But since the conventional inelastic design method takes into account only
bridge piers, it is hard to design seismic isolators which can cope with the interaction between
seismic isolators and bridge piers. The purpose of this study is to understand the relationship
between the seismic isolation systems and piers with respect to their energy dissipation etc.
and to attempt to propose a design procedure for isolated bridges.
1.
INTRODUCTION
After the Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake, base isolated design is becoming popular in bridge
construction and retrofit. New technology of bridge protecting systems is very actively being
developed. There are many kind of base isolation systems, such as lead rubber bearings, high
damping rubber bearings, sliding bearings, and so on. Sliding bearings can directly cut off
input seismic force, and are usually used with rubber bearings for adding restoring force to
avoid excessive drift of superstructures. Recently new sliding rubber bearings were very actively developed, such as isolators with double sliding plates to increase the energy dissipation.
On the other hand, when we install these seismic isolation systems, reasonable design
method has to be developed for very severe earthquake motion. Although the inelastic design
method is suitable for level II earthquake design load, an important problem arises, that is the
control of seismic energy partitioning between the seismic isolation systems and bridge piers.
The seismic isolation systems can reduce the seismic forces and as the results, the bridge piers
can survive under strong earthquake. However, since the conventional inelastic design method
takes into account only bridge piers, it is hard to design optimal seismic isolation systems that
CONTROL OF SEISMIC ENERGY PARTITIONING OF BRIDGE PIERS
mg
Isolator
Bilinear Model
mp
Pier
Takeda Model
Figure 1. Analytical Model
can cope with the ductility of piers. The purpose of this study is to understand the relationship
between the seismic isolation systems and piers with respect to their energy dissipation and to
attempt to propose a design procedure for isolated bridges.
2.
INTERACTION BETWEEN ISOLATOR AND PIER
2.1.
Introduction
In isolated bridges, the fundamental design concept is that the damage concentrates on isolators, and piers would be safe under earthquakes. However if strong earthquake, i.e. Hyogo-ken
Nanbu Earthquake, strikes the isolated briges, it is possible that not only isolators but also piers
would deform in the nonlinear range. Therefore it is necessary to develop reasonable design
method which takes into account this situation.
For that, we have to clarify the interaction between the nonlinearity of isolators and that of
piers. In this section, we investigate the influence of the variation of isolators specification on
response of isolated bridges.
2.2.
2.2.1.
Yield Strength Ratio Yield Seismic Intensity Diagram

Feature of Diagram
It is well known that responses of isolated bridges change due to yield strength of isolators.
In this section, yield strength Ratio vs yield seismic Intensity diagrams (R-I diagram) are
calculated.
In this study, a 2 DOF system for an isolated pier is used, which consists of a pier and
an isolator (Figure 1). The pier is modelled as tri-linear whose hysteresis is Takeda model.
Normally the 2nd stiffness of a sliding bearing would be zero. But since a sliding bearing and
a rubber bearing are usually used together for the isolator system, in this study, we modelled it
as bilinear whose 2nd stiffness is possitive. Therefore, parameters of this isolator are its yield
strength and its 2nd stiffness.
In this diagram, two parameters are used. The first parameter is the yield strength ratio R,
IEMURA, TAKAHASHI AND CHEN
Input Earthquake
Parameter R
(Yield Strength Ratio)
Pby
R=
Ppy
2nd Stiffness
RESPONSE
ANALYSIS
mg
Pby
Ductility of Pier
Ductility of Isolator
Max. Displ. of Superstructure
Isolator
mp
Parameter I
(Yield Seismic Intensity)
Ppy
I=
(mg + mp )g
Pier
Ppy
Ductility of Pier
Contour
Display
R-I Diagram for Ductility of Pier
I
R
Figure 2. Calculate of R-I Diagram
Table 1. Parameters of Case Study
Stiffness (N/m)
2nd
2.0e8
Input Earthquake
Kobe JMA
Case 1
El Centro
Case 4
5.2e7
1.3e6
Case 2
Case 5
Case 3
Case 6
which is expressed as follows:

R=
Pby
Ppy
where Pby : yield strength of isolator and Ppy : yield strength of pier. And the second one is
the seismic intensity I, which is expressed in next equation:
I=
Ppy
(mg + mp ) g
where mg , mp : mass of superstructure and pier respectively, g : gravity.

When these two parameters are decided, a 2 DOF system for a isolated pier is defined.
Through the response analysis of this model, some indices of the response, i.e. the ductility of
pier, can be obtained. Changing the set of parameters, a 3 dimentional R-I diagram is drawed.
Final, the R-I diagram is defined using contour lines.
This diagram can clearly express the influence of yield strength of isolators and that of piers
on the response of isolated piers.
2.3.
Case Study
Through a parametric study, we investigate the influence of the characteristics of isolators on

the response of isolated piers. Parameters for this study are the 2nd stiffness and the input
earthquake ( Table 1 ).
In the specification of Road Bridges, it is necessary to use two kind of earthquake for
checking their seismic performance. The first one is called Type-I ground motion, which
is induced by plate-boundary type earthquake. For this kind of earthquake, we use the El
Centro record. The second one is called Type-II ground motion, which is induced by inland
earthquakes. Kobe JMA record is a typical one.
2.3.1.
R-I Diagrams for Ductility of Pier
Ductility of piers is a popular index for the nonlinear behavior, and also can be one of the
indices for the energy dissipation if we take into account the nonlinearity of piers. R-I diagrams
for ductility of pier are shown in Figure 3. In these figures, we plot contour lines at p = 1, 2,
3, 4 and 5.
In general, we found that the larger the yield seismic intensity is, the smaller the ductility
becomes. No plasticity appears when the yield seismic intensity is larger than 0.7g in the
analysis when El Centro record was inputed, and larger than 1.6g when Kobe JMA record
was inputed. These results suggest that such strength is required to avoid the plasticity of
piers. But it seems too strong to design piers so as to remain in its elastic range under Type-II
earthquake. It is reasonable that isolated pier are permitted to undertake plastic behavior under
Type-II earthquake, however no damage under Type-I earthquake is allowed.
2.3.2.
R-I Diagrams for Ductility of Isolators
Needless to say, the purpose of isolators is to dissipate energy by their hysteretic action. If we
design the high yield strength of isolators in order to obtain large hysteresis, it is possible to
remain in their elastic state. Figure 4 shows the border line between the elastic and the plastic
behavior of isolators. From this result, we can find the region where isolators works well and
little difference between Case 1-3 and between Case 4-6. Therefore main factor which affect
the border line is input earthquake motions.
2.3.3.
R-I Diagrams for Displacement of Superstructure
One of the requirement for isolators is to avoid excessive drift of superstructures. Figure 5
shows the R-I diagrams for maximum displacement of superstructures. In Case 1,4 and 6, the
maximum displacement is relatively small, but in Case 3 we can recognize large displacement
and the peak area. Therefore under strong ground motions, it is necessary to pay attention to
pounding action of isolated piers whose isolators 2nd stiffness is small.
Yield Strength Ratio
0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0.5
Case 1
Case 4
0
0.5
1
1.5
Yield Seismic Intensity
0.5
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
Case 2
Case 5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
Case 3
Case 6
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
Figure 3. R-I Diagrams for Ductility of Pier
3.
3.1.
SEARCH OF OPTIMAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ISOLATOR

Introduction
From the previous section, it is found that the interaction behavior has a great influence on
response of isolated piers. If isolators with unsuitable characteristics are installed, the piers
might suffer damage and pounding action would occur. Therefore it is important to decide the
appropriate characteristics of isolators for the good seismic performance of isolated bridges.
In this section, several condition that isolated piers must satisfy are decided, and the optimal
ELASTIC
ELASTIC
1
0.5
PLASTIC
0.5
PLASTIC
Case 1
Case 4
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
ELASTIC
ELASTIC
0.5
PLASTIC
0.5
PLASTIC
Case 3
Case 6
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
Figure 4. R-I Diagrams for Ductility of Isolators
region is defined in the R-I diagram.
3.2.
Conditions
We deside the several conditions to which isolated pier must be subjected.

Under Type-I earthquake, the pier must remain in its elastic state, but its isolator must
present nonlinear response. These conditions mean that the ductility of pier must be smaller
than 1 and that of isolator must be greater than 1. On the other hand, under Type-II earthquake,
we permit the nonlinear behavior of the pier, but its ductility must be smaller than 5. And since
we have to avoid pounding action of superstructure, the maximum displacement of it is limitted
under 20 cm.
3.3.
Optimal Range of Isolator
In Figure 6, optimal ranges of isolators are shown. In these figures, each line presents one
condition mentioned above, and shaded area is the optimal one. From these figures, we can
recognize the following: (i) the optimal ranges are not so large, (ii) the ranges are located
in different position and (iii) when the 2nd stiffness of isolators becomes smaller, the range
5.0
0.5
0.5
All Data Less Than 5.0
Case 1
Case 4
0
0.5
1
1.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
0.5
0.5
1
1.5
5.0
0.5
Case 2
Case 5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
0.5
0.5
1
1.5
5.0
10.0
0.5
Case 3
Case 6
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
Figure 5. R-I Diagram for Maximum Displ. of Superstructure
moves left and becomes small.

Although each optimal range is small, the range added both results become large. Therefore
we can find many sets of appropriate parameters of isolators in this range. This means that it
is possible to design isolators which can control response of isolated piers.
0.5
0.5
Case 1,4
Case 2,5
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
Case 3,6
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
Figure 6. Optimal Range of Isolator
4.
CONCLUSION
In this paper the interaction between seismic isolators and piers was investigated. To clarify
it, several kind of R-I diagrams were calculated. These diagrams can present the interaction in
terms of several indices, i.e. ductility of pier, clearly.
Next we tried to search the optimal range for isolators. As the result, we could find the range
that can be satisfied with several condition. The optimal isolator can control the ductility of
pier, that of isolator, and the maximum displacement of superstructure. And furthermore this
result suggests that it is possible to design optimally isolators if the appropriate yield strength
and 2nd stiffness were selected.
REFERENCES
Kawashima K. and Shoji G. (1998) Interaction of Hysteretic Behavior between Isolator/Damper and Pier
in an Isolated Bridge, Journal of JSCE Structural Engineering, Vol. 44A, 733 741.
Iemura H. (1988) Control of Earthquake Energy Partitioning in Base Isolated and Dynamically Damped
Structures, Proceedings of 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol V, 645
950.
Japan Road Association (1996) Design Specifications of Highway Bridges, Part. V Seismic Design.

Iemura p98b PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iemura p98b PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iemura p98b PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Control of Seismic Energy Partitioning

of Bridge Piers with Sliding Rubber

Dept. of Civil Eng. Systems, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

CONTROL OF SEISMIC ENERGY PARTITIONING OF BRIDGE PIERS

Figure 1. Analytical Model

INTERACTION BETWEEN ISOLATOR AND PIER

Yield Strength Ratio Yield Seismic Intensity Diagram

IEMURA, TAKAHASHI AND CHEN

Figure 2. Calculate of R-I Diagram

Table 1. Parameters of Case Study

which is expressed as follows:

where mg , mp : mass of superstructure and pier respectively, g : gravity.

CONTROL OF SEISMIC ENERGY PARTITIONING OF BRIDGE PIERS

Through a parametric study, we investigate the influence of the characteristics of isolators on

R-I Diagrams for Ductility of Pier

R-I Diagrams for Ductility of Isolators

R-I Diagrams for Displacement of Superstructure

Yield Strength Ratio

Yield Strength Ratio

IEMURA, TAKAHASHI AND CHEN

Yield Strength Ratio

Yield Strength Ratio

Yield Strength Ratio

Yield Strength Ratio

Figure 3. R-I Diagrams for Ductility of Pier

SEARCH OF OPTIMAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ISOLATOR

CONTROL OF SEISMIC ENERGY PARTITIONING OF BRIDGE PIERS

Yield Strength Ratio

Yield Strength Ratio

Yield Strength Ratio

Figure 4. R-I Diagrams for Ductility of Isolators

region is defined in the R-I diagram.

We deside the several conditions to which isolated pier must be subjected.

Optimal Range of Isolator

Yield Strength Ratio

Yield Strength Ratio

IEMURA, TAKAHASHI AND CHEN

All Data Less Than 5.0

Yield Strength Ratio

Yield Strength Ratio

Yield Strength Ratio

Yield Strength Ratio

Figure 5. R-I Diagram for Maximum Displ. of Superstructure

moves left and becomes small.

CONTROL OF SEISMIC ENERGY PARTITIONING OF BRIDGE PIERS

Yield Strength Ratio

Yield Strength Ratio

Yield Strength Ratio

Figure 6. Optimal Range of Isolator

You might also like