Bi Final Report 042810

DESIIGN, ANA
ALYSIS AN
ND PREL
LIMINAR
RY COLLA
APSE ASS
SESSMEN
NT
OF A COMBIINED LEA
AD RUBB
BER-ELAS
STOMER
RIC SYSTE
EM FOR A
THREE
E-SPAN BRIDGE
B W
WITH SK
KEW
by
J
Juan B Aleeman-Herrnandez
(UB # 359601664)
Aprril 27, 20100
A term projeect submittted to the

CIE
E 625-Seismmic Isolatiion Coursee
Innstructor:
Dr. Michaael Constantinou
Acknowledgments
The preliminary collapse assessment was performed by combining and modifying two
MATLAB codes originally developed for different purposes by Ryan Davis and Ioannis
Christovasilis, respectively. Their authorization for reuse and modify those M-codes is greatly
appreciated.
ii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iv
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. v
1 Description of the Structure..................................................................................................... 1
2 Loading Conditions ................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Service Loading Conditions ............................................................................................. 6
2.2 Seismic Loading conditions ............................................................................................. 7
3 Single Mode Analysis and Design ........................................................................................ 12
4 Multimode Response Spectrum Analysis .............................................................................. 15
5 Dynamic Response History Analysis .................................................................................... 19
6 Preliminary Collapse Assessment ......................................................................................... 22
6.1 Buckling collapse on Lead Rubber-Elastomeric Bearings ............................................. 22
6.2 RUAUMOKO Model and Ground Motion Set .............................................................. 24
6.3 Buckling Collapse Fragility Functions ........................................................................... 25
7 Conclusions and future work ................................................................................................. 27
7.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 27
7.2 Recommendations for future research............................................................................ 27
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Bridge Plan and Elevation (Constantinou et al. 2010) .................................................. 1
Figure 1.2 Sections at Abutment (Constantinou et al. 2010) .......................................................... 2
Figure 1.3 Cross Section at Intermediate bent (Constantinou et al. 2010) ..................................... 2
Figure 1.4 Isolation System ............................................................................................................ 3
Figure 2.1 Google Map with the exact bridge location .................................................................. 5
Figure 2.2 CALTRAN response spectrum for Design Earhtquake (DE) 5% damping .................. 7
Figure 2.3 Mean SRSS Spectra of 7 Scaled Ground Motions to 90% of Target Spectrum.......... 10
Figure 2.4 Geo-mean Spectra of 7 scaled ground motions vs 90% of 1.3 Target Spectra ........... 11
Figure 3.1Abutment Bearing ........................................................................................................ 13
Figure 3.2Pier Bearing .................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 4.1 3D model of the bridge for Response Spectrum Analysis. ......................................... 15
Figure 4.2 Modified Spectrum for Lower Bound Analysis in SAP2000...................................... 16
Figure 4.3 Sap2000 Input Box to specify property Data .............................................................. 17
Figure 4.4 Three first modes of Vibration of the Isolated Bridge ................................................ 18
Figure 5.1 Idealized non-linear Hysteretic Rule for Lead Rubber/Elastomeric Isolators............. 20
Figure 5.2 Input Data Required by SAP2000 ............................................................................... 20
Figure 6.1 Axial Load vs. Displacement curve for Abutments isolators ...................................... 23
Figure 6.2 Three Bridge Isolation system modes of collapse ....................................................... 23
Figure 6.3RUAUMOKO 3D model of the bridge ........................................................................ 24
Figure 6.4 Hysteretic Behavior Abutment Bearings .................................................................. 25
Figure 6.5 Buckling Collapse Fragility function for one Abutments bearings-CASE 1 .............. 26
Figure 6.6Buckling Collapse Fragility function for two abutment bearings-CASE 2 .................. 26
iv
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Cross Sectional Properties and Weights as calculated by (Constantinou et al. 2010) .... 4
Table 1.2 Foundations Spring constants in the bridge model by (M. C. Constantinou et al. 2010) 4
Table 2.1 Bearing Loads and Rotations due to Dead, Live, Brake and Wind Loads (Constantinou
et al. 2010) ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Table 2.2 Bearing Loads, Displacements and Rotations for Service Conditions (Constantinou et
al. 2010) .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Table 2.3 Seed Accelerograms for Use in the Analysis.................................................................. 8
Table 2.4 Periods and Weights factors ........................................................................................... 9
Table 2.5 Scaling Factors obtained for DBE .................................................................................. 9
Table 3.1 Calculated Displacements and Force Demands-Single Mode Analysis ....................... 12
Table 4.1 Values of Parameters h, A, I, J and E used in Response Spectrum Analysis ............... 16
Table 4.2 Key Response Quantities Obtained in SAP2000 Multimodal analysis. ....................... 17
Table 5.1Mechanical properties used in Sap2000 to model Isolator Elements ............................ 19
Table 5.2 Response History Analysis Results For Lower Bound Analysis of Combined Lead-
rubber and Elastomeric Bearing System ....................................................................................... 21
v
vi
1 Description of the Structure
The three bridge span with skew in consideration was taken from the new LRFD procedures
document draft developed by (Constantinou et al. 2010). The bridge was first studied by
(Berger/Abam Engineers 1996) as an example of bridge design without isolation system. The
bridge is a continuous, three-span, cast-in-place concrete box girder structure with a 30-degree
skew. The two intermediate bents consist of two round columns with a cross beam on top. The
geometry of the bridge, section properties and foundation properties are assumed to be the same
in the original bridge in the (Constantinou et al. 2010) example. Figure 1.1, Figure 1.2, and
Figure 1.3, show plan and elevation drawings of the bridge, sections at abutment, and cross
section at intermediate bent, respectively.
Figure 1.1 Bridge Plan and Elevation (Constantinou et al. 2010)

Figure 1.2 Sections at Abutment (Constantinou et al. 2010)
Figure 1.3 Cross Section at Intermediate bent (Constantinou et al. 2010)
2
The bridge is isolated with two isolators at each pier and abutment for a total of 8 isolators as
shown in Figure 1.4. As discussed by (Constantinou et al. 2007) the isolation system with
elastomeric bearings used at the abutments and lead rubber bearings placed at each pier location
intend to minimize the transferring of shear force to the abutment. Use of lead-rubber bearings at
both the pier and abutments locations might result in smaller displacement demand but larger
shear force.
Elastomeric Bearing
Lead-Rubber Bearing
Lead-Rubber Bearing
Elastomeric Bearing
Figure 1.4 Isolation System
The cross sectional properties and weights and foundations spring constants used to model the
bridge structure in SAP2000 are shown in Table 1.1 and Table 2.1, respectively. The bridge is
modeled as depicted in Figure 1.4.
3
Table 1.1 Cross Sectional Properties and Weights as calculated by (Constantinou et al. 2010)
Element/ Box Bent Column Rigid Rigid Rigid
Property Girder Cap Girder Colum Footing
Beam
Ax(ft2) 72.74 24.00 12.57 200 200 200
Ay(ft2) 24.20 24.00 12.57 200 200 200
Az(ft2) 57.00 24.00 12.57 200 200 200
IY(ft4) 9,697 32.00 8.80 100,000 100,000 100,000
Iz(ft4) 401 72.00 8.80 100,000 100,000 100,000
Ix(ft4) 1,770 75.26 25.14 100,000 100,000 100,000
Weight 14.24 5.26 1.89 0 0 58.8
(kip/ft)
Table 1.2 Foundations Spring constants in the bridge model by (M. C. Constantinou et al. 2010)
Constant Kx Ky Kz Krx Kry Krz
(kip/ft) (kip/ft) (kip/ft) (kip-ft/rad) (kip-ft/rad) (kip-ft/rad)
Description Vertical Transverse Longitudinal Torsional Rocking Rocking
stiffness stiffness stiffness stiffness Stiffness Stiffness
about y about z
Value 94,400 103,000 103,000 1.15x107 7.12x106 7.12x106
4
2 Loading Conditions
Typically, a bridge structure is subjected to Dead, Live, Brake, Wind and Seismic loads. The first
section of this chapter will address the service loading conditions expected to occur during the
effective life cycle of the bridge. The second section will present the seismic loading conditions
presents on the bridge location. As the bridge is located in California this study make emphasis
on the earthquake evaluation since seismic loading is probably the most critical hazard that will
affect the structure. Figure 2.1 shows a Google Map with the exact location of the bridge. Note
the fault system running pretty close to the bridge site.
Figure 2.1 Google Map with the exact bridge location
5
2.1 Service Loading Conditions
Bearing Loads and Rotations due to Dead, Live, Brake and Wind Loads and Bearing Loads,
Displacements and Rotations for Service Conditions of the Bridge Model are shown in Table 2.1
and Table 2.2. These values were obtained directly from (M. C. Constantinou et al. 2010),
without any further verification. Herein, it is assumed that those values were calculated with
reasonable accuracy so that recalculation was not necessary.
Table 2.1 Bearing Loads and Rotations due to Dead, Live, Brake and Wind Loads (Constantinou
et al. 2010)
Abutment Bearings Pier Bearings

Loading (per bearing) (per bearing)
Reaction (kip) Rotation (rad) Reaction(kip) Rotation (rad)
Dead Load V +336.5 0.00149 V +936.5 0.00006
Live Load (truck, V +137.2 0.00057 V +247.6 0.00040
tandem or lane) V-15.6 V-18.8
HL93 V+187.7 0.00090 V+348.4 0.00064
(Live+IM+BR) V-26.8 V-31.2
V +3.2 0.00006 V +4.1 0.00004
Braking(BR)
V-3.2 V-4.1
V+2.4 NEGLIGIBLE V+6.9 NEGLIGIBLE
Wind on Live Load
V-2.4 V-6.9
(WL)
T 2.3 T 6.5
V+2.8 NEGLIGIBLE V+8.9 NEGLIGIBLE
Wind on Structure
V-2.8 V-8.9
(WV)
T 5.9 T 18.9
Vertical Wind on V-31.9 NEGLIGIBLE V-102.9 NEGLIGIBLE
Structure (WV)
Table 2.2 Bearing Loads, Displacements and Rotations for Service Conditions (Constantinou et
al. 2010)
Loading Abutment Bearing (per bearing) Pier Bearings (per bearing)
Static Component Cyclic Component Static Component Cyclic Component
Dead Load Pd +336.5 NA +936.5 NA
(kip)
Live Load Pl +37.7 +150.0 +73.4 +275.0
(kip) -5.3 -21.5 -6.2 -25.0
Displacement (in) 3.0 0 1.0 0
Rotation(rad) 0.007 0.001 0.005 0.001
6
2.2 Seismic Loading conditions
The Design Response Spectrum shown in Figure 2.2 for this site was obtained from the
CALTRAN website http://dap3.dot.ca.gov/shake_stable/index.php specifying a latitude
38.079857o, longitude -122.232513o and shear wave velocity (VS30) equal to 400m/sec. The
response spectrum for the site is the greatest among the spectra calculated for the site, which for
this location the one was given at the Caltrans website.
Figure 2.2 CALTRAN response spectrum for Design Earhtquake (DE) 5% damping
Scaling of ground motion records is a necessary element of nonlinear dynamic analysis, since
few, if any, available un-scaled records are strong enough to represent the events considered.
Important in the scaling process is the normalization of records. The seed ground motion
records are normalized by some rational procedure to remove record-to-record variability due to
differences in magnitude of event, in distance to source and in soil conditions. However,
inherent variability is maintained. Table 2.3 presents selected ground motions for the following
analysis. As we can see this ground motions were selected based on the intensity value rather
than for a particular location.
7
Table 2.3 Seed Accelerograms for Use in the Analysis
No. Earthquake Name Recording MW 1

r2 Site3
Station (km)
1 1976 Gazli, USSR Karakyr 6.80 5.46 C
2 1989 Loma Prieta LGPC 6.93 3.88 C
3 1989 Loma Prieta Saratoga W. 6.93 9.31 C

Valley Coll.
4 1994 Northridge Jensen Filter Plant 6.69 5.43 C
5 1994 Northridge Sylmar Coverter 6.69 5.19 C

Sta. East
6 1995 Kobe, Japan Takarazuka 6.90 3.00 D
7 1999 Duzce, Turkey Bolu 7.14 12.41 D
1. Moment magnitude
2. Campbell R distance
3. Site class classification per the 2003 NEHRP Recommended Provisions
Procedure of Scaling: - Weighted Scaling
This procedure results in good matching of the target spectra. Procedure is applied in the
following two steps. First scale each motion J (J=1 to 7) in amplitude only by factor FJ in order
to minimize the error between scaled motion spectrum and target DE spectrum. Define the error
as
4 2
EJ = wi SDE (Ti ) FJ SFN (Ti )SFP (Ti )
i =1

That is, the error is the weighted sum of the square of the difference between the target DE
spectra acceleration and the geometric mean spectral acceleration of the scaled motion at four
periods. The periods and weight factors are given in Table 2.4.
8
Table 2.4 Periods and Weights factors
Period(sec) 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Weight Factors 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3
Then, construct the average SRSS spectrum of the seven motions as scaled in step 1. Compare
this average SRSS spectrum to 1.3 times the DE spectrum in the range of periods 0.5Teff to
1.25Teff. The average SRSS spectrum should not be less than 90% of 1.3 times the DE spectrum
in the period range of interest. To meet this criterion, determine a scale factor F1 that applies to
all motions as scaled in first step. The final scale factor for each motion is the product FJ F1 .
A MATLAB program was written for the scaling of motions using the method described above.
Program will perform the scaling for DBE and MCE. Program will perform the following tasks:
Calculate the FJ for each method

Calculate the F1
Calculate the final scaling factor as F1XFJ
Scale each motion with new scaling factor
Plot the result of 7 scaled motions, their mean and 90% of Target Spectra multiplied by
1.3 and show that the mean of 7 scaled motions is not less than the target spectra.
Plot the geo-mean of the scaled accelerograms and comparison with the target spectra.
Calculate the final factor F2 to adjust the geometric mean previously calculated.
Given seven motions are scaled using the program. The scale factors for the seven motions are
shown in Table 2.5. Program is attached in Appendix F.
Table 2.5 Scaling Factors obtained for DBE

No. Earthquake Name DBE
FJ F1 F2 final
1 1976 Gazli, USSR 1.239 0.92 1.2 1.37
2 1989 Loma Prieta 0.850 0.92 1.2 0.94
3 1989 Loma Prieta 1.420 0.92 1.2 1.57
9
4 1994 Northridge 0.880 0.92 1.2 0.97
5 1994 Northridge 0.806 0.92 1.2 0.90
6 1995 Kobe, Japan 0.877 0.92 1.2 0.97
7 1999 Duzce, Turkey 0.944 0.92 1.2 1.04
Figure 2.3 shows that the resulting average SRSS spectra is not less than 90% of target spectra
multiplied by 1.3 for a period between 0.5Teff and 1.25Teff.
3.5
GM1
GM2
3
GM3
GM4
Spectral Acceleration (g)
2.5 GM5
GM6
GM7
2
90% of 1.3 Target spectra
Mean of 7 SRSS spectra
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time (sec)
Figure 2.3 Mean SRSS Spectra of 7 Scaled Ground Motions to 90% of Target Spectrum
While scaled motion meets the criteria of ASCE 7-05, they need to be consistent with the
definition of the MCE or DBE Spectrum. The spectrum for scaled motion is defined as the
geometric mean of the two components in the two orthogonal directions FP and FN. The average
of the geometric mean spectra of the seven motions indicates that the scaled motions do not
properly represent the spectrum. A further increase of the scale factor of each motion by factor
1.2 is needed to properly represent the target spectrum. Figure 2.4 shows the final result after
multiplying the ground motions by the factor previously discussed.
10
p g p
3
GM1
GM2
2.5 GM3
GM4
Spectral Acceleration (g)
GM5
2 GM6
GM7
90% of 1.3 Target spectra
1.5 Mean of 7 SRSS spectra
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time (sec)
Figure 2.4 Geo-mean Spectra of 7 scaled ground motions vs 90% of 1.3 Target Spectra
The response spectrum from CALTRAN and the previously described ground motions were used
to perform Single mode analysis, Multimode Response Spectrum analysis and nonlinear time
history analysis. Those procedures are discussed in details in the next sections.
11
3 Single Mode Analysis and Design
Single mode analysis is perfectly suitable for this bridge as pointed out by (Constantinou et al.
2010). This method take advantage of the fact that for an isolated structure, the displacements are
concentrated at the isolation level, and therefore, the superstructure moves almost as a rigid body
(Christopoulos and Filiatrault 2006). Moreover, this simplified analysis provides useful basic
reference parameters that can be used to perform more sophisticated studies such as multimodal
response spectrum analysis, nonlinear time history analysis and Incremental Dynamic Analysis.
Detailed calculations of this procedure can be found on Appendix A. Drawings of the bearing
are shown in Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2. The bearings are safe for a seismic displacement of 12
and service displacement equal to 1.
Table 3.1 presents a summary of the calculated displacement and force demands, the effective
properties of the isolated structure and the effective properties of each type of bearing. As
mentioned before, these properties are useful in response spectrum and time history analysis.
LRFD adequacy assessment of the critical bearing can be found in Appendix A. Note that the
bearing plates were not designed in this study.
Table 3.1 Calculated Displacements and Force Demands-Single Mode Analysis
Parameter Upper Bound Analysis Lower Bound Analysis

Pier Abutment Pier Abutment
Maximum Displacement DM (in) 9 12.6
Total Maximum Displacement n/a 18.9
Base Shear/Weight 0.211 0.142
Seismic Axial Force-Comb1 (kip) 223.24 88.18 210.4 75.4
Seismic Axial Force-Comb2 (kip) 624.07 173.87 620.24 170.04
Effective Stiffness of Each
22.246 7.375 9.861 4.74
bearing Keff (k/in)
Effective Damping Beff 0.313 0.248
Damping Parameter B 1.734 1.617
Effective Period Tm(sec)
2.1 3.0
Substructure Flexibility Neglected
12
Figure 3.1Abutment Bearing
13
Figure 3.2Pier Bearing
14
4 Multimode Response Spectrum Analysis
A multimode response spectrum analysis was carried out in SAP2000 to estimate the peak
demands on the bearings. Figure 4.1 shows the 3D model of the structure used and the modelling
of the lead rubber and elastomeric bearing as equivalent beams. As mentioned before, loads and
masses were taken directly from previous studies.
Specify
A, I, E, h
Figure 4.1 3D model of the bridge for Response Spectrum Analysis.

Table 4.1 shows a summary of Values of Parameters h, A, I, J and E used in Response Spectrum
Analysis of combined Lead-rubber and Elastomeric Bearing Isolation System. Detailed
calculations of those equivalent properties are presented in Appendix A.
Response Spectrum analysis was performed in two independents directions and then combined
using the 100%+30% rules. Also, an approximate Vertical Response Spectrum was considered in
the analysis and combined with the previous case. A 100%+30%+30% rule was used in this case.
The Response Spectrum implemented in SAP2000 was modified by dividing the spectral
accelerations over B for periods larger than 0.8Teff. Figure 4.2 shows the modified spectrum for
lower bound analysis applied in the software.
15
1.5
Acc
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Period
Figure 4.2 Modified Spectrum for Lower Bound Analysis in SAP2000

Figure 4.3 shows the input box in SAP2000 with the properties data specified. Note that the
torsional inertia was set to zero, and the areas for shear analysis were set with a high value in
order to neglect its effects.
Table 4.1 Values of Parameters h, A, I, J and E used in Response Spectrum Analysis
Parameter Upper Bound Analysis Lower Bound Analysis

Pier Abutment Pier Abutment
Keff (kip/in) 22.24 7.375 9.861 4.74
Kv (kip/in) 12000 12000 10000 10000
h (in) 16.85 16.85 16.85 16.85
E(ksi) 14500 14500 14500 14500
A(in2) 13.947 13.947 11.623 11.623
I(in4) 0.6119 0.2029 0.2713 0.1304
J(in4) 0 0 0 0
16
Figure 4.3 Sap2000 Input Box to specify property Data
Table 4.2 shows Key Response Quantities Obtained by Multimode Analysis. Note that the
maximum displacement obtained closely matches the Single mode Analysis predicted value.
Table 4.2 Key Response Quantities Obtained in SAP2000 Multimodal analysis.
Upper bound Analysis

100% Longitudinal EQ 100% Transversal EQ 100% Vertical
Maximum Bearing 8.79(A) 9.10(A) -
Displacement , Dm (in) 8.73(P) 9.10(P)
Bearing Axial Force 31.73(A) 22.76(A) 261.5(A)
(kip) 73.11(P) 45.54(P) 518.7(P)
Period (sec) 2.14 -
Lower Bound Analysis
100% Longitudinal EQ 100% Transversal EQ 100% Vertical
Maximum Bearing 12.20(A) 12.44(A) -
Displacement , Dm (in) 12.23(P) 12.43(P)
Bearing Axial Force 28.26(A) 15.85(A) 267.33(A)
(kip) 48.85(P) 23.26(P) 521.83(P)
Period (sec) 2.88 -
17
Figure 4.4 depicts three first modes of bridge vibrations with its corresponding periods for lower
bound analysis. As noted, the period is closely reproduced in the modal response history analysis
as were the displacements and the axial forces.
Figure 4.4 Three first modes of Vibration of the Isolated Bridge
18
5 Dynamic Response History Analysis
Seven scaled ground motions were used to perform Nonlinear Response History Analysis.
Isolators were modeled using the Lead Rubber Element available in SAP2000. Mechanical
properties used are shown in Table 5.1 and detailed calculations can be found in Appendix A.
Table 5.1Mechanical properties used in Sap2000 to model Isolator Elements
Parameter Upper Bound analysis Lower Bound Analysis

Abutment Pier Abutment Pier
Dynamic
0.0132 0.0132 0.0132 0.0132
Mass(kip-sec2/in)
Element
16 16 16 16
Height(in)
Shear
Deformation 8 8 8 8
Location(in)
Kv (kip/in) 12000 12000 10000 10000
Qd (kip) 5 142.5 5 72.89
Kd (kip/in) 6.8 6.4 4.3 4.1
Y(in) 1 1 1 1
Yield Force (Fy) 11.8 148.9 9.3 76.99
K(elastic) (kip/in) 11.8 148.9 9.3 76.99
r 0.576 0.0429 0.4623 0.0532
Rotational
500000 500000 500000 500000
Stiffness
Torsional
0 0 0 0
Stiffness
Basically, Sap2000 assume a Bilinear Hysteretic model for the Isolator in both, x and y
directions. The vertical DOF U1 remains elastic whereas the DOF U2 and U3 behave
nonlinearly.
19
Figure 5.1 describes the idealized nonlinear behavior of the Lead Rubber/Elastomeric Bearing
and Figure 5.2 shows the required input data for SAP2000.
Figure 5.1 Idealized non-linear Hysteretic Rule for Lead Rubber/Elastomeric Isolators.
Figure 5.2 Input Data Required by SAP2000
20
Table 5.2 Response History Analysis Results For Lower Bound Analysis of Combined Lead-
rubber and Elastomeric Bearing System
Resultant Displacement
Longitudinal Shear (kip) Transverse shear (kip)
Earthquake (in)
Abutment pier Abutment pier Abutment pier
EQ1-PN 18.0 18.1 70.2 126.9 78.6 133.6
EQ2-PN 30.4 29.8 134.4 126.9 78.0 115.1
EQ3-PN 18.0 17.8 80.5 181.5 79.8 127.9
EQ4-PN 19.5 18.4 85.6 142.7 32.0 93.6
EQ5-PN 14.9 14.6 66.1 126.6 55.4 105.9
EQ6-PN 9.6 9.6 32.4 90.8 44.5 106.0
EQ7-PN 7.2 7.6 32.9 92.0 34.8 91.4
Average 16.8 16.5 71.72 126.7 57.6 110.5
EQ1-NP 18.3 18.1 80.3 132.5 67.5 127.4

EQ2-NP 29.0 29.2 78.9 115.6 128.13 179.1
EQ3-NP 18.6 18.0 82.5 128.9 78.9 141.7
EQ4-NP 18.7 18.0 33.0 93.3 82.0 125.0
EQ5-NP 13.9 13.7 55.4 100.4 63.1 125.3
EQ6-NP 9.7 9.4 44.8 103.9 31.8 91.9
EQ7-NP 7.5 7.9 35.7 98.8 34.1 95.4
Average 16.5 16.3 58.6 110.4 69.3 126.5
Table 5.2 show key parameters obtained for Nonlinear Response History analysis for lower
bound analysis. An average maximum displacement equal to 16.5 was obtained. Nevertheless,
the bearing has been designed to sustain a maximum displacement of 18 as demonstrated on
appendix B. Therefore, the design was considered acceptable.
21
6 Preliminary Collapse Assessment
In this chapter, two buckling collapse fragility curves for the Isolation System will be developed
by applying the guidelines specified by the ATC-63 document. The main goal is to estimate the
probability of buckling collapse of one and two abutment bearings given a spectral acceleration
and define a preliminary Collapse Margin Ratio (CMR) for the system.
The first section includes a brief description of the collapse on lead/Elastomeric bearings due to
buckling and the collapse criterion implemented. Then, the RUAUMOKO (Carr 2004) analytical
model used to perform an Incremental Dynamic Analysis (Vamvatsikos and Cornell 2002) and
the corresponding ATC-63 ground motion set will be described. Finally, two collapse fragility
curves of the system and a preliminary collapse margin ratio will be presented. Detailed
information about the procedure is not included in this summary report but is extensively
discussed in the FEMA P645 document.
6.1 Buckling collapse on Lead Rubber-Elastomeric Bearings
In this study, collapse of the bearing was defined by the axial load (P) vs. displacement (Dr)
curve shown in Figure 6.1. This P-Dr curve was calculated for an abutment bearing using lower
bound properties. Detailed calculation can be found in appendix A. A collapse criterion was
assumed as follows:
The Axial load and relative displacement of one/two bearing was obtained for each time
history record for a given intensity spectral acceleration and ground motion
Using the MATLAB code provided in appendix B, the point (P, Dr) was plotted as shown
in Figure 6.1 and collapse was investigated.
If the point (P,Dr) fall out the region, then the bearing has collapsed
Otherwise, the bearing was considered safe.
Note that the fact that one bearing has collapsed, it cannot be interpreted as a complete failure of
the isolation system. More failure combinations need to be investigated as depicted in Figure 6.2.
Therefore, a second collapse case was considered. Failure of the bridge isolation system might be
defined if two parallel abutment bearing collapse for a given intensity spectral acceleration and
ground motion. Other possible combination might be two longitudinal abutment bearings and
22
two longitudinal pier bearings collapsing simultaneously. However, the later case was out of the
scope of this project and was not investigated.
6000
5000
P critical (kip)
4000
Each point (P, Dr) out of
the region is interpreted
3000 as collapse
2000
Each point (P, Dr) inside

1000 the region is interpreted
as Non-collapse
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Displacement (in)
Figure 6.1 Axial Load vs. Displacement curve for Abutments isolators
Case 2. Two
Transversal Bearing
Collapse
Case 3. Four
Longitudinal Bearing
Collapse
Case 1. Investigated
herein. One bearing
collapse
Figure 6.2 Three Bridge Isolation system modes of collapse
23
6.2 RUAUMOKO Model and Ground Motion Set
Because about 400 nonlinear response simulations were needed to develop the fragility curve,
SAP2000 software was not considered. As shown in Figure 6.3, an analytical 3D model of the
bridge in consideration was developed in RUAUMOKO 3D software. Appendix C includes the
input file of the bridge. To investigate the accuracy of the model, the hysteretic behavior of the
pier and abutment bearings was compared to those obtained with SAP2000 lead- rubber element.
Figure 6.4show that RUAUMOKO and SAP2000 models are equivalent.
Figure 6.3RUAUMOKO 3D model of the bridge

To perform IDA, the ATC-63 ground motion set with 22 pairs of far field records was utilized.
An extensive discussion of the selection and scaling of the ground motions is included in the
FEMA P695 document and will not be repeated herein. Note that the 22 pairs of ground motions
were applied only once in each direction to reduce the computer analysis time, but the
FEMAP695 guidelines specified that those records shall be applied twice, according the analysis
direction.
24
400
300
200
100
SHEAR FORCE (kN)
0
-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
-100
-200 sap2000
ruaumoko
-300
-400
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
Figure 6.4 Hysteretic Behavior Abutment Bearings

6.3 Buckling Collapse Fragility Functions
As defined by FEMA P695 collapse fragility curves characterize the probability of collapse
given a specific ground motion intensity parameter. Figure 6.5 and Figure 6.6 shows the collapse
probability curve obtained trough Nonlinear IDA in RUAUMOKO. Observe that for a spectral
acceleration of 0.343 g the probability of collapse of one abutment bearing is 50%. It is
important to point out, that the fragility curves for both cases are almost the same, indicating that
the abutment bearings experiences collapse simultaneously. As expected, the record to record
uncertainty is about 0.40 in both cases. Moreover, the estimated collapse margin ratio is equal to
1.20. Note that no other sources of uncertainties were included in this calculation. Therefore, the
CMR cannot be compared with the FEMAP695 acceptance criteria.
25
As usual, a lognormal distribution was used to fit the numerical data obtained with IDA.
Fragility curve for Probability of collapse-Lead Rubber Bearing
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Probability of collapse
0.6
0.5 = 0.343
0.4 = 0.396
0.3
0.2
0.1 Numerical Fragility Curve

Fitted Lognormal Curve
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Median Sa [g]
Figure 6.5 Buckling Collapse Fragility function for one Abutments bearings-CASE 1
Fragility curve for Probability of collapse-Lead Rubber Bearing
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Probability of collapse
0.6
0.5 = 0.354
0.4 = 0.373
0.3
0.2
0.1 Numerical Fragility Curve

Fitted Lognormal Curve
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Median Sa [g]
Figure 6.6Buckling Collapse Fragility function for two abutment bearings-CASE 2
26
7 Conclusions and future work
7.1 Conclusions
A bridge Isolation system was designed, analyzed and evaluated using different analysis
techniques. A single mode analysis was used to carry out a preliminary design and detailed
calculations for lower and upper bound isolator properties. Then, the design was verified trough
multimode dynamic analysis. Excellent agreement was found for all the considered cases. To
further verify the results, nonlinear response history analysis was implemented in SAP2000
software. Results show that the preliminary design is acceptable.
Finally, the isolation system was assessed following the FEMAP695 guidelines to evaluate
collapse in structures. A criterion collapse was proposed and nonlinear IDA was carried out in
RUAUMOKO Software. A collapse fragility function was constructed by fitting the data with a
lognormal distribution. The preliminary collapse margin indicates a satisfactory performance of
the base isolation system.
7.2 Recommendations for future research
Some recommendations for future research are:
The fragility functions could be computed for different conditions of collapse as briefly
discussed in Figure 6.2.
The collapse criterion could be modified to account for shear failure in the bearing.
Potential for uplift in the bearings should be included and properly investigated
A more sophisticated analytical model of the substructure could be implemented to
account for rocking behavior.
A complete assessment could be performed following the FEMAP695 methodology for
Isolated Buildings.
27
References
Berger/Abam Engineers. (1996). "Federal Highway Administration Seismic Design Course."
NTIS.
Carr, A. J. (2004). "RUAUMOKO." Canterbury.
Christopoulos, C., and Filiatrault, A. (2006). Principles of Passive Supplemental Damping and
Seismic Isolation, IUSS PRESS, Pavia-Italy.
Constantinou, M. C., Kalpakidis, I., Filiatrault, A., Ecker Lay, R. A., and Boyle, T. A. (2010).
"LRFD-BASED ANALYSIS AND DESIGN PROCEDURES FOR BRIDGE
BEARINGS AND SEISMIC ISOLATORS." Buffalo, NY.
Constantinou, M. C., Whittaker, A. S., Fenz, D. M., and Apostolakis, G. (2007). "SEISMIC
ISOLATION OF BRIDGES." University at Buffalo, State University of New York,
Buffalo,NY.
M. C. Constantinou, I. Kalpakidis, A. Filiatrault, R.A. Ecker Lay, and Boyle, T. A. (2010).
"LRFD-BASED ANALYSIS AND DESIGN PROCEDURES FOR BRIDGE
BEARINGS AND SEISMIC ISOLATORS." Buffalo, NY.
Vamvatsikos, D., and Cornell, C. A. (2002). "Incremental dynamic analysis." Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 31(3), 491-514.
APPENDIX A
2
1. Preliminary Design
Assumptions
No difference Between Abutment and Pier bearing was considered
1. Lower bound analysis for MCE
2 . Total Weight of the bridge (kip): W = 5092
3 . Lower Bound Shear Modulus (psi): G = 60 Gn = 65
4. Lead Diameter (in): Dl = 8
5. Rubber Thickness (in): Tr = 8
6. Lower Bound shear strength lead(ksi): l = 1.45
2
Characteristic strength (kip): Qd = l Dl = 291.54
g = 386.1024
Calculations
Assuming a Diameter equal to(in): Db = 26
Assuming a Displacement design equal to(in): = 13.3
2 Initial Parameters
8 G Db
Kd = = 31.9 W: 5092
4000 Tr G: 60
Qd Dl: 8
Keff = Kd + = 53.8
Tr: 8
W Qd: 291.54
Teff = 2 = 3.11
g Keff
Db(in) 26 28 30 32 34 36
4 Qd ( 1 ) Kd(kip/in) 31.9 36.9 42.4 48.3 54.5 61.1
eff = = 0.24
2 D assumed 13.3 13 12.6 12.3 12 11.7
2 Keff
Keff 53.78 59.37 65.55 71.96 78.77 85.99
0.3 Teff 3.11 2.96 2.82 2.69 2.57 2.46
B =
eff
= 1.601 Beff 0.240 0.222 0.207 0.193 0.180 0.169
0.05 B 1.60 1.56 1.53 1.50 1.47 1.44
Spectral Acceleration obtained from Spectrum
Sa 0.141 0.151 0.162 0.174 0.185 0.198
0.226 Dd 13.3 13.0 12.6 12.3 12.0 11.7
Sa = = 0.141
B Dmce 20.0 19.4 18.9 18.4 18.0 17.5
2
Pede 281.0 283.1 285.3 287.6 289.9 292.3
Sa g Teff Pu 1538.8 1540.9 1543.1 1545.3 1547.6 1550.0
d = = 13.4
2 delta 1.39 1.61 1.78 1.91 2.03 2.12
4
Ar/A 0.130 0.193 0.255 0.310 0.360 0.405
mce = d 1.5 = 20.051 t1 0.063 0.126 0.219 0.343 0.508 0.718
+ 936.5 +
3.5 348.4 t2 0.1236 0.2315 0.3778 0.5604 0.7847 1.0541
Pede = Sa W
90.1 2
0.76 0.3 = 281.163
348.4
Pu = 1.25 936.5 + + Pede = 1538.9
Acc =
4

Period 0.5400 0
1 = 2 acos
mce 0.5400 0.01 1.5
= 1.38
Db 0.6520 0.02
0.6680 0.022 1
1 sin( 1)
fA =
0.6920 0.025 Acc
= 0.127
0.7200
0.7270
0.029
0.03
0.5
4
0.218 Gn Db fA 0.7400 0.032
0
t1 = = 0.0667 0.7580 0.035 0 1 2 3 4 5
1000Pu Tr
0.7630 0.036
Period
3
Db Gn
11
mce
t2 = fA = 0.131
16 Pu 1.2 1000 Tr
2. Detailed Calculations
2.1. Bearing Properties

NOMINAL VALUES
Shear Modulus of Rubber (ksi) d = 12
Under Dynamic Conditions: G3n = 0.065
m = 1.5d = 18
Shear Modulus of Rubber (ksi)
Under Static Conditions: G1n = 1.1 G3n = 0.07
Effective yield strength lead(ksi):

Bulk Modulus; K = 290
l3 = 1.75
l1 = 1.35 l3 = 2.363
LOWER BOUND VALUES
Shear Modulus of Rubber (ksi): G3 = 0.06
Effective yield strength lead(ksi): l3m = 1.45
UPPER BOUND VALUES

Aging Effects: 1 = 1.1
Travel Effects: 2 = 1.2
Shear Modulus of Rubber (ksi): G1 = 1 2 G1n = 0.094
Effective yield strength lead(ksi): lmax = l1 2 = 2.835
2.2. Bearing Dimensions
PIER BEARINGS
Bearing External Diameter(in): Do = 30
( Do + 0.75) Di
Bearing Internal Diameter(in): Di = 8 2 2
Loaded Rubber Area (in2) : A = = 692.38
Number of Rubber Layers: Nl = 29 4
Thickness of Rubber(in): t = 0.276 A
Shape Factor: S = = 26.617
Total Thickness(in): Tr = Nl t = 8 Do t
Steel Shims: Fy = 50
ts = 0.1196 Ns = 28
Fye = 1.3 Fy
ABUTMENT BEARINGS
Bearing External Diameter(in): Do2 = 30
( Do2 + 0.75) Di2

Bearing Internal Diameter(in): Di2 = 2.75 2 2
Loaded Rubber Area (in2) : A2 = = 736.7
Number of Rubber Layers: Nl2 = 29 4
Thickness of Rubber(in): t2 = 0.276 A2
Shape Factor: S2 = = 28.321
Total Thickness(in): Tr2 = Nl2 t2 = 8 Do2 t2
Steel Shims: Fy2 = 50

ts2 = 0.1196
Fye2 = 1.3 Fy Ns2 = 28
heigth of the bearing: h = Tr + Ns ts + 1.25 2 + 1.5 2 = 16.853

2.3. Analysis for Displacement Demand
SAP2000 PROPERTIES-lower bound values
PIER BEARINGS
G3 A PIER BEARINGS
Kd1 = = 5.2
Tr 29000
E = = 14500
2 2
l3m Di
Qd1 = = 72.885 2
4 Do + 1 Do
1+
ABUTMENT
F =
Di +
Di
= 0.685
BEARINGS G3 A2
Kd2 = = 5.5 2 Do Do
Do 1 1 ln
Tr Di Di
Di
Qd2 = 0.05 Kd2 d = 5.205
2 Qd1
Skeff = Kd1 + = 11.264
Qd2 = 6 d
2
Ec = 6 G3 S F = 174.693
Total for 4 abutment and 4 pier
1

A 1 4
Kd = 4 Kd1 + 4 Kd2 = 42.851 Kv = + = 8380.53
Tr Ec 3 K
Qd = 4 Qd1 + 4 Qd2 = 315.54
Using Kv = 10000
Qd
Keff = Kd + = 69.15
d h Kv
SAr = = 11.623
W E 3
Teff = 2 = 2.74
g Keff Skeff h
SIr = = 0.3099
4 Qd ( d 1 ) 12 E
eff = = 0.222
2
2 Keff d
ABUTMENT
0.3
eff BEARINGS 29000
B = = 1.564 E = = 14500
0.05 2
Spectral Acceleration obtained from Spectrum 2
0.23 Do2 + 1 Do2
Sa = = 0.147 1+
B F =
Di2 +
Di2
= 0.719
2 Do2 Do2
Sa g Teff
2
Do2
1 1
ln
d = = 10.8 Di2 Di2
2 Di2
4
Qd2
Skeff = Kd2 + = 6.076
Assumed Displacement d=12" is OK d
2
Ec = 6 G3 S2 F = 207.689
Modified Response Spectrum for Lower Bound Analysis 1

A2 1 4
Kv = + = 9778.584
Acc = Tr2 Ec 3 K
Kv = 10000
Period 0.5400 0 Using
0.5400 0.01
0.6520 0.02 h Kv
SAr = = 11.623
0.6680 0.022 E
0.6920 0.025 1.5
3
0.7200 0.029 Skeff h
0.7270 0.03 SIr = = 0.1672
1 12 E
0.7400 0.032
0.7580 0.035 Acc
0.7630 0.036 0.5
0.7850 0.04
0.7960 0.042
0.8060 0.044 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.8110 0.045
0.8160 0.046 Period
2.4. Analysis for Substructure Design-Based On Upper Bound Properties
PIER BEARINGS
G1 A Assuming a design displacement: d = 9
Kd1 = = 8.2
Tr
SAP2000 PROPERTIES-Upper bound values
2
lmax Di
Qd1 = = 142.503 PIER BEARINGS
4 29000
E = = 14500
ABUTMENT 2
BEARINGS G1 A2
Kd2 = = 8.7 2
Tr Do + 1 1+
Do

Qd2 =

0.05 Kd2 d = 6.14 F =

Di
+
Di
= 0.685
2 2 Do Do
Do 1 1 ln
Qd2 = 6 Di Di
Di
Total for 4 abutment and 4 pier Qd1
Skeff = Kd1 + = 23.998
d
Kdd = 4 Kd1 + 4 Kd2 = 67.405
2
Ec = 6 G1 S F = 274.793
Qdd = 4 Qd1 + 4 Qd2 = 594.011
1

Qdd A1 4
Keff = Kdd + = 133.41 Kv = + = 10502.122
d Tr Ec 3 K
W Using Kv = 12000
Teff = 2 = 1.98
g Keff
h Kv
4 Qdd ( d 1 ) SAr = = 13.947
eff = = 0.28 E 3
2 Keff d
2 Skeff h
SIr = = 0.6601
0.3 12 E
B = eff = 1.677

0.05
ABUTMENT
Spectral Acceleration obtained from Spectrum
BEARINGS 29000
0.365 E = = 14500
Sa = = 0.218 2
B
2
Sa g Teff
2
Do2 + 1 1+
Do2
d = = 8.3
2 F =
Di2 +
Di2
= 0.719
4
2 Do2 Do2
Assumed Displacement d=9" is OK Do2
1 1
ln
Di2 Di2
Di2
Modified Response Spectrum for UPPER Bound Analysis Qd2
Skeff = Kd2 + = 9.409
Acc = d

Period 0.5400 0 2
Ec = 6 G1 S2 F = 326.694
0.5400 0.01
0.6520 0.02 1

A2 1 4
0.6680 0.022 Kv = + = 12018.006
0.6920 0.025 Tr2 Ec 3 K
0.7200 0.029 Using Kv = 12000
0.7270 0.03
0.7400 0.032 1.5 h Kv
0.7580 0.035 SAr = = 13.947
E
0.7630 0.036 1
0.7850 0.04 Acc 3
Skeff h
0.7960 0.042 0.5 SIr = = 0.2588
0.8060 0.044 12 E
0.8110 0.045 0
0.8160 0.046 0 1 2 3 4 5
Period
2.5. Calculation of Bearing Axial Forces due to Earthquakes
acc1 = 0.143
acc2 = 0.211
3.5 acc1 W
F1 = = 26.83
95
3.5 acc2 W
F2 = = 39.58
95
Vertical Earthquake
Axial loads in bearings (Obtained from 2007 Document)
Abutment Bearings(kip): Ab = 162
Pier Bearings(kip): Pb = 612.2
Dead Load per bearing

Axial loads in bearings (Obtained from 2007 Document)
Abutment Bearings(kip): Ab1 = 336.5
Pier Bearings(kip): Pb1 = 936.5
Potential for Tension
Abutment bearings 0.9 Ab1 ( Ab + 0.3 F2) = 128.975

Both values are > 0, therefore Uplift potential doesnt exist
Pier bearings 0.9 Pb1 ( Pb + 0.3 F2) = 218.775
Maximum compressive force due to earthquake
Lower Bound Case and the load combination, 100% lateral EQ+30% Vertical Earthquake
Abutment bearings E = F1 + 0.3 Ab = 75.427
Pier bearings E2 = F1 + 0.3 Pb = 210.487

Upper Bound Case and the load combination, 100% lateral EQ+30% Vertical Earthquake
Abutment bearings E3 = F2 + 0.3 Ab = 88.184
Pier bearings E4 = F2 + 0.3 Pb = 223.244
Lower Bound Case and the load combination, 100% Vertical EQ+30% transverse Earthquake
Abutment bearings E5 = 0.3F1 + Ab = 170.048
Pier bearings E6 = 0.3F1 + Pb = 620.248
Upper Bound Case and the load combination, 100% Vertical EQ+30% transverse Earthquake
Abutment bearings E5 = 0.3F2 + Ab = 173.875
Pier bearings E6 = 0.3F2 + Pb = 624.075

Checking For sufficient Restoring force
Qd Dynamic Qdd = 594.01
Qdd
Qd Static Qdst = = 297.01
2
Qdst
= = 0.058
W
W
T1 = 2 = 2.779
g Kdd
0.05 d
T2 = 28 = 3.803 T1 is less than T2, Therefore there is sufficient Restoring Force
g
Service Load
For calculations of Safety, consider D=3 in to account for thermal, shrinkage and post-tensioning effects.
Bearing will not be pre-deformed to accommodate shrinkage and post-tensioning effects.
Effect of Substructure Flexibility

The Effect of Substructure Flexibility has been neglected
Buckling Assessment
G3 = 0.06
Db = 26
Tr = 8.004
t = 0.276
2 acos sin 2 acos

Do Do
4
0.218 G3 Do

Pcr( ) =
t Tr
= 0 , 0 + 0.10 .. 50
Pcr( 0 ) = 4796
5000
4000
3000
Pcr( )
2000
1000
0
0 10 20 30

APPENDIX B
3
3. Pier Bearing Assessment
3.1. BEARING GEOMETRIC PROPERTIES
Bearing External Diameter(in): Do = 30
( Do + 0.75) Di
Bearing Internal Diameter(in): Di = 8 2 2
Loaded Rubber Area (in2) : A = = 692.38
Number of Rubber Layers: Nl = 29 4
Thickness of Rubber(in): t = 0.276 Shape Factor:
A
S = = 26.6
Total Thickness(in): Tr = Nl t = 8 Do t
Steel Shims: Fy = 50
ts = 0.1196 Ns = 28
Fye = 1.3 Fy
3.2. NOMINAL VALUES USED FOR BEARING SAFETY ASSESSMENT
Under Dynamic Conditions: G3 = 0.065
Under Static Conditions: G1 = 0.8 G3 = 0.05
3.3. ASSESSMENT UNDER SERVICE CONDITIONS

LOADING ( kip)
Dead Load: Pd = 936.5 LiveStatic Displacement(in): sst = 1 LRFD factors:
Live static Load: Plst = 73.4 Live Cyclic Displacement (in): scy = 0
Dead Load Factor: d = 1.25
Live Cyclic Load: Plcy = 275 Live Static Rotation (rad): sst = 0.005
Live load Factor: l = 1.75
Live Cyclic Rotation (rad) : scy = 0.001
Ultimate Axial Load (kip)

Pu = d Pd + l Plst + 1.75 l Plcy = 2141.26
Reduce Area for Displacement
= sst + scy = 1
= 2 acos = 3.075

Eq A-15:
Do
Ar = A
sin( )
= 663 Eq A-16

Coefficient f1 an f2 circular bearings
Bulk modulus of the Rubber (ksi): K = 290
K
= 5576.92
G1
f1 = 1.23 from table 5-1
f2 = 0.32 from table A-8
Pag 1 of 5
Shear Strain due to compression
Pu
cs = f1 = 2.9
Ar G1 S
Shear strain due to lateral displacement
sst + 1.75scy
ss = = 0.12
Tr
Shear strain due to rotation
2
Do ( sst + 1.75 scy)
rs = f2 = 0.9
t Tr
Bucling load at Service Displacement
4
G1 Do
Pcr = 0.218 = 4156.51 Eq A-9
t Tr
Ar Eq A-12
Pcrs = Pcr = 3980.13
A
ADEQUACY
Eq A-28
cs 3.5 OK
Eq A-29
cs + ss + rs = 3.9 7 OK
Eq A-30
3 t
= 0.056
Ar
1.08 Fy 2
Pu
ts 0.056 0.05 OK
Eq A-31
Pcrs
= 1.9 Approximately equal to 2 OK
Pu
Pag 2 of 5
3.4. ASSESSMENT UNDER DESIGN EARTHQUAKE CONDITIONS
LOADING
Dead Load(kip): Pd = 936.5
Live SEISMIC Load(kip): Pslde = 0.5 ( Plst + Plcy) = 174.2
Earthquake axial load(kip): Pede = 200
Seismic lateral displacement(in): Ede = 12
Non seismic lateral displacement(in): s = 0.5 ( sst + scy) = 0.5
LRFD factors: Dead Load Factor: d = 1.25
Factored Load
Pu = d Pd + Pslde + Pede = 1544.8

= s + Ede = 12.5
= 2 acos = 2.282

Eq A-15:
Do
Ar = A
sin( )
= 336 Eq A-16


Eq A-32:
Pu
cde = f1 = 3.3
Ar G3 S
Eq A-33:
s + Ede
sde = = 1.56
Tr
ADEQUACY
Eq A-34
cde + sde + 0.5rs = 5.3 8.5 OK
1.650 t Eq A-35
= 0.047
Ar
1.08 Fy 2
Pu
ts 0.065 0.059 OK
Pag 3 of 5
3.5. ASSESSMENT UNDER MAXIMUM CREDIBLE EARTHQUAKE CONDITIONS
LOADING
Dead Load(kip): Pd = 936.5
Live SEISMIC Load(kip): Pslmce = 0.5 Pslde = 87.1
Earthquake axial load(kip): Pemce = 1.5 Pede = 300
Seismic lateral displacement(in): Emce = 1.5 Ede = 18
Non seismic lateral displacement(in): s = 0.5 s = 0.25
LRFD factors:
Dead Load Factor: d = 1.25
Factored Load
Pu = d Pd + Pslmce + Pemce = 1557.7

= s + Emce = 18.25
= 2 acos = 1.834

Do Eq A-15:
sin( )
Ar = A = 191.3
Eq A-16
Pu
cmce = f1 = 5.79 Eq A-36:
Ar G3 S
s + Emce
smce = = 2.28 Eq A-37:
Tr
Bucling load at MCE Displacement
4
G3 Do
Pcr = 0.218 = 5195.64 Eq A-9
t Tr
Ar 3 Eq A-38
Pcrmce = Pcr = 1.4 10
A
ADEQUACY
Eq A-39
cmce + smce + 0.25rs = 8.3 11 OK
1.650 t
= 0.069 Eq A-40
Ar
1.08 Fye 2
Pu
ts 0.058 0.059 OK
Eq A-41
Pcrmce
= 0.9 Approximately equa
Pu to 1 OK
Pag 4 of 5
Critical Displacement
P = 0.9 Pd = 842.9 Gb = 0.9 G3
B = Do = 30
h = Tr + Ns ts = 11.4
Gb A
K1 = = 5.06
Tr
2
Di
Q = 1.45 = 72.9
4
P B Q h Eq A-18
Dcr = = 27.2
K1 h + P
Eq A-42
Dcr
= 1.489 OK This values is> to 1
s + Emce
The vertical stiffness Kv was calculated as follow
Without considering the horizontal displacement

F = 1 Because of the inner lead core do not allow to bulge at center
2
Ec = 6 G1 S F = 221
1

A 1 4
Kv = + = 9483.342
Tr Ec 3 K
Pag 5 of 5
APPENDIX C
4
run_IDA042810.m
% IDA for Buildings
close all; clear all; clc; fclose all;
warning off all
%##### INPUT #####
Write_File='Building_3.inp';
Output_File='Building_3.out';
Output_File2='Building_3.res';
Output_File3='Building_3D.wri';
Eq_name_file='eq_names.txt';
batch_file='RUAUMOKO.bat';
N_stories=1; %Exercise care to choose this number.I believe this is the total number
of floor minus 1.
acc_1=zeros;
acc_2=zeros;
%acc_3=zeros; %Modified
%acc_4=zeros; %modified
%acc_5=zeros;
drift_1=zeros;
drift_2=zeros;
%drift_3=zeros; %modified
for i_building=1:1
if i_building==1
Ref_File='b273.txt';
end
Drift_limits=[6.08 22 ]; %MODIFIED FROM 4 TO 2 Magenes (1995)
k_IDA_lim=0.001;
N_Eq=22;
Add_anal_time=10; % Additional analysis time
Collect_Duct=0; % 1:Collect Ductility Data 0:Do not collect
delta_scale=.6173; % MODIFIED TO MATCH 0.0811 Sa (0.05/0.081=0.6173) at T=3s

finish_scale=delta_scale*20;%modified 20---30.
Scale_f=[delta_scale:delta_scale:finish_scale];
%##### PROCESSING #####

max_drift=zeros(N_stories+1,1);
max_driftx=zeros(N_stories+1,1);
max_drifty=zeros(N_stories+1,1);
max_drift_prev=zeros(N_stories+1,1);
%Open Files for Storage

for i=1:N_stories+1;
fid_p(i)=fopen(['drift',sprintf('%g',i),'.out'],'w');
fprintf(fid_p(i),['Drifts for Level ',sprintf('%g',i)]);
fprintf(fid_p(i),'\n\n');
fprintf(fid_p(i),'Scale Factor: ');
for i1=1:length(Scale_f);
fprintf(fid_p(i),sprintf(' %g ',Scale_f(i1)));
fprintf(fid_p(i),sprintf(' %g ',Scale_f(i1)));
end;
fprintf(fid_p(i),'\n');
end;
% Read Acceleration file names

fid1=fopen(Eq_name_file,'r');
Page 1
run_IDA042810.m
for i = 1:N_Eq,
Eq_name{i}=fgetl(fid1);
fgetl(fid1);
end;
fclose(fid1);
fid1=fopen(Eq_name_file,'r');
for i = 1:N_Eq,
fgetl(fid1);
Eq_name2{i}=fgetl(fid1);
end;
fclose(fid1);
%Prepare Batch File

fid1=fopen(batch_file,'w');
fprintf(fid1,[' RUAUMOKO3D ',Output_File,' ', Write_File, ' INPUT']);
fclose(fid1);
%Prepare Model file for Ruaumoko
fid1=fopen(Ref_File,'r');
A1=fread(fid1);
fclose(fid1);
%
for i_eq=1:N_Eq;
i_eq
delta_scale=.6173; %MODIFIED
%if i_eq==32
%finish_scale=delta_scale*20;
%elseif i_eq==19
%else
%end
Scale_f=[delta_scale:delta_scale:finish_scale];
fid1=fopen(Eq_name{i_eq},'r');
dummy1=fgetl(fid1);
dummy1=fscanf(fid1,'%f',[3 inf]);
fclose(fid1);
dummy2=size(dummy1,2);
T_max_anal=dummy1(2,dummy2);
T_max_anal=ceil(T_max_anal+Add_anal_time);
clear dummy1 dummy2
fprintf(fid_p(i),sprintf('EQ#_%g ',i_eq));
end;
%Start Iterations with different scaling
for i_scf=1:length(Scale_f);
A2=strrep(A1,'Seismos',Eq_name{i_eq});
A2=strrep(A2,'Terremoto',Eq_name2{i_eq});
A2=strrep(A2,'Scale_Factor',sprintf(' %g ',Scale_f(i_scf)));
A2=strrep(A2,'Max_Anal_Time',sprintf(' %g ',T_max_anal));
fid2=fopen(Write_File,'w');
fprintf(fid2,'%c',A2);
fclose(fid2);
Page 2
run_IDA042810.m
%Run killwindow
% Run Analysis
! RUAUMOKO.bat
% i_scf
%Post-Processing
! DYNAPLOTLRB.bat
%obtaining Drift and Axial Force for one bearing

%drift
Data_driftlrb=zeros;
Data_axiallrb=zeros;
Data_driftlrb2=zeros;
Data_axiallrb2=zeros;
fid9=fopen('driftlrb.txt','r');
Data_driftlrb=fgetl(fid9);Data_driftlrb=fgetl(fid9);
Data_driftlrb=fscanf(fid9, '%f', [3 inf])'; %Number of columns
on Driftlrb file,#floor+2
fclose(fid9);
delete('driftlrb.txt')
%axial force
fid8=fopen('axiallrb.txt','r');
Data_axiallrb=fgetl(fid8);Data_axiallrb=fgetl(fid8);
Data_axiallrb=fscanf(fid8, '%f', [3 inf])'; %Number of columns
fclose(fid8);
delete('axiallrb.txt')
ndata=length(Data_axiallrb);
%drift 2
fid9=fopen('driftlrb2.txt','r');
Data_driftlrb2=fgetl(fid9);Data_driftlrb2=fgetl(fid9);
Data_driftlrb2=fscanf(fid9, '%f', [3 inf])'; %Number of columns
fclose(fid9);
delete('driftlrb2.txt')
%axial force 2
fid8=fopen('axiallrb2.txt','r');
Data_axiallrb2=fgetl(fid8);Data_axiallrb2=fgetl(fid8);
Data_axiallrb2=fscanf(fid8, '%f', [3 inf])'; %Number of columns
fclose(fid8);
delete('axiallrb2.txt')
%ndata=length(Data_axiallrb);
%Check for continuation of analysis

%x=abs(Data_driftlrb(:,3));
%y=Data_axiallrb(:,3);
%xv=[0 2 0 0]';
%yv=[0 0 -100000 0]';
%in = inpolygon(x,y,xv,yv);
%plot(xv,yv,x(in),y(in),'r+');
%asdfasdfasdf
Stop_anal=0;
for i=1:ndata
x=abs(Data_driftlrb(i,3));
y=Data_axiallrb(i,3);
x2=abs(Data_driftlrb2(i,3));
y2=Data_axiallrb2(i,3);
Page 3
run_IDA042810.m
%i
if y<0 % to take only compression values
xv=[0 762 0 0]';
yv=[0 0 -22241.10 0]';
in = inpolygon(x,y,xv,yv);
%hold on
if in==0
if y2<0
in2=inpolygon(x2,y2,xv,yv);
if in2==0
Crit(i_scf,i_eq)=1;
P_c(i_scf,i_eq)=y;
D_c(i_scf,i_eq)=x;
break
else
Crit(i_scf,i_eq)=0;
end
end
end
end
end
%x=0;
%y=0;
%in=1;
%hold on
%end
delete(Output_File3);
% if (Stop_anal>=1);
% break;
%end;
delete(Output_File,Output_File2);
%max_drift_prev=max_drift;
end;
%Update line
fprintf(fid_p(i),'\n');
end;
max_drift=zeros(N_stories+1,1);
max_drift_prev=zeros(N_stories+1,1);
end;
fclose('all');
%if i_building==1
save 'Crit.txt' Crit -ascii
% save 'max_acc_original_bldg.txt' max_acc -ascii
% end
end
Page 4
run_IDA042810.m
Spec_acc=0.081*Scale_f';
Bridge_Frag
disp('End of Process');
Page 5
Bridge_frag.m
% Find Collapse Fragility Curve
%Define Probability of Failure
P_Exceed = sum(Crit,2)/N_Eq;
% Optimized Fragility curve
Var_vect_0=zeros(2,1);
Var_vect_upper=zeros(2,1);
Var_vect_lower=zeros(2,1);
for i_scf = 1:N_Eq,
if P_Exceed(i_scf) >= 0.5,
Var_vect_0(1) = Spec_acc(i_scf);
break
end
end
Var_vect_0(2)= 0.4;
Var_vect_lower(1)=0;
Var_vect_lower(2)=0;
Var_vect_upper(1)=max(Spec_acc);
Var_vect_upper(2)=1;
Weight_lim(1,1)=0.01;
Weight_lim(2,1)=0.99;
Weight_fact_in=2;
Weight_fact_out=0.5;
Var_vect=
lsqnonlin(@Fragility_fun,Var_vect_0,Var_vect_lower,Var_vect_upper,[],Spec_acc,P_Exce
ed,Weight_lim,Weight_fact_in,Weight_fact_out);
Dispersion_C = Var_vect(2);
Median_C = Var_vect(1);
P_Col_fit = logncdf(Spec_acc,log(Median_C),Dispersion_C);
figure
%Plotting Curve
plot(Spec_acc,P_Exceed,'o','LineWidth',1,...
'MarkerEdgeColor','k',...
'MarkerFaceColor','b',...
'MarkerSize',6);
hold on
plot(Spec_acc,P_Col_fit,'r-','LineWidth',3);
title('Fragility curve for Probability of collapse-Lead Rubber

Bearing','FontWeight','bold','Fontname','Times New Roman','Fontsize',12)
xlabel(['Median S_a [g]'],'FontWeight','bold','Fontname','Times New
Roman','Fontsize',11)
ylabel('Probability of collapse','FontWeight','bold','Fontname','Times New
Roman','Fontsize',11)
legend('Numerical Fragility Curve','Fitted Lognormal Curve',4)
set(legend,'Fontname','Times New Roman','Fontsize',11);
set(gca,'Fontname','Times New Roman','Fontsize',11);
set(gcf,'units','inches','position',[3.2500 0.3438 6 4.5]);
max_x = max(Spec_acc);
axis([0 1.01*max_x 0 1]);
box on
axis on; grid on
text(4/6*max_x,.5,['\mu = ',sprintf('%5.3f',Var_vect(1))],'Fontname','Times New
Roman','FontWeight','bold','Fontsize',12)
text(4/6*max_x,.4,['\beta = ',sprintf('%5.3f',Var_vect(2))],'Fontname','Times
New Roman','FontWeight','bold','Fontsize',12)
hold off
Page 1
APPENDIX D
File D:\jbaleman\My Documents\My Customized Documents\CLASS 9.BASE
ISOLATION\07 Final Project\sap2000 model\Br042510-1.s2k was saved on
4/28/10 at 18:27:45
TABLE: "PROGRAM CONTROL"

ProgramName=SAP2000 Version=14.0.0 ProgLevel=Advanced
LicenseOS=No LicenseSC=No LicenseBR=Yes LicenseHT=No
CurrUnits="Kip, ft, F" SteelCode=AISC-LRFD93 ConcCode="ACI 318-02"
AlumCode="AA-ASD 2000" _
ColdCode=AISI-ASD96 BridgeCode="AASHTO LRFD 2007"
RegenHinge=No
TABLE: "LINK PROPERTY DEFINITIONS 01 - GENERAL"

Link=LIN1 LinkType=Linear Mass=0 Weight=0 RotInert1=0
RotInert2=0 RotInert3=0 DefLength=1 DefArea=1 PDM2I=0 PDM2J=0
PDM3I=0 PDM3J=0 Color=Magenta
TABLE: "LINK PROPERTY DEFINITIONS 02 - LINEAR"

Link=LIN1 DOF=U1 Fixed=No TransKE=1 TransCE=0
TABLE: "MASSES 1 - MASS SOURCE"

MassFrom=Elements
TABLE: "JOINT COORDINATES"

Joint=1 CoordSys=GLOBAL CoordType=Cartesian XorR=-66.5 Y=
11.258 Z=0 SpecialJt=No GlobalX=-66.5 GlobalY=11.258 GlobalZ=0
Joint=2 CoordSys=GLOBAL CoordType=Cartesian XorR=-53.5 Y=-
11.258 Z=0 SpecialJt=No GlobalX=-53.5 GlobalY=-11.258 GlobalZ=
0
Joint=3 CoordSys=GLOBAL CoordType=Cartesian XorR=53.5 Y=
11.258 Z=0 SpecialJt=No GlobalX=53.5 GlobalY=11.258 GlobalZ=0
Joint=4 CoordSys=GLOBAL CoordType=Cartesian XorR=66.5 Y=-
11.258 Z=0 SpecialJt=No GlobalX=66.5 GlobalY=-11.258 GlobalZ=0
11.258 Z=1.75 SpecialJt=No GlobalX=-66.5 GlobalY=11.258
GlobalZ=1.75
11.258 Z=1.75 SpecialJt=No GlobalX=-53.5 GlobalY=-11.258
GlobalZ=1.75
11.258 Z=1.75 SpecialJt=No GlobalX=53.5 GlobalY=11.258
GlobalZ=1.75
11.258 Z=1.75 SpecialJt=No GlobalX=66.5 GlobalY=-11.258
GlobalZ=1.75
GlobalZ=21.75
GlobalZ=21.75
GlobalZ=21.75
GlobalZ=21.75
11.258 Z=24.4166666666667 SpecialJt=Yes GlobalX=-166.5 GlobalY=
11.258 GlobalZ=24.4166666666667
11.258 Z=24.4166666666667 SpecialJt=Yes GlobalX=-153.5 GlobalY=-
11.258 GlobalZ=24.4166666666667
11.258 Z=24.4166666666667 SpecialJt=No GlobalX=-66.5 GlobalY=
11.258 GlobalZ=24.4166666666667
Joint=16 CoordSys=GLOBAL CoordType=Cartesian XorR=-60 Y=0
Z=24.4166666666667 SpecialJt=No GlobalX=-60 GlobalY=0 GlobalZ=
24.4166666666667
11.258 Z=24.4166666666667 SpecialJt=No GlobalX=-53.5 GlobalY=-
11.258 GlobalZ=24.4166666666667
11.258 Z=24.4166666666667 SpecialJt=No GlobalX=53.5 GlobalY=
11.258 GlobalZ=24.4166666666667
Joint=19 CoordSys=GLOBAL CoordType=Cartesian XorR=60 Y=0 Z=
24.4166666666667 SpecialJt=No GlobalX=60 GlobalY=0 GlobalZ=
24.4166666666667
11.258 Z=24.4166666666667 SpecialJt=No GlobalX=66.5 GlobalY=-
11.258 GlobalZ=24.4166666666667
11.258 Z=24.4166666666667 SpecialJt=Yes GlobalX=153.5 GlobalY=
11.258 GlobalZ=24.4166666666667
11.258 Z=24.4166666666667 SpecialJt=Yes GlobalX=166.5 GlobalY=-
11.258 GlobalZ=24.4166666666667
GlobalZ=25.75
Z=25.75 SpecialJt=No GlobalX=-160 GlobalY=0 GlobalZ=25.75
GlobalZ=25.75
GlobalZ=25.75
GlobalZ=25.75
GlobalZ=25.75
25.75 SpecialJt=No GlobalX=60 GlobalY=0 GlobalZ=25.75
GlobalZ=25.75
GlobalZ=25.75
Joint=33 CoordSys=GLOBAL CoordType=Cartesian XorR=160 Y=0
Z=25.75 SpecialJt=No GlobalX=160 GlobalY=0 GlobalZ=25.75
GlobalZ=25.75
TABLE: "CONNECTIVITY - FRAME"

Frame=2 JointI=24 JointJ=23 IsCurved=No Length=
12.9997139968539 CentroidX=-163.25 CentroidY=5.629 CentroidZ=25.75
Frame=3 JointI=24 JointJ=35 IsCurved=No Length=3.38
CentroidX=-160 CentroidY=0 CentroidZ=27.44
12.9997139968539 CentroidX=-156.75 CentroidY=-5.629 CentroidZ=
25.75
1.33333333333333 CentroidX=-166.5 CentroidY=11.258 CentroidZ=
25.0833333333333
Frame=6 JointI=35 JointJ=36 IsCurved=No Length=100
CentroidX=-66.5 CentroidY=11.258 CentroidZ=0.875
Frame=8 JointI=5 JointJ=9 IsCurved=No Length=20 CentroidX=-
66.5 CentroidY=11.258 CentroidZ=11.75
23.0833333333333
25.0833333333333
24.4166666666667
24.4166666666667
12.9997139968539 CentroidX=-56.75 CentroidY=-5.629 CentroidZ=25.75
CentroidX=-53.5 CentroidY=-11.258 CentroidZ=0.875
23.0833333333333
1.33333333333333 CentroidX=153.5 CentroidY=11.258 CentroidZ=
25.0833333333333
CentroidX=30 CentroidY=0 CentroidZ=29.13
CentroidX=53.5 CentroidY=11.258 CentroidZ=0.875
23.0833333333333
1.33333333333333 CentroidX=166.5 CentroidY=-11.258 CentroidZ=
25.0833333333333
24.4166666666667
12.9997139968539 CentroidX=56.75 CentroidY=5.629 CentroidZ=25.75
24.4166666666667
12.9997139968539 CentroidX=63.25 CentroidY=-5.629 CentroidZ=25.75
CentroidX=66.5 CentroidY=-11.258 CentroidZ=0.875
23.0833333333333
25.0833333333333
25.0833333333333
25.0833333333333
25.0833333333333
TABLE: "JOINT RESTRAINT ASSIGNMENTS"

Joint=13 U1=Yes U2=Yes U3=Yes R1=Yes R2=Yes R3=Yes
TABLE: "JOINT LOCAL AXES ASSIGNMENTS 1 - TYPICAL"

Joint=1 AngleA=120 AngleB=90 AngleC=90 AdvanceAxes=No
TABLE: "JOINT SPRING ASSIGNMENTS 1 - UNCOUPLED"
Joint=1 CoordSys=Local U1=94400 U2=103000 U3=103000 R1=
11500000 R2=7120000 R3=7120000
11500000 R2=7120000 R3=7120000
11500000 R2=7120000 R3=7120000
11500000 R2=7120000 R3=7120000
TABLE: "JOINT ADDED MASS ASSIGNMENTS"

Joint=35 CoordSys="Joint Local" Mass1=4.1615 Mass2=4.1615
Mass3=4.1615 MMI1=0 MMI2=0 MMI3=0
Mass3=4.1615 MMI1=0 MMI2=0 MMI3=0
Mass3=4.1615 MMI1=0 MMI2=0 MMI3=0
Mass3=4.1615 MMI1=0 MMI2=0 MMI3=0
TABLE: "JOINT LOADS - FORCE"

Joint=35 LoadPat=DEAD CoordSys=GLOBAL F1=0 F2=0 F3=-134
M1=0 M2=0 M3=0
M1=0 M2=0 M3=0
M1=0 M2=0 M3=0
M1=0 M2=0 M3=0
TABLE: "FRAME SECTION ASSIGNMENTS"

Frame=2 SectionType=General AutoSelect=N.A. AnalSect=R-GIRD
DesignSect=N.A. MatProp=Default
Frame=5 SectionType=General AutoSelect=N.A. AnalSect=A-LB
DesignSect=A-LB MatProp=Default
Frame=6 SectionType=General AutoSelect=N.A. AnalSect=BOX-GIRD
Frame=7 SectionType=General AutoSelect=N.A. AnalSect=R-FTG
Frame=8 SectionType=General AutoSelect=N.A. AnalSect=COL
Frame=9 SectionType=General AutoSelect=N.A. AnalSect=R-COL
Frame=11 SectionType=General AutoSelect=N.A. AnalSect=CAP-BEAM
Frame=34 SectionType=General AutoSelect=N.A. AnalSect=P-LB
DesignSect=P-LB MatProp=Default
TABLE: "FRAME PROPERTY MODIFIERS"

Frame=6 AMod=1 AS2Mod=1 AS3Mod=1 JMod=1 I22Mod=1 I33Mod=1
MassMod=0 WeightMod=0
Frame=20 AMod=1 AS2Mod=1 AS3Mod=1 JMod=1 I22Mod=1 I33Mod=
1 MassMod=0 WeightMod=0
TABLE: "FRAME RELEASE ASSIGNMENTS 1 - GENERAL"

Frame=6 PI=No V2I=No V3I=No TI=No M2I=No M3I=No PJ=No
V2J=No V3J=No TJ=Yes M2J=No M3J=No PartialFix=No
Frame=20 PI=No V2I=No V3I=No TI=Yes M2I=No M3I=No PJ=No
V2J=No V3J=No TJ=No M2J=No M3J=No PartialFix=No
TABLE: "FRAME OUTPUT STATION ASSIGNMENTS"

Frame=2 StationType=MaxStaSpcg MaxStaSpcg=2 AddAtElmInt=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
Frame=3 StationType=MinNumSta MinNumSta=3 AddAtElmInt=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
TABLE: "FRAME ADDED MASS ASSIGNMENTS"

Frame=6 MassPerLen=0.44224
TABLE: "FRAME AUTO MESH ASSIGNMENTS"

Frame=2 AutoMesh=Yes AtJoints=Yes AtFrames=No NumSegments=0
MaxLength=0 MaxDegrees=0
TABLE: "FRAME LOADS - DISTRIBUTED"

Frame=6 LoadPat=DEAD CoordSys=GLOBAL Type=Force Dir=Gravity
DistType=RelDist RelDistA=0 RelDistB=1 AbsDistA=0 AbsDistB=100
FOverLA=14.24 FOverLB=14.24
DistType=RelDist RelDistA=0 RelDistB=1 AbsDistA=0 AbsDistB=1.75
DistType=RelDist RelDistA=0 RelDistB=1 AbsDistA=0 AbsDistB=
12.9997139968539 FOverLA=5.26 FOverLB=5.26
12.9997139968539 FOverLA=5.26 FOverLB=5.26
12.9997139968539 FOverLA=5.26 FOverLB=5.26
12.9997139968539 FOverLA=5.26 FOverLB=5.26
END TABLE DATA
File D:\jbaleman\My Documents\My Customized Documents\CLASS 9.BASE
ISOLATION\07 Final Project\sap2000 model\bridge042410.s2k was saved on
4/28/10 at 18:25:27
TABLE: "PROGRAM CONTROL"

ProgramName=SAP2000 Version=14.0.0 ProgLevel=Advanced
LicenseOS=No LicenseSC=No LicenseBR=Yes LicenseHT=No
CurrUnits="Kip, ft, F" SteelCode=AISC-LRFD93 ConcCode="ACI 318-02"
AlumCode="AA-ASD 2000" _
ColdCode=AISI-ASD96 BridgeCode="AASHTO LRFD 2007"
RegenHinge=No
TABLE: "LINK PROPERTY DEFINITIONS 01 - GENERAL"

Link=LB-A LinkType="Rubber Isolator" Mass=0.1584 Weight=0
RotInert1=0 RotInert2=0 RotInert3=0 DefLength=8.33333333333333E-02
DefArea=6.94444444444444E-03 PDM2I=0 PDM2J=0 PDM3I=0 PDM3J=0
Color=Yellow Notes="Added 4/25/2010 8:30:53 PM"
Link=LB-P LinkType="Rubber Isolator" Mass=0.1584 Weight=0
Color=Gray8Dark Notes="Added 4/25/2010 8:49:51 PM"
Link=LIN1 LinkType=Linear Mass=0 Weight=0 RotInert1=0
RotInert2=0 RotInert3=0 DefLength=1 DefArea=1 PDM2I=0 PDM2J=0
PDM3I=0 PDM3J=0 Color=Magenta
Link=UB-A LinkType="Rubber Isolator" Mass=0.1584 Weight=0
Color=Blue Notes="Added 4/25/2010 8:52:58 PM"
Link=UB-P LinkType="Rubber Isolator" Mass=0.1584 Weight=0
Color=Green Notes="Added 4/25/2010 8:54:23 PM"
TABLE: "LINK PROPERTY DEFINITIONS 02 - LINEAR"

Link=LIN1 DOF=U1 Fixed=No TransKE=1 TransCE=0
TABLE: "LINK PROPERTY DEFINITIONS 07 - RUBBER ISOLATOR"

Link=LB-A DOF=U1 Fixed=No NonLinear=No TransKE=120000
TransCE=0
Link=LB-A DOF=U2 Fixed=No NonLinear=Yes TransKE=56.88
TransCE=0 DJ=0.666666666666667 TransK=111.6 TransYield=9.3
Ratio=0.4623
Link=LB-A DOF=U3 Fixed=No NonLinear=Yes TransKE=56.88
Ratio=0.4623
Link=LB-A DOF=R2 Fixed=No NonLinear=No RotKE=41666.6666666667
RotCE=0
Link=LB-A DOF=R3 Fixed=No NonLinear=No RotKE=41666.6666666667
RotCE=0
Link=LB-P DOF=U1 Fixed=No NonLinear=No TransKE=120000
TransCE=0
Link=LB-P DOF=U2 Fixed=No NonLinear=Yes TransKE=118.332
Ratio=0.0532
Link=LB-P DOF=U3 Fixed=No NonLinear=Yes TransKE=118.332
Ratio=0.0532
Link=LB-P DOF=R2 Fixed=No NonLinear=No RotKE=41666.6666666667
RotCE=0
Link=LB-P DOF=R3 Fixed=No NonLinear=No RotKE=41666.6666666667
RotCE=0
Link=UB-A DOF=U1 Fixed=No NonLinear=No TransKE=144000
TransCE=0
Link=UB-A DOF=U2 Fixed=No NonLinear=Yes TransKE=88.5
Ratio=0.576
Link=UB-A DOF=U3 Fixed=No NonLinear=Yes TransKE=88.5
Ratio=0.576
Link=UB-A DOF=R2 Fixed=No NonLinear=No RotKE=41666.6666666667
RotCE=0
Link=UB-A DOF=R3 Fixed=No NonLinear=No RotKE=41666.6666666667
RotCE=0
Link=UB-P DOF=U1 Fixed=No NonLinear=No TransKE=144000
TransCE=0
Link=UB-P DOF=U2 Fixed=No NonLinear=Yes TransKE=266.952
Ratio=0.0429
Link=UB-P DOF=U3 Fixed=No NonLinear=Yes TransKE=266.952
Ratio=0.0429
Link=UB-P DOF=R2 Fixed=No NonLinear=No RotKE=41666.6666666667
RotCE=0
Link=UB-P DOF=R3 Fixed=No NonLinear=No RotKE=41666.6666666667
RotCE=0
TABLE: "MASSES 1 - MASS SOURCE"

MassFrom=Elements
TABLE: "JOINT COORDINATES"

11.258 Z=0 SpecialJt=No GlobalX=-66.5 GlobalY=11.258 GlobalZ=0
11.258 Z=0 SpecialJt=No GlobalX=-53.5 GlobalY=-11.258 GlobalZ=
0
11.258 Z=0 SpecialJt=No GlobalX=53.5 GlobalY=11.258 GlobalZ=0
11.258 Z=0 SpecialJt=No GlobalX=66.5 GlobalY=-11.258 GlobalZ=0
GlobalZ=1.75
GlobalZ=1.75
GlobalZ=1.75
GlobalZ=1.75
GlobalZ=21.75
GlobalZ=21.75
GlobalZ=21.75
GlobalZ=21.75
11.258 Z=24.4166666666667 SpecialJt=Yes GlobalX=-166.5 GlobalY=
11.258 GlobalZ=24.4166666666667
11.258 Z=24.4166666666667 SpecialJt=Yes GlobalX=-153.5 GlobalY=-
11.258 GlobalZ=24.4166666666667
11.258 Z=24.4166666666667 SpecialJt=No GlobalX=-66.5 GlobalY=
11.258 GlobalZ=24.4166666666667
Z=24.4166666666667 SpecialJt=No GlobalX=-60 GlobalY=0 GlobalZ=
24.4166666666667
11.258 Z=24.4166666666667 SpecialJt=No GlobalX=-53.5 GlobalY=-
11.258 GlobalZ=24.4166666666667
11.258 Z=24.4166666666667 SpecialJt=No GlobalX=53.5 GlobalY=
11.258 GlobalZ=24.4166666666667
24.4166666666667 SpecialJt=No GlobalX=60 GlobalY=0 GlobalZ=
24.4166666666667
11.258 Z=24.4166666666667 SpecialJt=No GlobalX=66.5 GlobalY=-
11.258 GlobalZ=24.4166666666667
11.258 Z=24.4166666666667 SpecialJt=Yes GlobalX=153.5 GlobalY=
11.258 GlobalZ=24.4166666666667
11.258 Z=24.4166666666667 SpecialJt=Yes GlobalX=166.5 GlobalY=-
11.258 GlobalZ=24.4166666666667
GlobalZ=25.75
GlobalZ=25.75
GlobalZ=25.75
GlobalZ=25.75
GlobalZ=25.75
GlobalZ=25.75
GlobalZ=25.75
GlobalZ=25.75
TABLE: "CONNECTIVITY - FRAME"

25.75
Frame=8 JointI=5 JointJ=9 IsCurved=No Length=20 CentroidX=-
23.0833333333333
24.4166666666667
24.4166666666667
12.9997139968539 CentroidX=-56.75 CentroidY=-5.629 CentroidZ=25.75
23.0833333333333
23.0833333333333
24.4166666666667
24.4166666666667
23.0833333333333
TABLE: "CONNECTIVITY - LINK"

Link=1 JointI=13 JointJ=23 Length=1.33333333333333
Link=6 JointI=18 JointJ=29 Length=1.33333333333333 CentroidX=
66.5 CentroidY=-11.258 CentroidZ=25.0833333333333
166.5 CentroidY=-11.258 CentroidZ=25.0833333333333
TABLE: "JOINT RESTRAINT ASSIGNMENTS"

TABLE: "JOINT LOCAL AXES ASSIGNMENTS 1 - TYPICAL"

TABLE: "JOINT SPRING ASSIGNMENTS 1 - UNCOUPLED"
11500000 R2=7120000 R3=7120000
11500000 R2=7120000 R3=7120000
11500000 R2=7120000 R3=7120000
11500000 R2=7120000 R3=7120000
TABLE: "JOINT ADDED MASS ASSIGNMENTS"

Mass3=4.1615 MMI1=0 MMI2=0 MMI3=0
Mass3=4.1615 MMI1=0 MMI2=0 MMI3=0
Mass3=4.1615 MMI1=0 MMI2=0 MMI3=0
Mass3=4.1615 MMI1=0 MMI2=0 MMI3=0
TABLE: "JOINT LOADS - FORCE"

M1=0 M2=0 M3=0
M1=0 M2=0 M3=0
M1=0 M2=0 M3=0
M1=0 M2=0 M3=0
TABLE: "FRAME SECTION ASSIGNMENTS"

TABLE: "FRAME PROPERTY MODIFIERS"

TABLE: "FRAME RELEASE ASSIGNMENTS 1 - GENERAL"

TABLE: "FRAME OUTPUT STATION ASSIGNMENTS"

AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
AddAtPtLoad=Yes
TABLE: "FRAME ADDED MASS ASSIGNMENTS"

TABLE: "FRAME AUTO MESH ASSIGNMENTS"

TABLE: "FRAME LOADS - DISTRIBUTED"

12.9997139968539 FOverLA=5.26 FOverLB=5.26
12.9997139968539 FOverLA=5.26 FOverLB=5.26
12.9997139968539 FOverLA=5.26 FOverLB=5.26
12.9997139968539 FOverLA=5.26 FOverLB=5.26
TABLE: "FRAME DESIGN PROCEDURES"

Frame=2 DesignProc="No Design"
TABLE: "LINK PROPERTY ASSIGNMENTS"

Link=1 LinkType="Rubber Isolator" LinkJoints=TwoJoint
LinkProp=LB-A LinkFDProp=None
LinkProp=LB-P LinkFDProp=None
END TABLE DATA

Bi Final Report 042810

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Bi Final Report 042810

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

DESIIGN, ANA

Aprril 27, 20100

A term projeect submittted to the

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iii

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iv

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. v

1 Description of the Structure..................................................................................................... 1

2 Loading Conditions ................................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Service Loading Conditions ............................................................................................. 6

2.2 Seismic Loading conditions ............................................................................................. 7

3 Single Mode Analysis and Design ........................................................................................ 12

4 Multimode Response Spectrum Analysis .............................................................................. 15

5 Dynamic Response History Analysis .................................................................................... 19

6 Preliminary Collapse Assessment ......................................................................................... 22

6.1 Buckling collapse on Lead Rubber-Elastomeric Bearings ............................................. 22

6.2 RUAUMOKO Model and Ground Motion Set .............................................................. 24

6.3 Buckling Collapse Fragility Functions ........................................................................... 25

7 Conclusions and future work ................................................................................................. 27

7.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 27

7.2 Recommendations for future research............................................................................ 27

Figure 1.1 Bridge Plan and Elevation (Constantinou et al. 2010)

Figure 1.3 Cross Section at Intermediate bent (Constantinou et al. 2010)

Figure 1.4 Isolation System

Figure 2.1 Google Map with the exact bridge location

Abutment Bearings Pier Bearings

No. Earthquake Name Recording MW 1

1 1976 Gazli, USSR Karakyr 6.80 5.46 C

2 1989 Loma Prieta LGPC 6.93 3.88 C

3 1989 Loma Prieta Saratoga W. 6.93 9.31 C

4 1994 Northridge Jensen Filter Plant 6.69 5.43 C

5 1994 Northridge Sylmar Coverter 6.69 5.19 C

6 1995 Kobe, Japan Takarazuka 6.90 3.00 D

7 1999 Duzce, Turkey Bolu 7.14 12.41 D

Procedure of Scaling: - Weighted Scaling

Period(sec) 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Calculate the FJ for each method

Table 2.5 Scaling Factors obtained for DBE

2 1989 Loma Prieta 0.850 0.92 1.2 0.94

3 1989 Loma Prieta 1.420 0.92 1.2 1.57

5 1994 Northridge 0.806 0.92 1.2 0.90

6 1995 Kobe, Japan 0.877 0.92 1.2 0.97

7 1999 Duzce, Turkey 0.944 0.92 1.2 1.04

Table 3.1 Calculated Displacements and Force Demands-Single Mode Analysis

Parameter Upper Bound Analysis Lower Bound Analysis

Figure 4.1 3D model of the bridge for Response Spectrum Analysis.

Figure 4.2 Modified Spectrum for Lower Bound Analysis in SAP2000

Table 4.1 Values of Parameters h, A, I, J and E used in Response Spectrum Analysis

Parameter Upper Bound Analysis Lower Bound Analysis

Table 4.2 Key Response Quantities Obtained in SAP2000 Multimodal analysis.

Upper bound Analysis

Figure 4.4 Three first modes of Vibration of the Isolated Bridge

Table 5.1Mechanical properties used in Sap2000 to model Isolator Elements

Parameter Upper Bound analysis Lower Bound Analysis

Figure 5.2 Input Data Required by SAP2000

EQ1-NP 18.3 18.1 80.3 132.5 67.5 127.4

6.1 Buckling collapse on Lead Rubber-Elastomeric Bearings

Each point (P, Dr) inside

Figure 6.2 Three Bridge Isolation system modes of collapse

Figure 6.3RUAUMOKO 3D model of the bridge

Figure 6.4 Hysteretic Behavior Abutment Bearings

0.1 Numerical Fragility Curve

0.1 Numerical Fragility Curve

7.2 Recommendations for future research

Some recommendations for future research are: