Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 32043212

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Bridge seismic response as a function of the Friction Pendulum System (FPS)

modeling assumptions
Murat Erz a,,1 , Reginald DesRoches b
a Forell/Elsesser Engineers, Inc. 160 Pine Street Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94111, United States
b School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 790 Atlantic Drive N.W., Atlanta, GA 30332, United States

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

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 415 341 6378.

E-mail addresses: eroz@forell.com (M. Erz), reginald.desroches@ce.gatech.edu
(R. DesRoches).
1 Formerly: School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of
Technology, 790 Atlantic Drive N.W., Atlanta, GA 30332, United States.
0141-0296/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.04.032

Fig. 1. Components of the Friction Pendulum System (FPS).

the frequency content of the ground motions, make it a viable

option for bridge seismic isolation [1,8,24]. The behavior of the
FPS is strongly nonlinear and involves the coupling of multiple
components of the dynamic response, posing challenges for those
attempting to model their response. The main modeling aspects
of the response of the FPS are: (1) the normal force (N); (2)
the coefficient of friction (); (3) the in-plane bi-directional
sliding interaction; and (4) large deformation effects (P) [14].
The response of the FPS is typically modeled by a simplified

M. Erz, R. DesRoches / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 32043212

bilinear forcedeformation relationship. Ample theoretical and

experimental research findings are available in the literature for
separately representing each of these modeling aspects. However,
the required level of accuracy for modeling the FPS in seismically
isolated bridges has not received notable attention.
Previous research considering the effects of different aspects
of nonlinearities in the response of the FPS showed that there
might be a significant divergence from a bilinear idealization.
Experiments showed that N fluctuations were consequential
in the response of individual isolators incorporating a sliding
mechanism [14,20]. Dicleli [6] showed that varying dead loads
on FPS along a seismically isolated bridge (SIB) might lead to a
non-uniform transverse response that could result in excessive
displacements. Nakajima et al. [18] tested combined rubber and
friction bearings, and concluded that omitting the variation of the
in the modeling process caused considerable error. Jangid [9]
performed a parametric study on a SIB and showed that the of
the bearings is influential in optimizing the seismic response of
the bridge. Warn and Whittaker [23] showed that the neglect of
the bi-directional coupling of isolation bearing models in bridges
resulted in discrepancies in the forcedeformation histories, and
underestimation of displacements of the bearings. Almazan and De
la Llera [1] showed that the exact kinematics and P moments
might be considerable in estimating the peak bending moments
of columns in SIBs. The authors highlighted that the upward or
downward positioning of the FPS can be used to control the flow
of the P moments.
The previous studies, among others, have been invaluable in
acquiring an understanding pertaining to the response of the FPS.
However, the influence of one or more of the four modeling
aspects associated with the FPS response has been previously
neglected. The lack of guidance on the relative influence of the
modeling aspects of the FPS on bridge response has prompted
conservative attitudes among the engineering community and
limited the use of this technology [11]. There is a need to
develop a better understanding of the influence of the modeling
assumptions and the required level of accuracy for the FPS in threedimensional (3-D) bridge models. In this paper, a 3-D zero-length
nonlinear finite element (FE) model of the FPS that can include
various of the above modeling aspects in any desired combination,
is developed in OpenSees [12] to ascertain the importance of
these assumptions. The modeling aspects mentioned above are
addressed and important physical phenomenon involved in the
response are presented. These aspects are encapsulated into the
formulation of a nonlinear zero-length element. A summary of the
implementation of the mathematical formulation into OpenSees
is presented. A detailed 3-D model of a seismically isolated multispan continuous (MSC) bridge incorporating the FPS is developed.
The influence of the variations in N and , in-plane bi-directional
sliding interaction, P effects, and the orientation of the FPS are
highlighted.
2. Modeling aspects
The two components of the intrinsic forces of the FPS consist of
the pendulum motion of the mass, fR , and the friction between the
mass and the sliding surface, f . Assuming small deformations, the
unidirectional forcedeformation response of the FPS is:
f

fR

z }| { z}|{
+ N
f = N sgn()
R

(1)

where N is the normal force acting on the sliding surface, R is the

radius of the concave surface, is the sliding deformation, is the
is the signum function, i.e., equal to +1
sliding velocity, and sgn()
or 1 depending on whether is negative or positive, respectively.

3205

Fig. 2. Force-deformation characteristics of the unidirectional rigidplastic

response of the FPS.

This relationship corresponds to a unidirectional rigidplastic

hysteretic model given in Fig. 2. If the yield displacements
of steelTeflon sliding surfaces reported are on the order on
0.060.13 cm by Constantinou et al. [4] for conditions relevant
to the FPS are considered, Fig. 2 takes up the characteristics of a
bilinear model. This model is based on the assumptions that: (1) N
is constant; (2) is constant; (3) the response is uncoupled in the
orthogonal directions; and (4) deformations are small and planar.
The normal force, N, acting on the FPS is inherent in both
resisting force components, f and fR , of the response. The increase
in the magnitude of N is indicative of a higher yield force, which
may delay the mobilization of the FPS under dynamic and a
higher post-yield stiffness, which may reduce the flexibility of the
FPS. Additionally, N changes the magnitude of , however this
relationship is discussed subsequently. The conventional FPS does
not have resistance in tension and it is approximately rigid in
compression. This behavior closely matches the response of a zerolength gap element defined with a force:

kg g if g 6 0.0
fg =
(2)
0.0
if g > 0.0
where kg is a high compression stiffness and g is the deformation.
Modeling the vertical response of the FPS with a gap element
allows simultaneously the monitoring of the variations in the N and
capturing the effects of uplift and impact in the FPS.
The coefficient of friction, , in addition to the material
properties of the surface, were found to be primarily a function of
and N [13]. Accurate mathematical models have been developed
by Constantinou et al. [4] to capture the value of for a range of
and N that is of interest to the response of the FPS. The influence
of on the was approximated via the aid of experimental results
as:

= fmax Df e(a||)

(3)

where, fmax and fmin are the values of coefficient of friction at

large and small sliding velocities, respectively, Df is the difference
between fmax and fmin , and a is a constant, having units of time
per unit length, that controls the variation of the coefficient of
friction with velocity. Only the dependency of fmax to pressure, P, is
considered in this study as the influence of pressure on fmin and a
were shown to be negligible by Tsopelas et al. [21]. The term fmax
as a function of P was given as:
fmax = fmax,0 Df max tanh(P )

(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

M. Erz, R. DesRoches / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 32043212

Fig. 3. Deformed shape of the seismic isolator between the superstructure and the substructure with concave dish at the (a) bottom (b) top.

range between 0.05 to 0.12 [7]. The parameters used in defining

Eqs. (3) and (4) are a function of surface properties and are obtained
from full-scale tests of the isolators prior to installation. Sample
values may be found elsewhere [3,4,13,14].
Bi-directional motion may commence in the FPS subject to
multidirectional excitations. The orthogonal components of the
planar friction force vector, f = [ fx fy ]T , defined in the
planar x and y directions as fx and fy respectively, are coupled.
The interaction surface of fx and fx is circular and the resultant
q
sliding friction force magnitude, ||f || = f2x + f2y , is equal to N
regardless of the planar sliding direction. If each of the components
of f is modeled uncoupled as in Eq. (1), the magnitude of ||f ||
during sliding ranges from N, if sliding along the x or y axes, and

2N, if sliding along a path along the 45 degree direction.

Constantinou [4] extended the work of Park et al. [19] and
presented bi-dimensional hysteretic parameters, = [ x y ]T ,
to evaluate f in planar steelTeflon sliding interfaces. The
frictional force vector in this case is defined as:
f = N .

(5)

The parameters of evolve according to the following coupled set

of differential equations:
"
#" #
 
1 A ax 2x ay x y
x
x
=
=
(6)
2
y
y
s ax x y A ax x
where x and y , are the components of the sliding velocity in the
x and y directions, respectively, ax = + sgn( x x ), ay = +
sgn( y y ), s = max(k/N, smin ) is the deformation at which
sliding occurs with k the stiffness during the sticking phase and
smin the minimum value of s used to avoid instability problems
in the integration procedure when N tends to zero; and A, , are
dimensionless constants that control the shape of the hysteretic
loops. Constantinou [4] showed that for A/( + ) = 1, the solution
of Eq. (6): (1) describes a circular interaction curve; (2) for sliding
conditions the hysteretic parameters are x = cos and y =
sin , where = arctan( y / x ); and (3) for sticking conditions
kk < 1.0. A value of A = 1, = 0.1 and = 0.9 was found
to produce satisfactory accordance of the analytical response with
those obtained from the experiments in surfaces similar to the
FPS [4].
The orientation of the FPS controls whether the P moments
occur at the structural members below or above the bearing [7].
This unique feature of the FPS does not have implications on the
in-plane forcedeformation response and allows for diverting P
moments from weak elements of the structure [1]. Fig. 3 is a

schematic of the displaced shape of an FPS between a simplified

bridge superstructure and the column. The normal force, N, is
transmitted through the slider to the concave dish. Assuming that
the rotations at the superstructure and the top of the column
are negligible, the displaced configuration of the FPS results in an
internal moment M = N. This internal moment, M, is balanced
at the tip of the column if the concave dish is at the bottom and by
the superstructure if the concave dish is at the top. Almazan and De
la Llera [1] presented a nonlinear transformation matrix for their
FPS model to account for this aspect, which is elaborated in the
subsequent section.
3. Mathematical model
The exact 3-D kinematics equations considering large deformation effects of the FPS were developed by Almazan and De
la Llera [1]. The zero-length element developed in OpenSees is
constructed based on these principles by assuming no nodal rotations. The authors do not claim any innovation for implementing this simplification and refer the reader to Almazan and De la
Llera [1] for a more detailed presentation of these principles. A notable modification made to the model used by Almazan and De la
Llera [1] is the inclusion of the variations in the of the via Eqs. (3)
and (4) at each integration time step. Here, only a brief summary of
the mathematical formulation is presented with similar nomenclature as the original equations. The zero-length element is 3-D with
6 degrees of freedom (DOF) per node (Fig. 4). This model accounts
for the variations of the N via an inherent gap element described
by Eq. (2). The coupling of the sliding forces are included via the
hysteretic parameters, = [ x y ]T , as described in the previous sections. The P moments are transferred to the nodes of the
model via a nonlinear transformation matrix, which is described
subsequently.
Assuming that the nodal rotations are negligible, the local
slider and global coordinates coincide. The nodal deformations
of the element are defined as u = [u(J) u(I) ]T , where u(J) =
[u(xJ) u(yJ) uz(J) rx(J) ry(J) rz(J) ]T and u(I) = [ux(I) u(yI) u(zI) rx(I) ry(I) rz(I) ]T define the
motions of nodes J and I, respectively. The instantaneous
position

and velocity of the slider is defined by the vectors = x y z
h
i
and = x y z , respectively (Fig. 4). The sliders motion is
bounded by the spherical surface of the concave dish defined as:
G=

2x + 2y + (z R)2 = 0.

(7)

The unitary vectors in the outward normal direction and the

tangential to the trajectory of the slider are:
n=

G
1
x
=
k Gk
R

(z R)

T

(8)

M. Erz, R. DesRoches / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 32043212

3207

Fig. 4. Schematic view of the model.

and

x

cos
=
s=

k
k

y
k k

cos

sin

T

(9)

respectively (Fig. 5), where,

y !
x

= 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)

where, r, is the restoring force orientation vector that is constituted

from the normal and tangential components of the slider as:
tangential component

normal component

z}|{
n

r=

z }| {
kk s

(12)

The concavity and friction based components of the isolator are

f R = nN and f = N kk s, respectively. The normal force in the
isolator is:
N=

fg

(13)

rz

where rz is the axial component of the vector r. The nodal force

vector F = [F(J) F(I) ]T , where F(J) = [Fx(J) Fy(J) Fz(J) Mx(J) My(J) Mz(J) ]T and
F(I) = [Fx(I) Fy(I) Fz(I) Mx(I) My(I) Mz(I) ]T define the forces at nodes J and I,
respectively, is:
F = L T f

(14)

Fig. 5. Deflections and forces acting on the slider.

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.

where L is the transform of the nonlinear transformation matrix

defined as:

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

M. Erz, R. DesRoches / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 32043212

Fig. 6. Multi-span continuous (MSC) steel girder bridge general elevation and modeling details.

Fig. 7. Pier configuration and bent and column discretization.

accordance with the recommendations of the manufacturer. The

characteristic properties of the are selected as: a = 59.1 s/m,
s = 0.025 cm, = 0.012 MPa1 , fmax,0 = 0.12, fmax,p = 0.07 and
fmin = 0.05 [3,14]. The bi-directional coupling is simulated with
the solution of Eq. (6) based on A = 1, = 0.1 and = 0.9 [4].
The superstructure is expected to remain within the linear
elastic range; thus, the deck elements are modeled using elastic
beam column elements, using the composite section properties.
Despite that the substructure of a seismically isolated bridge
should be designed for elastic response, the piers are modeled
using nonlinear properties to monitor if the isolator modeling
assumptions result in yielding of the substructure. The section
properties for the columns and the bent beams are created using
fiber elements with appropriate constitutive models for both
the concrete and the steel reinforcement. The reinforcing steel
is modeled as a bilinear material with a yield strength, fys =
414 MPa, and an elastic modulus, Es = 200 GPa. A strainhardening ratio of 0.018 is used for this material. The unconfined
and confined concrete behavior is modeled via the Kent-ScottPark model, which utilizes degraded linear uploading/reloading
stiffness and a residual stress. The concrete compressive strength,
fc , and associated strain, c , are 27.6 MPa and 2 103 for
the unconfined case and 28.5 MPa and (2.062)103 for the
confined case, respectively (Fig. 7). The bridge has footings, which

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

M. Erz, R. DesRoches / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 32043212

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

a x denotes exact modeling.

b Concave dish of the FPS at the bottom.

c Seven models with value of ranging from 0.05 to 0.12 with increments of 0.01.

Fig. 9. Response spectrums for the suite of ground motions.

Fig. 8. Mode shapes of the deck.

the same model as Model 1 with the only difference of assuming

the orthogonal sliding forces of the FPS isolators to be uncoupled.
h
iT
This is achieved by assuming = sgn( x ) sgn( y ) . The fifth
model is developed to monitor the influence of not accounting for
the inclination due to the concavity in the FPS. This is achieved by
computing f with Eq. (16). The sixth model is generated to identify
the influence of the FPS orientation. Model 6 is same as Model 1
with the only difference being that the FPS isolators are positioned
with the concave dish at the bottom, which is accommodated as
the corresponding sign shift in the L in Eq. (15). The seventh model
is developed to monitor the influence of the assumptions on the
value of . Model 7 is established with the same principles as
Model 1 with the only difference of having a that is constant,
i.e. insensitive to variations in pressure and sliding velocity. Model
7 is discussed separately from the other models and analyzed for a
constant value of ranging from 0.05 to 0.12 with increments of
0.01. The properties of the models are summarized in Table 1.
7. Dynamic analyses
The modal properties of the SIB in Model 1 are established by
assigning linear effective stiffness to the FPS isolators. The first
three modes of vibration are those involving the isolation system,
which shows that the characteristics and the design of the FPS
isolators govern the dynamic response of the bridge (Fig. 8). The
first three modal periods of the SIB are 2.22 s, 2.15 s, and 1.93 s,
respectively. The first mode is longitudinal, the second mode is
transverse and the third mode is torsional.
An important recommendation by the bridge engineering
community is the use of design earthquakes that have a 2%

probability of exceedance in 50 years (an earthquake with a mean

recurrence interval of 2475 years) (FEMA 1997). A suite of ten
earthquake records from rock sites is used in the NLTH analysis
of the bridges (Table 2). The geometric mean of the longitudinal
and transverse component of each record is scaled to match the
spectral value of 0.118g at a period of 2.22 s corresponding to a 2%
probability of exceedance in 50 years hazard level earthquake in
Memphis, TN. The response spectra of the scaled ground motion
records for 5% damping, , and their median are given in Fig. 9.
The in-plane orthogonal components of the earthquakes are
oriented to result in the maximum demands on the columns for
all cases. The SIB models were first analyzed for gravity loads and
sequentially subjected to NLTH analyses using simultaneously the
longitudinal, transverse and vertical acceleration records of the
given earthquake. It is found from the gravity load analysis that
each isolator above the pier and the abutments carry a gravity load,
No , of approximately 125 kN and 258 kN, respectively (neglecting
the normal load variation between the isolators at the exterior and
the interior ends at the same pier and abutment).
8. Results
The structural response of the isolators and columns along
the same transverse axis were essentially the same. Therefore,
the results are presented for one of the isolators on top of
the piers and the abutments and one of the columns. The
main response quantities monitored for the FPS q
isolators are
the maximum normalized force, MNF = max( fL2 + fT2 /No ),
where fL is the longitudinal and fT is the transverse isolator
force, respectively,
and the maximum normalized displacement,
q
MND = max( 2L + 2T /R), where L is the longitudinal and T is the
transverse isolator displacement, respectively, for the FPS above
the pier at a given earthquake. Maximum column drifts, dmax , at a
given earthquake are selected as the response quantity to monitor
the structural demands on the SIB.
It was observed from the NLTH analyses of Model 1 that uplift
occurred between the sliding surfaces of the FPS isolators in the

Table 2
Ground motion suite
No.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Earthquake record

Morgan Hill 1984/04/24

Northridge 1994/01/17
Whittier Narrows 1987/10/01
Loma Prieta 1989/10/18
Gazli, USSR 1976/05/17
N. Palm Springs 1986/07/08
Helena, Montana 1935/10/31
Loma Prieta 1989/10/18
Nahanni, Canada 1985/12/23
Landers 1992/06/28

Component PGA (g)

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

M. Erz, R. DesRoches / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 32043212

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

4 in the longitudinal direction of the bridge during the N. Palm

Springs record. Model 1 can capture the abrupt changes in isolator
force and instances of uplift in the vertical direction. These two
aspects of the isolator response could not be observed in Model
2. Additionally, Model 2 underestimated both the MNF and the
MND in comparison to Model 1. These differences between Model
1 and Model 2 NF-ND histories can be explained via the response
observed in Models 3 and 4. Model 3 was unable to capture
peak isolator forces indicating that the normal components of the
ground motion were influential in this response quantity. Although
Model 4 was able to account for the significant variations in isolator
forces, the peak isolator force was overestimated and the peak
isolator deformation was underestimated. This characteristic of
Model 4 indicates an overestimation of isolator stiffness when the
bi-directional effects are neglected.
The influence of the isolator modeling parameters on MNF,
MND and dmax for the suite of ground motions is illustrated via
box plots given in Fig. 12. Box plots are a useful way of presenting
the graphical description of variability of data. This information
provides an overview of the expected demands on the isolators
and the structural system as well as the scatter in the results. The
statistical interpretation of the results is presented with numerical
values of the median and plots of the 10th, 25th, 10th, 75th, and
90th percentile cumulative probabilities.
It is observed that Model 2 underestimated the median of
the MNF by 20% and the peak MNF as 44% of Model 1. Similar
results were observed for Model 3, which indicated that the normal
components of the force are influential in design level isolator
forces. It was observed that not including the influence of the
variations in the normal forces acting on the isolators results in
loss in the variability of the MNF results. The underestimation of
MNF in Models 2 and 3 also lead to the underestimation of peak
dmax by approximately 33%. Peak MND values for Models 2 to 6 had
negligible difference with Model 1. However, there was a notable

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.

M. Erz, R. DesRoches / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 32043212

Fig. 12. The influence of modeling assumptions on (a) MNF; (b) MND; and (c) dmax .

variation in the median values of the MND as a function of the

magnitude of the constant value of in Model 7. This effect is
elaborated in the subsequent section. Model 2 overestimated the
median of the dmax by 12% and underestimated the peak dmax as 69%
of Model 1. The absence of the variability in the dmax with Model 2
stems from the inability of this model to account for normal force
variations on the isolators. On the other hand, Model 2 attained a
general increase in the median of the dmax , which is attributed to
the overestimation of the stiffness caused by uncoupled response
in the orthogonal directions of the isolator lateral motion. Another
factor that contributed to the increase in the median of the dmax
in Model 2 was not accounting for the variation of . The peak
value of MNF was overestimated by 7% in Model 4 in comparison to
Model 1, however, the median of this response quantity remained
essentially the same. This is reflected as a 10% overestimation of
the median dmax in Model 4 in comparison to Model 1. Models 5
and 6 predicted the MNF, MND and dmax approximately the same
as Model 1 for the entire suite of ground motion records. The
exclusion of the exact kinematics pertaining to the concavity of
the FPS in Model 6 was insignificant since the MND was limited
to 0.19 for the suite of ground motions. It is concluded that large
deformation effects associated with the orientation and exact
kinematics were not significant in the response where average
MND was smaller than 0.20.
The influence of different magnitudes of in Model 7 on MNF,
MND and dmax for the suite of ground motions is illustrated via
box plots given in Fig. 13. It is observed that the median of the
MNF for the suite of ground motions increase consistently with
increasing values of . The values of the peak MNF has a similar
trend with an exception at = 0.05 and 0.06, where the response

3211

Fig. 13. The influence of constant value of assumptions on (a) MNF; (b) MND;
and (c) dmax .

is underestimated by less than 5% in comparison to Model 1. The

median MND is overestimated by 28% and underestimated by 11%
in comparison to Model 1 when = 0.05 and 0.12, respectively,
and generally decreases with the decreasing values of . However,
the peak MND remains essentially the same for all values of in
Model 7. The median of the dmax was overestimated for all values of
by Model 7 in comparison to Model 1. The largest overestimation
of the median dmax was for = 0.12 with approximately 15%.
Smaller No developed in the FPS isolators at the abutments than
at the piers, due to the difference in the corresponding tributary
mass of the superstructure. Fig. 14 shows the comparison of the
total MNF transferred to the pier, MNFpier , and the total MNF
transferred to the abutment, MNFabutment ; and MND on top of the
pier, MNDpier , and abutments, MNDabutment for the suite of ground
motions. It is observed that the isolators transferred 2.17 times the
force to the piers in comparison to the abutments on the median.
The ratio between median MNDpier and MNDabutment was 0.97,
which indicates that the difference between the MNFabutment and
MNFpier is associated with isolator stiffness characteristics rather
than maximum deformations. Abutments, which are typically the
structurally stronger components of bridges compared to the piers,
may be further engaged into resisting earthquake-induced loads in
SIB by designing the FPS isolators by designing for a more uniform
stiffness distribution among isolators throughout the bridge.
9. Conclusion
In this paper, the modeling of a typical highway bridge
seismically isolated with the FPS has been presented. The influence
of FPS modeling assumptions on normal force, N, and friction

3212

M. Erz, R. DesRoches / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 32043212

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 .

coefficient, , orthogonal coupling and large deformation, P,

effects in a seismically isolated multi-span continuous (MSC) steel
girder bridge has been highlighted via nonlinear time-history
(NLTH) analyses. The following conclusions are drawn:
(1) The most influential modeling aspects of the FPS in this bridge
application were found to be the variation of the normal force
and friction coefficient, and bi-directional coupling. The incorporation of the modeling effects of orientation and the exact
concave geometry of the FPS has negligible affects if maximum
normalized displacements (MND) remain under 0.20.
(2) A simplified bilinear forcedeformation model of the FPS without the coupling of the orthogonal directions was unable to
capture the variability of the response quantities. This simplification led to the underestimation of the maximum column
drifts (dmax ) by up to 31%. This was mainly a result of not accounting for the effects of vertical components of ground motions, bi-directional coupling and the variable magnitude of the
friction coefficient.
(3) The uplift and subsequent pounding of the deck in the vertical
direction had notable effects on the maximum forces of the FPS
that in one case caused an increase of up to 3.51 times in the
initial gravity load acting on the isolators (No ). Not accounting
for the variations in the N of the isolators led to underestimating peak isolator maximum normalized forces (MNF) and dmax
up to 44% and 33%, respectively.
(4) Excluding the bi-directional coupling of the FPS isolators resulted in an increase of MNF values and consequently the overestimation of the median dmax by 10%. However, the values of
MND remained essentially the same.
(5) The peak and median values of MND of the isolators had the
least amount of variation in comparison among all the modeling assumptions for the suite of ground motion evaluated.
However, the median MND was influenced by the assumptions
in the magnitude of and varied between 73% overestimation
to 11% underestimation based on the assumed value of .
(6) The structural demands transferred by the isolators to the
abutments and the piers were significantly different. The

[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.