You are on page 1of 12

16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017

Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017


Paper N 4040
Registration Code: S-B1460541825

ROCKING ISOLATION OF BRIDGE PIERS USING ELASTOMERIC PADS

M. Titirla(1), N. Zarkadoulas(2), S. Mitoulis(3) and G. Mylonakis(4)


(1)
Dr Civil Engineer, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece mtitirla@civil.auth.gr
(2)
Civil Engineer MSc, University of Surrey, United Kingdom nz00077@surrey.ac.uk
(3)
Assistant Professor, University of Surrey, United Kingdom, s.mitoulis@surrey.ac.uk, www.mitoulis.com
(4)
Professor, Chair in Geotechnics and Soil-Structure Interaction, University of Bristol, United Kingdom & Professor, University of
Patras, Greece, g.mylonakis@bristol.ac.uk

Abstract
Bridge rocking isolation has attracted the interest of the bridge engineering community, as it minimises damage in the
structural system, which conforms to the objectives for resilient and sustainable bridges. Two fundamentally different
approaches have emerged in recent years: (a) structural rocking isolation, where the piers (cast-in-situ or precast
with/without post-tensioning and/or dissipaters) are allowed to rock and minimise damage and (b) geotechnical rocking
isolation, where conventionally designed or deliberately under-designed foundations rock to achieve the same goal.
However, both structural rocking and rocking footings are facing challenging design aspects. Structural rocking seems to
include post-tensioned partially stressed tendons, dissipators and replaceable, internal or external, rebars. Low dissipation
capacity and increased on-site labour seem to be the main acknowledged barriers to the application of structural rocking. On
the other hand, bridge piers with rocking footings appear to suffer from excessive settlements and, in some cases, large
residual drifts, due to the sinking/tilting effect of footings in yielding foundation soils.
Aiming to achieve a simpler rocking mechanism, this paper studies bridge piers isolated by rocking footings, which are
deliberately under-designed, yet supported on elastomeric pads. The pier footing rocks on the elastomer and tends to uplift.
The pads dissipate energy, whilst exhibit minimal residual drifts. The pier, the footing and the elastomeric pad are supported
on an appropriately designed rigid concrete sub-base to achieve minimal settlements. Assessment of the rocking system is
based on the response of rocking piers modelled in ABAQUS.
Keywords: bridge, pier, rocking isolation; elastomeric pads

1. Introduction
An urgent challenge for the transportation networks has been placed worldwide with regard to adaptation of
deficient bridges to increased traffic needs and natural hazards [1] including earthquake excitations. Efficient
and rapid upgrading of bridges is possible when the design prescribes minimal damages and accounts for
potential upgrades on the basis of structural resilience i.e. rapid restoration and adaptation. With more than
300000 bridges in Europe having a total value of around 50 billion Euros, a moderate 2% increase in load
capacity or residual life, would result in savings of the order of 1 billion Euros. Indicatively, the cost for
retrofitting a small size bridge pier with traditional methods, e.g. steel jackets, has been estimated at 52k Euros
[2]. Thus, resilient bridge designs that can adapt to increased loading requirements will provide significant cost-
savings. Additionally, the end-user society is now demanding much more from infrastructures. Societies expect
accelerated constructions, expeditious reconstructions, minimal damage and rapid upgrading for bridges. The
latter is anticipated despite the fact that conventional designs prescribe damages on bridge piers [3]. Also, design
guidelines do not prescribe bridge resilience, i.e. minimal damage and versatility, and this is an acknowledged
gap [4]. In the absence of prolepsis for structural adjustments and adaptation, the restoration of the existing
bridge stock is very expensive, time consuming and causes extended disruptions. Thus, a paradigm shift is
required to provide damage-free bridges and rapid restoration times.
Bridge isolation and in particular rocking isolation based on accelerated bridge construction principles,
comprise a unique philosophy which can provide damage-free bridges [4]. Structural designs based on rocking
16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

isolation can provide minimal damage and higher robustness of functionality, as the sacrificial members can be
replaced easily and quickly. It is only in the last decade that rocking isolation was given full consideration in
bridges [5-8]. Structural and geotechnical rocking are the two approaches in the international literature.
Structural rocking is based on the rocking of bridge piers. In structural rocking, the energy dissipation occurs due
to the contact effects of the rocking components. However, it is widely recognized that there is an urgent need
for simplifying the connections and for improving energy dissipation of rocking piers. On the other hand,
foundation rocking, is based on the uplift of the footings, where the main source of energy dissipation is the
yielding of the soil. However, large potential soil settlements and residual tilting impede its application in
practice [9-10].
This paper proposes a new design of rocking bridge piers using elastomeric pads. In particular the pier is
supported on a deliberately under-designed footing. Three different pier designs were preliminarily designed
under certain design criteria and modelled on ABAQUS [11]: (a) a pier model fixed at its base; (b) a pier on a
rocking footing and supported on a concrete sub-base and (c) a pier footing rocking on an appropriately designed
elastomeric pad. The model piers were then analysed for seven acceleration time histories corresponding to the
real earthquake records. The latter two models have the same footing dimensions, whilst the first one employs a
pile foundation, which is typically considered to provide fixity to the pier base. Geometric and material non-
linearities are taken into consideration. The pier, which rocks on high damping elastomeric pads, was found to
efficiently dissipate energy without developing damage observed in the conventional fixed pier. Also, rocking on
an elastomeric pad provides efficient means for controlling the axial load on the pier, which was found to exhibit
significant fluctuations when the footing was allowed to rock on the concrete sub-base. Also, the use of a high-
damping pad reduces drastically the potential sliding and permanent dislocations of the piers as well as the
permanent rotations and drifts due to rocking.

2. Description of the piers and FE modeling


Three different pier models were modelled in detail and subjected to earthquake excitations. The pier models
have heights of 10 m. The attributed mass of the deck corresponding to a length of 35 m of the superstructure
was considered. The attributed deck mass of 850 Mg takes into account the self-weight of the deck, additional
permanent and 20% of the variable i.e. traffic loads. The weight of the pier and footing was also taken into
account considering self-weight of 25kN/m3 for reinforced concrete. Fig. 1a shows the longitudinal section of
the pier, the attributed deck length, the footing, the elastomeric pad and the concrete sub-base, whilst Fig. 1b
shows the foundation plan. The dimensions of the pier 1.0 x 4.0 m correspond to a typical wall-type bent. The
analyses presented herein refer to the longitudinal direction of the bridge. The footing was deliberately under-
designed to promote rocking of the pier. The dimension of the footing is 3.0 x 5.0 m. The design of the footing
was based on criteria to minimise the permanent compressive strain of the elastomeric pad under the vertical
loads (i.e. construction stage and serviceability), to rectify the permanent dislocation (sliding) of the footing and
to limit the potential uplift of the foundation so that the effective area of the foundation could be at least 2/3 of
the actual area for all the design cases examined here. Also, the bearing compressive stresses were checked for
the serviceability loads (self-weight of the structure) and for the maximum footing rotations and pier drifts. The
initial pressure of the pad under the self-weight of the bridge deck and pier was approximately 0.68 MPa, whilst
the pad is subjected to a maximum pressure of 1.66 MPa when the pier drift was approximately 3%, that is
significantly smaller than the normal pressure that elastomeric bearings are expected to receive when subjected
to seismic excitations. It is noted that the pressure of steel-laminated elastomeric bearings for serviceability
design situations ranges between 5 and 10 MPa. Different dimensions were analysed for variable pier drifts
ranging from 1.0% to 5.0%. Also, alternative elastomeric pad properties and designs (soft and hard elastomeric
pads with or without reinforcing steel plating) were examined during the preliminary design of the pier models.
Further details on the design of the footing and the pad are given in the following section. The sliding of the pier
footing is restricted along the two horizontal directions by a recess that is formed by the concrete sub-base. In
addition, the footing is free to move only along z axis. Appropriate design of the pier footing allows for
unrestrained footing rocking and restricting horizontal movements only. The deck was not modelled. The pier
top was considered to be monolithically connected to the deck. Evidence is provided elsewhere [12] that the
aforementioned pier-deck connection practically restricts the rotations of the pier top. Hence, the pier top is free

2
16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

to move along x, y and z axes, but the RY rotations about the transverse axis is restrained at all cases to account
for pier fixity. The latter simplification was checked and it was found to be accurate under the assumption that
the deck is prestressed and thus uncracked. With regard to bottom boundary conditions, the three models
investigated are the fully-fixed (FX) one, the model with the footing that rocks on the concrete sub-base thus a
concrete to concrete (CC) rocking is promoted, and the model pier with a footing that rocks on the appropriately
designed high-damping elastomeric pad, thus a controllable concrete to pad (CP) rocking is promoted.

deck (35m)

pier (10m)

5.0m
4.0m
pad
concrete base

1.0m
3.0m

(a) (b)
Fig. 1 Description of the pier: (a) longitudinal section and, (b) plan of the foundation and the pier.

The general purpose FE software ABAQUS ver. 10.1 was employed to simulate the behavior of the three
pier models described above i.e. FX, CC and CP. Implicit non-linear dynamic time history analysis was chosen
as it permits the handling of very general contact conditions for complicated contact effects, without generating
numerical instabilities. For the dynamic analysis, 3D reduced integration solid elements were used. Reduced
integration decreases the number of constraints introduced by an element when there are internal constraints in
the continuum theory being modelled, if solid elements are used to analyse interaction problems. In such
applications fully integrated elements will lock and will exhibit response that is orders of magnitude too stiff.
The reduced-integration version of the same element was found to provide more efficient modelling for this
research [11].
The footing and the elastomeric pad were modelled by 3d solid homogeneous sections and were suitably
meshed by using the 3d reduced integration solid element C3D8R (eight-node bricks). The model has a fine
meshing of 2264 elements for the FX and the CC model, while a total of 3170 elements were used for the CP
model, as shown in Fig. 2. Concrete modeled with an elastoplastic material with Young Modulus of 32GPa,
yield stress y of 32Mpa, and maximum stress u of 45Mpa. The model of the elastomer that was selected is the
Ogden model [13], a hyperelastic model. Its behaviour is nonlinear, elastic and incompressible. The initial values
of the parameters concerning the strain energy density function were chosen and calibrated against the Ohsaki et
al. model [14]. For the hysteretic parameters of the Ogden model, the values suggested by the ABAQUS manual
[15] were used. The values were imported in ABAQUS according to the study made by Bergstrm & Boyce
[16]. The pier was modelled as a beam element, as shown in Fig. 2. The deck mass was assigned as concentrated
mass of 850 Mg on the pier top. Total mass of the system, including the pier and the footing is 1018 Mg. After
the imposition of the mass, the pressure on the concrete base (CC model) and on the elastomeric pad (CP model)
was found to be 0.67 MPa.
The contact conditions between the two surfaces (footing to concrete sub-base and footing to elastomeric
pad) are governed by kinematic constraints in the normal and tangential directions. The normal stress at contact
areas is either zero, when there is a gap between the two surfaces, or compressive when the surfaces are in
contact. When contact is lost (gap>0) the pressure between the surfaces is zero. When the two surfaces are in

3
16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

contact (gap=0), the overpressure can reach up very high values, but no penetration of one surface into the other
is permitted. The contact between the surfaces is defined as a surface-to-surface contact with a finite sliding
option. For the sliding of the footing, the Coulomb friction was used as a common model that describes the
interaction of surfaces in contact. The model characterises the frictional behaviour between the surfaces using a
coefficient of friction, . The coefficient of friction between the rubber and the concrete surfaces ranges from 0.6
to 1.2. To model the contact areas in ABAQUS, the surface to surface contact was used with a coefficient of
friction equal to =0.80 (mean value). The three pier models are shown in Fig. 2.

Deck Mass: Deck Mass: Deck Mass:


850t 850t 850t

Pier:
Pier: Solid rectangular
Pier: Solid rectangular Ixx=7.594 m4
Solid rectangular Ixx=7.594 m4 Iyy=0.375m4
Ixx=7.594 m4 Iyy=0.375m4 H=10m
10m 10m
Iyy=0.375m4 H=10m
H=10m
10m

Footing: Footing:
Footing: Rectangular
Rectangular Rectangular
3x5x1.5m 3x5x1.5m
3x5x1.5m
Contact surfaces: Contact surfaces:
=0.80 1.5m 1.5m
=0.80
1.5m

Fixed Base
Fixed Base Fixed Base Pad: (ttot =435 mm)
8 elastomer layers (t=50mm)
+ 7 steel shims (t=5mm)
(a) (b) (c)
Fig 2 - 3D model in ABAQUS: (a) FX model, (b) C-C model and (c) C-P model.

3. Pier footing dimensions and design of the elastomeric pad


The design of the footing was based on design criteria that minimise the permanent deflection of the elastomeric
pad under vertical loads (construction stage and serviceability), rectify the permanent dislocation (sliding) of the
footing and limit the potential uplift of the foundation, so that the effective area of the foundation is at least 2/3
of the actual area of the foundation for all the design cases examined in this paper. Two alternative footing
dimensions were examined: 3.5m x 6.0m and 3.0m x 5.0m. The footing was initially regarded as not slipping on
the elastomeric pad and subsequently as sliding with a coefficient of friction. Thus different dimensions were
checked for variable pier drifts ranging from 1% to 5%, different elastomeric pad properties and designs (soft
and hard elastomer with or without reinforcing steel plating). Thus the foundation: (a) promotes rocking; (b)
maximum uplift of the footing for the maximum design drift is controlled and as such this uplift does not cause
eccentricity larger than 1/3 of the footing longitudinal dimension (c) the initial deflection (hypothetical
settlement) of the pad is controlled. Different elast omer properties were analysed to design the high damping
rubber isolator. For all material models checked the initial stiffness is mu1=0.41 and alpha1=1.6, the post-elastic
stiffness is mu2=0.0012 and alpha2=6.2, based on [15] whilst values of the stress scaling factor SS of 1.6, 2.4
and 3.2 were analysed. The results presented in this paper refer to the SS=1.6 only. The preliminary design of the
pad showed that a total thickness of the elastomer of 435mm is adequate to both minimise the initial deflection
of the pad and to control successfully the uplift of the foundation for drifts 2 to 3%. The selected elastomeric pad
consists of 8 layers of elastomer with thickness equal to 50mm each and 7 steel shims with thickness of 5mm. It
is also noticeable from Fig. 3 that the smaller the foundation dimensions the larger the initial deflection of the
pad and hence the smaller the uplift observed during the earthquake excitations.

4
16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
120
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017
100
80

120 60
Footing 3.5x6.0m

Footing uplift (mm)


100 40
Footing 3.0x5.0m
80 20
60 0
Footing 3.5x6.0m
40 -20
1 2 3 4 5
Footing 3.0x5.0m
20
0
Uplift
-20
drift1 1% drift
2 2% drift
3 3% drift
4 4% 5drift 5%
Fig 3 - Uplift of the footing for drifts of 1 to 5% for a pad thickness of 400mm.

4. Longitudinal period of the rocking pier models


In this section, the longitudinal response period of the CC and the CP model is estimated. Displacement along x-
x axis is imposed on top of the pier and subsequently the pier model is left free to oscillate for 10 s. Restraint has
been imposed at the bottom of the footing to prohibit the sliding between the footing and the concrete base or
pad. During the oscillation, a number of non-linearities that affect the response of the CC and CP pier modes
were taken into account. In particular the period and the damping ratio of the systems were estimated accounting
for: (i) the contact effects between the surfaces, (ii) the friction forces, (iii) the damping of the materials i.e.
concrete and elastomeric pad and, (iv) the plasticity of the materials. Fig.4 illustrates the time history of the
horizontal displacement at the top of the pier during the oscillation for the CC and CP pier models. The damping
ratio of the CC and the CP models was evaluated for small to large drifts ranging from 1% to 10%. The models
were subjected to a target displacement of the pier top, corresponding to the aforementioned drifts, and
subsequently they were left free to oscillate. The CC model oscillation was damped due to the collisions and
sliding of the footing on the concrete sub-base. It was found that the total damping ratio was 3.8% when 10%
drift was considered. The sources of dissipation of the CP model were the contact effects between the footing
and the pad which yield a damping ratio of 2.1%. The elastomeric pad offered additional dissipation due to its
hysteretic behaviour (another 9%), thus the total damping ratio of the CP model was found to be 11.1% for a
drift of 10%, which is substantially higher than the one estimated for the CC pier model. In addition, the
fundamental natural period of the CP model is 1.13 s, while the corresponding period of the CC model is initially
1.0 s and gradually reduces during free oscillations. In addition, permanent displacements on top of the pier were
observed on the CC model, which reflects the potential of sliding for piers rocking on concrete surfaces.
1.00
Horizontal displacement (m)

0.75 u1=0.48m CC
t=1.3sec
u2=0.32m CP
0.50 t=2.4sec u3=0.2m u4=0.14m
0.25 t=3.4sec t=4.3sec Period T
Models
0.00 (s)
-0.25
FX 0.51
u2=0.23m CC 1.0 to 0.6
-0.50 t=2.26sec
u1=0.42m
CP 1.13
-0.75 t=1.13s
-1.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)
Fig 4 - Identification of the periods of the C-C and the C-P model.

5. Comparison between models response to real earthquake excitations


The FX, the CC and the CP pier models were analysed for seven real accelerograms compatible to ground Type
C-dependent Eurocode 8-1 elastic spectra. The peak ground accelerations selected were 0.30 g and 0.60 g to

5
16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

represent medium and high seismic excitations. The response spectra of the analysed accelerograms are shown in
Fig. 5. Accelerations are imposed at the base of the model, which is free to move along x-x axis. The duration of
all the time history analyses is 35sec.
1.20 1.20
Kobe Kobe

Response acceleration (g)


1.00 Kocaeli

Response acceleration (g)


1.00 Northridge
Kocaeli
Loma Prieta Northridge
0.80
Kozani Loma Prieta
0.80 Hollister
0.60 Imperial
Kozani
EC8 Hollister
0.40 0.60 Imperial
EC8
0.20
0.40
0.00
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50
0.20
Period (s)
Fig.5- Response spectra of accelerograms compatible to ground Type C-dependent Eurocode 8-1 elastic spectra
0.00
(PGA = 0.30 g).
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50
Table 1 shows the mean values of the responses of Period (s)models analysed. The mean values were
the pier
calculated based on the seven acceleration time histories for PGA of 0.30g and 0.60g. The values given on
Table 1 are not simultaneous.
With regard to footing uplift, the CC model exhibited a mean uplift displacement of 26mm and 37mm for
drifts of 0.88% and 1.7%, whilst the CP model either exhibited no uplift or a minor uplift of 2mm when the drift
was 2.35%. It is noted that the CP model, which is more flexible than FX and CC models, which exhibited a
mean drift of 1% and 2.4% for PGAs of 0.3 and 0.6 g correspondingly.
The benefits of the rocking CC and CP and can be observed on the basis of reductions of the bending
moments and shear forces. In particular, the bending moments of the rocking CC and CP piers are reduced by
approximately 15% and 26% for a PGA of 0.30g. Similarly, the shear forces are reduced by 45% and 64%
correspondingly. Significant differences between the CC and CP pier models were observed with regard the
axial load. In particular, the collision of the foundation of the CC system on the concrete sub-base causes a
significant fluctuation of the axial load. As a result, the axial load of the CC model is up to 2.5 times larger than
the axial load of the CP model. It is also noted that the axial load of the CP model is approximately equal to the
one of the model with the fixed base (FX), indicating that the axial load is not fluctuating during the earthquake
excitation. It is also noteworthy that the fluctuation of the axial load on the pier CC may lead in some cases to
tension. This case was observed for the PGA of 0.6 g. This unexpected result was then verified by additional
analysis of the results. The distribution of stresses revealed that when the pier footing pounds on the stiff
concrete sub-base the deck is already uplifted. As a result, when the footing tents to return to its original position
due to the recentering pounding force, it pulls down the pier and the deck, with the latter having an inertia mass
that resists momentarily to this movement. This inertia force induces axial tension within the pier, which is
reflected by the positive values in Table 1.
With regard to displacements of the deck, it was found that the displacements were increased on the CC
and the CP pier models, as the mean deck displacement of the FX system is 59mm whilst the displacements of
the CC and CP systems are 88 and 106 mm, i.e. 49% and 79% larger than the one of the FX pier. For the PGA of
0.6 g the bending moments of the rocking CC and CP piers are reduced by 26% and 37% correspondingly.
Similarly, the shear forces are reduced by 60% and 78%.
The comparison between the two different rocking systems CC and CP showed that the pier rocking on
the elastomeric pad reduces both the bending moments and shear forces more effectively (up to 12% and 35%
respectively).

6
16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

Table 1 - Average of the maximum values of seismic demand for the three models for PGA 0.30g and 0.60g
PGA 0.30g PGA 0.60g
fixed base concrete to concrete to fixed base concrete to concrete to
FX concrete CC pad CP FX concrete CC pad CP
horizontal movement 59 88 106 125 170 235
at pier top (mm)
footing uplift (mm) - 26 - - 37 2
axial forces (kN) -8832/-8740 -21714/-180 -8710/-8645 -8950/8853 -31246/+900 -8870/-8795
max /min
shear force (kN) 7846 4334 2816 14282 5592 3182
bending moment at 36256 30968 27207 57990 42859 36506
pier bottom (kNm)

Fig. 6 illustrates the results for the Loma Prieta accelerogram scaled to a PGA of 0.30g, while Fig. 7
shows the results for the same earthquake scaled to 0.60g. These figures illustrate ttime histories of (a) the
horizontal displacement at pier top, i.e. the longitudinal deck displacement, (b) the vertical displacement of the
pier top with regard to its position after the imposition of the self-weight, (c) the vertical displacement of the
footing for the CC model at three locations, i.e. left, middle and right side of the footing, (d) the vertical
displacement of the footing for CP model, (e) the axial forces of the pier, (f) the axial forces of the pier
normalised to the self-weight W pier i.e. N/W, where W includes the weight of deck, pier and footing, (g) the
shear forces of the pier, (h) and the shear force normalised to the self-weight Q/W and (i) the bending moment of
the pier bottom and (j) the normalised bending moment M/Q*k*h, where k has a value 0.5 for the FX model,
which was considered as a clamped-clamped column, while k=0.7 for CC and CP, as the latter models were
assumed to respond as clamped-pinned columns, and h is the pier height.
Figure 6a shows that the displacements are increased when the CC and the CP models were considered,
with the concrete-on-pad model exhibiting the largest movements. Figure 6b shows that the rocking pier top
exhibits negligible vertical displacements under the seismic excitations, when the pier is either fixed at its base
(FX) or when the footing is rocking on the elastomeric pads (CP). On the contrary the vertical displacements of
the deck are reaching values of 20mm on the CC pier model. The latter displacements are considered to be
detrimental for the deck if the latter is prestressed, as they might cause cracking of the deck and potential severe
fluctuation of the prestressing stresses. Further investigation is required to identify the criticality of the
aforementioned vertical movements of the CC pier model.
With regard to vertical footing displacements, the CC pier model was found to exhibit a maximum of
37mm uplift at the edges of its foundation, indicating a clear separation of the footing from the concrete sub-
base. Notably Fig 6b and 6c show identical vertical displacements for the vertical displacement of the pier top
and the centre of the footing for the CC pier model. The latter observation can be understood in light of the great
axial stiffness of the pier. Contrarily, the CP pier model induced an initial pre-compression of the pad of 33.3
mm, which essentially cancels any uplift of the foundation at least for the PGA of 0.30 g. As a result, the
rotations of the footing occur within the elastomer and no loss of contact was observed for the CP model.

7
16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

125
FX (a) 60
(b)
FX

Pier top Uz (mm) with regard to


100
97 83 CC
75 40 CC
70 CP
Pier top Ux (mm)

16.5
CP
50
20
25

initial level
0 0
-25
-50 -20
-75
-40
-100
-125 -60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
60
Left (c) 60
Left
(d)
40 Center Center
31 28 40
Right

Footing Uz (mm)
Rigth
Footing Uz (mm)

20 40cm
17.4 20

0 0
-17 -16.5
-20 -20
-33.30
-40 -40
-51 -49
-60 -60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
5000 (e) 0.50 Time (sec) (f)
0.24
245
0 0.00

-5000 -0.50
N (kN)

-1.00
N/W

-10000
FX FX
-15000 CC -1.50
CC
CP
-20000 -2.00 CP
-25000 -2.50
-27800 -2.77
-30000 -3.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
10000 0 5 10 15 20 25
FX
30
(g)
35 1.00 (h)
0.80
FX
7500 CC CC
4890 0.60 0.69
5000 2300
CP CP
0.40 0.23
2500
Q (kN)

0.20
Q/W

0 0.00

-2500 -0.20
-0.40
-5000
-0.60
-7500
-0.80 -0.82
-10000 -1.00

50000 39200 FX (i) 2.00


FX (j)
40000 CC 1.50 CC
34400
1.01
30000 CP 1.00 0.90 CP
20000
0.50
M /(Q*0.5h)
M (kNm)

10000
0 0.00

-10000 -0.50
-20000 -1.00
-30000
-25600 -1.50
-40000 -1.59
-50000 -2.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (s) Time (s)
Fig 6 - Time histories of (a) horiz. displ. pier top, (b) vertical displ. pier top, (c) the vertical displ. of footing for
CC, (d) the vertical displ. of footing for CP, (e) axial force of pier, (f) axial force normalised to the self-weight
N/W, (g) shear forces of pier, (h) shear force normalised to self-weight Q/W (i) bending moment of pier bottom
(j) normalised bending moment M/Q*k*h, for the real acceleration of Loma Prieta (Pga 0.3g).

8
125 0.25 18 0.25
FX FX

Horizontal displacement of top Pier (m)

displacement of top Pier (m)


0.20 0.20

Pier top Uz (mm) with regard to


100 16
CC CC
75 0.15 14 0.15
16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Pier top Ux (mm) 50 0.10 CP 12 0.10 CP
25 0.05 0.05 Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

initial level
10
0 0.00 8 0.00
-25 -0.05 6 -0.05
-50 -0.10250 (a) 4 -0.10
100
225 FX FX (b)

regard to
-75 -0.15200 2 -0.15
CC 75 CC

Horizontal
-100 0
-0.20150 159 119 CP -0.20
50 CP
Pier top Ux (mm)

-125 100 -2
-0.25 -0.25

Pier top Uz (mm) with


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
20.5
0 25 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

initial level
50
-0.30 Time (s) -0.30 Time (s)
0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 00.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
60 0.10
-50 60 0.10
-25
0.08
-100 Left Point 0.08 Left Point
Vertical displacement (m)

40 -50

Vertical displacement (m)


Center Point 40
0.06
-150 0.06 Center Point

Footing Uz (mm)
Footing Uz (mm)

Right Point -75


20 0.04
-200
20 0.04 Right Point
40cm
-250
0.02 -100
0.02
0 100
0.00 (c) 0 100
0.00 Left
(d)
Left
-0.02
75 75 Center
-20 Center -20 -0.02

Footing Uz (mm)
-0.04
50 38 Right 50 -0.04
40cm
Rigth
47
Footing Uz (mm)

-40 -0.06 -40


25 25 -0.06
23.5 10 5.7
-0.08
-60 0 -60 0 -0.08
0 -0.10
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5
-0.10 10 15 20 25 30 35
-25 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 -25
Time (sec) -33.30 0.00 1.00 Time (sec)
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Time (sec) Time (sec)
5000 -50 0.50 -50
-73 -67
-75 -75
0 0.00
-100 -100
-5000 -0.50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
5000 (e) 0.50 0.95 (f)
N (kN)

-10000 950 -1.00


N/W

0.25 0 0.00
FX 0.25
FX
Horizontal displacement of top Pier (m)

-15000 0.20 -1.50


displacement of top Pier (m)

-5000 0.20
-0.50
CC CC
-20000 0.15 -2.00 0.15
N (kN)

-10000
CP -1.00
N/W

0.10 FX CP
-25000 -2.50 0.10 FX
-15000
0.05 CC -1.50
0.05 CC
-30000 CP -3.00
0.00
-20000 0.00
-2.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 CP
35
-0.05 Time (s) -0.05 Time (s)
-25000 -2.50
-26100 -2.62
10000 -0.10 0.25
-0.10
0.25
-30000 3.00
-3.00 FX
top Pier (m)

-0.15 0 5 10 15 20 25 FX 30 35 0.20
-0.15 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Horizontal displacement of top Pier (m)

Horizontal displacement ofHorizontal

7500 0.2020000
-0.20 (g) 2.00 2.00 CC (h)
FX CC 0.15
-0.20 FX
5000 0.15
-0.25
15000 CC 1.50
0.10
-0.25 CP
CC
2500 0.10 CP 1.00
0.62
-0.30
Q (kN)

10000 6200 CP 0.05


1.00
-0.30 CP
0.32
Q/W

0.05 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 0.00
0
5000 0.00 0.00
0.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
3860
Q (kN)

0.00
Q/W

-2500
0 -0.05
0.00
-0.05 -1.00
-5000 -5000
-0.10
-0.50
-0.10
-7500 -2.00 -0.15
-10000
-0.15 -1.00
-0.20
-10000 -0.20
-15000 -3.00 -1.50 -1.67
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 -0.25 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-0.25
-20000 Time (s) -2.00
-0.30 Time (s)
-0.3075000 (i) 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
50000
70700 FX 2.50 0.25
1.50
0.00
0.25 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 0.93 FX (j)
Horizontal displacement of top Pier (m)

40000
CCFX 2.00 0.20
Horizontal displacement of top Pier (m)

30000 0.20
50000
1.50
1.00
CC
CPCC 0.15
0.15
20000
25000
1.00
0.10
0.50 CP
CP
M /(Q*k*h)
M /(Q*0.5h)

0.10
M (kNm)
M (kNm)

10000 0.50
0.05
0 0.05 0 0.00 0.00
0.00
-10000 0.00 -0.50
-25000 -0.05
-0.50
-20000 -1.00
-0.05 -1.30
-30000 -1.50
-0.10
-50000
-0.10 -1.00
-56700 -38600
-40000 -2.00 -0.15 -1.40
-0.15
-75000
-50000 -2.50 -0.20
-1.50
0 -0.20 5 0
10
5 10
15
15
20
20
25
25
30
30
35
35
0
0
5
5
10
10
15
15
20
20
25
25
30
30
35
35
-0.25
-0.25 Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)
Time (s)
Fig-0.30
7 - Time histories of (a) horiz. displ. pier top, (b) vertical -0.30
displ. pier top, (c) the vertical displ. of footing for
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
CC, (d) 0.00 the 1.00
vertical
2.00displ.
3.00of footing
4.00 for
5.00 CP,6.00
(e) axial
7.00 force of pier, (f) axial force normalised to the self-weight
N/W, (g) shear forces of pier, (h) shear force normalised to self-weight Q/W (i) bending moment of pier bottom
(j) normalised bending moment M/Q*k*h, for the real acceleration of Loma Prieta (PGA 0.6g).

9
16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

An interesting result of this investigation is the axial load of the pier. Figures 6e and 6f show the values of
axial load and also the values of the same load normalised with respect the self-weight of the pier model. It is
observed that the FX and the CP model respond with axial loads that exhibit negligible fluctuations. Contrarily,
the CC model, where the pier footing rocks on the concrete sub-base is subjected to large pounding forces, which
tend to restore the position of the pier and also dissipate seismic energy. However, these pounding forces induce
momentarily large tensile loads within the pier and hence the significant fluctuations of the axial load of the pier,
an effect that was described above in detail and is shown in Table 2 and Figure 8. This is an undesirable effect
that may require attention under design situations as the axial load alters the capacity of the pier.
Regarding the shear forces and the bending moments within the pier, Fig. 6j to 6j show that these loads are
reduced when the CC or the CP model is considered instead of the FX model. Also, the CP pier model was
evidently more efficient in reducing the bending moments and shear actions of the piers for all the cases studied
herein.
The results are pretty much the same for the highest PGA of 0.6 g. What differs in this case is the
relatively large uplift displacements of the footing of the CC, the marginal uplift of the footing of the CP pier
model, and the extremely high fluctuation of the axial load of the CC pier model, that lead to tensile loads within
the pier.
A clearer interpretation of the severe fluctuation of the axial load of the CC pier model can be provided
with the help of Table 2 and Figure 8, which show the response of the CC pier model at time t=8.82 s, i.e. at the
time when the tensile load was developed within the pier. The results correspond again to the scaled Loma Prieta
earthquake for PGA 0.3 g. Both the table and the figure provide evidence of the mechanism described above, i.e.
the pounding forces induce large tensile stresses within the footing. The latter tends to recentre and hence pulls
the deck downwards, as a result tension is induced in the pier of the CC model.

Table 2. The response of the CC pier model when tensile axial force is developed (t=8.82sec)
response parameter value
max horizontal deck displacement (mm) / drift % 83 / 0.83%
deck uplift Uz (mm) +11
footing max uplift (mm) 30
axial forces (tensile) (kN) 244.87
shear force (kN) 1483
bending moment at pier bottom (kNm) 6635

10
16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

Fixed base top view

(a) (b)
Fig 8 - (a) Normal Stress on the footing and fixed base of CC model, (b) Normal on the top view of the fixed
based for the real accelerogram of Loma Prieta at time step t=8.82sec.

6. Conclusions
The aim of this paper was to investigate realistic applications of rocking isolation for bridges. In doing so, means
of additional dissipation were sought by using high damping rubber pads upon which the footing rocks. The
footing was deliberately under-designed to promote rocking. The elastomeric pad was selected on the basis of
design criteria to limit the initial pre-compression of the pad and to control the eccentricity of the pier vertical
load under the target seismic displacements. Subsequently, three bridge pier models i.e. a fixed base (FX), a pier
with a footing rocking on concrete (CC) and a pier with a footing rocking on elastomeric pads (CP) were
modelled and analysed on ABAQUS. Material and geometric non-linearities were taken into account for all the
analyses. Comparisons between the three model piers were performed on the basis of displacements and actions
of the piers (axial, shear forces and bending moments). Based on the findings of this study the following
conclusions were drawn:
1. Appropriate design of the elastomeric pad and the dimensioning of the rocking footing seem to provide
adequate means of dissipation, with the main source of dissipation being the hysteresis of the elastomer.
Indicatively, the CC model exhibited a damping ratio of 3.8% and this included the contact effects on
the footing and the dissipation due to friction. The damping ratio of the CP pier model was found to be
approximately 11% and this is mainly due to the dissipation capacity of the pad. Notably, elastomeric
pads are designed to remain elastic, thus no replacement of the bearing is necessary after a strong
earthquake motion.
2. Rocking isolation is beneficial as it reduces drastically the bending moments and the shear actions on the
bridge piers. More specifically, the bending moments of the rocking CC and CP piers are reduced by
approximately 15% and 26% correspondingly for a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.30g and by
26% and 37% for a PGA of 0.60g. The shear forces were also reduced drastically (45% and 64% for a
PGA of 0.30g and by 75% and 78% for PGA of 0.60g).
3. The collision of the foundation of the CC pier model on the concrete sub-base causes a significant
fluctuation of the axial load of the pier together with higher mode effects. As a result, the axial load of
the CC model is up to 2.5 times higher than the axial load of the FX and the CP pier, whilst the vertical
inertia of the deck that resists to the recentering of the pier might cause tension within the pier during
earthquakes. On the other hand, the axial load of the pier rocking on the pad (CP) exhibited negligible
fluctuations, like the FX pier model.

11
16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

7. References
[1] US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2014) Deficient Bridges by State and
Highway System.
[2] Banerjee S, Chandrasekaran S, Venkittaraman A (2014): Optimal Bridge Retrofit Strategy to Enhance Disaster
Resilience of Highway Transportation Systems, PSU-2012-01.
[3] Rodgers GW, Mander JB, Chase JG, Dhakal RP (2015): Beyond Ductility: Parametric Testing of a Jointed Rocking
Beam-Column Connection Designed for Damage Avoidance, J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001318 ,
C4015006.
[4] Marsh et al. (2011): Application of Accelerated Bridge Construction Connections in Moderate-to-High Seismic
Regions, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, (NCHRP report 698).
[5] Kelly JM, Konstantinidis D (2011) Mechanics of rubber bearings for seismic and vibration isolation. Wiley: Chichester.
[6] Mergos PE, Kawashima K (2005): Rocking isolation of a typical bridge pier on spread foundation. Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, 9, 395-414. doi: 10.1142/S1363246905002456.
[7] Makris N, Vassiliou MF (2013): Planar rocking response and stability analysis of an array of free-standing columns
capped with a freely supported rigid beam. Earthquake Engng. Struct. Dyn., 42: 431-449. doi: 10.1002/eqe.2222.
[8] Gelagoti F, Kourkoulis R, Anastasopoulos I, Gazetas G (2012): Rocking isolation of low-rise frame structures founded
on isolated footings. Earthquake Engng. Struct. Dyn., 41, 11771197.
[9] Gazetas G (2014): 4th Ishihara lectrure: Soil-foundation-structure systems beyond conventional seismic failure
thresholds. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 68, 23-39.
[10] Anastasopoulos I, Drosos V, Antonaki N (2015). Three storey building retrofit rocking isolation versus conventional
design. Earhtquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 44, 1235-1254.
[11] Abaqus Simulia, (2012). Analysis User's Manual Volume IV. Analysis User's Manual Volume IV . Providence:
Dassault Systmes.
[12] Mitoulis S, Palaiochorinou A, Georgiadis I, Argyroudis S (2016): Extending the application of integral frame abutment
bridges in earthquake prone areas by using novel isolators of recycled materials, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics (accepted).
[13] Ogden WR (1972): Large Deformation Isotropic ElasticityOn the Correlation of Theory and Experiment for
Incompressible Rubberlike Solids. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical
Sciences, 326 (1567), 565584, The Royal Society.
[14] Ohsaki M (2015): Finite-Element Analysis of Laminated Rubber Bearing of Building Frame under Seismic Excitation.
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics.
[15] Dassault Systmes, 2014. Computer Program ABAQUS/CAE. Providence, RI.
[16] Bergstrm JS, Boyce MC (1998): Constitutive Modeling of the Large Strain Time- Dependent Behavior of Elastomers.
Journal of Mechanics Physics Solids, 46, 931- 954.

12

You might also like