Seismic performance of

highway bridges
A. Ghobarah and H. M. Ali

Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, M c Master University, Hamilton,

Ontario, Canada L8S 4L7
(Received October 1987)

The seismic response of both isolated and non-isolated highway bridges

is investigated with the objective of determining the effect of some of
the design parameters on the bridge response. A dynamic bridge model
is used to compare the effect of various energy-dissipating concepts
when the bridge is subjected to moderate to severe earthquake ground
motions. The seismic energy is assumed to be dissipated by the inelastic
pier behaviour or by the use of base-isolation devices such as the
lead-rubber bearing system.
It was found that allowing the pier to deform inelastically requires
very high ductility design. Structural damage in the form of permanent
deformation is unavoidable. The use of lead plugs in the isolation devices
is a very efficient energy dissipation system. Selecting the force required
to yield the lead plugs to be 5 % of the superstructure's weight provides
a reasonable balance between reduced shear force transmitted to the
pier and increased displacement of the bridge deck. It was also
concluded that the shearing force in the pier can be substantially reduced
by locating the lead plugs at the abutments only.

Keywords: earthquake, highway, bridges, isolation, design

The 1971 San Fernando earthquake was a major turning
point in North America in the development of seismic
design criteria for bridges, in much the same way as the
1933 Long Beach earthquake was for the earthquake
response of buildings. Similarly, the 1929 Murchison
earthquake in New Zealand altered the view prevailing
then that earthquakes were of scientific interest only.
Although significant advances have been achieved since
that time in the design and construction of an earthquake-
resistant bridge, numerous gaps still remain in the under-
standing of the seismic behaviour of bridges.
It has been generally recognized that it is uneconomical
to design a bridge to resist a severe earthquake elastically.
Piers represent the clearly identifiable members in which
potential yield zones can be allowed to occur provided
that the stability of the bridge is not compromised.
Another approach is to restrict the energy absorption
capacity to a non-structural region and to allow the rest
of the bridge to maintain its integrity during the earth-
quake. Use of special isolation devices is an alternative
to the dissipation of energy through the plastic deforma-
tion of piers. A lead-rubber bearing is such an isolation
system, which allows differential displacement between
the superstructure and the substructure and provides an
energy dissipation mechanism. The laminated elastomeric
part of the bearing carries the weight of the superstructure
and supplies a horizontally restoring force. The plastic
deformation of the lead produces hysteretic damping. So,
the lead-rubber system provides both the flexibility and
damping, which are the two basic elements required for
effective base-isolation.
The objective of this study is to investigate the seismic
behaviour of the isolated and non-isolated bridges when
subjected to earthquake ground motions with different
intensity and frequency content. In the non-isolated
bridges, the energy is dissipated by allowing the piers to
behave inelastically. The impact of various design para-
meters, such as the lead yield force and the location of
the lead plugs on the performance of base-isolated
highway bridges, is evaluated.
Bridge model
Consider a typical three-span highway bridge such as the
one shown schematically in Figure 1. The bridge is a
reinforced concrete box type that is continuous over three
spans and is supported by two single column piers. The
structural system may be idealized by the analytical
model shown in Figure 2. The structure is assumed to
consist of a series of line beam-column elements and
translational massless springs (truss elements). The bridge
structure is assumed to be symmetric. This assumption
is not necessary but makes it possible to restrain many
of the possible degrees of freedom in the model, especially
those referring to the torsional behaviour.
In the analysis, it is assumed that the ground motion
is applied in either the lateral or longitudinal directions.
The vertical bridge response due to the vertical ground

0141-0296/88/03157-! 0/$03.00
© 1988 Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd Eng. Struct. 1 988, Vol. 10, J u l y 157
Seismic performance of highway bridges. A. Ghobarah and H. M. Aft
Structural nodes are assumed at thc intersection of
Deck ~ A
pier-bearings and deck-bearing elements. No inter-
mediate nodes are assigned for the deck elements. This
c assumption has been used in girders and columns of
Abutment ' Abutment
wall Pier Pier walt building frames with sufficient accuracy. In bridge
structures, span lengths are relatively large and inter-
a
mediate deck nodal points may seem necessary. However,
the absense of intermediate nodes did not lead in previous
studies ~ to any pronounced inaccuracies in free vibration
results and the earthquake response of bridges.

p~~/i///////
E Effect of rigid deck assumption
Pier top ~
Figure I Typical three span highway bridge: (a) elevation; (b)
section A-A
Deck
y ~ earings
Deck
"y~ Bearings,~.~,~
qUg
Figure2 Modellingofthe bridgestructure:(a) transversedirection;
(b) longitudinaldirection
motion component is not taken into account. Accord-
ingly, the corresponding degrees of freedom can be
restrained without significantly affecting the expected
response. Out of the six degrees of freedom in the space
frame, only two are allowed for the nodes on the deck
and at the pier. For the tranverse loading, the nodes at
Abutment ~
the piers are allowed to displace in the tranverse direction
(Z axis), and rotate about the longitudinal direction of
the bridge (X axis). For the longitudinal loading, the
nodes at the piers are allowed to displace in the longi-
tudinal direction (X axis) and rotate about the transverse
direction (Z axis). For the piers and abutments, the
vertical displacement is restrained since no significantly
axial shortening is expected. The pier is assumed to be
fixed to the ground where no soil-structure interaction
is considered.
The bridge model can be significantly simplified if the
bridge deck is assumed to be rigid in its own plane. The
simplified model shown in Figure 3 could be regarded as
simulating half the bridge structure. The model repre-
sents either of the longitudinal or the transverse responses.
The same idealizations and assumptions of the first model
hold here except that the deck is assumed to act as a
rigid diaphragm in plan. This assumption allows the deck
to displace only in the direction of loading while restrain-
ing its rotational degree of freedom,
The two models as discussed allow for the variability
of stiffness of the bearings at the abutments and piers.
Both of the models could be used to study energy
dissipating devices located at either or both abutment
and pier, by allocating suitable force-displacement char-
acteristics to the bearings (truss elements). The main
advantage of the first model is that it enables the actual
representation of the deck stiffness. No guidelines are
available as to when diaphragm action ma3/be assumed
in highway bridge design. In some cases, such as that of
a box girder superstructure, it is clear that the deck is
stiff in its own plane over several spans. However, it is
not clear how other types of superstructure, such as
precast girders supporting a cast in-place concrete deck,
will behave. Owing to the difference in rotation between
the piers and abutment tops, some rotation of the deck
may occur. It is believed that the in-plane rigidity is still
likely to be high in highway bridges up to three spans z.
In order to assess the effect of neglecting the stiffness
of the deck on the dynamic response of the bridge, the
error in the undamped fundamental period of the
structure that results from the rigid deck assumption is
shown in Figure 4. The error percentage is plotted against
the total stiffness of the elastomeric bearings, K=, normal-
ized to the weight of the superstructure, IV. The error in
period is defined as: [(7"1 - T2)/T1] x 100, where TLis the
period of free vibration in the transverse direction using
Deck displacement
Dec
kM-~ass Pier
top mass Pier top
~ ~ " ~ displacement&
rotation
Y
Pie
Z [/[//7111fll
Ground
Figure 3 Simplifiedmodelof the bridgestructure

158 Eng. Struct. 1988, Vol. 10, July

 Seismic performance of highway bridges: A. Ghobarah and H. M. Aft
O. 12 .;_
Moment Moment

o.o9 /--
Curvature ~'~urvature

.~ o.o6 .:c :" ~

a
b
Figure5 Hysteresis loops used in the inelastic analysis of reinforced
o.o3 concrete bridge piers

to points between cracking and yield. However, the

exclusion of the cracking point may not lead to any
0 2 4 6 8 10 significant inaccuracies for systems with moderate to
large nonlinear deformations. The force-displacement
Error (%)
hysteresis loop of a laminated elastomeric bearing with-
Figure 4 Errorin the fundamental period of the bridge due to rigid out lead plugs is mainly elastic with a constant shear
deck assumption
stiffness and a small amount of hysteresis. In practice
these hysteretic properties provide useful damping for
seismic applications, but they are not so well defined as
the first model, and T2 is the period of the structure using to justify their inclusion in the analysist Linear elastic
the second model with a rigid deck assumption. The analysis, modified by appropriate empirical factors,
flexibility of the deck is expressed by ~b= Kc/Kd, where appears to provide acceptable accuracy for most bridge
K¢ is the stiffness of the pier as a cantilever and Kd is the elastomeric bearing applications.
stiffness of an equivalent spring at the pier location, Based on experimental studies 6'7, the force-displace-
considering the deck as a simply supported beam in the ment relationship for lead-rubber bearings can be
lateral direction. With this definition, large ~b values approximated by the bilinear model shown in Figure 6.
represent flexible decks. A reasonable description of the hysteresis loop assumes
It can be observed that the rigid deck assumption a post-elastic stiffness equal to the elastomeric stiffness,
underestimates the fundamental period of vibration. K,, and an initial elastic stiffness (i.e. unloading stiffness),
Also, the error increases with stiffer bearings. The shaded Kit = 10 Kr.
area of the curves represents the practical range of relative
stiffness, gb, for short to medium span highway bridges.
The stiffness of bearings is limited to the maximum value 2 Solution algorithm
of 0.05 W m m - t . These practical considerations make To allow for the time-varying tangent stiffness matrix
the simplified model more attractive to use since it associated with the nonlinear modelling a, the equation
involves a considerable reduction in computations, while of motion can be written as
the expected error does not exceed 6 %. Accordingly, for
the remaining analyses, the simplified model will be + [c] + {FI"'}
adopted since it does not result in a significant loss in + [K,] {Au} = { V ,CXt
+,}
accuracy.
Force
Hysteretic Modelling
Two of the common hysteresis loops 3 shown in Figure i Post-yield
stiffness
5 are used in the inelastic time history analysis of the
bridge structures. It is possible to represent the deck and
pier elements either by an elastoplastic curve or by the Lead ."*'~'~
Clough degrading stiffness idealization. The elastoplastic yield ading
model is a simple representation for the behaviour of / Z / stiffness
mild steel and well confined concrete sections. The
degrading stiffness model is considered to be a good
i/,r /
simulation of members with considerable shear stiffness Displacement
degradation and shear slip 4. However, this model should
be used with caution in reinforced beams with different
tension and compression steel ratios and in columns
where the moment-curvature relationship does not simu-
late the pinching effect that occurs in these cases. The
f f
Clough degrading stiffness idealization is less accurate
than the currently adopted trilinear representation,
because it can result in overestimating the stiffness and
energy absorption of members subjected to relatively Figure 6 Idealized force-dis dacement relationship for lead-rubber
small amplitude displacements or loads that correspond bearings

Eng. Struct. 1988, Vol. 10, July 159

Seismic performance of highway bridges." A. Ghobarah and H. M. Aft
where: [M] is the mass matrix; [C], the damping matrix;
{Au}, the increment of displacement over the integration
time step ( = {ui+1} - {ui}); {/ll+ ~}, the velocity at the end
of time step t~+l; {/is+a}, the acceleration at the end of
time step ti+ 1; {El"t}, the internal forces at the beginning
of the integration time step, t~ (= [Ks] {u~}) where [K~] is
the tangent stiffness matrix; and {F~tl}, the external
forces at the end of the integration time step, ti+ 1. The
damping matrix [C] is evaluated by using the Rayleigh
damping method.
The method of solution employed by the analysis is
the Newmark-fl step-by-step numerical integration
method 9'~°. Solutions are obtained for the displacement,
velocity and acceleration at the end of the time step ui+ 1,
/~i+1, fi~+~, respectively, in terms of the known velocity
and acceleration at the beginning of the step t~,/i s and the
unknown incremental displacement, Au. The algorithm
is modified to permit the use of the Wilson-0 method ~°,
as well as the linear acceleration method in order to cross
check the results of the analysis.
In the process of numerical integration, the stiffness
matrix is updated at the end of each time step. For beam
elements, the end moments are calculated for all beam
segments to check whether or not a plastic hinge has
been formed. The plastic deformation associated with the
hinge is also checked to see if it is compatible with the
sign of the moment. The plastic hinge is free to rotate
only in one direction, while in the other direction the
section returns to an elastic behaviour. The same proced-
ure is applied to the truss elements. The element behaves
plastically in tension provided the velocity is positive.
When the velocity changes its sign, the element reverts
to elastic behaviour. On the other hand, when the truss
element begins a plastic compression, it remains on the
curve until the velocity's sign becomes positive, which
indicates a return to elastic behaviour.
To account for the sudden variation of stiffness matrix
at the corners associated with the bilinear, elastoplastic,
or Clough degrading stiffness assumption, the method of
solution adopted an automatic refinement process by
reducing the time step to a controllable limit at the regions
of stiffness change.
Strong motion time histories
To account for the uncertainty in the characteristics of
earthquake-induced ground motions regarding site con-
ditions, intensity, and frequency content, actual earth-
quake records are used as input time histories. Four
different earthquake records were selected. The first
ground motion considered is El Centro Earthquake
S90W component of May, 1940 with a peak acceleration
of 0.21 g. This is a typical white-noise low-frequency type
Table 1 Properties of the pier
Parameter Symbol
Elastic modulus E 2.50 x 107
Shear modulus G 1.04 x 107
Cross sectional area (circular) A 1.1 31
Height L 5.0
Moment of inertia Ixx =/zz
Yield moment My
160 Eng. Struct. 1988, Vol. 10, July
of California earthquake excitation, which has been used
quite extensively in earthquake engineering studies. The
Parkfield earthquake N65W component of June 1966,
recorded at Temblor station, is a high-frequency ground
excitation with 0.27 g peak acceleration. Most of the
strong motion occurred during the first five seconds and
then died out very quickly. The San Fernando earthquake
of February 1971 is another well known earthquake. The
$74W component of the acceleration time history
recorded adjacent to Pacoima dam abutment has a
maximum peak horizontal ground acceleration of 1.08 g-
The fourth record used in this study is that of the Mexican
earthquake of September 1985. The N90W horizontal
component was measured at the Secretary of Transporta-
tion and Communications building and has a peak
ground acceleration of 0.17 g.
Response of non-isolated bridge
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the base-isolation
technique, the response of an isolated bridge using the
lead-rubber bearings is compared to the response of a
non-isolated bridge by using the ductility approach
currently recommended by several codes for seismic
energy dissipation.
For the purpose of numerical analysis, a three-span
highway bridge is designed with two intermediate rein-
forced concrete single-column piers. The total weight of
the deck is estimated to be 7800 kN, corresponding to a
span of about 30 m and an average weight of 85 kN m- 1
The bridge is not isolated and the pier is circular,
pin-jointed to the superstructure and fixed to the base.
The superstructure is assumed to slide on ordinary
frictionless bearings at the abutments. The primary
element in the dissipation of seismic energy is the pier
where a plastic hinge is expected to form at the base when
the structure is subjected to moderate or severe earth-
quake loading and the designed pier section is detailed
accordingly. The properties of the idealized pier section
along with its yield parameters are summarized in Table
1. From the given bridge dimensions, the ratio of the
stiffness of the pier to the stiffness of the deck ~b is less
than 30. If the elastomeric stiffness of the bearings is taken
to be 0.05 W, the error in the fundamental period of the
bridge for a rigid deck assumption is found from Figure
4 to be 6 %. Owing to the small error involved, the bridge
is idealized using the rigid deck model shown in Figure
3. The damping ratio is taken to be 5% of the critical
damping. The truss element modelling the bearing at the
pier is assumed to be infinitely stiff, while the truss element
representing bearings at the abutment is removed. Single
and two element pier representation for elastoplastic and
Clough's degrading stiffness moment-curvature relation-
Value Unit
kN m 2
kN m 2
m2
m
0.1018 m4
4430 kN m
 Seismic performance of highway bridges: A. Ghobarah and H. M. Aft
Table2 Response of the pier for non-isolated bridge
Earthquake Strength demand
(elastic)
El Centro 1.545
Parkf ield 1.864
San Fernando 7.560
ship, respectively, were adopted. The response is intended
to provide the strength and ductility demand required
for the bridge to survive severe ground motions. The four
actual earthquake time histories described above are used
as input ground motion. Since the vertical earthquake
effects are not included in the analysis, the axial load in
the pier, or the gravity load effect is constant. The yield
surface can therefore be represented by a two-dimensional
elastoplastic moment interaction surface.
The bridge response was predicted using the Newmark
integration method with the constants ~, and fl taken to
be 0.5 and 0.25, respectively, for the three cases; elastic,
elastoplastic, and stiffness degrading response analysis.
The integration time step is taken to be 0.02 s, which is
approximately 1/20th of the fundamental free vibration
period of 0.412 s. The integration time step is also equal
to the time interval of the ground motion records. For
the plastic analysis, the response is determined for a more
refined time step of 0.01 s; however, a comparison with
the results of 0.02 s indicates a negligible difference of
ca. 0.5%. The results of the elastic and inelastic analyses
are summarized in Table 2. Considering the pier as a
simple cantilever, the displacement of the top relative to
the base at the first yield, uy, can be determined. By using
this displacement as the reference value, the pier 'displace-
ment ductility' is defined as the maximum observed
displacement at the top of the pier, divided by the
reference relative displacement at first yield, Uy. The
'strength demand' is defined as the maximum base
moment of the pier, divided by the yield moment My.
By using the elastic analysis, the moments in the pier
remain under the yield level for the Mexico City earth-
quake since the strength demand of 0.62 is less than unity,
while for other earthquakes, moments exceed the yield
moment. The strength demand at 7.56 is very high for
Pacoima Dam, but it is moderate for the El Centro (1.545)
and the Parkfield (1.864) earthquakes. The response of
the pier using the elastoplastic model shows that the pier
displacement ductility is 13.66, which is very high for the
Pacoima Dam record. Displacement ductility of 1.86 and
1.74 are required for the first bridge to survive the El
Centro and the Parkfield earthquakes, respectively. For
the Clough degrading stiffness model case, the ductility
requirements are lower than those arrived at by the
elastoplastic approach. This difference is because the
structure becomes more flexible as a result of stiffness
degradation associated with a shift in the structure's
period to a region of lower energy, which reduces the
forces acting on the structure. For E1 Centro and Park-
field, only a slight difference in ductility requirements is
noticed because the structure is subjected to a few
response cycles that do not lead to significant impact on
the pier's stiffness. For Pacoima Dam, which is a severe
Displacement ductility
Elastoplastic Clough's degrading
1.860 1.720
1.740 1.700
13.660 5.000
earthquake record, the response is dramatically affected
by many cycles that increase the shift in period, reducing
the displacement ductility to five compared with the 13.66
given by the elastoplastic hysteretic model.
When limitation on the design forces is provided by
the yielding of selected structural members, such as the
pier for highway bridges, it must be designed to deform
in a ductile manner. The associated dissipation of energy
in the yielding members reduces the seismic response of
the structure but entails some form of damage. This
procedure may be useful for the El Centro and the
Parkfield earthquakes where the ductility requirements
were found to be around 1.7 to 1.86. For the Pacoima
Dam record of the San Fernando earthquake, where the
ductility requirement is much higher, it is not practical
to provide such ductility in the design.
Although the structure in the cases of the El Centro
and the Parkfield earthquakes may survive, the expected
damage may mean costly repairs and difficulty in the
restoration of permanent deflections. The resulting
structural damage in the form of permanent deflection
are shown in Figures 7 and 8 for the elastoplastic and
Clough degrading stiffness models for pier behaviour,
respectively. Other disadvantages of the conventional
ductile approach are that design procedures may be
complicated and the required reinforcing steel details are
expensive and difficult to place.
Response of the isolated bridge
The lead-rubber base-isolation pads are incorporated in
the same bridge design at the piers and abutments. The
fundamental period of free vibration of the bridge, based
on the elastomeric stiffness, was found to shift to 1.44 s.
The bridge structure is idealized by using the rigid-deck
model shown in Figure 3 with one beam element repre-
senting the pier. The total of the elastomeric stiffness for
bearings located at the pier, which is the post-yield
stiffness as shown in Figure 6, is taken to be twice that
of bearings at the abutment. This is based on the fact
that abutments carry about one half the load that the
pier carries, considering all different combinations of dead
and live loads. The number of bearings at the pier are
then taken to be approximately twice the number at the
abutment. Also, the number of lead plugs at the abutment
is taken to be one half the number of the lead plugs at
the pier. Since all plugs are usually designed to have the
same diameter for easier and systematic construction, the
yield level, which is the shear force at lead yield of the
lead-rubber bearings at the pier, is taken to be two thirds
of the characteristic yield strength of all lead plugs Qd.
Consequently, the yield at abutment is taken as QJ3.
Based on experimental evidence, the elastic stiffness of
Eng. Struct. 1988, Vol. 10, July 161
Seismic performance of highway bridges. A. Ghobarah and H. M. Aft

E
(J 2L:: I 11. .,I
E

i.
Centro

AA/VAA^A^ o AI
Ii
E 0
E
~J
03 _, V vV V
c~ Uy
ul

c~ -2
-2
I I
! I 0 10 15
0 5 I0 15

Parkfield 2F Parkfield
-~ Uy

<u 0 "-=~=
^^^A ~ 1f_ AA~I

o.
.~
-1
t"-'"v V'
Uy
-2 ° -2 F vv,, I I
I I I 0 5 10 15
0 5 10 15

San F e r n a n d o

o 4
~ Uy C
E 0
E I.. Uy v- ~1~ .-
(D Uy lv~ | ~ ~
~- -10 -4
£3
-20 I ,, I I -8 I I I
0 5 10 15 5 I0 15

Time (seconds) Time (seconds)

Figure7 Displacement at the top of the pier for the non-isolated /-igure8 Displacement at the top of the pier for the non-isolated
bridge using elastoplastic ductile piers response bridge by using Clough's degrading stiffness model for pier response

lead-rubber bearings is assumed to be ten times the post Effectiveness of base-isolation

yield stiffness. In other words, the unloading stiffness
ratio, Klr/K,, is taken to be equal to ten. The input
ground motion time histories are normalized so that the
maximum acceleration response of a single degree of
freedom elastic system with 5 % critical damping equals
the gravitational acceleration g. The response was pre-
dicted by using Newmark's integration method. The
integration time step is chosen as 0.02 s.
In the study of the response of the isolated bridge, three
main areas are addressed. First, the response of the bridge
components using the lead-rubber isolation system were
compared with the non-isolated bridge response using
the elastoplastic and Clough's degrading stiffness models
for pier behaviour. Second, the sensitivity of the bridge
response to the location of the lead plugs was investigated.
Third, the design shear force level at which yielding of
the lead plugs takes place was varied up to 7 % of the
superstructure weight. For each of the values considered,
the bridge response was evaluated in order to determine
the optimum value for bridge design applications.
The response of the bridge components, using the pro-
posed isolation system as compared to the elastic, elasto-
plastic, and Clough's degrading stiffness analysis are
summarized in Table 3. The use of a base-isolation tech-
nique significantly reduces the forces generated in the pier
so that it behaves elastically. This will result in a more
slender column and simpler design. However, the dis-
placement of the deck increases as compared to the other
methods of energy dissipation. With base-isolation, it was
found that the bridge structure can survive the San
Fernando Pacoima Dam earthquake record. The decision
to use base-isolation is dependent on the characteristics
of the expected earthquake. Strong motion accelerations
recorded in areas of hard rock or strong alluvial soil have
typically exhibited a high-frequency content, with the
predominant frequency being about 3 Hz. This character-
istic is demonstrated by E1 Centro, Parkfield, and San
Fernando earthquakes. For such earthquakes, the intro-
duction of lead-rubber devices to a stiff system such as

162 Eng. Struct. 1988, Vol. 10, July

 Seismic performance of highway bridges: A. Ghobarah and H. M. Ali
Table 3 Response of the isolated bridge compared with the non-isolated structure

Elastic Elastoolastic Clough's Degrading

Earthquake Pier Deck Pier Deck Pier Deck

Mt and Dis* Dis Mt Dis Dis Mt Dis Dis

El Centro 0.160 2.623 0.247 0.133 2.167 0.247 0.143 2.340

Parkfield 0.098 0.852 0.183 0.105 0.909 0.183 0.108 0.935
San Fernando 0.044 1.301 0.335 0.025 0.720 0.335 0.067 1.967

* Mt and Dis refer to ratio of moment at base and ratio of displacement at top of piers

typical highway bridges will dramatically reduce the
acceleration response as a result of the period shift.
However, soft soils may alter the frequency response of
an earthquake so that more of the energy is transmitted
at low frequencies. An example of an earthquake record
with predominant low frequency is the Mexico City, 1985,
record. For such an earthquake, introducing the lead-
rubber mountings tends to increase rather than to
decrease the response. While the non-isolated bridge
under study can survive the Mexico City ground motion,
it will be damaged if isolated. The displacement of the
deck is quite large, almost fifty times that of the non-
isolated bridge. The large deformation of the bearings
cannot be accommodated with reasonable design dimen-
sions.
Location of lead plugs
The seismic energy dissipation mechanism in the lead-
rubber bearing is by yielding of the lead plugs. Given the
total shear force required to yield all the lead plugs, Qd,
and the lead yield strength of 10 MPa, the total area of
the lead plugs can be determined. The shear force required
to yield the lead plugs located in bearings at the pier is
termed Qdp- The ratio of the area of the lead plugs located
at the pier to the total lead area, Qdp/Qdmay vary between
zero and 1. The ratio of zero represents the case when
all the lead plugs are located at the abutments only, while
a ratio of 1 represents the case when all the lead plugs
are located at the pier only. By varying Qdp/Qd between
zero and one, the impact of the location of the energy
maximum displacement for the inelastic system. For a
given period, the response of different cases was normal-
ized to the corresponding response at (Qdp/Qd= 0) when
all the lead plugs are inserted in the bearings located at
the abutment. The mean values of the response for the
five period cases and f o r the normalized El Centro,
Parkfield and San Fernando earthquake records are
plotted in Figure 9.
The introduction of the energy dissipators at the
abutment only reduces the shear in the pier dramatically.
On average, the shear is about 43 % compared with the
shear in the case of introducing all lead plugs at the pier
only, as shown in Figure 9. The percentage increases for
the other locations of the energy dissipators. On the other
hand, when all the lead plugs are located on the abutment,
it suffers more forces, which are 2.8 times the force when
all lead plugs are located at the pier. The displacement
of the deck varies slightly with plug locations. The
displacement has minimum values when half the lead
plugs are placed at the piers. However, the improvement
in the displacement of the deck is less sensitive than the
shear in the pier to variation in the location of the lead
plugs. When all the lead plugs are inserted in bearings
located at the pier, the increase in displacement of the deck
2.5
Shear in pier

dissipation devices on the response of highway bridges 2.0

can be investigated in order to identify the most suitable
location for the lead plugs.
In the analysis, the characteristic yield strength of all ._Q
plugs, Qd, was taken to equal 0.05 W. The elastomeric
stiffness of bearings at the abutment is taken to be one o
half the elastomeric stiffness at the pier. The frequency r~
of the pier as a cantilever normalized to the frequency of
r~
the rigid deck mounted on elastomeric bearings without
1.01~ Deck displacement
lead plugs may be regarded as a measure of the pier
stiffness. The relative flexibility of the pier compared to
the deck is taken to be in the range 20 to 40, which
corresponds to a bridge of 20 to 30 m span and pier
height of 4 to 5 m. For each of the cases studied, the 0.5
Force on abutl
stiffness of elastomeric bearings was varied in order to
obtain different periods, Tp, in the practical range for
isolated bridges from one to two seconds. The funda-
mental period of the bridge without energy dissipators is 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 I .0
termed Tp. In other words, the same value, Tp, represents
the effective period of vibration for the structure with Qdp/O d
energy dissipators based on the tangent stiffness at Figure9 Impact of the location of lead plugs on the bridge response

Eng. Struct. 1988, Vol. 10, July 163

 Seismic performance of highway bridges." A. Ghobarah and H. M. Aft
may be ascribed to the sudden decrease of stiffness of
bearings at abutment, which are now behaving elastically.
The results obtained in this section provide a solution 0.14
for piers with inadequate strength that have been designed
by using the pre-1971 design criteria. Installing energy
dissipators at the abutment (i.e. inserting lead plugs in 0.12
Q d / W :: 0,07
the laminated rubber bearings placed at the abutment)
attracts more forces to the abutment, rather than to the 0.~0
pier, which reduces significantly the seismic forces acting E
on the pier. The abutment are usually massive and rigid 0.08
enough to resist the extra transmitted forces. .Q

~
o
0.06
Lead shear resistance
,? J
No lead p l u g s
The shear force level at which yielding of the lead 0.04
plugs takes place is an important parameter in the design
of the base-isolator. Given the shear force level and the
lead yield strength of 10-10.5 MPa, the number and cross 0.02
sectional area of the lead plugs can be designed. The level
of yield force depends on the mechanism by which all I I I I
1.0 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2.0
lateral loads, including those arising from sources other
than earthquakes, are resisted I ~. The level of yield force Bridge period, Tp(Sl
should be selected to achieve two objectives. First, the
Figure 11 Effect of the lead yield shear force o n t h e f o r c e o n
response of the bridge structure is required to remain abutment
elastic under the action of small earthquakes, wind and
braking forces. Second, during severe seismic events, the
level of forces and displacements are required to remain All lead plugs are inserted in the laminated bearings
within acceptable limits to ensure that the bridge con- located at the abutments. The elastomeric stiffness of the
tinues to function. bearings (i.e. post-yield stiffness) at a pier, Kpr, is assumed
The bridge response for different cases with varying to be twice the elastomeric stiffness at the abutment, K,,.
yield shear force of the lead dissipators were investigated For lead-rubber bearings, the ratio of the elastic stiffness
for the normalized E1 Centro, Parkfield and San to the post-yield stiffness (i.e. unloading stiffness ratio) is
Fernando earthquakes. Various ratios of the lead yield taken to be equal to ten. The relative stiffness of the pier
force, Qd, to the weight of superstructure, W,, up to 7 % to the stiffness of the deck was chosen to lie within the
were considered in the numerical analysis. The results ratio range of 20 to 40. The shear response in the pier,
are compared with the elastic response of the bridge force on abutment, and displacement of deck are plotted
without lead dissipators, Qd/W= 0. The response of the against the fundamental period of the bridge, Tp, in
bridge structure incorporating lead plugs as energy Figures 10, 11 and 12, respectively.
dissipating devices, over the practical period range of 1
to 2 seconds, are shown in Figures 10 to 12.

0.20 0.03

_m

0.15
c 0.02

"5_
._c
0.10

co
0.01

0.05

I I I I
I .0 I .2 I .4 I .6 I .8 .0
I I I I
1.0 I .2 I .4 I .6 I .8 .0 Bridge period, Tp(S)
Bridge period, Tp fs)
F i g u r e 12 E f f e c t o f t h e lead y i e l a shear force on the bridge d e c k
Figure I 0 Effect of the lead yield shear force o n t h e s h e a r in pier displacement

164 Eng. Struct. 1988, Vol. 10, J u l y

 Seismic performance of highway bridges: A. Ghobarah and H. M. Aft
Incorporating the lead plugs in the base-isolation
system significantly reduces the shear in the pier and the
displacement of deck, but increases the force on abutment
as shown in Figures 10 to 12. The effect of dissipators
may be seen to be similar to that of extra equivalent
damping. The higher the dissipator yield shear force for
a given period, the larger the reduction in the shear
transmitted to the pier and deck displacement response.
The force on abutment increases with the increase of yield
shear force.
As expected, the response curves for the case of no lead
plugs seem to be sensitive to peaks in the acceleration
response spectra of the earthquakes and the period of free
vibration of the bridge system. For a lead-rubber isola-
tion, the response curves variation with the bridge period
are quite smooth. By increasing the lead shear force at
yield to bridge weight ratio from 0.05 to 0.07, little reduc-
tion is achieved in the shear in pier and deck displacement
and little increase occurs in the force on abutment. The
largest size of lead plug that can be accommodated in an
elastomeric bearing is limited by the bearings area dimen-
sions and height.
Lead yield force of about 5 % of the superstructure's
weight seems to be an optimum value for bridge design
applications. This value provides a good balance between
the increase of forces on abutments and the decrease of
shear in piers with a good control of displacement of
deck. Similar results were arrived at 2,11 for lead plugs
in all elastomeric bearings at piers and abutments.
Conclusions
An analysis was made for typical highway bridges with
single-column piers under the lateral effect of different
earthquakes. Both isolated and non-isolated bridges were
considered. The impact of lead-rubber bearings, as an
isolation system, on the behaviour of the bridge structure
was investigated. The following conclusions can be
arrived at.
Typical two and three span highway bridges can be
analysed and designed for base isolation, assuming rigid
deck behaviour in the horizontal direction without sig-
nificant loss of accuracy.
The use of mechanical energy-dissipating devices offers
a number of potential advantages for the design of
earthquake-resisting bridges over the concept of allowing
the piers to yield. The base-isolation approach is attract-
ive in its conceptual simplicity by concentrating the
energy dissipation in components especially designed for
this purpose and detailed for easy replacement if neces-
sary. In regions where long period earthquakes are not
expected, substantial reduction in forces enables the
designers to use elastic design for piers.
The effect of lead inserts in the bearing pad may be
regarded as similar to providing extra equivalent damp-
ing. The dissipation of energy during the plastic deforma-
tion of lead reduces the forces transmitted to the pier and
keeps deflections within reasonable limits.
The distribution of forces transmitted to the sub-
structure and the deck displacement depend on the
location of energy dissipators. Incorporation of the lead
plugs at the abutments rather than at the piers reduces
the seismic forces generated in the pier and, at the same
time, controls the deck displacement. The reduction of
seismic forces on the piers is accompanied by increased
forces on the abutments. The potential earthquake
damage to the piers and consequently to the bridge may
be significantly decreased and at the same time achieving
an economic design in the form of reduced pier size and
savings in its foundation system.
Higher shear resistance at yield of the lead plugs for a
given free-vibration period of the bridge reduces the
expected shear in pier and displacement of the deck.
However, the reduction of forces on the pier is accompan-
ied by increased forces on the abutments. A lead yield
strength of 5 % of the bridge weight can be recommended
as a value that provides a reasonable balance between
reduced forces in pier and increased forces on abutment.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada. This work was done under a NSERC grant for
earthquake engineering to McMaster University.
Notation
9 gravitational acceleration
gar total of the elastomeric stiffness of bearings at
the abutment
KC stiffness of the pier as a cantilever
Kd stiffness of an equivalent spring at the pier
location considering the deck as a simply
supported beam in the lateral direction
g ¢ total stiffness of elastomeric bearings
Klr initial elastic stiffness of lead-rubber bearings
or the unloading stiffness
Kpr total of the elastomeric stiffness of bearings at
the pier
Kr elastomeric stiffness of bearings
Mr yield moment of the pier cross section
the shear force resistance at yield of all lead
plugs
Qdp the shear force resistance at yield of lead plugs
located at the pier
the period of the bridge in the transverse
direction allowing for flexibility of deck
the period of the bridge using the simplified
model with the rigid deck assumption
the fundamental period of the bridge based on
the stiffness of bearings in the plastic range
Uy the displacement at the top of the pier at the
first yield
W weight of the superstructure
[c] damping matrix
{F "xt} the external forces vector
{Fiat} the internal forces vector
[Ki] the stiffness matrix
[M] mass matrix
the displacement vector
the velocity vector
the acceleration vector
{Au} the increment of displacement over the inte-
gration time step
X,Y,Z Cartesian coordinate axes
~,~, constants used in Newmark's algorithm
relative flexibility of the deck (Kc/Kd)
Eng. Struct. 1988, Vol. 10, July 165
Seismic performance of highway bridges. A. Ghobarah and H. M. Aft
References
1 Saiidi, M., Hart, J. D. and Douglas, B. M. Inelastic static and
dynamic analysis of short reinforced concrete bridges subjected to
lateral loads. Report No. CCEER 84-3, University of Nevada,
Reno, 1984
2 Blakely, R. W. G. Analysis and design of bridges incorporating
mechanical energy dissipating devices for earthquake resistance.
Proc. Workshop on Earthquake Resistance of Highway Bridges,
Applied Technology Council, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 313-342, 1979
3 Priestley, M. J. N. and Park, R. Seismic resistance of reinforced
concrete bridge columns. Proc. Workshop on Earthquake Resistance
of Highway Bridges, Applied Technology Council, Palo Alto, CA,
pp. 253-283, 1979
4 Park, R. and Paulay, T. Reinforced concrete structures, Wiley Inc.,
New York, 1975
5 Charles, W. R. and Stanton, J. F. Elastomeric bearings: A state of
art. J. Struct. Engng, ASCE 1983, 109 (12), 2853-2871
6 Tyler, R. G. and Robinson, W. H. High strain tests on lead-rubber
bearings for earthquake loadings. Bull. New Zealand National Soc.
166 Eng. Struct. 1988, Vol. 10, July
Earthquake Engng 1984, 17 (,2), 9t~105
7 Kelly, J. M. and Hodder, S. B. Experimental study of lead and
elastomeric dampers for base isolation systems in laminated
Neoprene bearings. Bull. New Zealand Soc. Earthquake Engng
1982, 15 (2)
8 Longinow, A., Robinson, R. R. and Chu, K. H. Retrofitting of
existing highway bridges subject to seismic loading analytical
considerations. Proc. Workshop on Earthquake Resistance t~/
Highway Bridges, Applied Technology Council, Palo Alto, CA,
pp 361 389, 1979
9 Newmark, N. M. A method of computation for structural
dynamics. J. Engng Mech. Div. ASCE 1959, 85 (EM3), 67 94
10 Bathe, K. J. and Wilson, E. L Stability and accuracy analysis of
direct integration methods. Int. J. Earthquake Engng and Struct.
Dynamic. 1973, 1,283-291
11 Mayes, R. L., Jones, L. R., Kelly, T. E. and Button, M. R.
Base-isolation concepts for seismic bridge retrofit, lifeline earth-
quake engineering: Performance, design and construction. Proc.
Symp. sponsored by Tech. Council Lifeline Earthquake Engng
ASCE, San Francisco, CA, 1984