See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233366084

A new scheme for the seismic retrofit of multi-span simply supported bridges

Article in Structure and Infrastructure Engineering · September 2011

DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2011.609175

CITATIONS READS

6 477

3 authors:

Stergios Aristoteles Mitoulis Ioannis Tegos

University of Birmingham Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
125 PUBLICATIONS 1,796 CITATIONS 125 PUBLICATIONS 966 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Kosmas C. Stylianidis
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
32 PUBLICATIONS 676 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Stergios Aristoteles Mitoulis on 01 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CE: KK QA: EP COLL: DV PG: sadasivans 23/8/11 07:35 2008 – Style 4 (USA4) NSIE_A_609175 (P2) RefSty-(V Harvard)

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

Vol. 00, No. 0, Month 2011, 1–14

5 60
A new scheme for the seismic retrofit of multi-span simply supported bridges
Stergios A. Mitoulis*, Ioannis A. Tegos and Kosmas C. Stylianidis
Laboratory of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Structures, Department of Civil Engineering,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
10 65
(Received 15 February 2011; final version received 26 July 2011; accepted 27 July 2011)

There are two alternative strategies that a designer may adopt and combine when faced with the retrofitting of a
bridge: (a) the increase in the capacity or (b) the reduction in the actions of the structure. In this article, a new
scheme, based on the second strategy, is proposed for the retrofit of existing multi-span simply supported (MSSS)
15 bridges. The reduction in the actions of the bridge was mainly achieved by utilising an external restraining system 70
consisting of I-shaped steel piles driven in the backfill soil and a slab that is the pile-cap of the piles. The restraining
system was preliminarily designed and assessed in an existing MSSS bridge system, whose deck slab was made
continuous. The existing and the retrofitted bridge were analysed by means of non-linear dynamic time history
analysis and their response was compared in terms of serviceability and earthquake resistance performance. The
study showed that the retrofitting scheme enhanced effectively the earthquake resistance of the existing bridge.
20 75
Keywords: bridge; seismic; retrofit; restrainer; reduce; action

1. Introduction The second bridge retrofitting strategy, which can

25 In the last two decades, the rapid deterioration of
bridge structures has become a serious technical and
economical problem in many countries, including
highly developed ones. The problem is more intense
in multi-span simply supported (MSSS) bridges, since
30 most of them were designed without consideration of
seismic forces (DesRoches et al. 2003) at least until
1990 (Nielson and DesRoches 2006). As a result, these
bridges have suffered the most damage in past earth-
quakes (Dicleli and Bruneau 1995). One of the most
35 frequent modes of failure of these bridges was the
unseating of their simply supported spans (Saiidi et al.
2001). The problem becomes more intense when the
gaps between the sequential segments close and high
impact forces are induced at the interacting spans
40 (Saadeghvaziri and Yazdani-Motlagh 1999). Along
these lines, the need arises to develop efficient seismic
retrofitting schemes for MSSS.
In most bridge retrofitting schemes, there are two
alternative strategies that a designer may adopt. The
45 first strategy is based on conventional strengthening
techniques, which increase the capacity, namely the
resistance (Rd) of the structure to meet the likely demand
(Buckle et al. 2006). This can be characterised as the
‘direct retrofit’ scheme. The implementation of concrete,
50 steel or composite material jackets are typically intro-
duced (Ogata et al. 1994, Kawashima, 2000, Pantelides
and Gergely 2002, Karayannis et al. 2008).
be characterised as ‘indirect’ is based on reducing the 80
demand namely the actions, Sd, on the structure such
that its existing capacity is sufficient to withstand the
given earthquake loading. This latter approach typi-
cally involves the use of earthquake protection systems
that are bearings and viscous dampers (Kawashima 85
and Unjoh 1996). Although not applicable in all
structures and all site conditions, retrofitting with
earthquake protective systems has been shown to be a
cost-effective alternative to conventional strengthening
(Penelis et al. 1998, Dicleli et al. 2005). However, the 90
use of isolation leads to the requirement of large
clearances at the abutments. It follows that isolation is
attractive when it is not practical or desirable to
retrofit deficient columns and foundations by conven-
tional means as stated by Buckle et al. (2006). 95
Cost-effective and efficient measures are typically
introduced in bridge retrofitting schemes, since the cost
of the total intervention is a critical parameter, which
influences decisions and design. Cable restrainers are
placed across movement joints to reduce potential for 100
unseating (American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 2001, Cali-
fornia Department of Transportation (CalTrans)
2004). These restrainers are utilised to connect the
adjacent segments of the deck as well as the deck 105
with the piers or the abutments (Saiidi et al. 2001,
DesRoches et al. 2003). Current restrainer design

55 *Corresponding author. Email: mitoulis@civil.auth.gr 110

ISSN 1573-2479 print/ISSN 1744-8980 online
Ó 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2011.609175
http://www.informaworld.com
 2 S.A. Mitoulis et al.
procedures (Roberts 2005, Buckle et al. 2006, Califor-
nia Department of Transportation (CalTrans) 2006,
California Department of Transportation (CalTrans)
2008) account for seismic response of adjacent
115 segments. DesRoches and Delemont (2002) also
introduced the use of shape memory alloys to reduce
the relative displacements of adjacent segments of the
bridge. The last references reflect the late interest in
controlling the movements and the seismic resistance
120 of existing MSSS bridges, by introducing structural
elements that enhance the stiffness and the damping of
the overall bridge structure.
Seismic retrofitting of existing bridges is receptive
to new and unconventional schemes. New structural
125 elements, which have the ability to control, in a passive
manner, the response of the bridge or to increase the
damping of the structure, while respecting esthetics,
are widely used. The use of link beams was proposed
by Priestley et al. (1996) as means to reduce the seismic
130 actions of multi-column bents. Sarraf and Bruneau
(2004) have proposed the use of new fusing mechan-
isms for the seismic retrofitting of a steel deck-truss
bridge. Wilson and Panian (1997) utilised a floating
slab, monolithic with the deck, keyed into a prestressed
135
140
145
150
155
160
Figure 1. The existing MSSS bridge: (a) Longitudinal section of the bridge and detail of an intermediate expansion joint; (b)
165 cross-section of the deck at the mid-span; (c) the piers and (d) the spread footing of the piers.
pile-cap to restrain the seismic displacements of the
deck. Unjoh et al. (2004) introduced the displacement
restraint effect of the existing strengthened abutments
to minimise the displacements of the bridge deck.
This article proposes a new retrofitting scheme 170
which includes the retrofit of the deck slab of the
bridge, which is made continuous, and an external
restraining system, which reduces the bridge seismic
demand. The retrofitting measures were not actually
applied to the bridge, but an extended parametric 175
investigation and a preliminary design was conducted
aiming at identifying the effectiveness of the scheme
when they were utilised in a MSSS bridge.
180
2. The analysed bridge systems
2.1. The existing MSSS bridge system
The geometry of the MSSS benchmark bridge is given
in Figure 1. The bridge was built in 1986. It is straight,
has five spans of 30.20 m and a total length 151 m. The 185
simply supported spans are separated by expansion
joints, whose clearances are of the order of 20 mm.
The deck of the bridge is 11.25 m wide and consists
of three simply supported precast and prestressed
190
195
200
205
210
215
220
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 3

I-beams, precast deck slabs and a cast-in situ part of
the slab, as shown in Figure 1b. The deck is supported
on both the abutments and piers through three low
damping elastomeric bearings. The bearings have
225 rectangular cross-sections and their dimensions are
500 and 300 mm in the longitudinal and transverse
directions of the bridge, respectively. The total thick-
ness of their elastomeric rubber is 29 mm. The move-
ments of the deck in the transverse direction are
230 restrained by seismic links, which are installed both
on the abutments and the piers. The piers are I-wide
flange cross-sections, as shown in Figure 1c. The piers’
reinforcement, i.e. the longitudinal bars and the
stirrups, is illustrated in Figure 2. The numberings
235 (1) and (2) of the bars correspond to longitudinal
reinforcements, whereas (3), (4) and (5) correspond to
the transverse ones. The heights of the piers and the
diameter of the bars and the spacing of the reinforce-
ments are shown in Table 1. The piers are founded on
240 6.20 6 8.00-m spread footings, as shown in Figure 1d.
The existing abutment is a double-column seat-type
abutment and is founded on a spread footing, as
shown in Figure 3. The deck slab is separated from the
backwall by a 20-mm clearance. Soil type was taken
245 corresponding to class B according to the EN 1998-
1:2005 (2005). The ground acceleration was taken into
account, in the final design of the as-built bridge, by
using seismic coefficients 0.06 and 0.12 for the
longitudinal and the transverse direction of the bridge
250 correspondingly. These coefficients were found to
correspond with ground accelerations equal to 0.10
and 0.20 g according to current code (Penelis et al.
1998; EN 1998-1:2005 2005).
The check of the existing bridge piers, foundations
and bearings showed that the bridge is deficient to 280
receive the seismic action. The piers were found to be
inadequate to receive the seismic shear actions
(Mitoulis and Tegos 2007, Mitoulis 2007), while the
foundations’ eccentricities and the bearings’ shear
loading were found to be excessive. Thus, the bridge 285
needed retrofitting. The examination of, say, ‘conven-
tional’ schemes such as the construction of a contin-
uous deck slab and the use of bearings for the seismic
retrofit of the bridge, showed that these measures were
not adequate to enhance the overall bridge response. 290
The seating widths were inadequate, while piers and
foundations still required strengthening.
2.2. Description of the retrofitting measures 295
The selection and the design of the retrofitting scheme
were based on a procedure, which is discussed briefly in
section 2.3. Firstly, the deck slab of the bridge was
made continuous. The existing expansion joints were
filled with high strength concrete, while longitudinal 300
cable restrainers were selected to connect the segments
to enhance the tension resistance of the connecting
filling material, as shown in Figure 4. Only the two
expansion joints above the existing abutments were
preserved. 305

255 310

260 315

Figure 2. The longitudinal and the transverse reinforcements of the pier’s bottom cross-section (see Table 1).
265 320

Table 1. The longitudinal and transverse reinforcements of the piers’ feet (pier’s bottom), see Figure 2.

Longitudinal reinforcement Transverse reinforcement

Pier (Pi) Height (m) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
270 325
P1 17.05 62Ø26* 34Ø10 Double stirrups Ø10/200** Ø10/200 3Ø10/200
P2 24.65 44Ø24 34Ø10 Double stirrups Ø10/200 Ø10/200 3Ø10/200
P3 25.25 48Ø24 34Ø10 Double stirrups Ø10/200 Ø10/200 3Ø10/200
P4 19.85 44Ø24 34Ø10 Double stirrups Ø10/200 Ø10/200 3Ø10/200

275 Notes: *The symbol Ø denotes the diameter of the bar. **The symbol/denotes the distance between the bars (in mm) 330
 4 S.A. Mitoulis et al.

while this thickness was decreased to 0.30 m over the

backwall. The second part of the external system was
the group of the restraining piles, which were driven in
the existing backfill soil in a depth equal to 7.0 m. The
335 96 IPE 330 steel piles were set in two pile-groups of 390
48 piles. The distance between the sequential piles was
selected to be equal to 1.0 m in both the longitudinal
and the transverse directions of the bridge.

340 395
2.3. Preliminary design of the retrofitting scheme
The selection and the design of the retrofitting
measures were based on the bridge design criteria
prescribed by codes and common practice that were
345 serviceability, earthquake resistance, esthetics and 400
cost-effectiveness. These criteria were: (i) the elastic
response of the IPE-steel piles during the bridge
service; (ii) the settlements of the backfill; (iii) the
serviceability loading of the continuous deck of the
350 bridge due to its in-service interaction with the external 405
restraining system; (iv) the seismic efficiency of the
restraining system; (v) the stability of the abutment
and (vi) the cost-effectiveness. The scheme can be
utilised in future retrofitting campaigns of bridges.
355 Figure 3. The existing abutment and the restraining system However, in that case the re-design of the restraining 410
with the IPE-steel piles and the slab: (a) longitudinal section;
(b) plan view. system is required.

2.3.1. Connection of the deck slabs

360
365
370
375
Figure 4. The connection of adjacent bridge segments with
the joint filler and the external cable restrainers.
380 Secondly, the external restraining system, which is
shown in Figure 3, was utilised. It consisted of two
parts: (a) the restraining slab and (b) the I-shaped steel
piles. The restraining slab was casted onto the existing
approach slab of the abutment. Its thickness was
385 selected to be equal to 0.50 m over the pile groups,
The connection of the adjacent segments was deemed 415
to have a primary and significant influence on the
seismic response and post-earthquake structural integ-
rity of the bridge. This is due to the fact that collision
forces and excessive movements of the interacting
segments were expected to be developed during earth- 420
quake excitation (Malhotra et al. 1995). This circum-
stance can potentially lead to the unseating and
collapse of the spans.
The connection of adjacent deck slabs followed
a retrofitting scheme described by Nielson and 425
DesRoches (2007) with some modifications, as shown
in Figure 4. The deck slab was made continuous by
filling the intermediate joints with high strength
concrete. The selection of the joints’ filling material
ensured that the connection can reliably transmit the 430
compression forces developed during the expansion of
the bridge segments and during earthquake loading.
The tension resistance of this filling was enhanced by
implementing external cable restrainers that are post-
tensioned and which connect the adjacent segments 435
of the bridge, without tie to pier as the existing piers
were found to be seismically deficient.
The clearances at the abutments were not large
enough to accommodate the accumulated thermal
movement of the half of the length of the bridge. The 440
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
design of the clearances will be further discussed in
section 2.3.3 of the article.
445 2.3.2. Preliminary design of the external restraining
system
The restraining system involves the pile driving and the
construction of the restraining slab. The design of the
IPE-steel piles included the selection of their material,
450 cross-section, location and length. The piles were
selected to be steel due to their constructability and
deformability (Arockiasamy et al. 2004). Among a
large number of steel sections, the I-shaped IPE-steel
sections were found to provide one axis with a high
455 value of the moment of inertia, while their weak-axis
bending had a much smaller moment of inertia. The
piles were oriented with their weak-axis bending
longitudinally, as shown in Figure 3b, to reduce their
in-service induced constraint loading (Arockiasamy
460 et al. 2004, Fennema et al. 2005) and to enhance their
long-term behaviour (Arsoy, 2000). The selection of
the IPE-steel sections was also related to the fact that
the volume of the backfill soil behind the pile’s ‘face’
was maximised at IPE sections and hence the seismic
465 participation of the backfill soil was increased. After
checking different sections of the piles, the IPE 330
steel piles were found to be the optimum design
selection because, on the one hand, they remained
elastic when they received the in-service induced
470 movements of the expanding deck while, on the other
hand, they maximising seismic contribution of the
backfill soil. The design combination, which was
proved to be critical for the design of the IPE-steel
piles, was the one caused by the thermal expansion of
475 the deck.
The restraining piles were set in a double-pile group
scheme, as shown in Figure 3b. The pile-groups had a
distance between them in order to increase the total
rotational resistance of the restraining system about
480 the vertical axis (z) of the bridge. The final design of
the restraining system had a total of 96 IPE-steel piles.
The check of the piles showed that they were actually
fixed against lateral seismic loading in a relatively small
depth that is 3.0 m in the backfill soil. The last finding
485 is in accordance with the analytical studies of other
490
495 Figure 5. The in-service induced loading of the deck and the resulting stresses.
5
researchers (Arockiasamy et al. 2004, Arockiasamy
and Sivakumar 2005). Hence, the part of the pile which
was driven in a depth greater than 3.0 m did not offer
to the lateral resistance of the restraining system.
However, the check of the settlements of the backfill 500
soil required that the piles should have a length equal
to 7.0 m. The distance between subsequent piles, which
was 1.0 m in both directions, was selected to reduce the
group effects, according to Applied Technology
Council (ATC-32) (1996). Finally, the restraining slab 505
that is the pile cap of the piles was separated from the
existing stiff wing-walls to avoid undesirable friction
effects.
510
2.3.3. Critical design issues
The utilisation of the retrofitting measures led to a
continuous deck slab which was separated from the
abutment backwall by an expansion joint, as shown in
Figure 3. Serviceability movements of the bridge deck 515
were accommodated by the expansion joints and by
the controllable flexibility of the IPE-steel piles.
The expansion joint absorbed part of the expansion
of the deck while, secondarily, the flexibility of the IPE
piles accommodated the rest of the expansion of the 520
deck when the expansion joint D closed. The expansion
joints were designed with small clearances as possible
in order to increase the seismic participation of
the restraining system (Mitoulis and Tegos 2010).
Creep and shrinkage effects were neglected because 525
these effects were mainly developed in the first years
of the bridge service. Thus, the expansion joints were
assumed to be closed (namely D ¼ 0) during the
retrofitting works.
The thermal expansion of the deck corresponds to 530
a maximum increase in the bridge temperature of
258C according to EN 1991-1-5:2003 (2003). The
expansion of the superstructures induces an axial
compression of the existing bridge deck, as the latter
‘pushes’ the pile group towards the backfill soil when 535
the expansion joint closes. The compression of the
deck was caused by an eccentric force, as shown in
Figure 5. The same force induced a constraint lateral
movement of the piles, which were required to respond
in an elastic manner during the bridge service. Between 540
545
550
 6 S.A. Mitoulis et al.
the two serviceability issues described above, the in-
service adequacy of the piles was proved to be more
critical. Further discussion on the in-service issues is
given in section 4 of the article.
555 The retrofitting measures were considered to be
implemented when the bridge temperature was almost
equal to the average initial temperature, namely the
average temperature during the bridge construction
(EN 1991-1-5:2003 2003). Therefore, the clearances
560 (D) at the expansion joints varied between (i) zero,
namely joint D was closed, when the air shade
temperature T was equal to or greater than the
temperature of construction To (namely when T  To)
and (ii) 20 mm when the maximum thermal contrac-
565 tion of the bridge occurs. The influence of the opening
D on the seismic response of the retrofitted bridge was
parametrically studied, as discussed in section 5.2
of the article. Finally, the separation of the existing
wing-walls from the backwall and the formulation of a
570 knock-off detail at the top of the last were deemed to
be necessary.
An assessment of the structural cost of the new
retrofitting scheme showed that the proposed cam-
paign leads to expenses that are almost equal to 13.3%
575 of the value of the existing bridge, which was reduced
due to its age, i.e. 25 years. The retrofitting cost
included the cost of the connections between the deck
slabs of the adjacent segments and the cost for
the restraining piles and slabs. The cost assessment
580 did not take into account the cost of the traffic
obstruction, which would burden all possible retro-
fitting campaigns.
585
590
595
600
Figure 6. The analytical model of the existing MSSS bridge, Detail: modelling of the connection of the deck to the piers through
605 the existing elastomeric bearings.
3. Analytical modelling-parametric investigation
The existing MSSS bridge system and the retrofitted
bridge system were modelled and analysed, by means
of non-linear dynamic time history analysis, using SAP
2000 ver.11.0.3 (Computers and Structures Inc 2007). 610
More specifically the two models were (i) the existing
and (ii) the retrofitted bridge model, which included
the model of the existing bridge with a retrofitted
continuous deck slab and the external restraining
systems utilised at both ends of the bridge. The bridge 615
models, existing and retrofitted, had the same geome-
try, namely the same total length, cross-sections of the
deck, bearings, piers and footings.
620
3.1. Modelling of the existing MSSS bridge
The model of the existing MSSS bridge system is
shown in Figure 6. The deck of the bridge was
modelled by frame elements, which had the section
properties of the deck, as shown in Figure 1b. The 625
discontinuous deck was supported on both the
abutments and piers through low damping rubber
bearings, as shown in the Detail of Figure 6. The
bearings were modelled by rubber isolators that are
link elements provided by SAP 2000 (Computers and 630
Structures, 2007), which corresponded to the bearing’s
translational and rotational stiffness. The stiffness
values of the link elements were calculated according
to the elastomeric bearing model of Naeim and Kelly
(1999). 635
The possible collisions of adjacent segments of the
MSSS bridge during earthquake were modelled by
640
645
650
655
660
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
impact elements, as shown in the Detail of Figure 6,
which accounted for the opening of the existing
expansion joints. These elements were geometrically
non-linear and they received only compression. The
665 total axial stiffness of the impact elements was
considered to be equal to the axial stiffness of the
deck slab (Jankowski et al. 2000, Anagnostopoulos
2004). The value of this stiffness was found to be equal
to 2.84 6 106 kN/m. The damping, which occurred due
670 to the segment-to-segment collisions, was modelled by
an equivalent viscous damper according to Anagnos-
topoulos (2004) taking into account a damping ratio x
equal to 0.14. The resulting equivalent damper was
then calculated equal to 3899 kNs/m. The detail in
675 Figure 5 shows the three impact elements utilised for
the modelling of the interaction between sequential
segments. The opening of the intermediate expansion
joints was assumed to be equal to 20 mm.
The piers were modelled by frame elements. The
680 bottom of the piers that is the feet of the piers was
considered to be fixed in a depth equal to 1.40 m in its
spread footing. This assumption was in accordance
with the final design of the as-built bridge system, in
which the piers were considered to be fixed in a depth
685 equal to two-thirds of the total height of the spread
foundation slab, as shown in Figure 1d. The non-linear
response of the piers was not taken into account, as
their check (Mitoulis and Tegos 2007, Mitoulis 2007)
showed that the bending moment capacities were
690 higher than the ones that were developed during
the design seismic action. Besides, the non-linear
response of the existing piers was deemed to be an
undesirable effect because they were designed without
695
700
705
710
Figure 7. The model of the retrofitted bridge with the external restraining system, Detail: modelling of the connection of the
715 deck to the abutments and the impact elements used.
7
consideration of seismic forces. Finally, constraints
over each abutment and each pier were used to restrain
the transverse displacements of the deck by the
supporting abutment, due to the existence of the
transverse seismic keys. 720
3.2. Modelling of the retrofitted bridge system
The model of the retrofitted bridge system is shown in
Figure 7. The model included the model of the existing 725
bridge system, given in Figure 6, the continuous deck
slab and the external restraining systems. The restrain-
ing system consists of the following: (i) the restraining
slab, see Figure 3, which was modelled by frame
elements. The frames had a width equal to 11.25 m 730
and a thickness equal to 0.50 m. (ii) The restraining
IPE-steel piles, which had a total length equal to 7.0 m,
and each pile was modelled by 7 frame elements of
1.0-m long. (iii) The existing backfill soil, in which the
IPE-steel piles were driven, as shown in Figure 3a. The 735
soil material of backfill, in which the piles are driven,
was a relatively loose and cohesionless sand with an
angle of internal friction equal to 308.
The common bilinear P–y curve of American
Petroleum Institute (API) (1993) was adopted for the 740
modelling of the lateral backfill soil resistance. The
procedure followed the methodology described by
Basu and Knickerbocker (2004). The ultimate resis-
tance of the loose sand per unit length of the pile, (Pu),
was determined according to Haliburton (1971). The 745
effective soil weight was assumed to be 18.0 kN/m3 and
the diameter of the pile was taken equal to the height
of the IPE pile section, i.e. 330 mm. The cohesionless
750
755
760
765
770
 8 S.A. Mitoulis et al.
soil was assumed to enter in its inelastic range at a
deformation equal to 25 mm (Sextos et al. 2003). The
resulting P–y bilinear curves for different depths of the
IPE-steel piles are given in Figure 8. The group effects
775 were not taken into account as the distance between
the piles (1.0 m) was greater than three times the height
of the IPE-piles, which means that the group effect was
minimised according to ATC-32 (1996). The piles were
assumed to be in contact with the surrounding soil,
780 namely the reported gaps between the pile and the soil
(Rodriguez-Marek and Muhunthan 2005), due to the
in-service deflections of the piles were not taken into
account. The assumptions adopted for the modelling
of the complex resistance of the restraining piles and
785 the surrounding soil were considered to be simplified at
this stage. However, the assumptions were deemed
rational to represent the retrofitted bridge response
and to assess the earthquake resistance efficiency of
the retrofitting scheme, at least for the attempted
790 preliminary design.
The collision of the deck to the restraining slab was
modelled by means of impact elements, as shown in
Figure 7. A clearance D, which corresponded to the
separation gap between the deck and the restraining
795 slab, was taken into account similarly to the modelling
of the gaps existing between the adjacent segments of
the MSSS bridge. The stiffness of the impact elements
was determined by the average value of the axial
stiffnesses of the restraining slab and the deck slab that
800 was found to be equal to 12.17 6 106 kN/m. The
damping, which occurred due to the deck-to-restrain-
ing slab collisions, was modelled by an equivalent
viscous damper that was calculated equal to 10,490
kN  s/m. The clearance D of these joints at the
805 beginning of the seismic event varied between zero
and a maximum value equal to 20 mm. All the
analyses were performed considering that the joints
were either closed (D ¼ 0) or had an opening equal to
5 or 10 mm in order to identify the influence of this
810 parameter. Modelling of the pounding effects and
estimation of the expansion joint openings were
815
820
Figure 8. The P–y bilinear curves of the backfill soil (IPE
825 330 steel piles and cohesionless loose sand j ¼ 308).
considered to have significant impact to this particular
study. The response of the existing abutment had a
secondary role in the overall bridge response because
the backwall’s top was cut-off. Therefore, the abut-
ment interacts with the deck only through the existing 830
bearings.
3.3. Parameters of the study
The existing and the retrofitted bridge system were 835
subjected to artificial accelerograms that were compa-
tible to ground type A, B and C-dependent EN 1991-1-
5:2003 (2003) elastic spectra. Non-linear dynamic time
history analysis was performed using five artificial
accelerograms, which were generated with the compu- 840
ter code ASING (Sextos et al. 2003). The correspond-
ing response spectra for the different accelerograms for
each ground type A, B or C are given in Figure 9. The
results of the article correspond to the maximum
values calculated for the five different artificial ground 845
motions. The design of the restraining system was kept
the same for all the different soil types as the backfill
material is typically deposed during the construction
of the bridge. Hence, the design of the restraining
system is not dependent on the foundation soil type. 850
Two different peak ground accelerations 0.16 and
0.24 g were considered in the study. Dynamic
non-linear time history analysis was performed and
the average acceleration Newmark (constant) method
(Chopra, 1995) was utilised. The mass and stiffness 855
proportional damping was chosen and critical damp-
ing ratios equal to 5% and 4% were considered for
the first and the second modal period of the analysed
bridge (Aviram et al. 2008)
860
4. Evaluation of the retrofitting scheme on the basis
of serviceability requirements
The checks refer to the in-service adequacy of the
IPE-piles, the deck of the retrofitted bridge system and 865
the existing bearings. During the bridge service, the
deck expands and ‘pushes’ the restraining piles towards
the backfill soil. This constraint movement was
estimated equal to 20 mm by considering a total
uniform expansion of the deck that corresponds to 870
þ258C (EN 1991-1-5:2003 2003) and a coefficient of
linear expansion equal to 1075/8C. The constraint
deformation of the IPE-piles led to a maximum shear
action equal to 51.8 kN and to a maximum bending
moment 44.6 kN m. It was found that the IPE 330 steel 875
piles remain elastic for the above actions.
The serviceability of the bridge deck was also
checked as one of the most critical design aspects of the
retrofitting scheme where the actions transmitted to
the deck by the restraining slab during the bridge 880
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
885
f o r pr ne
no
890
Mo lour on
co
895
Figure 9. The five response spectra corresponding to the five artificial accelerograms used for the analysis and the average
900 spectra for the three different ground types: (a) A, (b) B and (c) C.
expansion. These actions were mainly compression and
the resulting bending, as shown in Figure 5, due to the
905 eccentricity d of the axial load from the centre of
gravity of the deck’s cross-section. The eccentricity was
d ¼ 385 mm. The analysis showed that the in-service
interaction of the deck with the restraining slab caused
a compression load F,c ¼ 4977.0 kN. The compression
910 also induced a bending moment M,c ¼ F,c  d ¼ 1916.2
kN-m, which causes tension of the bottom fibre of the
deck cross-section and compression of the top fibre.
The tension of the bottom fibre of the deck was
calculated equal to sþ,M ¼ 1.15 MPa, see Equation (1)
915 and Figure 5. However, the compression load F,c also
produced a compression stress of the total cross-
section of the deck equal to s7,N ¼ 0.94 MPa, see
Equation (2) and Figure 5. The final effect of the
compression force F,c on the in-service induced stresses
920 of the deck was a tension of the bottom fibre equal
to sþ,M þ s7,N ¼ 1.1570.94 ¼ 0.22 MPa. This tension
load was found to be smaller than the tensile strength
of concrete, which was 1.80 MPa for the concrete
width of the as-built bridge that had compressive
925 strength 25 MPa (EN 1992-1:2004 2004). The top
fibre of the deck was found to be compressed by an
additional stress equal to s7,MþN ¼ 1.20 MPa.
sþ ;M ¼ M;serv: =W2 ¼ 1916:2=1:66 ¼ 1152 kPa ð1Þ
930
s ;N ¼ F;c =A ¼ 4977=5:32 ¼ 935 kPa ð2Þ
In Equations (1) and (2) where W2 ¼ I/y2 ¼ 2.828 m4/
935 1.70 m ¼ 1.66 m3, I is the moment of inertia of the
9
940
int
li
945
950
955
deck, y2 is the eccentricity of the bottom fibre of the
deck from the centre of gravity of the deck’s cross-
section, see Figure 1b, and A is the area of the cross- 960
section, which is equal to 5.32 m2. After checking the
in-service stresses, it was found that the axial load
and the resulting moment did not cause cracking of the
existing deck.
Finally, the adequacy of the existing elastomeric 965
bearings was checked against serviceability loading.
The maximum in-service shear deflection of the
bearings, which support the deck on the abutments,
was found to be equal to 0.66. This value was found to
be lower than the maximum allowed one that is 1.0, 970
according to current code provisions (EN 1337-3
2005). It follows that the existing bearing do not
need to be replaced when utilising the proposed
retrofitting scheme.
975
5. Analytical results and discussion
5.1. Comparison of the dynamic response of the
analysed bridge systems
This comparison of the dynamic response of the 980
existing and the retrofitted bridge system was con-
sidered to be essential, as the retrofitting scheme was
proved to modify strongly the dynamic characteristics
of the bridge. Figures 10 and 11 illustrate three
important mode shapes and the corresponding modal 985
periods and participation factors of the existing and
the retrofitted bridge system. The displacements do not
correspond to real modal displacements as they were
normalised with respect the maximum displacement
reached in each mode shape. Two displacements 990
 10 S.A. Mitoulis et al.

int
f o r pr ne
995 no li 1050
Mo lour on
co

1000 1055
Figure 10. The mode shapes and the participation factors of the existing bridge system.

1005 1060

t
o r prin
no f line
Mo lour on
1010 co 1065

Figure 11. The mode shapes and the participation factors of the retrofitted bridge system.
1015 1070

at each pier-deck connection were given for the
transverse mode shapes of the as-built bridge system
(see Figure 10). The value under the arrow represents
1020 the movement of the segment on the left of the pier,
while the other value, namely the one above the arrow,
corresponds to the transverse movement of the next
segment.
The comparison of the mode shapes and periods,
1025 given in Figures 10 and 11, showed that the external
retrofitting system and the continuous deck slab
increase significantly the overall stiffness of the bridge.
The period of the first longitudinal mode shape was
found to be reduced up to 71%, in case pounding
1030 effects were considered. The modal analysis without
considering the participation of the restraining system
would yield a period of the bridge 1.18 s that
corresponded to the ‘no-pounding’ condition, which
captured the bridge response for ambient seismic
1035 loading. The influence of the retrofitting measures in
the transverse dynamic response of the bridge was
found to be less significant. The reduction in the period
of the first transverse mode was found to be reduced up
to 33%. The resistance of the restraining system in this
1040 direction was found to be governed mainly by the
rotational resistance of the restraining pile groups
about the vertical axis z, which was found to be
relatively low in comparison to the translational one,
namely along x-axis. The modal analysis of the existing
1045 bridge was performed by considering that the adjacent
segments of the deck are not colliding. The long-
itudinal and transverse modal periods of the MSSS
bridge would be, respectively, 16% and 6% smaller in
case the interactions of the adjacent segments of the 1075
deck were taken into account by utilising linear spring
elements with stiffness half of the one of the
corresponding impact elements.
The continuity of the retrofitted deck slab was not
found to have a significant effect on the dynamic 1080
response of the bridge. The analytical study showed
that the continuous deck slab mainly increased the
participation factors of the modes, but it did not cause
significant reductions in the modal periods of the
bridge. On the contrary, the continuity of the deck slab 1085
became significant when the external system was
utilised.
Figure 12 shows the time histories of the long-
itudinal displacements of the deck for the two bridge
systems that were analysed. The figure shows that the 1090
retrofitted bridge system exhibited smaller longitudinal
displacements in comparison to the corresponding
ones of the existing bridge. More specifically, the
maximum displacement of the retrofitted bridge was
reduced up to 72%. The resulting time histories of the 1095
deck’s movements were determined using dynamic
time history analysis. Hence, the non-linear impact
elements, which modelled the possible segment-to-
segment or deck-to-restraining system collisions, were
also participating during the analysis. 1100
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 11

5.2. Evaluation of the earthquake resistance efficiency deck by 18–74%. The smaller reduction corresponded
of the retrofitting measures to a stiff ground type A, while the greater value of
The restraining effect of the retrofitting scheme was P.R. factor referred to ground type C. The effective
mainly assessed by calculating the percentage altera- reduction in the longitudinal movements of the deck
1105 tions in the longitudinal and transverse movements was considered to be an important benefit of the 1160
of the deck. The absolute value of the ratio of the proposed retrofitting scheme, as the critical design
percentage reduction, P.R. (%), in the movements of consideration for MSSS bridge structures is typically
the deck is given in Equation (3), where u,E,RT and the avoidance of the unseating of their simply
u,E,EX are the seismic displacements of the deck of the supported spans, which becomes more critical in case
1110 retrofitted and the existing bridge, respectively. These the deck responds with large displacements. 1165
displacements were determined for the joints above the Figure 13b illustrates the P.R. factors for the
deck’s sequential supports, namely the abutments and transverse movements of the bridge deck. The figure
piers. If P.R. was positive, then the displacements of shows that the restraining system also contributed
the retrofitted bridge were smaller than the displace- in the transverse direction of the bridge, as the
1115 ments of the existing bridge, namely the displacements displacements of the deck were reduced up to 46%. 1170
were reduced. In Figure 13b no values were given above the
  abutments, as the transverse displacements of the
uE;RT deck of both the existing and the retrofitted
P:R:ð%Þ ¼ 1   100 ð3Þ
uE;EX bridge system were restrained by seismic links. The
1120 transverse seismic links that were installed on the piers 1175
Figure 13 shows the variation of the P.R. factor in received the seismic actions of the deck and trans-
case the lower seismicity was adopted that was 0.16 g. mitted them safely to the piers. Thus, no deformation
Figure 13a shows that the proposed retrofitting of the bearings was observed in the transverse direction
measures reduced the longitudinal movements of the and therefore the P.R. in the transverse direction
1125 corresponds to bridge deck movements. The displace- 1180
ments of the deck were more effectively restrained over
the middle piers P3 and P4. The influence of the system
was reduced over pier P2 as the transverse displace-
ments of the deck were found to be reduced up to 19%.
1130
r p rint Finally, the displacements of the deck over pier P1
seemed to be slightly increased, up to 16%. However,
1185
o ine
no f l
Mo lour on the check of the pier’s P1 capacity showed that P1 can
receive safely the slight increase in its seismic actions.
co
Figure 14 shows the variation of the P.R. factor for
1135 the higher seismicity 0.24 g. The longitudinal move- 1190
ments of the bridge deck were found to be reduced
from 28% to 78%. The restraining effect of the
Figure 12. The time histories of the longitudinal
displacements of the decks of the existing and the external system seemed to be increased in comparison
retrofitted bridge (ground type: B, ground acceleration: to the corresponding one in the lower seismicity that
1140 0.16 g). was 0.16 g. This was attributed to the stronger 1195

1145 1200

1150 1205

Figure 13. The percentage alterations (P.R. factors): (a) in the longitudinal and (b) in the transverse movements of the deck of
1155 the retrofitted bridge system for three different ground types (ground acceleration: 0.16 g). 1210
 12 S.A. Mitoulis et al.
1215
1220
Figure 14. The percentage alterations (P.R. factors): (a) in the longitudinal and (b) in the transverse movements of the deck of
the retrofitted bridge system for three different ground types (ground acceleration: 0.24 g).
1225
participation of the restraining system and the backfill
soil because the bridge responded with larger displace-
ments when the ground acceleration was increased.
The restraining system also influenced the bridge
1230 dynamic response in the transverse direction. More
specifically, the seismic displacements of the bridge
were found to be up to 46% reduced in this direction.
The ground type, namely soil types A, B or C, also
influenced the seismic efficiency of the retrofitting
1235 scheme. The longitudinal displacements of the deck of
the retrofitted bridge system were found to be more
effectively restrained when the ground type was softer,
namely C instead of A. Hence, the retrofit scheme was
more effective in bridges which were founded on the
1240 softer ground types. However, this finding did not
seem to be in accordance with the response of the
bridge in the transverse direction. The results showed
that the ground type did not have a predictable
influence on the efficiency of the restraining system in
1245 the transverse direction.
Finally, the magnitude of the clearance at the end
expansion joints D was analytically investigated to
identify its influence on the seismic efficiency of the
attempted retrofitting scheme. Indicatively, Figure 15
1250 shows the variation of the P.R. factor for different
magnitudes of D and for two different ground
accelerations. The figure shows that the longitudinal
movements of the deck were up to 81% reduced in
the retrofitted bridge system in case the end joints were
1255 closed at the beginning of the seismic event. The
corresponding P.R. factor for the case that the bridge
deck contracted, namely for D ¼ 10 mm, was 72% and
74% for 0.16 and 0.24 g ground accelerations
correspondingly. The analytical study showed that, in
1260 most cases, the wider the joint the lower the efficiency
of the proposed restraining system.
The retrofitted bridge system and the restraining
system did not exhibit inelastic response (Mitoulis and
Tegos 2007, Mitoulis 2007). The piers, the founda-
1265 tions, the restraining piles and the backfill soil were
1270
1275
1280
1285
1290
Figure 15. The influence of the clearance at the expansion
joint D on the efficiency of the restraining system, (ground
type B).
1295
found remain elastic for the current design seismic
action. Hence, the post-earthquake condition of the
bridge is not expected to present damages or perma-
nent deformations.
Former parametric studies (Mitoulis and Tegos 1300
2006; Mitoulis 2007), which included bridges of
different total lengths and different stiffnesses of the
bridge earthquake resisting system, showed that the
proposed retrofitting scheme was more effective in
shorter bridges. This was found to be attributed to the 1305
fact that for smaller bridge lengths the inertial loads of
the deck were smaller, while the participation of the
backfill soil was increased, because smaller clearances
were needed at the expansion joints. Furthermore,
flexible bridge resisting systems responded with large 1310
seismic displacements and therefore the restraining
effect of the piles was more efficient. Finally, the
bending moments and the shear actions of the piers,
the bearings’ shear strains due to the design seismic
displacements were all found to be effectively reduced. 1315
6. Conclusions
A new scheme for the seismic retrofit of MSSS bridges
was analytically investigated. The scheme introduced 1320
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
the retrofit of the deck slab, which was made
continuous, and the utilisation of an external restrain-
ing system, which consisted of IPE-steel piles driven in
the backfill soil and a slab. The piles and the backfill
1325 soil participated strongly to the earthquake-resisting
system of the bridge and found to reduce effectively
the seismic demand of the bridge. The study followed
two discrete steps: (i) the preliminary design of the
retrofitting scheme, based on a certain procedure to
1330 facilitate future design of similar cases and (ii) the
assessment of the serviceability performance and the
seismic efficiency of the retrofitting scheme by an
extended parametric study. The study came up with
the following conclusions.
1335 The serviceability requirements of the retrofitted
bridge can be accommodated by the provision of
expansion joints and by the controllable flexibility of
the external restraining system, namely the piles. The
serviceability checks showed that both the existing
1340 bridge deck and the restraining piles received safely the
in-service induced loading, which was developed due to
the deck expansion.
The study on the dynamic response of the retro-
fitted bridge showed that the external restraining
1345 system with the continuous deck slab increases the
overall stiffness of the bridge earthquake resisting
system. Thus, the period of the first longitudinal mode
shape was found to be reduced up to 71%, while the
reduction in the period of the first transverse mode was
1350 up to 33%.
The restraining scheme adopted had a significant
effect on the seismic displacements of the bridge.
The comparison of the longitudinal movements of the
existing MSSS with the ones of the retrofitted bridge
1355 showed that the displacements of the last bridge were
reduced by 18–78%. The restraining system also
contributed in the transverse direction of the bridge,
as the displacements of the deck were reduced up to
46% in this direction.
1360 In most cases, the longitudinal displacements of the
deck were more effectively restrained when the higher
ground acceleration that is 0.24 g or the softer ground
type was considered, namely soil type C. More
specifically, the longitudinal movements of the deck
1365 were 74% and 78% reduced for ground accelerations
0.16 and 0.24, respectively, while the corresponding
reductions were 18% and 74% when ground type A
instead of C was considered. This was found to be
attributed to the stronger seismic participation of the
1370 restraining system when the bridge responded with
large displacements. The ground acceleration and the
ground type were not found to have a uniform
influence in the transverse response of the retrofitted
bridge. As far as the influence of the opening of the end
1375 expansion joints D is concerned, it was found that the
13
wider the joint the lower the efficiency of the
restraining system. Thus, the retrofitting scheme
minimised, as possible, the clearances at the expansion
joints.
1380
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), 2001. Recommended LRFD guide-
lines for the seismic design of highway bridges. Washing-
ton: AASHTO. 1385
American Petroleum Institute (API), 1993. Recommended
practice for planning, designing, and constructing
fixed offshore platforms working stress design. 20th ed.
Washington, DC: API RP2A-WSD.
Anagnostopoulos, S.A., 2004. Equivalent viscous damping
for modeling inelastic impacts in earthquake pounding 1390
problems. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dy-
namics, 33 (8), 897–902.
Applied Technology Council (ATC-32), 1996. Improved
seismic design criteria for California bridges. Contract
59N203.
Arockiasamy, M., Butrieng, N., and Sivakumar, M., 2004. 1395
State-of-the-art of integral abutment bridges: design
and practice. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 9 (5), 497–
506.
Arockiasamy, M. and Sivakumar, M., 2005. Design implica-
tions of creep and shrinkage in integral abutment
bridges. ACI Special Publication, 227, 85–106. 1400
Arsoy, S., 2000. Experimental and analytical investigations
of piles and abutments of integral bridges. Dissertation
(PhD). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University.
Aviram, A., Mackie, K.R., and Stojadinovic, B., 2008.
Guidelines for nonlinear analysis of bridge structures in 1405
California. PEER Report 2008/03.
Basu, P.K. and Knickerbocker, D.J., 2004. Behavior of
jointless high performance concrete bridges. Final Report,
Project No. TNSPR-RES1162.
Buckle, I., Yen, W.-H.P., and Roberts, J.E., 2006. 50 years
of interstate structures: past, present, and future. Circular 1410
E-C104. Washington, DC: Transportation Research
Board.
Buckle, I.G., et al., 2006. Seismic retrofitting manual for
highway structures: part 1-bridges. Publication No.
FHWA-HRT-06-032. Washington, DC: Federal High-
way Administration. 1415
California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), 2004.
Bridge design specifications. Sacramento, CA: California
Department of Transportation.
California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), 2006.
Seismic design criteria. Sacramento, CA: California
Department of Transportation. 1420
California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), 2008.
Memo to designers. Sacramento, CA: California Depart-
ment of Transportation.
Chopra, A.K., 1995. Dynamics of structures, theory and
applications to earthquake engineering. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall Inc. 1425
Computers and Structures Inc, 2007. SAP 2000 nonlinear
version 11.0.3, user’s reference manual. Berkeley, CA:
Computers and Structures Inc.
DesRoches, R. and Delemont, M., 2002. Seismic retrofit of
simply supported bridges using shape memory alloys.
Engineering Structures, 24 (3), 325–332. 1430
 14 S.A. Mitoulis et al.
DesRoches, R., et al., 2003. Full-scale tests of seismic cable
restrainer retrofits for simply supported bridges. Journal
of Bridge Engineering, 8 (4), 191–198.
Dicleli, M. and Bruneau, M., 1995. Seismic performance of
multispan simply supported slab-on-girder steel highway
1435 bridges. Engineering Structures, 17 (1), 4–14.
Dicleli, M., Mansour, M., and Constantinou, M., 2005.
Efficiency of seismic isolation for seismic retrofitting of
heavy substructured bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineer-
ing, 10 (4), 429–441.
EN 1991-1-5:2003, 2003. Eurocode 1: actions on structures,
1440 part 1–5: general actions-thermal actions. Brussels:
European Committee For Standardization.
EN 1992-1:2004, 2004. Eurocode 2: design of concrete
structures, part 1: general rules and rules for buildings.
Brussels: European Committee For Standardization.
EN 1998-1:2005, 2005. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for
1445 earthquake resistance, part 1: general rules, seismic actions
and rules for buildings. Brussels: European Committee
For Standardization.
Fennema, J.L., Laman, J.A., and Linzell, D.G., 2005.
Predicted and measured response of an integral abutment
bridge. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 10 (6), 666–677.
1450 Haliburton, T.A., 1971. Soil structure interaction; numerical
analysis of beams and beam columns, Technical Publica-
tion, No. 14. Stillwater, OK: School of Civil Engineering,
Oklahoma State University.
Karayannis, C.G. and Sirkelis, G.M., 2008. Strengthening
and rehabilitation of RC beam-column joints using
1455 carbon-FRP jacketing and epoxy resin injection. Earth-
quake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 37 (5),
769–790.
Kawashima, K. and Unjoh, S., 1996. Impact of Hanshin-
Awaji earthquake on seismic design strengthening of
highway bridges. Structural & Earthquake Engineering,
1460 13 (2), 211–240.
Kawashima, K., 2000. Seismic design and retrofit of bridges
(Key Note Presentation). In: Proceedings of the 12th
world conference on earthquake engineering, Paper No.
1818 (CD-ROM), Auckland, New Zealand.
Malhotra, P., Huang, M., and Shakal, A., 1995. Seismic
1465 interaction at separation joints of an instrumented
concrete bridge. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 24 (8), 1055–1067.
Mitoulis, S.A., 2007. Reduction in seismic actions of bridges
by utilizing the restraining effect of the abutment and the
backfill. Dissertation (PhD). Aristotle University of
1470 Thessaloniki (In Greek).
Mitoulis, S.A. and Tegos, I.A., 2006. Seismic retrofitting of
existing bridges through the restraining of the free
movement by an external stopper. In: J. Radić and Ž.
Žderić, ed. Proceedings of the international conference on
bridges (SECON). Dubrovnic, Croatia: Structural En-
1475 gineering Conferences (SECON), 50.
Mitoulis, S.A. and Tegos, I.A., 2007. The problem of seismic
strengthening of existing bridges. In: K. Pitilakis, ed.
Proceedings of the 4th international conference on earth-
quake geotechnical engineering (4th ICEGE). Thessalo-
niki, Greece: Springer, 1715.
1480 Mitoulis, S.A. and Tegos, I.A., 2010. Restrain of a
seismically isolated bridge by external stoppers. Bulletin
of Earthquake Engineering, 8 (4), 973–993.
1485
View publication stats
Naeim, F. and Kelly, J., 1999. Design of seismic isolated
structures, from theory to practice. California: John Wiley
and Sons.
Nielson, B.G. and DesRoches, R., 2006. Influence of
modeling assumptions on the seismic response of multi-
span simply supported steel girder bridges in moderate 1490
seismic zones. Engineering structures, 28 (8), 1083–1092.
Nielson, B.G. and DesRoches, R., 2007. Seismic perfor-
mance assessment of simply supported and continuous
multispan concrete girder highway bridges. Journal of
Bridge Engineering, 12 (5), 611–620.
Ogata, N., Maeda, Y., and Ando, H., 1994. Carbon fiber 1495
strengthening of existing bridges. In: S. Mahin, ed.
Proceedings of the 2nd US-Japan workshop on seismic
retrofit of bridges, Report No. UCB/EERC 97-9.
Berkeley: University of California, 321–333.
Pantelides, C.P. and Gergely, J., 2002. Carbon-fiber-
reinforced polymer seismic retrofit of RC bridge bent: 1500
design and in situ validation. Journal of Composites for
Construction, 6 (1), 52–60.
Penelis, G.G., Stylianidis, K.-A., and Ignatakis, C., 1998.
Retrofitting of an existing concrete bridge using base
isolation concept. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Japan-UK
workshop on implications of recent earthquakes on seismic 1505
risk. Tokyo: Tokyo Institute of Technology, 331–341.
Priestley, M., Seible, F., and Calvi, G., 1996. Seismic design
and retrofit of bridges. New York, NY: Wiley.
Roberts, J.E., 2005. Caltrans structural control for bridges in
high-seismic zones. Earthquake Engineering and Structur-
al Dynamics, 34 (4–5), 449–470. 1510
Rodriguez-Marek, A. and Muhunthan, B., 2005. Supported
structures research seismic behavior of micropiles. FHWA
Final Research Report, WA-RD 604-1, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
Saadeghvaziri, M.A. and Yazdani-Motlagh, A., 1999. Non-
linear response of MSSS bridges under earthquake 1515
ground motions. FHWA Final Report, FHWA/NJ-99-
026-7270.
Saiidi, M., et al., 2001. Seismic restrainer design methods for
simply supported bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering,
6 (5), 307–315.
Sarraf, M. and Bruneau, M., 2004. Performance tests 1520
of innovative ductile steel retrofitted deck-truss bridges.
In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake
engineering. Vancouver, Canada, 1803.
Sextos, A., Kappos, A., and Pitilakis, K., 2003. Inelastic
dynamic analysis of RC bridges accounting for spatial
variability of ground motion, site effects and soil- 1525
structure interaction phenomena. Part 2: parametric
analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dy-
namics, 32 (4), 629–652.
Unjoh, S., Kobayashi, K., and Ogura, Y., 2004. Seismic
retrofit of existing highway bridges considering displace-
ment restraint effect of abutments. In: Proceedings of the 1530
comparative U.S.-Japan highway bridges design: I. Design
methods.
Wilson, J.G. and Panian, L., 1997. Innovative techniques for
the seismic retrofit of bixby creek concrete arch bridge.
In: Proceedings of the practical solutions for bridge
strengthening conference, 8110. 1535
1540