@@date to be populated upon sending@@

Seismic Behaviour of the Curved Bridge with Friction

Pendulum System

Journal: Structural Engineering International

Manuscript ID Draft

Manuscript Type: Scientific Papers

Fo
Type of Structure: Bridges

Material and Equipment: Concrete, Bearings/Joints/Seismic Device

rR

Other Aspects:
ev
iew
On
ly
Page 1 of 16 @@date to be populated upon sending@@

1
2
3
4
Seismic Behaviour of the Curved Bridge with Friction Pendulum System
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Abstract
13
14 The friction pendulum system (FPS) is one of the most important tools being used for seismic protection.
15 However, due to the complexity of curved bridges, particularly controlling torsional moments, the effectiveness
16 of the FPS has not been well assessed. This study looked at how well a continuous horizontal curved bridge with
17 FPS performed when subjected to different earthquake loadings. The efficiency of FPS in controlling bridge
18 response was evaluated considering various factors, such as multidirectional impacts, the strength of seismic
19 motion, variation in incidence angle, and ground motion characteristics. In this study, Finite Element Modelling
20
(FEM) of bridge structure was done using Finite Element Analysis (FEA) software SAP2000v20. Three
21
Fo

earthquakes corresponds to near fault, far fault, and forward directivity were taken into account. Additionally, the
22
23 bi-directional behaviour’s efficiency was examined in light of the bearing and pier’s interaction effect. A sensitive
24 analysis was performed for the bridge response in relation to the bearing design parameters for each considered
rR

25 earthquake ground motions. Under seismic loading conditions, it was observed that the FPS bearings significantly
26 reduces the seismic response of the bridge. The bidirectional effect was discovered to be critical for the curved
27 bridge since it greatly increased displacement as compared to unidirectional motion. The isolated bridge with FPS
28
ev

subjected to unidirectional excitation significantly reduces the torsional moment of about 26-54% for the
29 considered bridge structure. At bi-directional excitation, the efficiency of FPS has been quiet impressive as it still
30 holds the significant reduction in torsional moment of about 14-43%.
31
iew

32 Keywords: Friction Pendulum System, Curved Bridge, Non-Linear Time History, SAP2000V20
33
34 Introduction
35
Bridges are regarded as an essential component of transportation networks, and consistent performance is
36
predicted even during violent ground vibrations[1]–[3]. Isolation is a technique that tries to lower the earthquake
On

37
38 forces to or close to what the structure can handle elastically [4]-[5]. Seismic base separation reduces seismic
39 demand and improves seismic performance. Seismic isolation has been found to improve seismic performance
40 and decrease damage during strong earthquakes [6]-[7]. FPS are frequently used in bridges for the purpose of
ly

41 seismic isolation because of their ability to offer steady lateral stiffness and consistent isolation duration. By
42 restricting the earthquake stresses of crucial structural parts to or near the elastic limit, regular FPS may avoid or
43 decrease bridge deterioration and inelastic deformation [8]. The concave design and surface friction qualities of
44 the FPS make it an effective seismic isolation bearing. The housing plate slides on the concave dish and releases
45 hysteresis energy through friction, putting the supporting structure into a pendulum motion [9].
46
47 The friction pendulum system has three main components, i.e., a housing plate, an articulated slider, and a concave
48 spherical dish made of stainless steel. A composite material with low friction has been applied to the articulated
49 slider’s side that faces the spherically concave surface. The slider has a stainless-steel finish on the other side and
50
rests in a low-friction composite-lined sphere. By moving the slider on the concave spherical surface, the
51
52 supported mass rises and provides restoring force to the system. The articulated slider’s interaction with the
53 circular surface creates dampening within the isolator.
54
Because of its geometric design, FPS provides an effective frictional isolation system by combining sliding motion
55
with restoring force. It consists of a slider that moves on a circular surface made of stainless steel. A composite
56
57 material having low friction is applied to the articulated slider’s side that makes contact with the spherical surface.
58 One side of the slider is spherical, has a coating of stainless steel, and rests in the sphere, which is covered with
59 composite material whose friction is low. The supported mass is raised as the slider is moved across the sphere,
60
 @@date to be populated upon sending@@ Page 2 of 16

1
2
3 providing the restoring force for the system. The damper in the isolator comes from the friction between the
4 flexible slider and the circular surface [10].
5
6 Zayas [11] reported the usefulness of FPS as an isolation system, and later on, it was used in bridges [12]–[14].
7 Zayas [15] stated that the possibility of torsional coupling in the asymmetric structures could be reduced by using
8 the friction pendulum system because, in this system, both restoring force and frictional force are proportional to
9 the weight of the structure, and hence the centre of mass and centre of rigidity will coincide. Mokha [16] stated
10
that the force resisted by the friction pendulum system depends on the velocity of sliding since the coefficient of
11
12 sliding friction is velocity-dependent. A method has been developed by Wang [17] for the dynamic analysis of
13 structures using the friction pendulum system. In the method, a single motion equation has been adopted for the
14 system’s stick and slip modes. The method has been verified for a continuous three-span bridge exposed to real
15 earthquakes and harmonic motions. Mutobe and Cooper [18] and Ingham [19] presented the modelling of the
16 friction pendulum system by node-to-node frictional contact surface elements. The main difference between the
17 two studies was that in the former case, spherical contact surface elements were used, whereas in the latter case,
18 flat contact surface elements were considered. A bilinear model of the friction pendulum system has also been
19 proposed by many researchers [20].
20
21 An enhanced base isolation device composed of a standard friction pendulum bearing (FPB) and viscous damper
Fo

22 (VD) was proposed to accomplish the seismic resilience design of the structure during earthquakes [21]. The
23 experimental findings demonstrate the effectiveness of the suggested FPB-VD device in lowering the acceleration
24 and deformation requirements of the prototype system in comparison to those of traditional FPB. Castaldo [22]
rR

25
assessed the seismic dependability of a friction pendulum isolated base structure by treating the features of the
26
27 isolators (i.e., the coefficient of friction) and the primary characteristics of earthquakes as independent random
28 variables. Kim [23] investigated the trilinear behaviour of a double concave friction pendulum system (DCFP).
ev

29 The DCFP is made up of two sliding surfaces, each of which has a unique friction coefficient and a variable
30 curvature radius. The consequences of an earthquake on a cable stayed bridge with single concave friction
31 pendulum bearings were investigated [24]. Faramarz [25] investigates the influence of an earthquake’s vertical
iew

32 component on the reaction of base-isolated structures using a double concave pendulum (DCFP) device.
33
34 From the above literature, it was observed the various researchers have investigated the different aspect of the
35 friction pendulum system with bridges. It was observed that the friction pendulum has significantly reduces the
36 response of the bridge under different seismic loading conditions. However, it has also been observed that the
On

37 effect of incidence of earthquake on the response of the curved bridges has not been well investigated. It was also
38 observed that previous studies have not included the effect on the response of curved bridge with bi-directional
39 ground motion.
40
ly

41 Modelling
42
43 The research considered the longitudinally curved RC bridge (Fig. 1) with a curvature radius of 315m [26]–[28].
44 The bridge is made up of seven spans, five of which are 25m long and one of which is 20m long. The bridge’s
45
overall length is 165m. The superstructure is made up of a box girder that has a constant section and is 3.099m2
46
square metres in size. It has a longitudinal moment of inertia that measures 0.5989 m4. M40- grade concrete has
47
48 been taken into consideration. All of the pillars are constructed out of M30-grade concrete, and each one stands
49 11m metres tall with a circular cross-sectional area of 1.7671 m2. As stirrups, we use spiral reinforcement (20d)
50 with a spacing of 10 cm, and we use continuous reinforcing bars (15 φ 28 mm) with a cover layer thickness of 5
51 cm [29].
52
53 The model of the bridge has been created with the help of the finite element programme in SAP 2000 v20
54 [30]. The superstructure of the bridge as well as the piers have been simulated using beam elements, and the
55 masses have been focused at discrete places. Piers have been provided with fixed support as it is believed that
56 they are supported on rock. It is presumed that the abutments are rigid. FPS is modelled as a link element. Fig. 2
57 displays the force-deformation behaviour of the FPS. Roller support is provided to the bridge at the abutments,
58 and fixed support is provided at the piers. There are two FPSs at the position of the bridge abutments and four
59 FPSs between the deck and the piers in the case of an isolated bridge.
60
Page 3 of 16 @@date to be populated upon sending@@

1
2
3 Due to the curved bridge, the responses are taken in the X and Y directions. In the study, the lumped plastic model
4 was taken into account. When using the finite element method, segments or elements are created automatically
5
by SAP 2000, with the mass concentrated at discrete points between them. In SAP 2000, mass distribution is taken
6
into account automatically. To provide a rough estimate of the mass distribution with concentrated mass, a
7
8 significant number of nodes and segments (units) must be defined. ATC-32 [31]-[32],states that each
9 superstructure span must have at least 4 segments and piers must have at least 3 segments. In this work, deck has
10 been represented by using 20 elements for a 20m span, 25 segments for a 25m span, and 11 elements for piers.
11 Plastic hinges have been taken into account to consider nonlinearity in the pier, and the hinge characteristics have
12 been taken into account using a concentrated plastic model in accordance with FEMA 356 [33].
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fo

22
23
24
rR

25
26
27
28
ev

29
30
31
iew

32
33
34
35
36
On

37
Fig. 1 Curved bridge considered for the study
38
39
40
Force

ly

41 u
42
Keff
43 µ m
44
45 Deformation
46
47
48
49
50 Fig. 2 Analytical model of Friction Pendulum System, Force Deformation behaviour of FPS
51
Mechanical characteristics of friction pendulum system is given as-
52
53 The resistive force F is determined by
54
55 𝑊
56
𝐹 = 𝑅 𝐷 + 𝜇𝑊(𝑠𝑔𝑛 𝐷) (1)
57
58 Where, D is horizontal displacement, W is load on FPS, µ is friction coefficient and R stands for radius of
59 curvature of dish.
60 Horizontal stiffness provided by restoring force is given as,
 @@date to be populated upon sending@@ Page 4 of 16

1
2
3 𝑊
4 𝐾𝐻 = 𝑅
(2)
5
6 Which results in an isolated structure with period T given by
7
8 𝑇 = 2𝜋√𝑅 𝑔
9
10 The equivalent stiffness is calculated as
𝑊 𝜇𝑊
11 𝐾𝑒𝑓𝑓 = + (3)
𝑅 𝐷
12
13 The damping produced by friction at the sliding surfaces can be estimated by the code formula
14
15 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠 𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝
16
𝛽𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 4𝜋𝐾𝑒𝑓𝑓𝐷2
(4)
17
18 Parametric Study
19
20 Table 1 show the 3 recorded earthquake motions from the PEER database [34]–[36] that have been taken into
21 consideration: (1) Imperial Valley (G.M. 1), (2) Kobe (G.M. 2), (3) Turkey (G.M. 3) each with two horizontal
Fo

22 components. The chosen ground movements reflected the situations far fault, near fault, and forward directivity
23 effects, respectively.
24
rR

25 Table 1. Parameters of selected ground motions

26
27 Epicentral
Magnitude PGA
28 S. No. Earthquake Station Component Distance
ev

(Mw) (g)
29 (km)
30 Imperial Valley 117 El Centro IMP VALL/
31 1 7.0 0.31 8.3
(1940) Array #9 I-ELC180
iew

32
33 Imperial Valley 117 El Centro IMP VALL/
2 7.0 0.21 8.3
34 (1940) Array #9 I-ELC270
35
36 KJMA RSN1106_
3 Kobe (1995) 6.9 0.83 0.96
On

37 KOBE_KJM000
38
39
KJMA RSN1106_
40 4 Kobe (1995) 6.9 0.63 0.96
KOBE_KJM090
ly

41
42 5 Turkey (1992) 6.9 Erzincan Erzincan, EW 0.50 4.3
43
44 6 Turkey (1992) 6.9 Erzincan Erzincan, NS 0.39 4.3
45
46
Results and Discussions
47
48
49 The sensitivity analysis of the bridge was performed for different time periods (TP) and damping ratios (ζ) with
50 varying incident angles (θ) of ground motions, the seismic response has been determined for the bridge structure
51 under both unidirectional and bidirectional ground excitations. The torsional moment (TM), deck acceleration
52 (DA), and force transferred to the pier (FTP) are the principal response factors taken into consideration.
53
54 Effect of Incidence Angle (θ)
55
56 Incidence angle (θ) plays a significant role in case of curved bridges due to possibility of increase in the torsional
57 moment. Response in both horizontal directions is being considered in the design of the bearing.
58
59
60
Page 5 of 16 @@date to be populated upon sending@@

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fo

22
23
24
Fig. 3 Response of bridge to unidirectional (a-c) and bidirectional (d-f) G.M.-1, G.M.-2 and G.M.-3 at different
rR

25
incident angle
26
27
28
ev

29 Fig. 3 (a-c) shows the response of the bridge with varying incidence angles of 0º to 90º for G.M.-1, G.M.-2, and
30 G.M.-3, respectively, due to uni-directional loading. The variation of all the response parameters of the bridge
31 w.r.t. the incidence angle of the earthquake is nonlinear. It has been found that the DA and TM attain maximum
iew

32 values of response at an incidence angle close to 90º. In the case of FTP and bearing displacement, the variation
33
with varying incidence angles is found to be very less.
34
35 Fig. 3 (d-f) shows the response of the bridge with varying incidence angles of 0º to 90º for bi-directional loading.
36 It has been found that DA attains its maximum value of response at an incidence angle close to 0º. The variation
On

37
in bearing displacement and TM for varying incidence angles is found to be very less for all ground motions. TM
38
decreases up to 45º and increases after that for the Kobe earthquake.
39
40 Response Sensitivity
ly

41
42
During the sensitivity analysis, the variance of the maximum response of the bridge for the selected range of the
43
design parameters for the many different types of bearings, has been studied.
44
45 Fig. 4 (a-c) (d-f) (g-i) demonstrates how the bridge’s response varies with damping ratio for uni-directional loading
46 of G.M.-1, G.M.-2, and G.M.-3, respectively. The figures show that the response parameter’s fluctuation in
47
relation to the damping ratio is nonlinear. It is observed that the bearing displacement has minimal variation with
48
49 increases in the damping ratio. It may be due to the high initial stiffness of the isolation system. The TM and FTP
50 increase as the damping ratio increases. This may be due to the fact that the yield force of the isolation system
51 increases with an increase in damping ratio for all the earthquake motions.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
 @@date to be populated upon sending@@ Page 6 of 16

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fo

22
23
24
rR

25
26
27
28
ev

29
30
31
iew

32
33
34
35
36
On

37 Fig. 4 Response of bridge under unidirectional G.M.-1 (a-c), G.M.-2 (d-f) and G.M.-3(g-i) due to different
38 damping ratio of FPS
39
40 Fig. 5 (a-c) (d-f) (g-i) depicts the bridge’s response with time periods for uni-directional loading of G.M.-1, G.M.-
ly

41 2, and G.M.-3, respectively. The figures revealed that the variation of response parameters (bearing displacement
42 and TM) with respect to time period is nonlinear. However, it has also been found that the pier displacement
43 increases with the increase in TP. This may be due to the fact that post yield stiffness decreases as the TP increases.
44 Also, it has been found that the isolation time period (2.5-3.0 sec) gives a lower TM and FTP for all ground
45
motions.
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 7 of 16 @@date to be populated upon sending@@

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fo

22
23
24
rR

25 Fig. 5 Response of bridge under unidirectional GM-1 (a-c), GM-2 (d-f) and GM-3(g-i) due to different time
26 period of FPS
27
28 Fig. 6 (a-c) (d-f) (g-i) shows the variation of the bridge response for damping ratio for bidirectional loading of
ev

29 GM-1, GM-2, and GM-3 earthquakes, respectively. From the figures, it has been found that the variation of the
30 response parameter w.r.t. TP and ζ is nonlinear. It has been observed that bearing displacement varies with
31
iew

damping ratio insignificantly. It may be due to the high initial stiffness of the isolation system. The TM and FTP
32
increase as the damping ratio increases; this might be due to the fact that the yield force of the isolation system
33
34 increases with an increase in the damping ratio for all the earthquake motions.
35
36
On

37
38
39
40
ly

41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 Fig. 6 Response of bridge under bidirectional GM-1 (a-c), GM-2 (d-f) and GM-3(g-i) due to different damping
59 ratio of FPS
60
 @@date to be populated upon sending@@ Page 8 of 16

1
2
3 Fig. 7 (a-c) (d-f) (g-i) shows the variation of the bridge response for varying TP for bi-directional loading of GM-1,
4 GM-2, and GM-3, respectively. From the figures, it has been found that the variation in bearing displacement and
5
TM w.r.t. time period is nonlinear. However, it has also been observed that the pier displacement increases with
6
the increase in the isolation TP. This may be due to the fact that post yield stiffness decreases as the TP increases.
7
8 It has been found that the isolation time period (2.5-3.0 sec) gives a lower TM and FTP for all earthquake motions.
9 Fig. 7 Response of bridge under bidirectional G.M.-1 (a-c), G.M.-2 (d-f) and G.M.-3 (g-i) due to different time
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fo

22
23
24
rR

25
26
27
28
ev

29
30
31
iew

32
33
34
35
36
On

37
38
39
40
ly

41
42
43 period of FPS
44
45
46 Non-Isolated vs. Isolated Bridge Response
47
48 G.M.-1, G.M.-2, and G.M.-3’s isolated and non-isolated bridges’ peak responses for unidirectional and
49 bidirectional motions are shown in Fig. 8. Table 2 provides an overview of various cases.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 9 of 16 @@date to be populated upon sending@@

1
2
3 Table 2 Different cases that were taken into consideration to compare the response of the bridge to a non-
4 isolated condition
5
6
7 Non-isolated bridge
Cases
8
Isolation Period (Sec) Damping Ratio (%)
9
10 1 1.5 10
11 2 1.5 15
12 3 1.5 20
13 4 1.5 25
14 5 2.0 10
15 6 2.0 15
16
7 2.0 20
17
18 8 2.0 25
19 9 2.5 10
20 10 2.5 15
21 11 2.5 20
Fo

22 12 2.5 25
23 13 3.0 10
24
14 3.0 15
rR

25
26 15 3.0 20
27 16 3.0 25
28
ev

29
30 It has been found that the friction pendulum system has reduced the TM, FTP, and DA significantly compared to
31 the non-isolated case for both unidirectional and bidirectional cases for all ground movements taken into
iew

32 consideration.
33
34 For uni-directional GM-1, TM, DA, FTP, deck displacement, and pier displacement have been decreased by 42%-
35 66%, 66%-78%, 89%-93%, 28%-43%, and 26%, respectively, compared to a non-isolated bridge. In case of
36 unidirectional GM-2, it has been found that the DA, FTP, and TM have been decreased by 43%-63%, 77%-90%,
On

37 and 35%, respectively, compared to a non-isolated bridge. It has been observed that the friction pendulum system
38 is able to reduce the DA, FTP, and TM by 59%-72%, 70%-84%, and 26%-54%, respectively, for a uni-directional
39 Turkey earthquake.
40
ly

41 For bi-directional GM-1, the DA, FTP, TM, and deck displacement have been reduced by 68%-77%, 95%-97%,
42 40%-65%, and 28%-33%, respectively, compared to a non-isolated bridge. In the case of bidirectional GM-3, it
43 has been found that the DA, FTP, and TM have been decreased by 33%-57%, 93%-97%, and 33%, respectively,
44 compared to a non-isolated bridge. It has been observed that the friction pendulum system is able to reduce the
45 DA, FTP, and TM by 45%-58%, 88%-92%, and 14%-43%, respectively, for a bi-directional Turkey earthquake.
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
 @@date to be populated upon sending@@ Page 10 of 16

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fo

22
23
24
rR

25
26
27
28
ev

29
30
31
iew

32
33
34
35
36
On

37
38
39
40
ly

41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49 Fig. 8 Peak results of the bridge for GM-1, GM-2, and GM-3
50
51
52
53 Bi-Directional Loading Effect
54
55 The isolated bridge’s peak response for varied ground movements is shown in Fig. 9. For the considered
56 earthquake motions, it was discovered that the impact of bidirectional ground motion is significant.
57
58
59
60
Page 11 of 16 @@date to be populated upon sending@@

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fo

22
23
24
rR

25
26
27
28
ev

29
30
31
iew

32
33
34
35
36
On

37
38
39
40
ly

41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
 @@date to be populated upon sending@@ Page 12 of 16

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fo

22
23
24 Fig. 9 The unidirectional and bidirectional ground motion response characteristics for the isolated curved bridge
rR

25
It is also observed that DA, deck displacement, and TM have increased by 13.52 %, 18.60 %, and 6.18 %,
26
respectively, under bi-directional loading for GM-1. It is also observed that DA, deck displacement, and TM have
27
28 increased by 20.34%, 4.95%, and 9%, respectively, under bi-directional loading for GM-2. It is also observed that
ev

29 DA, deck displacement, and TM have increased by 50%, 61%, and 31%, respectively, under bi-directional loading
30 for the Turkey earthquake.
31
iew

32 Fig. 10 represents the FTP and bearing displacement of a curved bridge due to unidirectional and bidirectional
33 loading. It was also found that for all ground motions, the response envelope caused by bidirectional loading (red
34 line) was significantly larger than that caused by unidirectional loading (black line).
35
36 The maximum rise in response parameters due to Imperial Valley bidirectional loading has been observed for the
combination of an isolation TP of 2.5 seconds and ζ of 0.25. It has been observed that due to bidirectional loading,
On

37
38 the FTP and bearing displacement have increased by 18.12 % and 18.2%, respectively.
39
The maximum increase in response parameters due to Kobe bidirectional loading has been observed for the
40
combination of an isolation TP of 3.0 sec and ζ of 0.1. It has been observed that due to bidirectional loading, the
ly

41
42 FTP and bearing displacement have increased by 21.6% and 22.5%, respectively.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 13 of 16 @@date to be populated upon sending@@

1
2
3 The maximum increase in response parameters due to Turkey bidirectional loading has been observed for the
4 combination of isolation time period of 3.0 sec and damping ratio of 0.1. It has been observed that due to
5
bidirectional loading, the FTP and bearing displacement have increased by 64 % and 61%, respectively.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fo

22
23
24
rR

25
26
27
28
ev

29
30
31
iew

32
33
34
35
36
On

37
38
39
40
ly

41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59 Fig. 10 Response envelopes of the isolated bridge for GM-1 (a-b), GM-2 (c-d), and GM-3 (e-f)
60
 @@date to be populated upon sending@@ Page 14 of 16

1
2
3 Conclusion
4
5 Under seismic loading, the response of the bridge with an FPS has been determined. Three different types of
6
ground motions have been considered, and the effect of an earthquake’s incidence angle on the bridge’s response
7
has been studied. A sensitivity analysis has been performed to investigate the response variation w.r.t. the isolator
8
9 design parameters. The importance of the bidirectional loading effect on how the bridge reacts has also been
10 studied. Some crucial points are highlighted as follows:
11
 The FPS bearings have been found to reduce the bridge’s response in a significant manner under seismic
12
13 loading conditions. This has been found to be the most important advantage of isolation bearings for the
14 curved bridge.
15  It is also observed that the variation of the incidence angle of the earthquake w.r.t. the response parameter
16 is nonlinear under uni-directional and bi-directional loading for all earthquake motions that were taken
17 into consideration. We can say that, the TM significantly influenced by the incidence angle in addition
18 with the directional excitation as in most cases TM varies with angle.
19  It has been found that in the case of uni-directional and bi-directional loadings, the seismic response of
20
the bridge occurred at an incidence angle of 90º and 0º, respectively, for all the considered ground
21
Fo

22 motions.
23  Sensitivity analysis of the bridge with FPS bearings shows that the variations of the FTP and TM w.r.t.
24 damping ratio and time period are nonlinear for all the ground motions under both uni-directional and
rR

25 bi-directional loading conditions. However, the variations in bearing displacement have not been found
26 to be so pronounced. It has also been observed that the minimum value of the DA has occurred at an
27 isolation time period range of 2.5 to 3.0 sec.
28
ev

 It has been observed that bi-directional loadings significantly increase the response of the bridge with
29
FPS bearings compared to uni-directional loadings. Bearing displacement and FTP were determined to
30
rise the most for the Turkey earthquake and the least for the Imperial Valley earthquake.
31
iew

32
33 Declarations
34
Funding: No funds, grants, or other support was received
35
36 Conflict of Interest: On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest
On

37
38 Data Availability Statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the first named
39 author, upon reasonable request. Any such requests should be made by emailing the first named author directly.
40
ly

41 Disclosure Statement: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

42
43
44 References
45
46 [1] A. Vatanshenas and M. Sadegh, “Investigating the effect of span-length and earthquake directivity on
47 the response of multi-span continuous girder bridges isolated by friction bearings,” vol. 16, pp. 27–
48 37, 2020, doi: 10.3233/BRS-200169.
49 [2] F. Solarino and L. Giresini, “Fragility curves and seismic demand hazard analysis of rocking walls
50 restrained with elasto‐plastic ties,” Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., vol. 50, Jul. 2021, doi:
51 10.1002/eqe.3524.
52 [3] L. Giresini, “Effect of dampers on the seismic performance of masonry walls assessed through fragility
53 and demand hazard curves,” Eng. Struct., vol. 261, p. 114295, Jun. 2022, doi:
54 10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114295.
55 [4] W. Zheng, H. Wang, J. Li, and H. Shen, “Parametric Study of SMA-based Friction Pendulum System
56 for Response Control of Bridges under Near-Fault Ground Motions Parametric Study of SMA-based
57 Friction Pendulum System for Response Control of Bridges under Near-Fault Ground Motions,” J.
58 Earthq. Eng., vol. 0, no. 00, pp. 1–19, 2019, doi: 10.1080/13632469.2019.1582442.
59 [5] L. Giresini, F. Solarino, F. Taddei, G. Müller, and P. Croce, “Influence of Stiffness and Damping
60 Parameters of Passive Seismic Control Devices in One-Sided Rocking of Masonry Walls,” J. Struct.
Page 15 of 16 @@date to be populated upon sending@@

1
2
3 Eng., vol. 148, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003186.
4 [6] A. Labiba and A. H. M. Muntasir, “In fl uence of ground motion duration and isolation bearings on
5 the seismic response of base-isolated bridges,” Eng. Struct., vol. 222, no. June, p. 111129, 2020, doi:
6 10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111129.
7 [7] J. Gudainiyan and P. K. Gupta, “Parametric study of L-shaped irregular building under near-field
8 ground motion,” Asian J. Civ. Eng., 2023, doi: 10.1007/s42107-023-00663-9.
9 [8] W. Zheng, H. Wang, J. Li, and H. Shen, “Performance evaluation of bridges isolated with SMA-based
10 friction pendulum system at low temperatures,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 125, no. June, p. 105734,
11 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105734.
12 [9] M. Eröz and R. DesRoches, “The influence of design parameters on the response of bridges seismically
13 isolated with the Friction Pendulum System (FPS),” Eng. Struct., vol. 56, pp. 585–599, 2013, doi:
14 10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.05.020.
15 [10] F. Naeim and J. M. Kelly, “Design of seismic isolated Structures: from theory to practice,” Earthq.
16 Spectra, vol. 16, no. 3, 1999, [Online]. Available:
17 http://earthquakespectra.org/doi/abs/10.1193/1.1586135
18 [11] V. A. Zayas, S. S. Low, and S. A. Mahin, “Seismic Isolation Using the Friction Pendulum System.”
1987.
19
[12] M. C. Constantinoli, P. Tsopelas, Y. Kim, and S. Okamoto, NATIONAL CENTER FOR
20
EARTHQUAKE State University of New York at Buffalo NCEER .: faisei Corporation Research
21
Fo

Program on Sliding Seismic Isolation Systems for Bridges : Experimental and Analytical Study of a
22 Friction Pendulum System ( FPS ) by.
23 [13] P. Tsopelas, M. C. Constantinou, Y. S. Kim, and S. Okamoto, “Experimental study of FPS system in
24 bridge seismic isolation,” Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 65–78, 1996, doi:
rR

25 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199601)25:1<65::AID-EQE536>3.0.CO;2-A.
26 [14] M. Dicleli and M. Y. Mansour, “Seismic retrofitting of highway bridges in Illinois using friction
27 pendulum seismic isolation bearings and modeling procedures,” Eng. Struct., vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 1139–
28 1156, 2003, doi: 10.1016/S0141-0296(03)00062-2.
ev

29 [15] V. A. Zayas, S. S. Low, and S. A. Mahin, “A Simple Pendulum Technique for Achieving Seismic
30 Isolation,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 6, no. 2. pp. 317–333, 1990. doi: 10.1193/1.1585573.
31 [16] A. MOKHA, “EXPERIMENTAL STUDY O F FRICTION-PENDULUM ISOLATION SYSTEM By
iew

32 Anoop Mokha, 1 M. C. Constantinou, 2 Associate Member, ASCE, A. M. Reinhorn, 3 and Victor A.

33 Zayas, 4 Members, ASCE,” J. Struct. Eng., vol. 117, no. 4, pp. 1201–1217, 1991.
34 [17] Y. P. Wang, L. L. Chung, and W. H. Liao, “Seismic response analysis of bridges isolated with friction
35 pendulum bearings,” Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 1069–1093, 1998, doi:
36 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199810)27:10<1069::AID-EQE770>3.0.CO;2-S.
[18] R. M. Mutobe and T. R. Cooper, “Nonlinear analysis of a large bridge with isolation bearings,”
On

37
38 Comput. Struct., vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 279–292, 1999, doi: 10.1016/S0045-7949(99)00018-8.
39 [19] T. J. Ingham, “Analysis of the Million Dollar Bridge for seismic retrofit,” Comput. Struct., vol. 81,
40 no. 8–11, pp. 673–679, 2003, doi: 10.1016/S0045-7949(02)00420-0.
[20] “16th doc8167-a.pdf.”
ly

41
[21] X. Chen, P. Wu, and C. Li, “Seismic performance assessment of base-isolated tall pier bridges using
42
friction pendulum bearings achieving resilient design,” Structures, vol. 38, no. January, pp. 618–629,
43
2022, doi: 10.1016/j.istruc.2022.02.032.
44
[22] P. Castaldo, B. Palazzo, and P. Della Vecchia, “Seismic reliability of base-isolated structures with
45 friction pendulum bearings,” Eng. Struct., vol. 95, pp. 80–93, 2015, doi:
46 10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.03.053.
47 [23] Y. S. Kim and C. B. Yun, “Seismic response characteristics of bridges using double concave friction
48 pendulum bearings with tri-linear behavior,” Eng. Struct., vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 3082–3093, 2007, doi:
49 10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.02.009.
50 [24] B. Atmaca, M. Yurdakul, and Ş. Ateş, “Nonlinear dynamic analysis of base isolated cable-stayed
51 bridge under earthquake excitations,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 66, pp. 314–318, 2014, doi:
52 10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.07.013.
53 [25] K. Faramarz and R. Montazar, “Seismic response of double concave friction pendulum base-isolated
54 structures considering vertical component of earthquake,” Adv. Struct. Eng., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–13,
55 2010, doi: 10.1260/1369-4332.13.1.1.
56 [26] L. Yu, Z. Tieyi, Y. Fengli, and Y. Guiping, “Effect of Curvature and Seismic Excitation Characteristics
57 on the Seismic Response of Seismically Isolated Curved Continuous Bridge,” pp. 1–5, 2008.
58 [27] P. Gupta and G. Ghosh, “Effect of various aspects on the seismic performance of a curved bridge with
59 HDR bearings,” Earthquakes Struct., vol. 19, pp. 427–444, Jan. 2021.
60 [28] P. K. Gupta and G. Ghosh, “Effect of Bi-directional excitation on a curved bridge with lead rubber
 @@date to be populated upon sending@@ Page 16 of 16

1
2
3 bearing,” Mater. Today Proc., vol. 44, pp. 2239–2244, Jan. 2021, doi:
4 10.1016/J.MATPR.2020.12.362.
5 [29] P. K. Gupta and G. Ghosh, “Seismic Response of an Isolated Curved Bridge with Lead Rubber Bearing
6 by Considering Design Aspect,” vol. 573, pp. 569–573, 2022, doi: 10.38208/acp.v1.550.
7 [30] I. Computers and Structures, “SAP 2000.” 2021. [Online]. Available: www.csiamerica.com
8 [31] P. O. Box et al., “Criteria for California Bridges :,” 1996.
9 [32] A. N. Study, “applied sciences Effectiveness of LRB in Curved Bridge Isolation :,” 2022.
10 [33] F. Emergency and M. Agency, “Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of
11 buildings,” no. November, 2000.
12 [34] U. Berkeley, “PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center).” 2014. [Online]. Available:
13 http://ngawest2.berkeley.edu
14 [35] S. Prasanth, G. Ghosh, P. K. Gupta, C. Casapulla, and L. Giresini, “Accounting for Resilience in the
15 Selection of R Factors for a RC Unsymmetrical Building,” Appl. Sci., vol. 13, no. 3, 2023, doi:
16 10.3390/app13031316.
17 [36] Prasanth, S.; Ghosh, G.; Gupta, P.K.; Kumar, V.; Paramasivam, P.; Dhanasekaran, S. Selection of
18 Response Reduction Factor Considering Resilience Aspect. Buildings 2023, 13, 626. https://
doi.org/10.3390/buildings13030626.
19
20
21
Fo

22
23
24
rR

25
26
27
28
ev

29
30
31
iew

32
33
34
35
36
On

37
38
39
40
ly

41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60