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

net/publication/265930567

Effect of elastomeric bearing modeling parameters on the Seismis design of

RC highway bridges with precast concrete girders

Article · January 2008

CITATIONS READS

20 3,000

2 authors, including:

Oguz C. Celik
Istanbul Technical University
183 PUBLICATIONS 876 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Oguz C. Celik on 04 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 th
The 14 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

EFFECT OF ELASTOMERIC BEARING MODELING PARAMETERS ON

THE SEISMIS DESIGN OF RC HIGHWAY BRIDGES WITH PRECAST
CONCRETE GIRDERS

Can Akogul1 and Oguz C. Celik2

1
Tekfen Engineering, Co., Inc., Tekfen Tower, Sisli, 34394, Istanbul, Turkey
2
Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Division of Theory of Structures,
Taskisla, Taksim, 34437, Istanbul, Turkey

ABSTRACT :
Parameters affecting the seismic design and behavior of reinforced concrete (RC) highway bridges with precast
prestressed concrete girders are numerically investigated. I-girders of these bridges are often supported at the
ends by elastomeric bearing pads. The bearing pad-bridge girder interface defines support boundary conditions
and may affect the seismic performance of the bridge. AASHTO design principles are followed throughout this
work. A previously designed and constructed real bridge example (the Akcaova Bridge) which is located on the
third earthquake zone in Turkey is considered for the analysis. SAP2000 is used to model the bridge. Although
numerical investigations reveal that elastomeric pads may positively affect the seismic response of such bridges,
this effect highly depends on geometry of bridge, especially the pier rigidities. Other conclusions include that
elastomeric bearings may add extra stiffness to the system when tall and flexible piers are used.

KEYWORDS:
AASHTO, Seismic behavior, Elastomeric bearing, Precast girder, Simple bridges.

1. INTRODUCTION

Reinforced concrete (RC) bridges with precast prestressed concrete girders are commonly used bridge
configurations in highway bridges in Turkey. The application possibilities of these bridges are even increasing
because of their simplicity in design and construction as well as ease of maintanence (Akogul, 2007). Also, an
economical comparison between other alternatives and bridges with precast prestressed concrete girders usually
results in favor of such bridge systems for almost all bridges having short-span to medium spans in Turkey.
Both simplified and 3D sophisticated analysis methods following AASHTO principles (AASHTO, 2002) are
used in the analysis and design. In some cases when required, ATC and/or Caltrans principles are also used
(ATC-6, 1981, Caltrans, 1994).

Numerous studies have been achieved on modeling, analysis, and design of bridge superstructures (Yazdani et
al., 2000, Jangid, 2002, Dai et al., 2005, Dicleli and Buddaram, 2006). These studies have contributed to the
subject in various ways. Mostly, effect of modeling parameters are investigated and discussed. Both linear and
nonlinear analysis procedures are covered. In this respect, Kikuchi and Aiken (1996) presented an analytical
hysteresis model for elastomeric seismic isolation bearings. However, limited studies have focused on the
behavior of regular elastomeric pads which are not recognized as isolation bearings. I-girders of such bridges
are often supported at the ends by elastomeric bearing pads. The bearing pad-bridge girder interface defines
support boundary conditions and may affect the seismic performance of the bridge. This study mainly focuses
on this effect. Depending on mechanical properties of the selected bearings, fundamental period shifts and
changes in internal forces in the bridge members are compared with the results obtained from simplified
analysis models.

2. MODELING ASSUMPTIONS

Mechanical properties of elastomeric pads were used in the computer model. Elastomeric bearings are
represented by the link elements in a bridge model where their properties are defined as hard spring under
 th
The 14 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

compression and weak spring under shear. The bridge is longitudinally free up to the maximum elastomer
flexibility and blocked transversely by concrete shear keys. Both multi-mode and simplified (using an
equivalent SDOF system) analyses can be performed. Results from both analyses would be worthy to compare
the particular cases of considering and ignoring the elastomeric bearing properties in modeling. Fundamental
period shifts and variations in internal force distribution in the bridge members are expected. Also, to show the
effect of substructure’s rigidity on seismic response, the same bridge with shorter and thus stiffer piers is
analyzed. Further issues on modeling are discussed later in the bridge example section.

3. BRIDGE EXAMPLE

A previously designed and constructed real bridge (the Akcaova Bridge) which is located on the third
earthquake zone in Turkey is considered as an example in this work. Structural analyses are carried out
considering and ignoring the elastomeric bearings, and the numerical results are compared. Thereby, the impact
of elastomeric bearings on seismic response can be quantified.

Three dimensional multi-mode model of the bridge and a simplified model as a SDOF-system are developed.
These computer models and simplified model (using bridge’s rigidity and mass) are then studied under seismic
effects. In the last phase, internal forces and displacements obtained from computer analyses are compared with
the results from simple analysis. Same processes are repeated on the bridge with shorter and thus stiffer piers to
show the behavioral changes by changing the bridge geometry.

3.1. Seismic Input

The prescribed acceleration for the bridge is 0.23g. Soil profile type is assumed as II according to AASHTO.
Depending on local soil conditions, the site coefficient is taken as 1.2. Elastic seismic response coefficient (C) is
computed as follows:

1.2 AS 1.2 x0.23gx1.2

Cs  2
 2
(3.1)
3 3
T T

A spectrum curve can be constructed by using Eqn. 3.1 (Akogul, 2007).

3.2. Elastomeric Bearings

A typical elastomeric bearing is illustrated in Figure 1 and has a shear modulus of G=0.68MPa. Elastomeric
bearings are considered as link elements in the structural analysis. Stiffness of the link element is computed in
Eqn. 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 with given properties in Table 3.1 and an assumed shear modulus.

2.5
2.5

0
35
8

=
L
3

W = 450
2.5

ELASTOMERIC BEARING
DIMENSIONS in mm.

Figure 1 Elastomeric bearing

 th
The 14 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

Geff A 680 x 0.1575

K H  k eff    1755kN / m (3.2)
Hr 0.061

E c A 617263 x0.1575
KV    1143752kN / m (3.3)
H 0.085

EI 617263 x0.0016
K    16270kNm / m (3.4)
Hr 0.061
where KH, KV, and K denote the lateral, vertical, and rotational stiffnesses of the elastomeric pads used in this
bridge (HITEC 98-11, 1998). A link element shown in Figure 2, is composed of lateral, vertical, and rotational
stiffness components. Other geometrical and mechanical properties are given in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Properties of elastomeric bearing

Elastomer Bearing Length L (cm) 35
Elastomer Bearing Width W (cm) 45
Elastomer Bearing Height H (cm) 8.5
Total elastomer thickness hr (cm) 6.1
Thickness of one elastomer layer hri (cm) 0.8
Thickness of one steel reinforcement layer hs (cm) 0.3
Elastomer gross plan area A (cm2) 1575
Elastomer moment of inertia I (cm4) 1600
Shape factor S 12.3
Amount of bearing n (at end of girder) 10

Effective stiffness (keff) is used to consider non-linear behavior of elastomeric bearing (Figure 2). The bridge is
longitudinally free up to the maximum elastomer flexibility. The superstructure is blocked transversely by
concrete shear keys. In other words, elastomeric pads do not displace in the transverse direction.

KH: Lateral Stiffness KV: Vertical Stiffness KRotational Stiffness Link Element
.
Figure 2 The link element

3.3. The Akcaova Bridge

The bridge has three simple spans with 28.7m, 30m and 28.7m. Piers are considered as frame element with a
height of 22m. Expansion joints locate only at abutments, therefore the bridge superstructure is considered
continuous between two joints (Figures 3a,b,c). As stated before, the bridge is longitudinally free and blocked
transversely by shear keys.
 th
The 14 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

2870 3000 2870

G.D.
% 3.58

1859.89

1849.9
82.000
81.000
80.000

200
79.000

Figure 3a The Akcaova bridge-Elevation

1325

150 1100 75
107

%2
ASFALT SUYA KARŞI

107
KAPLAMA 5cm YERİNDE DÖKME
6

YALITIM 1cm
75

%5 DÖŞEME
25

25

75
8 28
57 3.5

28 8

PREKAST KİRİŞ MESNET BLOKLARI

ÇELİK LEVHALI
ELASTOMER MESNETLER DEPREM TAKOZU

73 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 73

1325

Figure 3b The Akcaova bridge-Cross section of superstructure

127.5
63.75 63.75
10
5 10

48.75 5 5 48.75
120
65

10 10
ø280 25 25
2 18 10

2 33 33 2
70

Figure 3c The Akcaova bridge- Cross sections of columns and girders

 th
The 14 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

3.3.1 Structural model without elastomeric bearing

Assuming that elastomers lost their resistance completely at seismic loading which is a common design attitude
in Turkey, positive or negative effects of elastomers are ignored (i.e. modeled as simple fixed or sliding hinges)
in seismic analysis and design. Connection between substructure and superstructure is free to move at abutments
and joint at pier top. Only pier inertia resists longitudinal movement. In this model, abutments carry only
vertical loads and they are designed under soil pressures acting on abutment wall.

3.3.2 Structural model with elastomeric bearing

In this case, the bridge superstructure is supported by elastomeric bearings. Stiffnesses of the elastomeric
bearings contribute to the overall bridge stiffness. Elastomeric pads are considered in computer analysis (in
SAP2000, CSI 2007) with link elements at connections between substructure (abutments, piers) and
superstructure (Figure 4). Changes in stiffness could affect the fundamental period of the bridge and earthquake
load and consequently the design of the bridge.
Release Superstructure Continuous
Slab

Elastomeric KH KH KH
Bearing KV KV KV
KH: Lateral Stiffness K K K
KV: Vertical Stiffness
KRotational Stiffness
Pier Fully
restrained

Figure 4 Model with elastomeric bearings

3.3.3 Simplified model

Simplified model is analyzed using an equivalent SDOF system. One frame element and link elements represent
piers and elastomers respectively. Significant part of mass participation at seismic case comes from bridge
superstructure. Therefore, it is assumed that superstructure mass is summed up at top of the pier. Since the piers
have approximately the same height, two piers are modeled into one frame element. Elastomeric bearings on the
pier head are considered in the model as a link element where elastomeric pads on the abutment are modeled as
springs (Figure 5).
Abutment=Spring
(k spring )
Pier + Elastomer =
Frame + Link
(ksub) (k eff )

Figure 5 Simplified model representing the bridge substructure and superstructure

 th
The 14 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

3.3.4 Analysis
Each of three bridge models (i.e. bridge model without elastomeric bearing, bridge model with elastomeric
bearing, and the simplified model) are analyzed with SAP2000. Fundamental periods in the bridge longitudinal
direction, internal forces and displacements obtained from each model will be given for comparison purposes.
For example, fundamental periods for all three models are found as T=1.72sec, Te =1.36sec, Tb =1.36sec
respectively.

An alternative analysis could be carried out using structure’s rigidity and mass with no need a computer model.
Pier stiffness and total stiffness of elastomer on pier heads are calculated in Eqn. 3.5 and 3.6:

3EI 3 x 23648850 x3.0172

k sub    20103.3kN / m (3.5)
H3 22 3

Geff A 680 x 0.1575

nxk eff  n  20  35100kN / m (3.6)
Hr 0.061

These two stiffness values can be transformed into one singular stiffness value. The effective linear stiffness is
computed in Eqn. 3.7.

k sub k eff 20103.3x35100

K eff    12782.3kN / m (3.7)
(k sub  k eff ) (20103.3  35100)

Lateral stiffness of elastomer bearing on abutments can be calculated easily multiplying one elastomer stiffness
with the amount of elastomer (Eqn. 3.8.).

Geff A 680 x 0.1575

k yay  nxk eff  n  10  17550kN / m (3.8)
Hr 0.061

Total lateral stiffness is the sum of effective linear stiffness of pier and elastomer stiffness on abutments
(Eqn. 3.9).

 K   (K eff  k spring )  2(12782.3  17550)  60664.6kN / m (3.9)

Participated mass at seismic case is the sum of superstructure mass and half mass of the substructure as follows:

M T  M sup er  0.5M sub  2701.36  300.4  3001.76t (3.10)

Fundamental period of the bridge can thus be determined using the mass and stiffness obtained above:

MT 3001.76
Tk  2  2  1.398s (3.11)
K 60664.6

The following observations can be made from these exact and approximate analyses:

 Fundamental period (Te) of bridge model with elastomeric bearings is shorter than the period (T) of bridge
model. Possible reasons for this include the followings: Bridge piers are tall and thus have low lateral stiffness,
elastomeric bearings are stiffer than the piers, and elastomeric bearings on abutments add extra stiffness to the
system in bridge model with elastomers.
 th
The 14 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

 Same period values are obtained from bridge model with elastomers and simplified model.
 Relatively close period values are obtained from control analysis.

3.4. Bridge with short piers

The same bridge with shorter and thus stiffer piers is analyzed to show the effect of substructure’s rigidity on
seismic response. Analysis stages are equivalent with the previous section. In this case, fundamental periods for
all three models are found as T=0.60sec, Te =1.08sec, Tb =1.08sec respectively.

Further, the followings are observed:

 Fundamental period (Te) of bridge model with elastomeric bearings is longer than the period (T) of bridge
model. As expected, elastomeric bearings become more effective in bridges with short and stiff piers.
 Same period values are obtained from bridge model with elastomers and simplified model.
 Close period value are obtained from simple analysis using proposed equations.

4. COMPARISON

Results obtained from each bridge analyses are summarized in Table 4.1. In that table, T is the fundamental
period, M is moment at pier bottom (R=1), V is shear force at one pier, Vk is lateral force at one abutment, ΣV
is total base shear force, dsub is displacement of substructure, di is displacement of elastomeric bearing, and d is
total displacement of bridge. In the first bridge model, elastomers add extra stiffness to the structure.
Consequently, base shear force in the model with elastomer is greater (ΣVe/ΣV=1.16). However base shear force
is shared appropriately between the piers and abutments, so shear force and moment in piers reduced by half
(Ve/V=0.5; Me/M=0.5). Effect of elastomers on seismic response is much obvious in bridge with short and rigid
piers. The fundamental period is elongated (T e/T=1.8) and thus internal forces are reduced (Ve/V=0.41).
Numerical results obtained from simplified system and control analysis are in good agreement with the multi-
mode analysis results for regular bridges like this.

Table 4.1 Numerical results

Bridge (Hpier = 22m) Bridge with short pier (Hpier=11m)
Without With Without With
Simplified Simplified
Elastomer Elastomer Elastomer Elastomer
T (sec) 1.72 1.36 1.36 0.60 1.08 1.08
M (kNm) 74795 37778 37720 71635 29630 29615
V (kN) 3400 1712 1709 6512 2675 2673
Vk (kN) - 2234 2234 - 1613 1613
ΣV (kN) 6800 7892 7886 13024 8576 8572
dsub (cm) 17 8.6 8.6 4.2 1.7 1.7
di - 4.1 4.1 - 7.4 7.5
d 17 12.7 12.7 4.2 9.1 9.2

5. CONCLUSIONS

Both multi-mode and simplified (using an equivalent SDOF system) analyses are performed for the selected
bridge example. Results from both analyses are compared for the particular cases of considering and ignoring
the elastomeric bearing properties in modeling. Fundamental period shifts and changes in internal force
distribution in the bridge members are discussed. Also, to show the effect of substructure’s rigidity on seismic
response, the same bridge with shorter and thus stiffer piers is analyzed.
 th
The 14 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China

Although numerical investigations reveal that elastomeric pads may positively affect the seismic response of
such bridges, this effect highly depends on geometry of bridge, especially the pier rigidities. Other conclusions
include that elastomeric bearings may add extra stiffness to the system when tall and flexible piers are used. In
this case, shear forces at pier bases decrease by 50% since the lateral loads are more appropriately shared
between the piers and abutments. Elastomeric bearings become more effective in bridges with short and rigid
columns. For the selected bridge example, the fundamental period is elongated by 80% and thus internal forces
are reduced by 60%. For regular bridges, numerical results obtained from the simplified SDOF system are in
good agreement with the multi-mode analysis results.

REFERENCES

AASHTO, 2002. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, Seventeenth Edition, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials.
ATC-6, 1981, Seismic Design Guidelines for Highway Bridges, Applied Technology Council, Federal Highway
Administration.
CALTRANS, 1994. Memo to Designers 7-1, Bridge Bearings, California Transportation Office.
Yazdani, N., Eddy, S., Cai, C.S., 2000.Effect of Bearings on Precast Pretstressed Concrete Bridges, Journal of
Bridge Engineering , 5(3), 224-232.
Dai, W., Moroni, M.O., Roesset, J.M., Sarrazin, M., 2005. Effect of isolation pads and their stiffness on the
dynamic characteristics of bridges, Elsevier.
Jangid, R.S., 2002. Seismic Response of Bridges, Journal of Engineering, 9(2), 156-166.
Dicleli, M. and Buddaram, S., 2006. Equivalent linear analysis of sesimic-isolated bridges subjected to near-
fault ground motions with forward rupture directivity effect, Elsevier.
Kikuchi M. and Aiken, I.D., 1996. An Analytical Hysteresis Model For Elastomeric Seismic Isolation Bearings,
Earthquake Engineering And Structural Dynamics, Vol.26, 215-231.
SAP 2000, 2007. Structural Analysis Program, Computers and Structures INC., Berkeley, California.
Akoğul, C.,2007 Earthquake Resistant Design of RC Bridges With Precast Concrete Girders According to
AASHTO, Master Thesis, Istanbul Technical University
HITEC 98-11, 1998. Evaluation Findings For Scougal Rubber Corporation High Damping Rubber Bearings,
Highway Innovative Technology Evaluation Center.

View publication stats