Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 11391156 www.elsevier.

com/locate/engstruct

Seismic retrotting of highway bridges in Illinois using friction pendulum seismic isolation bearings and modeling procedures
M. Dicleli a,, M.Y. Mansour b
a

Department of Civil Engineering and Construction, Bradley University, Peoria, Il 61625-0114, USA b Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Received 15 November 2002; received in revised form 24 February 2003; accepted 26 February 2003

Abstract In this paper, the economical and structural efciency of friction pendulum bearings (FPB) for retrotting typical seismically vulnerable bridges in the State of Illinois is studied. For this purpose, a bridge was carefully selected by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) to represent typical seismically vulnerable bridges commonly used in the State of Illinois. A comprehensive structural model of the bridge was rst constructed for seismic analysis. An iterative multi-mode response spectrum (MMRS) analysis of the bridge was then conducted to account for the nonlinear behavior of the bridge components and soilbridge interaction. The calculated seismic demands were compared with the estimated capacities of the bridge components to determine those that need to be retrotted. It was found that the bearings, wingwalls and pier foundations of the considered typical bridge need to be retrotted. A conventional retrotting strategy was developed for the bridge and the cost of retrot was estimated. Next, the bridge was further studied to develop appropriate techniques for upgrading its seismic capacity using FPB to eliminate the need for seismic retrotting of its vulnerable substructure components. It was observed that the use of FPB mitigated the seismic forces and eliminated the need for retrotting of the substructure components of the bridge. An average retrotting cost using FPB was calculated and found to be less than the cost of conventional retrotting considered in this study. Thus, FPB may successfully be used for economical seismic retrotting of typical bridges in the State of Illinois or in regions of low to moderate risk of seismic activity. 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Bridge; Friction pendulum bearing; Seismic isolation; Soilstructure interaction; Nonlinear analysis; Seismic retrotting; Cost

1. Introduction According to United States Geological Survey [1], the Central United States is a region of moderate to high risk of seismic activity and it is anticipated that the probability of a Richter magnitude 67 earthquake occurring in Central United States within the next 50 years is higher than 90%. Recognizing the threat of seismic activity, in the early 1990s, Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) made a statewide assessment of the seismic vulnerabilities of its over 6000 highway bridges. Many of these bridges were found to be vulnerable as they were built in the late 1960s and early 1970s during

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-309-677-2942; fax: +1-309-6772867. E-mail address: mdicleli@bradley.edu (M. Dicleli).

a rapid expansion of the highway system and before there were any seismic design regulations in American Association of State Highway Transportation Ofcials (AASHTO) [2] bridge design specications. The assessment of the vulnerability of these bridges identied deciencies [3] that are; brittle xed steel bearings, rocker bearings with stability problem, short seat widths, columns with insufcient transverse reinforcement and lap splices and foundations with inadequate lateral and bearing resistance. Conventional seismic retrotting methods [49] may be used to mitigate the risk that currently exists for seismically vulnerable bridges in Illinois. Some of these methods are; replacing old steel bearings with modern conventional bearings such as elastomeric, pot or spherical bearings, widening the pier cap and abutment seat to accommodate seismic lateral movements of the superstructure, strengthening and enhancing the ductility

0141-0296/03/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(03)00062-2

1140

M. Dicleli, M.Y. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 11391156

capacity of the columns using concrete and steel jackets, advanced composite ber reinforced polymer or prestressed wire wrapping and increasing the size of the footings, the number of piles and providing dead man anchors to improve the lateral resistance of the footings. However, most of these retrotting methods are expensive and difcult to implement. Furthermore, retrotting a component of the bridge may overstress some other components and result in additional retrotting cost. Mobilization and trafc control during substructure retrotting over an extended period of time constitutes an additional hidden cost that need to be considered. Thus, an economical and innovative method for mitigating the seismic forces on the bridges in Illinois by response modication may provide an efcient solution to the above problems. This may be achieved by replacing the already vulnerable existing bearings by friction pendulum bearing (FPB) to reduce the seismic forces in the bridge substructures and eliminate the need for their costly retrotting. In this paper, the economical and structural efciency of FPB for retrotting typical seismically vulnerable bridges in the State of Illinois is studied. For this purpose, a bridge was carefully selected by IDOT to represent typical seismically vulnerable bridges in the State of Illinois. Iterative multi-mode response spectrum (MMRS) analysis of the bridge is conducted considering the nonlinear behavior of the bridge components and soilbridge interaction effects to assess its seismic vulnerability. A conventional retrotting strategy is then developed for the seismically vulnerable components of the bridge and the cost of retrot is estimated. Next, the bridge is further studied to develop appropriate techniques for upgrading its seismic capacity using FPB to eliminate the need for retrotting of its vulnerable components. Finally an average retrotting cost using FPB is calculated and compared with the cost of conventional retrotting to assess the economical efciency of FPB.

deects the earthquake input energy to mitigate the seismic forces. A pendulum motion for the supported structure is achieved as the articulated slider rides on the concave surface as illustrated in Fig. 1. The movement of the slider generates a friction force that results in hysteretic energy dissipation and further mitigation of the seismic forces. This force is equal to the product of the dynamic friction coefcient, m, and the weight, W, acting on the bearing. The tangential component of the weight of the bridge also acts as a restoring force opposing the seismic forces as shown in Fig. 1. The forcedisplacement hysteresis loop [11] of the FPB is illustrated in Fig. 1 and is dened by the following equation [10]: F mW sgn(V) W D R (1)

where R is the radius of the concave surface, D is the isolator displacement and V is the isolator velocity. W/R in Eq. (1) represents the lateral stiffness produced by the tangential component of the weight. AASHTOs Guide specications for seismic isolation design [12] recommends various seismic analysis methods based on linear elastic and nonlinear theories. Methods based on linear elastic theories are commonly used for the analysis of seismic isolated bridges. Since the behavior of FPB is nonlinear in nature, equivalent linear elastic properties need to be dened for the elastic analysis of bridges with such bearings. The linear elastic properties of the FPB can be expressed in terms of an equivalent linear stiffness and an equivalent viscous damping to account for the effect of the hysteretic energy dissipation of the bearings. The equivalent linear stiffness, ke, is illustrated graphically in Fig. 1. It is obtained by dividing the design horizontal bearing force, Fd, which is produced by design earthquake loading, by the corresponding design bearing displacement, Dd. Thus, ke mW W Dd R (2)

2. Friction pendulum bearings FPBs are sliding-based seismic isolators, which are installed between the superstructure and the substructure in application to bridges. The elevation of a typical FPB [10] is shown in Fig. 1. The main components of the FPB are; a stainless steel concave spherical plate, an articulated slider and a housing plate. The side of the articulated slider in contact with the concave spherical surface is coated with a low-friction composite material. The other side of the slider is coated with stainless steel and sits in a spherical cavity coated with low-friction composite material. FPB uses the characteristic of a pendulum motion to lengthen the natural period of the isolated structure, thus,

The equivalent viscous damping ratio, ze, which produces the same amount of viscous energy dissipation for each cyclic motion of the bearing, is obtained from the following equation [12,13] ze hysteretic energy dissipated 2keD2 d (3)

Substituting the area under the hysteresis loop of Fig. 1 representing the hysteretic energy dissipated and the equivalent elastic bearing stiffness, as given by Eq. (2), in the above equation, the equivalent viscous damping ratio is expressed as ze 2 m m (Dd / R)

(4)

A response spectrum obtained for a viscous damping

M. Dicleli, M.Y. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 11391156

1141

Fig. 1. Details, operation and forcedisplacement hysteresis of friction pendulum bearing.

equal to that produced by the bearings is then used in the analyzes to account for the hysteretic energy dissipated by the bearings. 3. Description of the bridge The bridge is located on route 24 in Johnson County, in Illinois and was constructed in 1970 to carry the westbound lane trafc over a roadway. The bridge has three spans carrying two trafc lanes and a slab-on-prestressed-concrete-girder deck as shown in Fig. 2. The

bridge deck is continuous from one abutment to the other and is supported by two multi-column piers in between. The expansion joint widths at the north and south abutments are 38.1 and 25.4 mm, respectively. The strength of concrete used in the prestressed concrete girders is 34.5 MPa. The strengths of concrete and the steel reinforcement used for the rest of the bridge are 24 and 275 MPa, respectively. 3.1. Bearings Laminated elastomeric bearings with 203 356 67 mm3 dimensions are provided underneath each girder at both abutments and pier 1, whereas plain elastomeric bearing pads with 152 356 13 mm3 dimensions are provided at pier 2. The thin bearing pads at pier 2 are assumed to provide xed support conditions, thus, allowing the rest of the superstructure to expand or contract on both sides of pier 2 under temperature variations. Both piers support two sets of girders from each adjacent span and therefore accommodate two sets of bearings. 3.2. Substructures The piers of the bridge are reinforced concrete multicolumn bents typically used in Illinois bridges. The geometric details of piers 1 and 2 are presented in Fig. 3(a). Both abutments are seat type as illustrated in Fig. 3(b). The abutment and the wingwalls are directly supported on nine HP200X54 steel end-bearing piles, seven of which are placed underneath the abutment. The H piles are made of 248 MPa steel. The average length of the piles is 4.2 m at the north and 6.2 m at the south abutments. Three of the abutment piles are battered with a slope of 1:6. A circular reinforced concrete encasement of 457 mm diameter is provided for the upper 914 mm length of the abutment piles for corrosion protection.

Fig. 2. Bridge elevation, plan and deck cross-section (all dimensions are in mm).

1142

M. Dicleli, M.Y. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 11391156

wingwalls are expected, and (v) sliding may occur at the abutmentbackll interface in the transverse direction. Following this, iterative MMRS analyzes of the bridge are conducted considering the effects of the observed nonlinear behavior and soilbridge interaction. The normalized acceleration response spectrum of AASHTO [2] is used in the analyzes. For the bridge site, the zonal acceleration ratio is obtained as 0.14. For the sites stiff soil (AASHTO soil type II), the site coefcient is obtained as 1.20.

5. Structural model A 3D structural model of the bridge is built and analyzed using the program sap2000 [15]. The structural model is capable of simulating the nonlinear behavior of the structural components and soilbridge interaction effects when used in combination with iterative MMRS analyzes. In the model, equivalent elastic stiffness properties are used for the components exhibiting nonlinear behavior. These stiffness properties are updated at each iteration step to simulate the nonlinear behavior of the components. 5.1. Superstructure modeling 3.3. Site properties The site soil is composed of layers of stiff silty clay extending down to the hard sandstone. The base of the north abutment is placed approximately at the natural ground level. The south abutment is placed approximately 1.7 m above the natural ground level. The ll material above the ground level is medium moist silty clay. The footings of piers 1 and 2 are placed respectively at 4.7 and 3.4 m below the natural ground surface. The standard penetration and unconned compressive strength test results at each substructure location were provided by IDOT and are presented elsewhere [14]. The bridge superstructure is modeled using 3D beam elements. Full composite action between the slab and the girders is assumed in the model [16,17]. The superstructure is divided into a number of segments and its mass (13.40 ton/m) is lumped at each nodal point connecting the segments. Each mass is assigned four dynamic degrees of freedom (DOF); translations in the X and Y directions and rotations about the X and Z axes as shown in Fig. 4. Detailed information about the selection of dynamic DOF is presented elsewhere [14]. All six static DOF were used in the analysis. The large in-plane translational stiffness of the bridge deck is modeled as a transverse rigid bar [14] connected to the deck at the substructure locations as illustrated in Fig. 4. 5.2. Bearings modeling As the stiffness of elastomeric bearings is temperature dependent, an effective shear stiffness, Kb = 1.35x(Kmin), is used for the elastomeric bearings [18], where Kmin is the shear stiffness of the bearing at 20 C. For the laminated elastomeric bearings at pier 1, the effective shear stiffness is obtained as 1512 kN/m from the manufacturers catalog [19]. For the plain elastomeric bearings at pier 2, the effective shear stiffness is obtained as 3517 kN/m using the following equation GbAb Kb 1.35 hb (5)

Fig. 3.

Bridge abutments and piers.

4. Types of analyzes conducted First, a static analysis of the bridge is conducted to determine the effect of the dead loads on the seismic capacity and performance of bridge components. Next, a preliminary seismic analysis of the bridge is performed to obtain information about the expected level of nonlinear seismic behavior of the structural components. The analysis results revealed that (i) the pier columns may crack but not to reach their ultimate capacities, (ii) the longitudinal displacement of the bridge superstructure is expected to be smaller than the expansion joint widths, thus no impacting between the superstructure and backwall is anticipated, (iii) the piles initial elastic lateral load limit may be exceeded, (iv) exural yielding of the

M. Dicleli, M.Y. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 11391156

1143

the wall is then connected between this horizontal rigid bar and a vertical rigid bar representing the piers rigid footing. The length of the vertical rigid bar is set equal to the footing depth to estimate accurately the effect of seismic forces transferred to the soil [20]. The interaction between the pier footing and the soil is modeled using three translational and three rotational springs. The calculations of the stiffness of the springs are described in the subsequent sections. The abutments are modeled using a grid 3D beam elements as illustrated in Fig. 4. The vertical beam elements are placed at the pile locations. The horizontal beam elements are placed at the top and bottom of the abutment and at the intersection of abutment back-wall and breast wall. The tributary masses of the abutment and wingwalls are lumped to each node and are assigned translational dynamic DOF in three orthogonal directions of the bridge. The soilbridge interaction at the abutment may have a signicant effect on the dynamic response characteristics of particularly shorter bridges [21] and is included in the model using boundary springs attached at the interface nodes between the abutment, backll and the piles as shown in Fig. 4. 6. Procedures for modeling soilbridge interaction The importance of including the exibility and strength of supports at abutments and piers in seismic analysis of highway bridges is well recognized by various researchers [2226] and transportation agencies [2,2729]. Thus, the effect of soilbridge interaction is included in the analysis of the bridge considered in this study using boundary springs at the interface nodes between the bridge and the soil. In the following subsections the procedures followed to model soilbridge interaction effects at the abutments and piers are described. 6.1. Modeling spread footingssoil interaction at piers 1 and 2 The soilfooting interaction effect at the piers is included in the model using three translational and three rotational uncoupled boundary springs connected at the interface nodes of soil and rectangular spread footings. The method proposed by Dorby and Gazetas [26] is employed in the calculation of the stiffness of the boundary springs for the vertical, horizontal, rocking and torsional modes. For the vertical mode, the stiffness of the boundary spring is expressed as LfG K Z SZ 1n For the horizontal mode in X and Y directions LfG K Y SY 2n (7) (6)

Fig. 4.

Structural model of the bridge at the piers and abutments.

where Gb is the shear modulus of the bearing material at 20 C (1830 kPa), Ab the plan area of the bearings (152 356 mm2), and hb is the bearing thickness (13 mm). The bearings are idealized as 3D beam elements connected between the superstructure and the substructures at girder locations. Pin connection is assumed at the joints linking the bearings to the substructures as shown in Fig. 4. Detailed information about bearings modeling is presented elsewhere [14]. 5.3. Substructures modeling The pies are modeled using 3D beam elements as illustrated in Fig. 4. The tributary masses of the pier elements are lumped at the joints connecting them. The beamcolumns joints are modeled as rigid beam elements. The columns are connected to a horizontal rigid bar at their lower end to simulate the interaction between their axial deformation and walls exural rotation assuming that the cross-section of the wall always remains plane. A 3D beam element representing

1144

M. Dicleli, M.Y. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 11391156

Bf LfG 0.105LfG KX SY 1 2n 0.75n Lf

0.25

(8)

6.2. Modeling pilesoil interaction at abutments The exibility of the pile foundations at both abutments is modeled using a vertical and two horizontal boundary springs at the pileabutment interface nodes as shown in Fig. 4. The formulation of spring stiffnesses is explained below. 6.2.1. Stiffness of horizontal boundary springs A two-step procedure is adopted to include the lateral pilesoil interaction effects in the seismic analyzes of the bridge. In the rst step, a 2D structural model of the pilesoil system without the bridge is constructed using the program sap2000 [15]. Modeling details is presented elsewhere [14]. Static pushover analyzes of the model are conducted to determine the nonlinear lateral force displacement relationship at the top of the pile (interface node). These analyzes are performed until failure is observed either in the piles or the soil. The soil failure is assumed when a very small increase in the lateral load transferred by the pile causes an additional large soil deformation. Pile failure is assumed when the pile reaches its ultimate exural capacity. The static pushover analyzes results for the piles at the north and south abutments of the bridge are presented in Fig. 5(a) and (b), respectively. In the second step, the horizontal boundary springs connected at the pileabutment interface nodes are assigned an equivalent linear stiffness obtained from the lateral forcedisplacement curves of the piles illustrated in Fig. 5(a) and (b). The equivalent linear stiffness is dened as the secant slope of the line from the origin of the curve to the point representing piles seismic lateral load on the curve. Since the seismic lateral load on the pile is not initially known to calculate this slope, rst an initial equivalent linear stiffness is assumed for the horizontal boundary springs. Next, MMRS analysis of the bridge is conducted and the force in the horizontal boundary springs is calculated. Using the nonlinear lateral forcedisplacement curve of the piles, the secant stiffness is then calculated as the slope of the line connecting the origin to the point of the calculated boundary spring force on the curve. The boundary spring is then assigned the calculated secant stiffness and a second

For the rocking mode about the X and Y axes G Bf (I )0.75 KqX SqX 1n qX Lf G KqY SqY (I )0.75 1n qY For the torsional mode KqZ SqZG(IZ)0.75 (11)

(9) (10)

In the above equations, Bf and Lf are respectively the short and long dimensions of the footing, Iqx and Iqy are the moment of inertia of the footing about the local X and Y axes, J is the polar moment of inertia of the footing, G and n are the equivalent shear modulus of elasticity and Poissons ratio of the soil taking into account the effect of cyclic loading and SX, SY, SqX, SqY, St, are constants that depend on the dimensions of the footing as dened by Dorby and Gazetas [26]. For the site soil, rst the initial shear modulus of elasticity, Gmax, (the initial slope of the backbone curve in the stressstrain diagram of the soil) is obtained using the following equation [28] Gmax 11,700N0.8 (12)

where N represents the standard penetration test blows per foot and Gmax is expressed in kPa. Next, the effect of the cyclic loading on the foundation soil is incorporated in the analysis using an equivalent shear modulus, G, obtained by reducing Gmax using a reduction factor of 0.8 as recommended by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) [29] considering the seismicity of the site. Furthermore, a Poisson ratio of 0.45 is used for the site soil [29]. The stiffness of the boundary springs are also modied to account for the effect of the embedment depth of the footing [29]. More detailed information about the modeling procedure is presented elsewhere [14]. The stiffnesses of the boundary springs at the base of both piers are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Stiffness of boundary springs at pier footings and abutment piles Substructure Pier 1 footing Pier 2 footing North abutment North abutment South abutment South abutment KX (kN/m) 8.62 106 4.60 106 2750 25725 3600 12375 KY (kN/m) 10.28 106 5.52 106 2500 2500 2700 2700 KZ (kN/m) 10.04 106 5.36 106 324762 315915 220000 214000 KqX (kN m/rad) KqY (kN m/rad) KqZ (kN m/rad) 292 106 156 106 0 0 0 0 40.4 106 21.6 106 0 0 0 0 729 106 532 106 0 0 0 0

vertical piles battered piles vertical piles battered piles

M. Dicleli, M.Y. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 11391156

1145

Fig. 5. Static pushover analysis results for the piles at north and south abutments.

MMRS analysis is conducted. The iteration is continued until the difference between the load obtained in the current and previous steps is negligible. 6.2.2. Stiffness of vertical boundary springs An elastic vertical forcedeformation behavior is considered adequate for dening the vertical or axial exibility of the piles [28]. For the steel H piles bearing on hard sandstone, their vertical stiffness is assumed to be independent of the soil properties and equal to their axial stiffness [14,30]. The stiffness of the boundary springs in three orthogonal directions at the pile locations is tabulated in Table 1. 6.3. Modeling soilabutment interaction 6.3.1. Longitudinal direction response Generally, procedures such as those specied by CALTRANS [27] and FHWA [28], to model backll abutment interaction are more biased towards accounting for the behavior of the abutmentbackll system under translational mode. Furthermore, some of these methods are specic to the type of the abutment they are developed for and use soil properties that are difcult to estimate accurately. Thus, an alternative procedure is developed as part of this study to model the interaction between the abutment and backll. In the longitudinal direction, a series of translational springs are attached to the nodes of only one of the abutments to model the passive resistance of the backll as shown in Fig. 4. No springs are attached to the other abutment since under seismic loading in the longitudinal direction only one abutment is pushed towards the backll while the other is pulled away. Thus, two separate structural models are built with springs attached to the north abutment only and to the south abutment only to obtain the seismic response of the bridge. Using the relationship dened by Clough and Duncan [31] for the variation of the earth pressure coefcient as a function of the abutment movement, the horizontal

subgrade constant, ksh, for the backll is obtained as a function of the depth, z, from the abutment top as follows [14] ksh

14500 z H

(13)

where H is the abutment height. The stiffness of the boundary springs at the abutmentbackll interface nodes are then calculated by multiplying ksh by the area tributary to the node. 6.3.2. Transverse direction response Translational springs are attached to the nodes of only one of the wingwalls at each abutment to simulate the effect of the backlls passive resistance in the transverse direction as illustrated in Fig. 4. The stiffness of these springs is again calculated by multiplying ksh by the area tributary to the node on the wingwall. No springs are attached to the leading wingwalls since they are displaced away from the backll. Translational springs are also attached at each node of the abutment to model the shear stiffness of the backll until sliding between the abutment and backll occurs. Although complicated methods are available to dene the shear forcedeformation behavior of backll [32], a simple elastic approach is developed to calculate the shear stiffness of the backll as follows [14] Ksb GBH Lw (14)

where Lw is the length of the wingwall, B the width of the abutment and G is the equivalent shear modulus of the backll. The stiffness of the transverse boundary springs at the abutment is obtained by equally distributing the calculated shear stiffness to the interface nodes. 7. Iterative analysis procedure The iterative MMRS analysis procedures to simulate the nonlinear behavior of the bridge components that

1146

M. Dicleli, M.Y. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 11391156

were identied by the preliminary seismic analysis of the bridge are dened in the following subsections. 7.1. Cracking of substructure members The effect cracking in the pier columns is included in the analysis using cracked moments of inertia. An iterative analysis procedure is followed for an accurate estimation of the cracked moments of inertia of the pier columns. This procedure requires the nonlinear moment deection diagrams of the columns, which are obtained using the column analysis program cola [33]. The columns are idealized as cantilevers with an equivalent length measured from the support to their point of inection. First, the nonlinear top deections, c, of the cantilever columns are obtained from their moment deection curves using the columns preliminary seismic moments calculated earlier. These deections are then set equal to the elastic top deection of the idealized cantilever columns to obtain their cracked moment of inertia, Icr, as [14] Icr Mcsh2 c 3Ecc (15)

bridge is repeated. Then, the calculated friction force is equally distributed to the abutment nodes in opposite direction to that of the seismic forces and static analysis of the bridge is conducted. Finally, the results from the MMRS and static analyzes are combined to incorporate the effect of sliding in the bridge response. 7.3. Dynamic and static backll pressure at the abutments At the abutment pushed towards the backll, the total earth pressure is taken as the sum of the static at-rest earth pressure and the additional pressure arising from the longitudinal displacement of the abutment under seismic forces [28,29]. At the abutment pulled away from the backll, the generated active earth pressure is calculated using MononobeOkabe method [28,29]. The results from the MMRS analyzes of the bridge are combined with the static analyzes results under the aforementioned at-rest and active earth pressures to incorporate the total effect of the backll pressures in the analysis. The analysis is repeated for the movement of the bridge in the opposite direction. The maximum of the results obtained from the two analyzes is considered for assessing the seismic vulnerability of the bridge. 7.4. Yielding of wingwalls The exural yielding of the wingwalls is considered under transverse direction seismic loading. First, MMRS analysis of the bridge is conducted to obtain the seismically induced moment in the wingwall. This moment is then compared with wingwalls ultimate exural capacity to determine whether exural yielding has occurred. To incorporate wingwalls exural yielding in the analysis, rst the backll passive resistance that produces a moment equal to the ultimate exural capacity of the wingwall is calculated. This is done by multiplying the calculated forces in the wingwall springs by the ratio of the wingwalls ultimate exural capacity to the seismically induced moment in the wingwall. Then, the springs are removed from the wingwall and MMRS analysis of the bridge is conducted. Next, the calculated passive resistance is distributed to the wingwall nodes in opposite direction to that of the seismic forces and static analysis of the bridge is conducted. Lastly, the results from the MMRS and static analyzes are combined to incorporate the yielding of the wingwall in the analysis. 8. Analysis results 8.1. Mode shapes and periods of vibration A total of 100 modes of vibration are considered in the seismic analysis of the bridge to accomplish full par-

where Mcs is the columns seismic moment, hc the length of the idealized cantilever and Ec is the elastic modulus of concrete. The analysis of the bridge is then repeated using the calculated cracked moments of inertia and new seismic moments are obtained. Using the new seismic moments, the momentdeection curves and Eq. (15), more improved cracked moments of inertia are obtained as dened before. The iteration is continued until the cracked moments of inertia obtained in the current iteration step are equal to those obtained in the previous step. 7.2. Friction between abutment and backll The lateral earth pressure produced by the backll exerts a normal force on the abutment. This normal force multiplied by the friction coefcient between the backll and the concrete abutment surface produces a friction resistance. As the bridge tries to move in the transverse direction, this friction resistance is mobilized and sliding occurs between the abutment and backll. This sliding behavior is considered in the analysis [14]. First, MMRS analysis of the bridge is conducted and the forces in the springs dening the shear stiffness of the backll are obtained. The sum of the spring forces is then calculated and compared with the friction resistance at the abutmentbackll interface to check if sliding will occur. To include the effect of the sliding behavior on the bridge response, two different analyzes are conducted. First, the springs dening the shear stiffness of the backll are removed from the model and MMRS analysis of the

M. Dicleli, M.Y. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 11391156

1147

ticipation of the structure mass including the mass of the substructures. Fig. 6(a) and (b) display the shapes of the rst two vibration modes of the bridge. The fundamental period of the bridge is 0.584 s and corresponds to its modal vibration in the longitudinal direction. The second, third and fourth modal periods of the bridge are 0.541, 0.395 and 0.308 s, respectively. The periods for the rst 20 modes vary between 0.584 and 0.049 s. The cumulative percentages of modal mass participation for the rst 20 modes in the longitudinal and transverse directions are 84.13 and 80.54%, respectively. As noted from Fig. 6(b), the transverse direction mode is coupled with the torsional mode of the bridge. The torsional rotation occurs about pier 2 due to the larger stiffness of the bearings. Consequently, larger seismically induced forces are anticipated at the north abutment due to the effect of the torsion. 8.2. Maximum bearing forces and displacements Table 2 displays the bearing lateral forces and displacements. The bearings at pier 2 attract the largest seismically induced forces due to their larger lateral stiffness. The bearing relative displacements at all substructure locations are almost identical due to large

in-plane stiffness of the deck in the longitudinal direction and is equal to 24.1 mm. The displacements are less than the width of the expansion joint. Therefore, the superstructure is not anticipated to impact the abutment back-wall. 8.3. Seismic forces in substructures Table 3, in conjunction with Fig. 7, presents the substructure reactions for the abutment piles and base of the pier foundations. The total seismic force acting on the structure is 1594 kN in the longitudinal and 1776 kN in the transverse direction. The seismic force in the transverse direction includes the contribution of friction and passive resistance of the backll and the embankment soil and in the longitudinal direction includes the effect of static and dynamic backll pressures. The piers carry 67% of the total seismic force. At the abutments, the maximum longitudinal direction lateral force is 99 kN for the battered piles and 28 kN for the vertical piles. The battered piles helped to reduce the lateral seismic force and displacement demand on all other abutment piles. Table 4 presents the seismically induced forces in the wingwalls and abutments, whereas Tables 5 and 6 present the seismically induced forces in pier 1 and 2 members, respectively.

9. Capacities of structure components 9.1. Capacity of elastomeric bearings The displacement capacity of elastomeric bearings is limited to 50% of the bearing height as per AASHTO [2] and is calculated as 33 mm for the bearings at both abutments and pier 1 and as 12.5 mm for those at pier 2. This limitation is imposed to prevent delamination of the bearings or rollover at the bearing edges. Moreover, walking of the bearings under seismic loads is not anticipated since the friction coefcient between the bearing pads and the concrete is much larger than the ratio of the seismically induced forces to unfactored dead loads. 9.2. Capacity of pier elements Careful examination of the structural drawings of the bridge revealed that the transverse spiral reinforcement for the pier columns is not extended sufciently into the cap beam and footing in compliance with AASHTO [2]. Additionally, within the potential plastic hinge zones, full welding or mechanical connection is required for the splices in spiral reinforcement. For the pier columns, the splices are only overlapped by 305 mm. Consequently, if the spalling of concrete cover occurs during a seismic event, the spiral may unwind and the columns may loose their transverse connement. AASHTO [2] requires that

Fig. 6.

Bridge rst and second modes of vibrations.

1148

M. Dicleli, M.Y. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 11391156

Table 2 Bearing seismic lateral displacements and forces Location Longitudinal direction Force (kN) Displacement (m) Top North abutment Pier 1 Pier 2 South abutment 38 56 97 38 0.02584 0.02597 0.02574 0.02584 Bottom 0.00171 0.00753 0.01184 0.00171 31 76 106 12 Transverse direction Force (kN) Displacement (m) Top 0.03290 0.02602 0.01660 0.01300 Bottom 0.01537 0.00111 0.00142 0.00701

Table 3 Seismic substructure reactions (at foundation base for piers) Substructure Longitudinal direction Axial (kN) North abutment piles 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 16 64 17 44 10 11 12 16 64 Shear (kN) 99 24 99 24 21 407 651 96 28 96 28 21 Moment (kN m) 0 0 0 0 0 2075 3354 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse direction Axial (kN) 0 11 22 37 13 0 0 0 4 7 13 14 Shear (kN) 36 36 36 36 39 510 671 14 14 14 14 16 Moment (kN m)

0 0 0 0 3067 4089 0 0 0 0 0

Pier

South abutment piles

splices in longitudinal reinforcement shall be provided away from the location of potential plastic exural hinges at the column ends. For the pier columns, the splices are provided at their lower ends contradicting AASHTO [2] requirements. Additionally, AASHTO requires a minimum splice length of 60 times the bar diameter (2100 mm in this case) for the longitudinal reinforcement in the pier columns. This is much larger than the provided splice length of 787 mm. Thus, ductile behavior of the columns is not expected due to the inadequate detailing of their reinforcement. The shear and exural capacities of the columns are calculated considering the deciencies in their reinforcement detailing. The exural and shear capacities of the pier columns varies between 703 and 801 kNm and between 670 and 833 kN, respectively based on the level of factored axial load applied on the columns. 9.3. Capacity of abutment components The ultimate shear and exural capacities of abutment components are calculated based on AASHTO [2] bridge design specications. The ultimate exural capacities of

Fig. 7. Pile numbers at the abutments in reference to Tables 3 and 9.

M. Dicleli, M.Y. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 11391156

1149

Table 4 Seismic forces in abutment and wingwalls Location Longitudinal direction Shear (kN/m) Moment (kN m/m) Transverse direction Shear (kN/m) Moment (kN m/m) 110 N/A N/A 106 N/A N/A

North abutment

South abutment

Wingwall Back-wall Breast-wall Wingwall Back-wall Breast-wall

N/A 6 26 N/A 6 26

N/A 8 15 N/A 8 15

68 N/A N/A 68 N/A N/A

Table 5 Seismic forces in pier 1 members Location Member end Longitudinal direction Axial force (kN) Shear (kN) Cap 1 Cap 2 Column 1 Column 2 Wall Left Right Left Right Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom 0 0 0 0 4.2 4.2 4 4 12 12 57 57 57 57 123 123 122 122 378 378 Transverse direction Moment (kN m) Axial Force (kN) Shear (kN) 0 26 26 26 55 372 56 370 1112 1844 0 74 74 74 126 126 0 0 0 0 0 47 184 98 150 150 150 150 456 456 Moment (kN m) 0 41 136 95 189 200 189 200 1795 2685

Table 6 Seismic forces in pier 2 members Location Member end Longitudinal direction Axial Force (kN) Shear (kN) Cap 1 Cap 2 Column 1 Column 2 Wall Left Right Left Right Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom 0 0 0 0 13 13 14 14 40 40 0 97 97 97 205 205 206 206 626 626 Transverse direction Moment (kN m) Axial Force (kN) Shear (kN) 0 43 43 43 95 573 95 574 1724 2958 0 98 98 98 175 175 0 0 0 0 0 32 223 100 199 199 205 205 608 607 Moment (kN m) 0 28 216 141 221 243 231 248 2251 3440

the wingwall and back-wall are calculated as 57 and 89 kNm/m, respectively and their shear capacities are calculated as 180 and 307 kN/m, respectively. 9.4. Capacity of abutment piles For the calculation of the lateral capacities of the abutment piles, the bridge is assumed to remain serviceable

after a potential earthquake. Accordingly, the lateral displacements of the piles need to be limited to 38 mm per AASHTO [2] bridge design specications. The lateral capacities of the abutment piles corresponding to a displacement of 38 mm are obtained from the lateral force deformation curves presented in Fig. 5(a) and (b). Accordingly, the lateral capacity of a typical north abutment pile is obtained as 82 kN for the strong and 68 kN

1150

M. Dicleli, M.Y. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 11391156

for the weak axis bending. For a typical south abutment pile, it is obtained as 95 kN for the strong and 75 kN for the weak axis bending. The piles axial compression capacity is obtained as 845 kN based on pile driving data provided by IDOT. The vertical uplift capacities of the piles at the north and south abutments are calculated as 80 and 200 kN, respectively using the Alpha Method [34]. 9.5. Structural and geotechnical capacities of pier foundations Careful examination of the structural drawings of the bridge revealed that the reinforcement in the footings of the piers is not detailed in compliance with AASHTO [2] bridge design specications. The bottom reinforcement is not bent up at the faces of the footings to provide sufcient development length for the steel bars to reach their full yield strength, and no reinforcement is provided at the footing top to resist the tensile stresses introduced by the reversed seismic loading. Thus, ductile behavior of the pier footings is not expected. Based on the provided reinforcement detail, the ultimate shear and exural capacities of the footings are calculated as 423 kN/m and 120 kNm/m. The ultimate bearing resistances of the soil at the foundations of piers 1 and 2 are calculated as 1200 and 1100 kPa, respectively [14]. AASHTO [2] limits the eccentricity of the applied vertical loads to one forth of the dimension in the direction of interest to prevent overturning of the footing and/or bearing failure of the foundation soil. The eccentricity limits for the pier foundations in the longitudinal and transverse directions of the bridge are thus calculated as 571 and 2400 mm, respectively. The sliding resistance of the pier foundations is calculated as 1500 kN following the procedure recommended by AASHTO [2].

ment capacity. The C/D ratio for the displacement of the bearings at pier 2 is calculated as 0.82. Under transverse direction earthquake loading, the passive resistance of the backll is found to induce transverse seismic moments in the wingwalls in excess of their ultimate exural capacities. The C/D ratio for the wingwalls is calculated as 0.52. The seismically induced moments at the foundations of both piers resulted in vertical load eccentricities in excess of the maximum limits specied by AASHTO [2]. The C/D ratios for the eccentricities at pier 1 and 2 foundations are calculated as 0.62 and 0.39, respectively. Thus, overturning of the piers and/or bearing failure of their foundation is anticipated.

11. Conventional seismic retrotting 11.1. Bearing replacement Although the seismically induced displacement exceeds the displacement capacity of the bearings at pier 2, it is anticipated that the failure of such shallow bearings may not cause a major damage. Thus, any repair may be done after the occurrence of a major earthquake. 11.2. Wingwall retrot The wingwalls at both abutments need to be retrotted to enhance their exural capacities for bending in the transverse direction. Although, failure of the wingwalls is not expected to result in any structural failure other than settlements under the approach slab, their retrot is recommended due to their low estimated retrotting cost. The retrotting of wingwalls includes the addition of cleats at the joints between the wingwalls and the abutment to enhance their exural capacities as shown in Fig. 8(a). 11.3. Foundation retrot at piers 1 and 2

10. Capacity/demand (C/D) ratios for vulnerable components The factored elastic seismic demands for each bridge component are calculated following the procedures outlined by AASHTO [2]. AASHTO [2] allows the design and evaluation of properly detailed ductile structural members using a seismic force smaller than that obtained from elastic seismic analysis of the bridge. However, for the members of the bridge considered in this study, the calculated elastic seismic demands are directly used to evaluate their seismic vulnerability since a ductile behavior is not expected due to poor reinforcement detailing. The capacity demand ratios for the vulnerable bridge components are presented below. The seismically induced displacements at pier 2 bearings are found to be larger than their 12.5 mm displace-

The widths of the footings at piers 1 and 2 need to be increased from 2286 to 3800 and 4800 mm, respectively to obtain a vertical load eccentricity smaller than 25% of the footing width as specied by AASHTO [2]. This will ensure the stability of the piers. Increasing the footing width results in larger seismically induced exural moments in the footing at the face of the wall. Therefore, the exural capacities of the footings at both the piers need to be increased. For this purpose, the depths of the footings at piers 1 and 2 are increased from 610 to 1100 and 1200 mm, respectively. This involves casting of an overlay of reinforced concrete doweled to the existing footing, as shown in Fig. 8(b). The dowels between the new and existing concrete should be capable of transferring the shear stress on the interface. The dowels are designed using a shear friction approach and a

M. Dicleli, M.Y. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 11391156

1151

estimate. More details about the cost estimate is provided elsewhere [14].

12. Seismic retrotting of the bridge using FPB 12.1. Structural model with FPB The structural model used for the detailed seismic analysis of the bridge is slightly modied to incorporate the FPB instead of the elastomeric bearingsthe FPB are also modeled using 3D vertical beam elements. The equivalent linear stiffness (Eq. (2)) of the FPB is used to estimate the stiffness properties of the beam elements. However, an iterative analysis procedure is performed as the equivalent bearing stiffness and hysteretic damping is function of the bearing displacement. The iterative analysis procedure is described in detail below. 12.2. Iterative analysis procedure An iterative MMRS analysis technique is used to obtain the isolation bearing displacements and other structural responses. First, a maximum displacement, Dd, is assumed for the FPB. The assumed displacement, the bearing reactions due to the self-weight of the bridge, the friction coefcient (4%) and the radius, R (1020 mm), of the bearings are substituted in Eq. (2) to calculate the equivalent stiffness for each bearing. The calculated equivalent stiffness is then used to obtain the stiffness of the beam elements used in the model. The equivalent viscous damping ratio is also calculated by substituting the bearing properties and the assumed displacement in Eq. (4). The AASHTO [2] design response spectrum used in the analyzes is obtained for 5% viscous damping ratio. Therefore, it needs to be modied to incorporate the effect of the 30% equivalent viscous damping generated by the isolation system. For this purpose, the amplitudes of the design response spectrum corresponding to the periods of the modes involving the movement of the isolation system are reduced by dividing them by a damping factor. The damping factor is obtained from AASHTO guide specications for seismic isolation design [12] and is equal to 1.0 for 5% and 1.7 for 30% damping. For the modes not involving the movement of the isolation system 5% structural damping is used. The MMRS analysis of the bridge is then conducted using the modied design spectrum and new bearing displacements are obtained. The obtained displacements are compared with the initially assumed bearing displacements. If the difference is smaller than an assumed level of accuracy, the iteration is stopped; otherwise, the iteration is continued with the new displacements until the desired convergence is achieved.

Fig. 8.

Retrot details for wingwalls and pier foundations.

coefcient of friction of 1.0. This assumes that the surface of the existing footing has been roughened prior to casting the new concrete. Additional steel is provided at the interface of the existing and new concrete overlay to minimize the footing depth requirement at pier 2 and to increase the exural strength without the need for adding extra reinforcement at the bottom of the footing. This was not required at pier 1. In seismically active zones, it is recommended to provide reinforcement at the top of the footings to accommodate for seismic moment reversal [2]. Accordingly, minimum reinforcement is provided at the top of both footings. The walls at both piers needs to be drilled to ensure the placement of the additional transverse layers of steel, while for the bottom transverse layer of reinforcement, holes need to be drilled in the existing footings to overlap the new steel bars with the existing steel bars. 11.4. Conventional retrotting cost Details for the conventional retrotting cost of the bridge are presented in Table 7. The ranges of unit prices are provided by IDOT. The total cost of retrotting the bridge ranges from US$111,273 to US$161,670. Mobilization and trafc control cost is not included in the cost

1152

M. Dicleli, M.Y. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 11391156

Table 7 Cost estimate for the conventional retrot scheme Item Soil excavation New concrete Concrete removal Shear dowels Reinforcing bars Total cost Unit cu yd cu yd cu yd Pound Pound Cost range (in US$) 2530 10001500 10001500 0.951.00 0.951.00 Quantity 311 92 5.0 540 6300 Total cost range (in US$) 77759330 92,000138,000 50007500 513540 59856300 111,273161,670

12.3. Analysis results using FPB 12.3.1. Mode shapes and periods of vibration A total of 100 modes of vibration are considered in the seismic analysis of the bridge with FPB. The rst two modes of vibrations are those mainly involving the isolation system. The rest are the nonisolated modes of vibration with 53% mass contribution, which is the total mass of the substructure elements. The fundamental period of the bridge is 1.423 s and corresponds to the modal vibration of the structure in the longitudinal direction, while the second period of vibration is 1.395 s and corresponds to the modal vibration of the structure in the transverse direction. Fig. 9(a) and (b) display the shapes

of the rst two vibration modes of the isolated bridge in the longitudinal and transverse directions, respectively. 12.3.2. FPB forces and displacements Table 8 displays the maximum bearing lateral forces and displacements. The bearings at pier 1 have larger seismically induced forces due to the larger dead load reactions that produce larger friction forces. The bearing displacements at all substructure locations are almost identical and equal to 50 mm due to the large in-plane stiffness of the bridge deck relative to the equivalent stiffness of the FPB. This displacement is larger than the width of the expansion joints at both abutments. Thus, the superstructure is expected to impact the abutment back-walls. 12.3.3. Seismic forces in substructures Table 9, in conjunction with Fig. 7, displays the substructure reactions at the piles and base of the pier foundations. The seismically induced forces in the abutments and wingwalls are displayed in Table 10 and those for the members at piers 1 and 2 are displayed in Tables 11 and 12, respectively. The FPB eliminated the in-plane torsional rotation of the bridge and resulted in a more uniform distribution of seismic forces among substructures as observed from Tables 9 to 12. The forces are generally reduced by a factor ranging between 3 and 4 due to the presence of FPB when compared to those of the same bridge with elastomeric bearings. This is a result of energy dissipation and lower equivalent linear stiffness of FPB compared to that of the elastomeric bearings and even other rubber-based seismic isolation systems for this particular application. The lower equivalent linear stiffness expressed in Eq. (2) mainly results from the relatively smaller weight of the only 32.4 m long bridge superstructure transferred to the FPB. 12.4. C/D ratios The C/D ratios for the previously determined vulnerable structural members are now all larger than 1.0 after replacing the existing bearings with FPB. The C/D ratios for the north and south abutment wingwalls in exure are 1.84 and 2.11, respectively. The C/D ratios for the

Fig. 9. Bridge rst and second modes of vibrations with friction pendulum bearings.

M. Dicleli, M.Y. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 11391156

1153

Table 8 FPB seismic lateral displacements and forces Location Longitudinal direction Lateral force (kN) Displacement (m) Top North abutment Pier 1 Pier 2 South abutment 7 28 27 5 0.05203 0.05195 0.05196 0.05204 Bottom 0.00124 0.00373 0.00339 0.00301 7 28 27 5 Transverse direction Lateral force (kN) Displacement (m) Top 0.04969 0.04972 0.04969 0.04976 Bottom 0.00248 0.0004.7 0.00040 0.00272

Table 9 Seismic substructure reactions of the bridge with FPB (at foundation base for piers) Substructure Longitudinal direction Axial force (kN) Shear force (kN) Moment (kN m) North abutment piles 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 14 14 15 21 58 1.7 2.3 14 14 15 21 58 36 11 36 11 8 260 262 36 11 36 11 8 0 0 0 0 0 1088 1018 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse direction Axial force (kN) Shear force (kN) 0 2 3 5 5 0 0 0 2 3 5 5 7 7 7 7 9 292 244 7 7 7 7 9 Moment (kN m)

Pier South abutment piles

0 0 0 0 1289 1179 0 0 0 0 0

Table 10 Seismic forces in abutment and wingwalls of the bridge with FPB Location Longitudinal direction Shear (kN/m) North abutment Wingwall Back-wall Breast-wall Wingwall Back-wall Breast-wall N/A 2.2 9.4 N/A 2.2 9.4 Moment (kN m/m) N/A 2.9 5.4 N/A 2.9 5.4 Transverse direction Shear (kN/m) 24 N/A N/A 20 N/A N/A Moment (kN m/m) 31 N/A N/A 27 N/A N/A

South abutment

vertical load eccentricities at piers 1 and 2 are 1.08 and 1.13, respectively. Thus, the use of FPB effectively mitigated the seismically induced forces such that seismic retrotting of the pier foundations and wingwalls is no more required. However, since the calculated 50-mm bearing displacement under seismic excitation exceeds the expansion joint widths, the bridge superstructure is expected to impact the abutment back-walls. The consequences of this need to be addressed before a decision is made to use FPB for seismic retrotting.

12.5. Effect of superstructure impacting the back-wall For the back-wall to fail in shear, the magnitude of the impact force must be at least equal to the shear capacity of the back-wall plus the force required for mobilizing the passive resistance of the soil behind the back-wall only. This force is calculated [14] as 3970 kN. Thus, a force equal to 3970 kN may potentially be transferred to the breast wall and the piles. The sum of the lateral capacities of the abutment piles and passive resist-

1154

M. Dicleli, M.Y. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 11391156

Table 11 Seismic forces in pier 1 members of the bridge with FPB Location Member end Longitudinal direction Axial force (kN) Shear (kN) Cap 1 Cap 2 Column 1 Column 2 Wall Left Right Left Right Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 3 28 28 28 28 65 65 65 65 215 215 Transverse direction Moment (kN m) Axial force (kN) Shear (kN) 0 10 10 10 29 195 29 195 586 983 0 29 29 29 61 61 0 0 0 0 0 23 80 44 66 66 66 66 210 210 Moment (kN m) 0 20 58 41 83 88 83 88 776 1163

Table 12 Seismic forces in pier 2 members of the bridge with FPB Location Member end Longitudinal direction Axial force (kN) Shear (kN) Cap 1 Cap 2 Column 1 Column 2 Wall Left Right Left Right Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 3 27 27 27 27 63 63 63 63 205 205 Transverse direction Moment (kN m) Axial force (kN) Shear (kN) 0 10 10 10 29 174 29 174 525 910 0 27 27 27 75 75 0 0 0 0 0 15 60 28 61 61 63 63 190 190 Moment (kN m) 0 13 60 40 68 76 67 74 700 1058

ance of the portion of the backll behind the breast wall is 1407 kN. This is smaller than the anticipated 3970 kN force transferred by the back-wall. Therefore, damage to the abutment piles may occur. This damage may be prevented if the back-wall is modied to fail in shear, for instance by providing a knock-off device [7]. Essentially, in seismic design of bridges, it is recommended [7] to use such a mode of damage as a fuse as it is much easier to repair the upper portion of the abutment after a seismic event. Therefore, either the abutment may need to be modied to fail in shear by providing a knock-off device or the expansion joints may be widened to accommodate the required displacements if the backwall damage is not desired. 12.6. Retrotting scheme and cost The isolated bridge must be free to move in any horizontal direction for the seismic isolation system to perform as desired. Considering a maximum thermal movement of 10 mm in each end of the bridge, the minimum required expansion joint width at the abutments is calcu-

lated as 60 mm. Thus, the width of the expansion joint at the north and south abutments needs to be increased by 22 and 35 mm, respectively. Furthermore, the minimum required displacement capacity of the bearings including a tolerance for thermal movements needs to be 60 mm. The elevations of existing bearing pedestals also need adjustment to prepare the bridge for the installation of FPB. Details for the cost estimate are presented in Table 13. The retrotting cost includes expansion joint widening, jacking and removing the bearings, adjusting the elevation of bearing pedestals and erection and cost of FPB. The lower prole of FPB compared to most other isolation bearings required only minor modications to adjust the bearing seat elevations. The estimated range of cost for the seismic retrotting of the bridge using FPB is calculated as US$107,515US$133,170. This is only 88% of the cost of conventional retrotting. This has a considerable impact on the state economy considering the large number of bridges that require seismic retrotting. Furthermore, retrotting with FPB requires shorter construction time than that required for conven-

M. Dicleli, M.Y. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 11391156

1155

Table 13 Retrotting cost of the bridge with FPB Item Concrete removal Concrete superstructures Reinforcing bars Steel plates Preformed joint seal Jack and remove bearings Bearing erection Bearing cost Total cost Unit cu yd cu yd Pound Pounds Foot Each Each Each Cost range (in US$) 10001500 10001500 0.951.00 2.003.00 6070 8001200 200500 2700 Quantity 5 5 900 1500 81 24 24 24 Total cost range (in US$) 50007500 50007500 855900 30006000 48605670 19,20028,800 480012,000 64,800 107,515133,170

tional retrotting. Additionally, a complete detour of the trafc for roadways under the bridges may not be required when retrotting with FPB. Consequently, retrotting with FPB may become much more economical when the additional cost of construction time and cost of trafc mobilization is considered.

13. Conclusions The economical and structural efciency of FPB for retrotting typical seismically vulnerable bridges in the State of Illinois is investigated by studying a bridge, which was carefully selected by IDOT to represent typical seismically vulnerable bridges commonly used in the State of Illinois. The following observations are made: FPB eliminated the in-plane torsional rotation of the bridge and resulted in a more uniform distribution of seismic forces among substructures. A three to four times reduction in the seismically induced forces in the structure components is achieved with the FPB. This is a result of: (i) energy dissipation and (ii) lower equivalent linear stiffness of FPB compared to that of the elastomeric bearings and even other rubber-based seismic isolation bearings for this particular application. The lower equivalent linear stiffness mainly results from the relatively smaller weight of the only 32.4 m long bridge superstructure transferred to the FPB. Thus, FPB effectively mitigated the seismic forces and eliminated the need for costly retrotting of the bridge substructure components. Furthermore, the low prole of FPB required only minor modications to adjust the bearing seat elevations. However, FPB resulted in large superstructure displacements in excess of the expansion joint widths. This required either providing knock-off devices at the abutments or increasing the widths of the expansion joints to eliminate the possibility of the superstructure impacting the abutment back-wall and a potential damage to the abutment piles.

An average retrotting cost using FPB is calculated as only 88% of that using conventional retrotting method. This has a considerable impact on the state economy considering the large number of bridges that require seismic retrotting. It is worth mentioning that retrotting with FPB may require shorter construction time than that required for conventional retrotting and may cause less interruption to the trafc over and under the bridge. Consequently, retrotting with FPB may become much more economical when the additional cost of construction time and cost of trafc mobilization is considered. Thus, FPB may be effectively used to retrot typical bridges in the State of Illinois or in regions of low to moderate risk of seismic activity.

References
[1] USGS. Reducing earthquake losses throughout United States; 1998. Availabale from: http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/prepare/ factsheets/NewMadrid/.. [2] AASHTO. LRFD bridge design specications., 2nd ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO, 1998. [3] Capron MR. Seismic isolation of bridges in Midwest. In: Proceedings of the Structures Congress, Part I. Chicago, Illinois: ASCE; 1996. p. 4855. [4] Tseng WS, Penzien J. Analytical investigations of the seismic response of long multiple span highway bridges. Report no. UCB/EERC 73/12. Berkeley, California: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California; 1973. [5] Penzien J, Chen M. Seismic response of highway bridges. In: Proceeding of US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute; 1975. p. 66-1. [6] Mitchell D, Sexsmith R, Tinawi R. Seismic retrotting techniques for bridgesa state-of-the-art report. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 1994;21(5):82335. [7] FHWA. Seismic retrotting manual for highway bridges. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation, 1995 [Publication no. FHWA-RD-86-102]. [8] Saunders TD, Cahill JA, McLean DI, Marsh ML, Ho C. Seismic retrotting of bridge substructures. Transportation research record no. 1476. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board; 1995. p. 3747. [9] Priestley MJN, Seible F. Design of retrot measures for concrete

1156

M. Dicleli, M.Y. Mansour / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 11391156

[10]

[11]

[12] [13] [14]

[15] [16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21] [22]

[23]

bridges. Seismic assessment and retrot of bridges. Report SSRP 91/03. San Diago: University of California; 1991. p. 197234. Dicleli M. Seismic design of lifeline bridge using hybrid seismic isolation. ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering 2002;7(2):94 103. Earthquake Protection Systems Inc. Friction pendulum seismic isolation bearing; details and specications for bridges. Richmond, California: Earthquake Protection Systems Inc., 1999. AASHTO. Guide specications for seismic isolation design. Washington, DC: AASHTO, 1999. Naeim F, Kelly JM. Design of seismic isolated structures; from theory to practice. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 1999. Dicleli M, Mansour MY, Seismic retrotting of highway bridges using friction pendulum seismic isolation bearings. Technical report no. BU-CEC-02-01. Peoria, IL: Department of Civil Engineering and Construction, Bradley University; 2002. sap2000. Integrated nite element analysis and design of structures. Berkeley, California: Computers and Structures Inc.; 1998. Douglas MB. Experimental dynamic response investigations of existing highway bridges. In: Proceeding of a Workshop on Earthquake Resistance of Highway Bridges. Palo Alto, California: Applied Technology Council; 1979. p. 497523. Dicleli M. Seismic design of highway bridges using multiple types of isolation bearings. In: Como, Italy. Proceedings of Third World Conference on Structural Control. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 2002. Ministry of Transportation, Ontario. Structural manual, quality and standards. St Catharines, Ontario, Canada: Transportation Engineering Branch, Bridge Ofce, 1996. Watson-Bowman-Acme. WABO-FYFE structural bearing product data. Amhrest, New York, NY: Watson-Bowman-Acme, 1992. Duan L. Bridgecolumn footings: an improved design procedure. ASCE Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction 1996;1(1):204. Priestley MJN, Seible F, Calvi GM. Seismic design and retrot of bridges. New York: Wiley, 1996. Ciampoli M, Pinto PE. Effects of soilstructure interaction on inelastic response of bridge piers. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 1995;121(5):80614. Cook TL, Burdette EG, Graves RL, Goodpasture DW. Effect of

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27] [28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33] [34]

varying foundation stiffness on seismically induced loads in bridge bents: a sensitivity study. Transportation research record no. 1476. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board; 1995. p. 8497. McGuire JW, Cofer WF, Marsh ML, Mclean DI. Analytical modeling of spread footing foundations for seismic analysis of bridges. Transportation research record no. 1447. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board; 1994. p. 8092. Saadeghvaziri MA, Yazdani-Motlagh AR, Rashidi S. Effects of soilstructure interaction on longitudinal seismic response of MSSS bridges. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2000;20(14):23142. Dobry R, Gazetas G. Dynamic response of arbitrary shaped foundations. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 1986;112(2):10935. CALTRANS. Bridge design aids 14-1. Sacramento, California: California Department of Transportation, 1989. FHWA. Seismic design of highway bridge foundationsVolume II: Design procedures and guidelines. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation, 1996 [Publication no. FHWA-RD-94-052]. FHWA. Geotechnical engineering circular no 3design guidance: geotechnical earthquake engineering for highwaysVolume Idesign principles. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation, 1997 [Publication no. FHWA-SA-97-076]. Ger JJF, Arounpradith A, Nop M. Seismic response of bridges with soil-foundation exibilities and skew effects. In: Seattle, WA, USA. Proceedings of the Fifth U.S. Conference on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering: Optimizing Post-Earthquake Lifeline System Reliability. Reston, VA: ASCE; 1999. p. 54352. Clough GW, Duncan JM. In: Fang HY, editor. Foundation engineering handbook. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1991. p. 22335. El-Gamal M, Siddharthan RV. Stiffnesses of abutments on piles in seismic bridge analyses. Japanese Geotechnical Society. Soils and Foundations 1998;38(1):7787. Yalcin C, Saatcioglu M. Inelastic analysis of reinforced concrete columns. Computers and Structures 2000;77(5):53955. Coduto DP. Foundation design; principles and practices., 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2001.