Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 3 October 2010
Received in revised form
26 November 2010
Accepted 1 December 2010
Available online 17 December 2010
This paper presents seismic behaviour of isolated curved bridges in the earthquake prone regions.
For the seismic isolation of bridges, double concave friction pendulum bearings are placed between
the deck and the piers, and the abutments as isolation devices. A curved bridge is selected to exhibit the
application for seismic isolation. The mentioned bridge is a three-span featuring cast-in-place concrete
box girder superstructure supported on reinforced concrete columns found on drilled shafts and on
integral abutments founded on steel pipe piles. Additionally, the bridge is located on site underlain by a
deep deposit of cohesionless material. The drilled shaft-soil system is modelled by equivalent soil springs
method and is included in the nite element model. The soil modelled as a series of springs is connected to
the drilled shaft at even intervals.
The multi mode method of analysis is typically implemented in a computer program capable of
performing response spectrum analysis. The response spectrum specied for the analysis is the 5%damped spectrum modied for the effects of the higher damping. Each isolator is represented by its
effective horizontal stiffness with a linear link element.
As seen from the results of the outlined analysis, usage of the isolation devices offers some advantages
for the internal forces on the deck for the considered curved bridge as per the non-isolated curved bridge.
The response spectrum analysis is substantially required to make a decision of the displacement
capacity of the double concave friction pendulum bearings used in the study.
& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
For bridge applications, contemporary seismic isolation systems
provide horizontal isolation from the effects of earthquake shaking
to reduce forces. The main function of the seismic isolation system
is to increase the period of vibration by increasing the lateral
exibility in the bridges or other structures.
The double concave friction pendulum (DCFP) bearing is an innovative and viable isolation system that is becoming a widespread application for the earthquake protection of structures. The DCFP bearings
consist of two spherical stainless steel surfaces and an articulated slider
covered by a Teon-based high bearing capacity composite material.
The concave surfaces may have the same radii of curvature. Also, the
coefcient of friction on the two concave surfaces may be the same or
not. Hyakuda et al. [1] presented the response of a seismically isolated
building in Japan where DCFP bearings are utilized. Experimental and
analytical results on the behaviour of a system having concave surfaces
of both equal and unequal radii and both equal and unequal coefcient
of friction at the upper and lower sliding surfaces were presented by
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sates@ktu.edu.tr (S. Ates).
0267-7261/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.12.002
Tsai et al. [2]. Constantinou [3] and Fenz and Constantinou [46]
described the principles of operation of the DCFP bearing and
presented the development of the forcedisplacement relationship
based on equilibrium. The theoretical forcedisplacement relationship
was veried through characterization testing of bearings with sliding
surfaces having the same and then different radii of curvature and
coefcients of friction. Finally, practical considerations for analysis and
design of DCFP bearings were presented.
Few researchers have dealt with the dynamic response of
straight and curved box girder bridges. Sennah and Kennedy [7]
highlighted the most important references related to development of current guide specications for the design of straight and
curved box-girder bridges. DeSantiago et al. [8] analyzed a series of
horizontally curved bridges using simple nite element models and
reported that the bending moment in girders of a curved bridge can
be about 23.5% higher than moments in girders of a straight bridge
of similar span and design conguration. Mwafy and Elnashai [9]
carried out a detailed seismic performance assessment of a multispan curved bridge including soilstructure interaction effects.
Constantinou et al. [10] manifested analysis and design procedures for
seismically isolated bridges and examples of analysis and design of
seismic isolation systems. Ates and Constantinou [11] carried out a
parametrical study associated with the effects of the earthquake
S. Ates, M.C. Constantinou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 648661
herein Ub1 and Ub2 are the displacements of the slider on the upper
and lower concave surface, respectively, and the individual displacements on each sliding surfaces are
FFf 1
R1 h1
Ub1
3
W
R2
The upper concave surface
h1
h2
2
ds
R1
Ub2
FFf 2
R2 h2
W
649
In Eqs. (3) and (4), Ff1 and Ff2 are the friction forces on the
concave surfaces 1 and 2, respectively. The forces are given by
Ff 1 m1 W sgnU_ b1
Ff 2 m2 W sgnU_ b2
me
m1 R1 h1 m2 R2 h2
R1 R2 h1 h2
where fmax and fmin are the maximum and minimum mobilized
coefcients of friction, respectively; and a is a parameter that
controls the variation of the coefcient with the velocity of sliding.
Analysis of seismically isolated bridges will be performed for
each seismic loading case considered (design basis or maximum
considered earthquake) for two distinct sets of mechanical properties of the isolation system.
Lower bound properties are dened to be the lower bound values
of characteristic strength and post-elastic stiffness that can occur
during the lifetime of the isolators. Typically, the lower bound values
describe the behaviour of fresh bearings, at normal temperature and
following the initial cycle of high speed motion. The lower bound
values of properties usually result in the largest displacement demand
on the isolators. Upper bound properties are dened to be the upper
bound values of characteristic strength and post-elastic stiffness that
can occur during the lifetime of the isolators and considering the
effects of aging, contamination, temperature and history of loading
and movement. Typically, the upper bound values describe the
behaviour of aged and contaminated bearings, following the movement that is characteristic of substantial trafc loading, when
temperature is low and during the rst high speed cycle of seismic
motion. The upper bound values of properties usually result in the
largest force demand on the substructure elements.
The lower and upper bound values of mechanical properties are
determined from nominal values of properties and the use of
system property modication factors. The nominal properties are
obtained either from testing of prototype bearings identical to the
actual bearings or from test data of similar bearings from previous
projects and the use of appropriate assumptions to account for
650
S. Ates, M.C. Constantinou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 648661
Sa T,5%
B
10
4
5:6ln100b
and
B
r
0:05 b
0:10
13
14
W
Re
15
Qd
W mW
Re
D
D
17
Substituting Eqs. (14) and (15)) into Eq. (16), the effective period
of the system is rewritten as follows:
s
1
Teff 2p
18
g=Re mg=D
In addition, the effective damping of the same system is given by
[17,18]
1
Ed
beff
19
2p Keff D2
where Ed is the energy dissipated per cycle at displacement D and
period Teff. For the behaviour depicted in Fig. 2, the energy dissipated
per cycle is given by
Ed 4Qd DY
20
Lateral force
Qd
Kd
Lateral
displacement
12
Fig. 2. Idealized forcedisplacement relation of typical seismic isolation system.
S. Ates, M.C. Constantinou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 648661
21
assumption as the base isolation attempts to reduce the earthquake response in such a way that the structure remains within
the elastic range.
The deck of the bridge is curved and is supported at discrete
locations along its longitudinal axis by cross diaphragms.
Both superstructure and substructure are modelled as lumped
mass systems divided into the number of small discrete
segments. Each adjacent segment is connected by a node and
at each node three degrees of freedom are considered. The mass
of each segment is assumed to be distributed between the two
adjacent nodes in the form of point masses.
Stiffness contributions of non-structural elements such as
sidewalk and parapet are neglected.
The force-deformation behaviour of the bearing is considered to
be linear.
The bearings provided at the piers and abutments have the same
dynamic characteristics.
The drilled shaft is represented for all motions using a spring
model with frequency-independent coefcients. The modelling
of the drilled shaft on deformable soil is performed in the same
way as that of the structure and is coupled to perform a dynamic
SSI analysis.
88.00m
.25
Pier 1
11.80m
33.50m
27
651
27
.25
Pier 2
Rc =48.77m
The center line
of Abutment A
All arch lengths are as per along the center line of the bridge.
Fig. 3. The curved bridge plan and its dimensions.
652
S. Ates, M.C. Constantinou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 648661
88.00m
33.50m
Y
m
.25
27
27
.25
90cm
23cm
Radial
Direction
76cm
Chord
Direction
Fig. 5. Framing plan of the curved bridge.
100cm
50cm 50cm
Column section:
85cm
170cm
Deck section:
1180cm
100cm
30cm
290cm
30cm 280cm
30cm 290cm
30cm
100cm
170cm
25cm
18cm
Fig. 6. Horizontal sections of the substructure and the deck of the curved bridge.
based on 1.20 m tributary length of the drilled shaft. The mentioned arrangement is implemented such as in Fig. 8. The soil
properties beneath the foundation of the bridge are given in Table 1
[19]. In this table, g is the total unit weight; f is the internal angle of
friction; c is cohesion and nh is the constant of horizontal subgrade
reaction. New ll will be required at the abutments. The ll has
similar properties to the native soil.
In order to calculate the horizontal stiffness of the equivalent soil
springs, the coefcient of horizontal subgrade is given below [19]:
kh
nh z
D
22
23
24
The horizontal stiffness of the equivalent soil springs is tabulated in Table 2 where Htrib is 1.20 m as per Eq. (24).
S. Ates, M.C. Constantinou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 648661
653
10% Slope
Rigid beam
element
640cm
30cm
Ground surface
60cm
180cm
25cm
ki
ki
14@120cm=1680cm
1800cm
1800cm
Ground Surface
240cm
60cm
Bedrock
kv =
Z
Y
kr = 0
Fig. 7. Section at the center line of the pier of the curved bridge.
Fig. 8. Equivalent soil spring model of the drilled shaft and its geometry and
element layout.
Table 1
Soil properties for the subsurface materials.
Stratum
Depth (m)
Soil description
Alluvium
0 to 4100
19
34
4000
New Fill
Above grade
Medium dense,
silty sand
Medium dense
sand and gravel
19
34
6250
Table 2
The horizontal stiffness of the equivalent soil springs of the drilled shaft.
Depth z (m)
Spring stiffness
ki (kN/m)
0.60
1.80
3.00
4.20
5.40
6.60
7.80
9.00
10.20
11.40
12.60
13.80
15.00
16.20
17.40
18.00
3021
9077
15,133
21,189
27,231
33,287
39,343
45,385
51,441
57,497
63,553
69,595
75,651
81,707
87,749
Rigid
654
S. Ates, M.C. Constantinou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 648661
CL
End diaphragm
100cm
100cm
75cm
50cm
180cm
180cm
180cm
180cm
180cm
540cm
50cm
180cm
540cm
1180cm
klong
ktrans
kvert
krl
krt=0
krv
Fig. 9. (a) The real abutment and (b) the analytical model of the abutment having the equivalent springs representing the soil.
Table 3
Stiffness of the equivalent soil springs standing for the pipe piles.
1 and 7
klong (kN/m)
Longitudinal translation
ktrans (kN/m)
Transverse translation
kver (kN/m)
Vertical translation
krv (kNm/rad)
Rotation about vertical axis
krl (kNm/rad)
Rotation about longitudinal axis
krt (kNm/rad)
Rotation about transverse axis
2.00
3 and 5
5356
5356
5356
5356
4320
4320
4320
4320
608,083
608,083
608,083
608,083
152,360
67,720
16,933
17,298,935
7,688,420
1,922,320
Note: krv kver d2i krl klong d2i krt ktran d2i where di is the distance between the
center lines of the abutment and the ith pipe pile. In this study, the distance is 180,
2 180 and 3 180 cm ranging from the innermost of the pipe pile to the outermost
one, respectively.
factor B for the effective damping of the isolated bridge. Whereas all
modes are assumed to be damped at 5%, in this approach, only the
isolated modes of the structure are allowed the reduction of
response due to increased damping. Note that the modication
of the spectrum for higher damping requires that the effective
period and effective damping in each principal direction should be
calculated. This is done using the single degrees of freedom system
of analysis. Fig. 10 presents the response spectrum used in multi
mode analysis of a seismically isolated bridge supported on the soil
Stiffness
Sa (T,5%)
Sa (T,5%)
1.50
0.8Teff
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
2.11sec
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Period (sec)
3.00
3.50
4.00
Fig. 10. Acceleration response spectrum curve for soil prole type C.
prole type C [20]. For the soil type, the data acceleration spectrum
is dedicated in Table 4. The effective period is Teff 2.636 s, the
effective damping is beff 0.30 and the damping reduction factor
B1.82. The ordinates of the 5%-damped spectrum for period
larger than 2.11 s are divided by factor 1.82.
Analysis by the multi mode method should be independently
performed in two orthogonal directions and the results be combined
using the 10030% combination rule. The two orthogonal directions
may be any two arbitrary perpendicular directions that facilitate the
S. Ates, M.C. Constantinou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 648661
655
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.24
0.30
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.10
2.11
2.25
2.50
2.60
2.68
2.72
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
Vertical
0.70
0.70
1.29
1.77
1.80
1.72
1.44
1.19
0.95
0.78
0.64
0.55
0.51
0.51
0.48
0.41
0.40
0.39
0.38
0.37
0.32
0.29
0.25
0.23
0.20
0.49
0.49
0.90
1.24
1.26
1.20
1.01
0.83
0.67
0.55
0.45
0.39
0.36
0.36
0.34
0.29
0.28
0.27
0.27
0.26
0.22
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.70
0.70
1.29
1.77
1.80
1.72
1.44
1.19
0.95
0.78
0.64
0.55
0.51
0.51
0.48
0.41
0.40
0.39
0.24
0.23
0.19
0.18
0.15
0.14
0.12
0.70
0.70
1.29
1.77
1.80
1.72
1.44
1.19
0.95
0.78
0.64
0.55
0.51
0.28
0.27
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.13
0.11
Keff h3
12E
25
Table 5
The required values of friction pendulum for the response spectrum analysis.
Bearing
location
Upper bound
properties
Abutment
Keff (kN/m)
h (m)
E (kN/m2)
A (m)
I (m4)
388.76
0.30
1.05 108
0.051
9.177 10-9
840.57
0.30
1.05 108
0.051
4.374 10-9
Pier
Keff (kN/m)
h (m)
E (kN/m2)
A (m2)
I (m4)
781.03
0.30
1.05 108
0.051
18.436 10-9
1190.80
0.30
1.05 108
0.051
28.109 10-9
656
S. Ates, M.C. Constantinou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 648661
Fig. 12. The rst three modes of vibration of the isolated curved bridge with lower bound properties of the DCFP.
Fig. 13. The rst three modes of vibration of the isolated curved bridge with upper bound properties of the DCFP.
Table 6
Signicant response quantities for the abutments obtained by multi mode response spectrum analysis of the isolated bridge with the DCFP.
Response name
Earthquake direction
Chord (100%)
DM (cm)
DTM (cm)
Properties type of
the DCFPs
Radial (100%)
Vertical (100%)
37.30
65.50
41.12
47.85
q
65:502 0:30 37:302 0:30 0:432 66
q
47:852 0:30 41:122 0:30 0:432 50
0.46
0.43
159.86
186.02
313.85
545.73
153.41
865.18
180,59
1081.31
q
1,229:782 0:30 865:182 0:30 153:412 1260
q
1,229:162 0:30 1,081:312 0:30 180:592 1270
1.78
3.87
1229.78
1229.16
Lower bound
Upper bound
Lower bound
Upper bound
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
bound
bound
bound
bound
bound
Upper bound
S. Ates, M.C. Constantinou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 648661
of the abutment and pier bearings are different due to the pier
exibility effect and the inertia effects in the substructure. Accordingly, the abutment bearings experience lesser displacement. Maximum axial bearing forces develop when the earthquake excitation is
in the vertical direction only. Maximum bearing displacement occurs
when the bridge is under the radial directional earthquake. This result
for earthquake is nearly the same as the expected value as 70 cm. This
is in good agreement in view of selection of the displacement capacity
657
Table 7
Signicant response quantities for the piers obtained by multi mode response spectrum analysis of the isolated bridge with the DCFP.
Response name
Earthquake direction
Chord (100%)
DM (cm)
DTM (cm)
Properties type of
the DCFPs
Radial (100%)
Vertical (100%)
47.00
64.50
42.37
47.55
q
64:502 0:30 47:002 0:30 2:032 66
q
47:552 0:30 42:372 0:30 0:202 49
2.03
0.20
Lower bound
Upper bound
Lower bound
327.60
345.03
408.82
699.71
278.98
612.53
297.22
849.92
q
2227:112 0:30 612:532 0:30 278:982 2236
q
2226:622 0:30 849:922 0:30 297:222 2243
3.02
6.85
2227.11
2226.62
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper bound
8000
12000
16000
30
60
Bridge Length (m)
2000
4000
Lower Bound Properties
Upper Bound Properties
8000
0
30
60
Bridge Length (m)
4000
8000
Lower Bound Properties
Upper Bound Properties
16000
0
30
60
Bridge Length (m)
8000
12000
16000
0
30
60
90
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
90
12000
4000
6000
90
4000
Upper bound
Non-isolated Bridge
Isolated Bridge
0
bound
bound
bound
bound
bound
90
60
30
Bridge Length (m)
90
30
60
Bridge Length (m)
90
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
Fig. 14. (a) Bending moment about the center line axis of the isolated and non-isolated curved bridges subjected to vertical directional earthquake. (b) Bending moment about
the center line axis of the isolated and non-isolated curved bridges subjected to chord directional earthquake. (c) Bending moment about the center line axis of the isolated and
non-isolated curved bridges subjected to radial directional earthquake.
658
S. Ates, M.C. Constantinou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 648661
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0
Non-isolated Bridge
30
60
Bridge Length (m)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0
30
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
90
Isolated Bridge
0
60
2000
3000
4000
5000
90
8000
12000
Lower Bound Properties
Upper Bound Properties
30
60
Bridge Length (m)
30
60
90
4000
20000
90
1000
16000
30
60
Bridge Length (m)
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
20000
90
30
60
BridgeLength (m)
90
Fig. 15. (a) Torsional moment about the center line axis of the isolated and non-isolated curved bridges subjected to vertical directional earthquake. (b) Torsional moment
about the center line axis of the isolated and non-isolated curved bridges subjected to chord directional earthquake. (c) Torsional moment about the center line axis of the
isolated and non-isolated curved bridges subjected to radial directional earthquake.
Isolated Bridge
Non-isolated Bridge
0
1000
2000
3000
30
60
Bridge Length (m)
3000
90
30
60
Bridge Length (m)
30
60
Bridge Length (m)
90
30
60
Bridge Length (m)
90
90
160
40
60
80
20
Shear Force (kN)
2000
4000
4000
100
200
240
280
320
360
30
60
Bridge Length (m)
90
400
800
Lower Bound Properties
Upper Bound Properties
1200
0
30
60
Bridge Length (m)
90
0
Shear Force (kN)
1000
400
800
1200
Fig. 16. (a) Shear forces of the isolated and non-isolated curved bridges subjected to vertical directional earthquake. (b) Shear forces of the isolated and non-isolated curved
bridges subjected to chord directional earthquake. (c) Shear forces of the isolated and non-isolated curved bridges subjected to radial directional earthquake.
S. Ates, M.C. Constantinou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 648661
Isolated Bridge
Non-isolated Bridge
0
400
800
Lower Bound Properties
Upper Bound Properties
1200
0
30
60
Bridge Length (m)
400
800
1200
90
30
60
Bridge Length (m)
90
30
60
Bridge Length (m)
90
30
60
Bridge Length (m)
90
0
2000
4000
6000
2000
4000
6000
8000
8000
0
30
60
Bridge Length (m)
90
0
Axial Force (kN)
0
Axial Force (kN)
659
2000
4000
6000
2000
4000
6000
8000
8000
0
30
60
Bridge Length (m)
90
Fig. 17. (a) Axial forces of the isolated and non-isolated curved bridges subjected to vertical directional earthquake. (b) Axial forces of the isolated and non-isolated curved
bridges subjected to chord directional earthquake. (c) Axial forces of the isolated and non-isolated curved bridges subjected to radial directional earthquake.
Table 8
Structural accelerations of the marked point of the curved bridge (PGA
0.7g 686.70 cm/s2).
Table 9
Structural displacements of the marked point of the curved bridge.
Earthquake direction
Earthquake
direction
Isolated
(Lower)
Max.
Vertical
ax
ay
az
Displacement (cm)
Acceleration (cm/s2)
Isolated
(Upper)
Max.
NonIsolated
Max.
Isolated (Lower)
Max.
Vertical
ux
0.30
93.85
1082.27
3.78
314.17
1425.02
Chord
ax
ay
az
160.22
1.98
13.36
239.22
3.43
12.32
1636.93
5.03
9.88
Radial
ax
ay
az
1.96
185.72
214.48
3.66
420.55
207.06
5.64
1736.62
789.46
Non-Isolated
Max.
0.00
0.25
2.64
0.00
0.28
2.62
0.03
2.44
13.13
Chord
ux
uy
uz
46.43
0.46
0.03
41.73
0.46
0.03
15.98
0.05
0.08
Radial
ux
uy
uz
0.46
47.55
0.36
0.53
65.86
0.33
0.03
8.28
4.95
Uy
0.18
88.90
1084.91
Isolated (Upper)
Max.
uz
bearing axial forces the combination used is the one that corresponds to 100% of vertical earthquake. This case is the worst for the
DCFP bearings since the axial load becomes the maximum and
lateral displacement is less than the maximum value. The results
demonstrate very good agreement with the pre-calculated bearing
displacement demands.
660
S. Ates, M.C. Constantinou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 648661
12. Conclusion
This study outlines an investigation about the responses of the
isolated and non-isolated curved bridges subjected to response
spectra as per Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria, Version 1.4 (2006)
for magnitude 7.257 0.25, 0.7g acceleration and soil prole C. In
order to seismically isolate the bridge, the double concave friction
pendulum bearings as isolation devices are placed between the
deck and the pier/the abutments as isolation devices. Response
history acceleration of the selected ground motions is considered as
the earthquake ground motion. The analyses are carried out for the
isolated and non-isolated bridges, separately. The soilstructure
interaction is also considered by springs representing the soil
beneath footing and the drilled shaft surrounding of soil. The
maximum and minimum response values of the isolated and nonisolated bridges are compared with each other for different cases.
According to the response spectrum analysis, the displacements
of the abutment and pier bearings are different due to the pier
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge the Scientic and Technical Research
Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) for supporting the studies of Sevket
ATES at the University at Buffalo.
References
[1] Hyakuda T, Saito K, Matsushita T, Tanaka N, Yoneki S, Yasuda M, Miyazaki M,
Suzuki A, Sawada T. The structural design and earthquake observation of a
seismic isolation building using Friction Pendulum system. In: Proceedings of
the 7th international seminar on seismic isolation, passive energy dissipation
and active control of vibrations of structures, Assisi, Italy; 2001.
[2] Tsai CS, Chen WS, Chiang TC, Chen BJ. Component and shaking table tests for
full-scale multiple friction pendulum system. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 2006;35:165375.
[3] Constantinou MC. Friction pendulum double concave bearing. NEES Report.
Available at: /http://nees.buffalo.edu/dec304/FP-DC%20Report-DEMO.pdfS;
2004.
[4] Fenz DM, Constantinou MC. Behavior of double concave friction pendulum
bearing. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2006;35(11):
140324.
[5] Fenz DM, Constantinou MC. Spherical sliding isolation bearings with adaptive
behavior: theory. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2008;37:
16383.
[6] Fenz DM, Constantinou MC. Spherical sliding isolation bearings with adaptive
behavior: experimental verication. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 2008;37:185205.
[7] Sennah KM, Kennedy JB. State-of-art- in design of curved box-girder bridges.
Journal of Bridge Engineering 2001;6(3):15967.
[8] DeSantiago E, Mohammadi J, Albaijat HMO. Analysis of horizontally curved
bridges using simple nite-element models. The Practice Periodical on
Structural Design and Construction 2005;10(1):1821.
[9] Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS. Assessment of seismic integrity of multi-span curved
bridges in mid-America.IL, USA: Mid-America Earthquake Center Civil and
Environmental Engineering Department, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign; 2007.
[10] Constantinou MC, Whittaker AS, Fenz DM, Apostolakis G. Seismic isolation of
bridges. Report submitted to the State of California Department of Transportation; 2007.
[11] Ates S, Constantinou MC. Example of application of response history analysis
for seismically isolated curved bridges on drilled shaft with springs representing soil. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2010, doi:10.1016/
j.soildyn.2010.09.002.
[12] Tongaonkar NP, Jangid RS. Seismic response of isolated bridges with soil
structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2003;23:
287302.
[13] Spyrakos CC, Vlassis AG. Effect Of soilstructure interaction on seismically
isolated bridges. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2002;6(3):391429.
[14] Ucak A, Tsopelas P. Effect of soilstructure interaction on seismic isolated
bridge. Journal of Structural Engineering 2008;134(7):115464.
S. Ates, M.C. Constantinou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 648661
661