Professional Documents
Culture Documents
OBJECTIVE
Assess the effectiveness of isolation devices
for the seismic retrofitting of Peruvian bridges,
that were constructed long time ago with
obsolete seismic provisions.
FIGURE 2.6. Distribution of earthquakes in Peru during 1513 and 1959, with intensity higher than VIII MM Silgado (1978).
FIGURE 2.7. Seismic zones as defined by the Peruvian Building Seismic Code (NTP E0.30 Code, 2016)
FIGURE 2.5. Deck failure in the San Francisco-Oakland Bridge during the
1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake (AFP, 2010)
Damage in
the sub-
structure
THE ISOLATORS
WORK AS FUSES
The reduction of forces comes with a price. The deck will move considerably, so special
attention should be put into the design of anchorage of support elements.
ELEVATION
MODELLING
Two cases are analyzed: AS-BUILT and ISOLATED
models.
Main features:
The models were defined using finite elements (FEM)
Link elements were used to represent the bearings.
In the AS-BUILT model, this links are infinitely stiff,
whereas in the ISOLATED model, this links have the
stiffness properties of the isolators (flexible).
Elastomeric isolators were considered for this
analysis.
MODELLING
The ground motion was represented using
two methods. The AASHTO Design Spectrum,
and the Time-History acceleration signal of
the actual Pisco Earthquake, registered very
close to the bridge site.
Both models are applied with the same
seismic ground motions. Their responses are
then compared (period, damping,
displacements and internal forces).
MODELLING
DYNAMICS RESULTS
As expected, the difference observed in the
dynamic behavior is remarkable.
AS-BUILT ISOLATED
INCREASED PARAMETERS
As-built Isolated Ratio
Parameter Units Isol
Result Result
As-built
REDUCED PARAMETERS
As-built Isolated Difference As-built Isolated Difference
Parameter Units Isol - As-built Parameter Units Isol - As-built
Result Result As-built
Result Result As-built
Pier 1 Displacement X-X mm 2.23 0.52 -77% Pier 1 Axial Force X-X kN 3055 44 -99%
Pier 1 Displacement Y-Y mm 0.45 0.12 -73% Pier 2 Shear Force X-X kN 3545 1113 -69%
Pier 2 Displacement X-X mm 1.58 0.52 -67% Pier 2 Shear Force Y-Y kN 6320 1109 -82%
Pier 2 Displacement Y-Y mm 0.79 0.12 -85% Pier 2 Axial Force X-X kN 2069 18 -99%
Base Shear X-X kN 17096 4967 -70% Trans. Beam @ Pier 1 Shear kN 403 120 -70%
Base Shear Y-Y kN 21688 4967 -77% Trans. Beam @ Pier 1 B. Moment kNm 569 172 -70%
Pier 1 Shear Force X-X kN 5003 1113 -77% Trans. Beam @ Pier 2 Shear kN 708 120 -83%
Pier 1 Shear Force Y-Y kN 3579 1110 -69% Trans. Beam @ Pier 2 B. Moment kNm 999 172 -82%
PIERS ANALYSIS
Pier 1 Interaction Diagram for Longitudinal Direction
Mn (kNm)
-30,000 -20,000 -10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000
120,000
100,000
Strengthening 80,000
needed for the 60,000
Pn (kN)
as-built case 40,000
Isolated
20,000
-20,000
-40,000
PIERS ANALYSIS
TRANSVERSE BEAMS
Moment Moment
Case
Location of
Demand (D) Capacity (C)
Ratio Cracking
Beam
(kN) (kN)
D/C observed in
Actual @ Pier 1 380 414 0.92 actual EQ
Earthquake @ Pier 2 527 414 1.27
Response @ Pier 1 569 414 1.37
Spectrum @ Pier 2 999 414 2.41
@ Pier 1 172 414 0.42
Isolated
@ Pier 2 172 414 0.42
Strengthening
No strengthening if needed for
isolated design EQ
Pier 1 Pier 2
CONCLUSIONS
Implementing the isolation system would
increase the structures overall damping ratio
by more than 3 times, as well as its flexibility.
This effectively reduces the solicitations in the
sub-structure and transverse beams by an
average of 75%.
In the case of the bridge analysed, this
reduction in the solicitations allows for the
structural elements not to be strengthen.
CONCLUSIONS
It is concluded that the use of rubber isolators
is effective for retrofitting highway concrete
bridges and that this analytical procedure can
be applied to other bridges of similar
characteristics in Peru.
Further work: coordination with the Peruvian
Ministry of Transportation to present these
findings and transmit the need for seismic
assessment of highway infrastructure.