II I 1111 II 1I11 111111111111111111 PB94-142775
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH
State University of New York at Buffalo
NCEER.:faisei Corporation Research Program on Sliding Seismic Isolation Systems for Bridges:
Experimental and Analytical Study of a Friction Pendulum System (FPS)
by
M.C. Constantinoli, P. Tsopelas, Y-S. Kim and S. Okamoto State University of New York at Buffalo
Department of Civil Engineering Buffalo, New York 14260
and Taisei Corporation Sanken Building
25-1, HyaKunin-cho 3-chome Shinjuku-Ku 169
Tokyo, Japan
Technical Report NCEER-93-0020
November I, 1993
This research was conducted at the State University of New York at Buffalo and Taisei Corporation and was partially supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. BCS 90-25010
and the New York State Science and Technology Foundation under Grant No. NEC-91029. REPRODUCED BY: U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service Springfield, Virginia 22161
NOTICE This report was prepared by the State University of New York at Buffalo and Taisei Corporation as a result of research sponsored by the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER) through grants from the National Science Foundation, the New York State Science and Technology Foundation, and other sponsors. Neither NCEER, associates of NCEER, its sponsors, the State University of New York at Buffalo, Taisei Corporation, nor any person acting on their behalf:
a. makes any warranty, express or implied, with respect to the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report or that such use may not infringe upon privately owned rights; or
b. assumes any liabilities of whatsoever kind with respect to the use of, or the damage resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method or process disclosed in this report.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation, the New York State Science and Technology Foundation, or other sponsors.
I 1111111111111111111111111111111
PB94-142775
NCEER-Taisei Corporation Research Program on Sliding Seismic Isolation Systems for Bridges:
Experimental and Analytical Study of a Friction Pendulum System (FPS)
by
M.C. Constantinou1, P. Tsopelas2
, Y -So Kim2 and S. Okamoto3
November 1, 1993
Technical Report NCEER-93-0020
NCEER Project Numbers 90-2101 and 91-5411B and
Taisei Corporation Grant 150-6889A
NSF Master Contract Number BCS 90-25010 and
NYSSTF Grant Number NEC-91029
1 Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, State University of New York at Buffalo
2 Research Assistant, Department of Civil Engineering, State University of New York at Buffalo
3 Research Engineer, Technology Research Center, Taisei Corporation, Yokohama, Japan
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH State University of New York at Buffalo Red Jacket Quadrangle, Buffalo, NY 14261
PREFACE
The National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER) was established to expand and disseminate knowledge about earthquakes, improve earthquake-resistant design, and implement seismic hazard mitigation procedures to minimize loss of lives and property. The emphasis is on structures in the eastern and central United States and lifelines throughout the country that are found in zones oflow, moderate, and high seismicity.
NCEER's research and implementation plan in years six through ten (1991-1996) comprises four interlocked elements, as shown in the figure below. Element I, Basic Research, is carried out to support projects in the Applied Research area. Element II, Applied Research, is the major focus of work for years six through ten. Element III, Demonstration Projects, have been planned to support Applied Research projects, and will be either case studies or regional studies. Element IV, Implementation, will result from activity in the four Applied Research projects, and from Demonstration Projects.
ELEMENT I BASIC RESEARCH
• Seismic hazard and ground motion
• Soils and geotechnical engineering
• Structures and systems
• Risk and reliability
• Protective and intelligent systems
• Societal and economic studies
ELEMENT II APPLIED RESEARCH
• The Building Project
• The Nonstructural Components Project
• The Lifelines Project
The Bridge Project
ELEMENT III DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
Case Studies • Active and hybrid control • Hospital and data processing
facilities • Short and medium span bridges • Water supply systems in
Memphis and San Francisco Regional Studies
• New York City • Mississippi Valley • San Francisco Bay Area
ELEMENT IV IMPLEMENTATION
• Conferences/Workshops • EducationlTraining courses • Publications • Public Awareness
Research tasks in the Bridge Project expand current work in the retrofit of existing bridges and develop basic seismic design criteria for eastern bridges in low-to-moderate risk zones. This research parallels an extensive multi-year research program on the evaluation of gravity-load design concrete buildings. Specifically, tasks are being performed to:
111
1. Determine the seismic vulnerability of bridge structures in regions of low-to-medium seismicity, and in particular of those bridges in the eastern and central United States.
2. Develop concepts for retrofitting vulnerable bridge systems, particularly for typical bridges found in the eastern and central United States.
3. Develop improved design and evaluation methodologies for bridges, with particular emphasis on soil-structure mechanics and its influence on bridge response.
4. Review seismic design criteria for new bridges in the eastern and central United States.
The end product of the Bridge Project will be a collection of design manuals, pre-standards and design aids which will focus on typical eastern and central United States highway bridges. Work begun in the Bridge Project has now been incorporated into the Highway Project.
The protective and intelligent systems program constitutes one ofthe important areas of research in the Bridge Project. Current tasks include the following:
1. Evaluate the performance offull-scale active bracing and active mass dampers already in place in terms of performance, power requirements, maintenance, reliability and cost.
2. Compare passive and active control strategies in terms of structural type, degree of effectiveness, cost and long-term reliability.
3. Perform fundamental studies of hybrid control. 4. Develop and test hybrid control systems.
This report describes the results of an experimental study of the behavior of the Friction Pendulum System (FPS) in bridge seismic isolation. Earthquake simulator tests have been performed on a model bridge structure both isolated with Friction Pendulum System bearings and non-isolated The experimental results demonstrate a marked increase of the capacity of the isolated bridge to withstand earthquake forces under all conditions. Analytical techniques are used to predict the dynamic response of the system and the obtained results are in very good agreement with the experimental results.
IV
1111111111111111111111111111111 PB94-142775
ABSTRACT
This report describes the results of an experimental study of the behavior of the Friction
Pendulum System (FPS) in bridge seismic isolation. Earthquake simulator tests have been
performed on a model bridge structure both isolated with Friction Pendulum System
bearings and non-isolated. The experimental results demonstrate a marked increase of the
capacity of the isolated bridge to withstand earthquake forces under all conditions.
Analytical techniques are used to predict the dynamic response of the system and the
obtained results are in very good agreement with the experimental results.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Financial support for this project has been provided by Taisei Corporation, Japan and the
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Projects No. 902101 and 915411B.
The FPS bearings used in the study were supplied by Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc.,
San Francisco, California.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION TITLE
1 INTRODUCTION
2 NCEER-TAISEI CORPORATION RESEARCH PROJECT ON BRIDGE SLIDING SEISMIC ISOLATION SYSTEMS
3 FRICTION PENDULUM (or FPS) SEISMIC ISOLATION SYSTEM
3.1 Principles of Operation and Mathematical Modeling
3.2 Properties of FPS Bearing
4 MODEL FOR EARTHQUAKE SIMULATOR TESTING
4.1 Bridge Model
4.2 Friction Pendulum (or FPS) Bearings
4.3 Instrumentation
4.4 Test Program
5 EARTHQUAKE SIMULATOR TEST RESULTS
5.1 Results for Non-isolated Bridge
5.2 Results for Isolated Bridge
5.3 Behavior and Effectiveness of Low Friction Isolation System
IX
PAGE
1-1
2-1
3-1
3-1
3-6
4-1
4-1
4-3
4-9
4-9
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-17
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
SECTION TITLE PAGE
5.4 Effectiveness of Medium Friction Isolation System 5-18
5.5 Effect of Vertical Ground Motion 5-26
5.6 Effect of Impact on the Displacement Restrainer 5-29
5.7 System Adequacy 5-29
5.8 Permanent Displacements 5-31
6 ANALYTICAL PREDICTION OF RESPONSE 6·1
6.1 Introduction 6-1
6.2 Analytical Model 6-1
6.3 Comparison of Analytical and Experimental Results 6-4
7 CONCLUSIONS 7·1
8 REFERENCES
APPENDIX A EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS A·l
x
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
3-1 FPS Bearing Section 3-1
3-2 Basic Principle of Operation of FPS Bearing 3-3
3-3 Free Body Diagram of FPS Bearing 3-4
4-1 Schematic of Quarter Scale Bridge Model 4-2
4-2 Construction of Friction Pendulum System Bearing 4-5
4-3 View of FPS Bearing 4-6
4-4 Coefficient of Sliding Friction as Function of Bearing Pressure and Sliding Velocity for Composite Materials No.1 and 2 in Contact with Polished Stainless Steel 4-7
4-5 Coefficient of Sliding Friction as Function of Bearing Pressure and Sliding Velocity for Composite Materials No.3 and 4 in Contact with Polished Stainless Steel 4-8
4-6 Overall Instrumentation Diagram 4-10
4-7 Location of Accelerometers 4-11
4-8 Location of Displacement Transducers 4-12
4-9 Model Configurations in Testing (l :Non-isolated Bridge, 2:Identification of Frictional Properties, 3:Single Span Model, 4: Two-Span Model, 5:Multiple Span Model) 4-15
4-10 View of Bridge Model Configuration with One Flexible Pier and One Stiff Pier 4-16
4-11 View of Bridge Model Configuration with Two Flexible Piers 4-16
4-12 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with El Centro SOOE 100% Motion 4-20
xi
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont'd)
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
4-13 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with Taft N21E 400% Motion 4-21
4-14 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with Hachinohe N-S 300% Motion 4-22
4-15 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with Miyagiken Oki E-W 300% Motion 4-23
4-16 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with Akita N-S 200% Motion 4-24
4-17 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with Pacoima S74W 100% Motion 4-25
4-18 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with Pacoima S 16E 100% Motion 4-26
4-19 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with Mexico S90W 100% Motion 4-27
4-20 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acc1eration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with lP Level 1 G.C.l 100% Motion 4-28
XlI
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont'd)
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
4-21 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with JP Level 1 G.C.2 100% Motion 4-29
4-22 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with JP Level 1 G.C.3 100% Motion 4-30
4-23 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with JP Level 2 G.C.l 100% Motion 4-31
4-24 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with JP Level 2 G.C.2 100% Motion 4-32
4-25 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with JP Level 2 G.C.3 100% Motion 4-33
4-26 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with CalTrans Rock No.3 100% Motion 4-34
4-27 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with CalTrans 10'-80' Alluvium No.3 100% Motion 4-35
4-28 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with CalTrans 80'-150' Alluvium No.3 100% Motion 4-36
xiii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont'd)
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
4-29 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with Boston 1 100% Motion 4-37
4-30 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with Boston 2 100% Motion 4-38
4-31 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with Boston 3 100% Motion 4-39
5-1 Example of Bearing Displacement History 5-3
5-2 Comparison of Response of Medium Friction Isolated Bridge to Response of Non-isolated Bridge (flexible pier case) 5-19
5-3 Response of Isolated Bridge Model under Taft Input with Increasing Intensity 5-21
5-4 Response of Isolated Bridge Model under Increasing Earthquake Intensity (S-S:case of stiff piers, F-F: case of flexible piers) 5-22
5-5 Comparison of Response of Isolated Bridge (case of flexible piers) to Response of Non-isolated Bridge for Japanese Level 1, Ground Condition 1 Input 5-23
5-6 Comparison of Response of Isolated Bridge (case of flexible piers) to Response of Non-isolated Bridge for Japanese Level 1, Ground Condition 2 Input 5-24
5-7 Comparison of Response of Isolated Bridge (case of flexible piers) to Response of Non-isolated Bridge for Japanese Level 1, Ground Condition 3 Input 5-25
xiv
FIGURE
5-8
5-9
5-10
5-11
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont'd)
TITLE
Comparison of Response of Isolated Bridge (flexible pier case, material No.l,fmax=0.104) for Horizontal Only and Horizontal plus Vertical EI Centro SOOE 200% Input
Comparison of Response of Isolated Bridge (flexible pier case, material No.l,fmax=0.104) for Horizontal Only and Horizontal plus Vertical Taft N21E 400% Input
Comparison of Response of Isolated Bridge with Engagement of Displacement Restrainer to Response of Non-isolated Bridge under the Japanese Level 2, Ground Condition 3 Input
Recorded FPS Bearing Force-Displacement Loops for Five Cycles of Harmonic Motion of Amplitude=75mm and Frequency=O.4 Hz. Material No.1, Pressure= 17.2 MPa
Longitudinal Direction Model of Isolated Bridge
Free Body Diagram of Bridge Model
Variation of Coefficient of Friction at High Velocity of Sliding (fmaJ with Pressure (solid line described by equation 6-12)
Recorded Vertical Acceleration at the Base of Pier in
Tests with only Horizontal and with Combined Horizontal-Vertical Excitation
Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results in Tests with EI Centro 200% Input (Test No. FPSAR27). Analysis Performed without the Effect of Vertical Pier
Acceleration (UVi = 0)
xv
PAGE
5-27
5-28
5-30
5-32
6-2
6-2
6-6
6-7
6-9
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont'd)
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
6-6 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results in Tests with Taft N21E 400% Input (Test No. FPSAR30). Analysis Performed without the Effect of Vertical Pier
Acceleration (U . = 0) VI
6-10
6-7 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results in Tests with Japanese Level 2 G.C.1 100% Input (Test No. FPSAR37). Analysis Performed without the Effect
of Vertical Pier Acceleration (Uvi = 0) 6-11
6-8 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results in Tests with Japanese Level 2 G.C.2 100% Input (Test No. FPSAR38). Analysis Performed without the Effect
of Vertical Pier Acceleration (U . = 0) VI
6-12
6-9 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results in Tests with CalTrans R3 0.6g 100% Input (Test No. FPSAR41). Analysis Performed without the Effect of
Vertical Pier Acceleration (U . = 0) 6-13 VI
6-10 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results in Tests with CalTrans S3 0.6g 100% Input (Test No. FPSAR42). Analysis Performed without the Effect of
Vertical Pier Acceleration (U . = 0) 6-14 VI
6-11 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results in Tests with CalTrans A2 0.6g 100% Input (Test No. FPSAR43). Analysis Performed without the Effect of
Vertical Pier Acceleration (U . = 0) 6-15 VI
6-12 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results in Tests with Hachinohe N-S 300% Input (Test No. FPSAR45). Analysis Performed without the Effect of
Vertical Pier Acceleration (UVi
= 0 ) 6-16
XVI
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont'd)
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
6-13 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results in Tests with Akita N-S 300% Input (Test No. FPSAR47). Analysis Performed without the Effect of Vertical Pier
Acceleration (U . = 0) 6-17 VI
6-14 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results in Tests with Miyagiken Oki N-S 300% Input (Test No. FPSAR49). Analysis Performed without the Effect of
Vertical Pier Acceleration (UVi = 0) 6-18
6-15 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results in Tests with Pacoima S74W 100% Input (Test No. FPSAR51). Analysis Performed without the Effect of
Vertical Pier Acceleration (UVi = 0) 6-19
6-16 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results in Tests with El Centro 200% H+V Input (Test No. FPSAR54). Analysis Performed with the Effect of Vertical Pier Acceleration 6-20
6-17 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results in Tests with Taft N21E 400% H+V Input (Test No. FPSAR53). Analysis Performed with the Effect of Vertical Pier Acceleration 6-21
A-I El Centro SOOE 100% (FPSAR26) A-2
A-2 El Centro SOOE 200% (FPSAR27) A-3
A-3 Taft N21E 100% (FPSAR28) A-4
A-4 Taft N21E 300% (FPSAR29) A-5
A-5 Taft N21E 400% (FPSAR30) A-6
A-6 Taft N21E 500% (FPSAR31) A-7
A-7 Taft N21E 600% (FPSAR32) A-8
xvii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont'd)
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
A-8 Japanese Level 1 G.C.l 100% (FPSAR33) A-9
A-9 Japanese Level 1 G.C.2 100% (FPSAR34) A-I0
A-1O Japanese Level 1 G.C.3 100% (FPSAR35) A-ll
A-ll Japanese Level 2 G.C.l 75% (FPSAR36) A-12
A-12 Japanese Level 2 G.C.l 100% (FPSAR37) A-13
A-13 Japanese Level 2 G.C.2 100% (FPSAR38) A-14
A-14 Japanese Level 2 G.C.3 75% (FPSAR39) A-15
A-15 Japanese Level 2 G.C.3 90% (FPSAR40) A-16
A-16 CalTran R3 0.6g 100% (FPSAR41) A-17
A-17 CalTran S3 0.6g 100% (FPSAR42) A-18
A-18 CalTran A2 0.6g 100% (FPSAR43) A-19
A-19 Hachinohe N-S 100% (FPSAR44) A-20
A-20 Hachinohe N-S 300% (FPSAR45) A-21
A-21 Akita N-S 100% (FPSAR46) A-22
A-22 Akita N-S 200% (FPSAR47) A-23
A-23 Miyagiken Oki E-W 300% (FPSAR48) A-24
A-24 Miyagiken Oki E-W 600% (FPSAR49) A-25
A-25 Mexico City N90W 100% (FPSAR50) A-26
A-26 Pacoima S74W 100% (FPSAR51) A-27
A-27 Pacoima S16E 50% (FPSAR52) A-28
xviii
FIGURE
A-28
A-29
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont'd)
TITLE
Taft N21E H+V 400% (FPSAR53)
EI Centro SOOE H+V 200% (FPSAR54)
xix
PAGE
A-29
A-30
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE PAGE
4-1 Summary of Scale Factors in Bridge Model 4-4
4-11 Parameters in Model of Friction 4-9
4-111 List of Channels (with reference to Figures 4-6 to 4-8) 4-13
4-IV Earthquake Motions Used in Test Program and Characteristics in Prototype Scale 4-18
4-V Spectral Acceleration of Japanese Bridge Design Spectra, Levell 4-19
4-VI Spectral Acceleration of Japanese Bridge Design Spectra, Level 2 4-19
5-1 Summary of Experimental Results of Non-isolated Bridge 5-2
5-11 List of Earthquake Simulation Tests and Model Conditions in Tests of the Isolated Bridge 5-5
5-111 Summary of Experimental Results of Isolated Bridge 5-11
5-IV Comparison of Response of Isolated (case of low friction) and Non-isolated Bridge 5-18
xxi
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Seismic isolation systems are typified by the use of either elastomeric or sliding bearings.
Elastomeric isolation systems have been used in the seismic isolation of buildings in
Japan and the United States (Buckle 1990, Soong 1992, Kelly 1993). Several other
countries, such as New Zealand and Italy among others, have a number of applications
of elastomeric isolation systems in buildings (Buckle 1990, Martelli 1993).
Sliding isolation systems in buildings have been widely used in the former Soviet Union,
where over 200 buildings are now seismically isolated (Constantinou 1991a, Eisenberg
1992). In Japan, Taisei Corporation constructed three buildings on the TASS sliding
isolation system (Kawamura 1988, Constantinou 1991a). In the United States, sliding
isolation systems have recently been selected for the retrofit of three buildings (Soong
1992, Kelly 1993). In particular, spherical sliding or FPS bearings (Zayas 1987, Mokha
1990b and 1991) have been selected for the retrofit of the U.S. Court of Appeals building
in San Francisco. This historic structure with a floor area of 31500m2, will be, when
completed, the largest base-isolated structure in the U.S. and one of the largest in the
world (Soong 1992).
For the first time in the U.S., the isolation system selection for U.S. Court of Appeals was
based on technical rating and competitive bidding of elastomeric and sliding isolation
systems. Interestingly, the FPS isolation system received the highest technical rating and
had the least cost (Palfalvi 1993). This represents a turning point for the implementation
of seismic isolation in the U.S. Sliding isolation systems are now regarded as technically
equivalent and potentially less expensive than elastomeric isolation systems.
Seismic isolation of bridge structures has been widely implemented in New Zealand and
Italy (Buckle 1990, Medeot 1991, Martelli 1993). While in New Zealand the application
1-1
is exclusively with elastomeric systems, in Italy the application is primarily with sliding
systems. Over 150 km of isolated bridge deck in Italy is supported by sliding bearings
together with various forms of restoring force and energy dissipation devices (Medeot
1991, Constantinou 1991a).
Japan has over 100 concrete railway bridges of the Shinkansen supported by sliding
bearings together with viscous fluid devices, called the KP-stoppers, for restricting
displacements within acceptable limits (Buckle 1990, Constantinou 1991a). This system
is regarded as an early form of sliding isolation system.
More recently, Japan moved towards a cautious implementation of modern selSffilC
isolation systems in bridges. So far, the application is restricted to only longitudinal
isolation using elastomeric systems (Kawashima 1991).
The application of seismic isolation to bridges in the U.S. followed an interesting
development. Until 1989, only six bridges were isolated, of which five were retrofit
projects in California and one was a new construction in Illinois (Buckle 1990). While
the 1989 Lorna Prieta earthquake resulted in an accelerated implementation of seismic
isolation systems to bUildings, this has not been the case in bridges. Rather, we observe
a renewed interest and new applications of bridge seismic isolation following the
development of specifications for seismic isolation design (ICBO 1991, AASHTO 1991)
and the adoption of seismic design guidelines for bridges in the entire U.S. The lack of
. specifications for the design of seismic isolated structures was regarded as an impediment
to the application of the technology (Mayes 1990). Today, 57 bridges of total deck length
exceeding 11 km are open to traffic, in the construction process or the design process in
the U.S. Interestingly, the majority of these bridges are located in the Eastern United
States.
While seismic isolation systems found application to over 200 bridges, large scale testing
of bridge isolation systems has been so far limited to three studies which concentrated on
1-2
elastomeric systems (Kelly 1986, Kawashima 1991) and one specific sliding system
(Constantinou 1991a and 1992a). All three studies were restricted to models with rigid
piers or abutments and rigid decks. The effects of pier flexibility, pier strength, deck
flexibility and distribution of isolation elements could not be studied in these experimental
programs. Rather, these effects were studied by analytical techniques and found to be
significant (Constantinou 1991a, Kartoum 1992).
The study reported herein concentrates on the Friction Pendulum (or FPS) sliding
isolation system. It was carried out as part of the NCEER-Taisei Corporation research
project on bridge seismic isolation systems. The study includes a comprehensive testing
program utilizing a flexible pier bridge model.
1-3
SECTION 2
NCEER-TAISEI CORPORATION RESEARCH PROJECT
ON BRIDGE SLIDING SEISMIC ISOLATION SYSTEMS
In 1991, the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research and Taisei Corporation
began a collaborative research project on the development and verification of advanced
sliding seismic isolation systems for bridges (Constantinou 1992b). The project included
also the study of established sliding isolation systems such as the Friction Pendulum (or
FPS) system (Zayas 1987, Mokha 1990b and 1991) and the lubricated sliding
bearing/hysteretic steel damper system used in a large number of bridges in Italy (Medeot
1991, Marioni 1991).
The project had two portions: one concentrated on active systems and was carried out at
Taisei Corporation and Princeton University, and the other concentrated on passive
systems and was carried out at the University at Buffalo and Taisei Corporation. The
BuffalolTaisei portion of the project had the objective of producing a class of advanced
passive sliding seismic isolation systems by modifying and/or adapting existing
technology. Particular emphasis has been given to the adaptation and use of aerospace
and military hardware in either the form of restoring force and damping devices or in the
form of high performance composite materials in the construction of sliding bearings.
The following systems were experimentally studied:
(1) Flat sliding bearings consisting of PTFE or PTFE-based composites in contact with
polished stainless steel (coefficient of sliding friction at high velocity of sliding
in the range of 0.07 to 0.15) and in combination with
(a) Rubber restoring force devices,
(b) Rubber restoring force devices and fluid viscous dampers,
(c) Wire rope restoring force devices, and
(d) Fluid restoring force/damping devices.
(2) Spherically shaped FPS sliding bearings.
2-1
(3) Flat lubricated PTFE-stainless steel sliding bearings in combination with yielding
E-shaped mild steel devices.
This report contains the results of the experimental study, interpretation of the results and
analytical modeling of the Friction Pendulum (or FPS) isolation system.
2-2
SECTION 3
FRICTION PENDULUM (or FPS) SEISMIC ISOLATION SYSTEM
The principles of operation of the FPS bearing have been established by Zayas, 1987 and
Mokha 1990b and 1991. Herein, we restate these principles and provide a complete
description of the behavior of the bearing which is valid at large displacements.
3.1 Principles of Operation and Mathematical Modeling
A cross section view of an FPS is shown in Figure 3-1. The bearing consists of a
spherical sliding surface and an articulated slider which is faced with a high pressure
capacity bearing material. The bearing may be installed as shown in Figure 3-1 or
upside-down with the spherical surface facing down rather than up. In both installation
methods the behavior is identical.
BEARING MATERIAL-~
SEAL
ARTICULATED SLIDER
ENCLOSING CYLINDER
SPHERICAL SURFACE
Figure 3-1 FPS Bearing Section
The bearing is constructed of steel with the articulated slider and the spherical sliding
surface made of stainless steel. Specifically, the spherical sliding surface consists of
highly polished austenitic, type 316 stainless steel. All sliding interfaces, that is those of
3-1
the articulated slider with the spherical surface and the supporting column, are faced with
a high bearing capacity, self lubricating, PTFE-based composite material. The rated load
capacity of this material is about 400 MPa (60 ksi). The material is characterized by low
friction, low wear and marked insensitivity of its frictional properties to significant
temperature changes. It has been used for the last 30 years in applications of the U.S.
aerospace and military industry such as commercial and military aircraft, satellite
construction, helicopter bearings and actuator systems. It has also been used in industrial
applications such as heavy machinery and equipment, cranes etc.
The basic principle of operation of the FPS bearing is illustrated in Figure 3-2. The
motion of a structure supported by these bearings is identical to that of pendulum motion
with the additional beneficial effect of friction at the sliding interface.
The force needed to produce displacement of the FPS bearing consist of the combination
of restoring force during the induced rising of the structure along the spherical surface
and of friction force at the sliding interface. The derivation of the force-displacement
relation is based on Figure 3-3. The FPS bearing is considered in its deformed position
under the action of a lateral force F. The horizontal and vertical components of
displacement are respectively given by
u = Rsine (3-1)
v = R(1-cose) (3-2)
where R is the radius of curvature of the spherical sliding surface. From equilibrium of
the bearing in the vertical and horizontal directions it is obtained that
w - scose + Ffsine = 0 (3-3)
3-2
F - SsinS - FtcosS = 0 (3-4)
where W is the weight carried by the bearing and Ff is the friction force at the sliding
interface.
/ ./
./
PENDULUM MOTION
I w M \
MOTION OF STRUCTURE ON FPS BEARINGS
Figure 3-2 Basic Principle of Operation of FPS Bearing
Solution of Equations (3-3) and (3-4) results in
F F = WtanS + _t_
cosS (3-5)
The term WtanS represents the restoring force in its most general form (S may be large),
whereas the term Ff / cosS represents the contribution of friction.
3-3
The stiffness of the bearing is derived by dividing the restoring force by the displacement
u
ARTICULATED SLIDER
F
R
u=Rsin e
Rease
SPHERICAL SURFACE
v=R( l-cos e)
Figure 3-3 Free Body Diagram of FPS Bearing
(3-6)
Accordingly, the force needed to induce a displacement u in the horizontal direction is
given in the general case of large e by
3-4
F= W u+2 (3-7) RcosS cosS
For small values of angle S, cosS "" 1 and Equations (3-6) and (3-7) take the linearized
form
K=W R
F = W u + llWsgn(u) R
(3-8)
(3-9)
in which now the friction force Fr has been replaced by the product of the coefficient of
friction 11 and weight W. Furthermore, u represents the horizontal component of velocity.
Equations (3-8) and (3-9) are valid for all practical purposes. FPS bearings are typically
designed for displacement u < 0.2 R, so that the error due to linearization of Equations
(3-6) and (3-7) is insignificant.
Returning now to Equation (3-8), the period of free vibration is derived
( W J1I2 (R J/2 T=2n _ =2n_ Kg g
(3-10)
The period is independent of the mass of the structure and dependent only on the
geometry of the bearing. Thus, the period does not change if the weight of the structure
changes or is different than assumed.
Furthermore, Equation (3-9) demonstrates that the lateral force is directly proportional to
the supported weight. As a result of this significant property, the center of lateral rigidity
3-5
of the isolation system coincides with the center of mass of the structure. This property
makes the FPS bearings particularly effective at minimizing adverse torsional motion in
asymmetric structures.
3.2 Properties of FPS Bearings
As with all seismic isolation systems, the intent of isolation is to substantially reduce the
seismic forces to the structural system by introducing flexibility and energy absorption
capability. The FPS isolation bearings produce this effect while they furthermore have
some unique properties. These properties are:
(1) Period of vibration which is independent of the supported mass.
(2) Their lateral force is directly proportional to the weight they carry and, thus, the
isolation system force always develops at the center of mass of the supported
structure. This property minimizes adverse torsional motions.
(3) They provide rigidity to wind and minor earthquake loads. This is accomplished
by the friction in the bearings which do not allow motion until the static friction
limit is exceeded.
(4) They have high vertical load capacity and stability. Owing to their umque
construction they do not exhibit P-~ effects at large displacements. Furthermore,
the enclosing cylinder of the bearing provides lateral displacement restraint.
(5) Their properties of flexibility and energy absorption capability are not interrelated.
The first is entirely controlled by geometry (radius R) and the second is controlled
by friction at the sliding interface. This property allows for optimum design of
the isolation system.
3-6
SECTION 4
MODEL FOR EARTHQUAKE SIMULATOR TESTING
4.1 Bridge Model
The bridge model was designed to have flexible piers so that under non-isolated
conditions the fundamental period of the model in the longitudinal direction is 0.2Ss (or
O.Ss in prototype scale).
The bridge model is shown in Figure 4-1. At quarter length scale, it had a clear span of
4.8m (1S.7 feet), height of 2.S3m (8.3 feet) and total weight of 157.8 kN (3S.S kips). The
deck consisted of two AISC W14x90 sections which were transversely connected by
beams. Additional steel and lead weights were added to reach the model deck weight of
140kN (31.S kips), as determined by the similitude requirements. Each pier consisted of
two AISC TS 6 x 6 x SI16 columns with a top made of a channel section which was
detailed to have sufficient torsional rigidity. The tube columns were connected to beams
which were bolted to a concrete extension of the shake table. In this configuration, the
column loads were transferred at a point located 0.57m (1.87 ft) beyond the edge of the
shake table. While the overhangs of the concrete shake table extension could safely carry
the column load of over 80kN (18 kips), they had some limited vertical flexibility which
during seismic testing resulted in vertical motion of the piers and the supported deck.
The piers were designed to have in their free standing cantilever position a period of 0.1 s
(0.2s in prototype scale) when fully loaded (load cells and bottom part of bearings).
Furthermore, the piers were detailed to yield under the combined effects of gravity load
(40kN each column) and 50 percent of the gravity load applied as horizontal load at each
bearing location. The stiffness of each pier was verified by pulling the piers against each
other on the shake table. During the test the piers were also proof-loaded to their rated
capacity and the results were used to calibrate the strain gage load cell of each column.
4-1
.j::>.
I N
O.3
5m E
..., "ll E
N
0 ~
E
o '" c:i
E
0>
N
, , , ,
,,/B
RA
CIN
G
, , , ,
CO
NC
RE
TE
LOA
D
CEL
L
LOCATION~/
/ /
/
/ /
/ /
/ /
/
2 A
ISC
W
14x9
0
2 A
ISC
T
S 6
x6
x5
/16
'A---
SHA
KE
TA
BLE
.---------------------------------1
O.3
5m E
..., "ll E
N
0
E
o '" ci
TE
STIN
G
DIR
EC
TIO
NS
~
Fig
ure
4
-1
Sch
em
ati
c
of
Qu
art
er
Sca
le
Bri
dg
e M
od
el
w
Identification of the model was conducted by exciting the shake table with a 0-20 Hz
banded white noise of 0.03g peak acceleration. Acceleration transfer functions of each
free standing pier and of the assembled bridge model with all bearings fixed against
translational movement (but not rotation) revealed the following properties: fundamental
period of free standing pier equal to 0.096s and fundamental period of non-isolated bridge
in the longitudinal direction equal to 0.26s. These values are in excellent agreement with
the design values of O.ls and 0.25s, respectively.
Damping in the model was estimated to be 0.015 of critical for the free standing piers and
0.02 of critical for the entire model in its non-isolated condition. Identification tests of
the model were also conducted with white noise input of O.lg peak table acceleration to
obtain a fundamental period of 0.25s and corresponding damping ratio of 0.04 of critical.
The increased damping was the result of hysteretic action, not in the columns of the
model but in the overhangs of the concrete extension of the shake table. During shake
table testing of the non-isolated model, the recorded loops of shear force versus
displacement of the piers displayed hysteretic action (see section 5). Estimates of
damping ratio from these loops were in the range of 0.04 to 0.08 of critical. Thus while
the columns of the piers remained elastic, the pier system displayed realistic hysteretic
action with equivalent damping ratio of at least 5 percent of critical.
The design of the model bridge was based in the similitude laws for artificial mass
simulation (Sabnis 1983). A summary of the scale factors in the model is presented in
Table 4-1.
4.2 Friction Pendulum (or FPS) Bearings
The isolation system consisted of four FPS bearings which were located on top of load
cells as shown in Figure 4-1. The geometry of the bearing is presented in Figure 4-2, and
a view of an open FPS bearing is shown in Figure 4-3. The bearings were installed with
the spherical surface facing down. The radius of curvature of the spherical sliding surface
4-3
was R=558.8mm (22 inches) so that the period of vibration of the isolation system was
I.Ss (Equation 3-10). The displacement capacity of the bearing was 89mm (3.5 inches)
in all directions.
Table 4-1 : Summary of Scale Factors in Bridge Model
I QUANTITY II DIMENSION I SCALE FACTOR" I Linear Dimension L 4
Displacement L 4
Velocity Lrl 2
Acceleration Lr2 1
Time T 2
Frequency r 1 0.5
Force F 16
Stress FL-2 1
Pressure FL-2 1
Strain --- I
* PROTOTYPE / MODEL
Four different materials were used at the sliding interface. All four were self-lubricating
PTFE-based composites. They were assigned numbers No.1, 2, 3 and 4. Of these, No.1
was identical to the material used in the bearings of the U.S. Court of Appeals building
in San Francisco. The materials were tested under an average bearing pressure (load on
bearing divided by the geometrical area of the slider) of 17.2 MPa (2.5 ksi) and 275.6
MPa (40 ksi). This was accomplished by using different articulated sliders with bearing
contact areas of diameter equal to 12.7mm and 50.8mm, respectively.
4-4
units:mm
I I~' ~ 82.6
~
279
229
CONCAVE SPHERICAL SURF ACE FACED WITH STAINLESS STEEL OVERLAY
___ --CIRCULAR RETAINER
1------- SEAL
HOUSING PLATE PLATE 279-279-25
Figure 4-2 Construction of Friction Pendulum System Bearing
The frictional properties of these four materials in contact with polished stainless steel
were determined in identification tests prior to and following the seismic testing. In these
tests the piers were stiffened by braces (see Figure 4-1) and the deck was connected by
rods to a nearby reaction frame. The shake table was then driven in displacement
controlled mode with specified frequency and amplitude of harmonic motion. The lateral
force in each bearing was recorded by the supporting load cell. From recorded loops of
force versus bearing displacement the friction force was extracted. Division by the
normal load, which was also monitored by the load cell, gave the coefficient of sliding
friction. Furthermore, the coefficient of friction was extracted from recorded loops of
force versus bearing displacement during seismic testing.
The results are presented in Figures 4-4 and 4-5 as function of bearing pressure and
velocity of sliding. The coefficient of friction follows the relation proposed by
Constantinou 1990a
(4-1)
where fmax is the coefficient of friction at high velocity of sliding, fmin is the coefficient
4-5
Figure 4-3 View of FPS Bearing
of friction at essentially zero velocity of sliding and a is a parameter controlling the
variation of the coefficient with velocity of sliding. Values of the model parameters are
presented in Table 4-11. It may be seen in Figures 4-4 and 4-5 that the experimental
results agree well with the predictions of the calibrated model of Equation 4-1.
Of interest is to note that all four composite materials had nearly the same frictional
properties. In all four, the breakaway (or static) coefficient of friction was
found to be always less than fmax regardless of the duration of dwell of load which varied
between a few minutes and 24 hours.
4-6
0.1 5 -,--------------C-O-M-P--O-S--IT---E-M-A-T--E---R-IA-L-N-:-o-.1-:-1
z o § 0.12 i:i: LL. LL. e 0.09 0 z w o u: It 0.06
8 IP
~ 0.03 ~ o :J C/)
fmax=0.1 04, PRESSURE 17.2 MPa (2.5 ksl) ... -
fmax=0.053, PRESSURE 275.6 MPa (40 ksl) w
o 0 IDENTIFICATION TEST
• SEISMIC TEST
0.00 +-------1----+-----f----t----t----l
0.15
z o i= 0 0.12 i:i: LL. U. o I- 0.09 z w o u: It 0.06 o o (!)
~ 0.03 :J C/)
0.00
o 100
fJ 0
ho • -P
o 100
200 300 400 500 600 VELOCITY (mm/sec)
COMPOSITE MATERIAL No.2
'" fmax=0.122, PRESSURE 17.2 MPa (2.5 ksl)
fmax=0.058, PRESSURE 275.6 MPa (40 ksl) 0 •
DO IDENTIFICATION TEST
• SEISMIC TEST
200 300 400 500 600 VELOCITY (mm/sec)
Figure 4-4 Coefficient of Sliding Friction as Function of Bearing Pressure and Sliding Velocity for Composite Materials No.1 and 2 in Contact with Polished Stainless Steel
4-7
0.1 5 -r------------'""C::-::OO":'M':':P::-::O::-::S:-::�T==E...,M~A""'T:::E==R:':'IA":"L:-:-:N-o.-=-03
z o r12( I- 0.09 D z w C3 u: tb 0.06
8 C!)
~ 0.03 :J rn
• u
fmax-0.1 20, PRESSURE 1 7.2 MPa (2.5 ksj) •• •
• • •
fmax .. 0.062, PRESSURE 275.6 MPa (40 ksj)
o IDENTIFICATION TEST
• SEISMIC TEST
0.00 -t-------i----t----+----t-----+----; o 100 200 300 400 500 600
VELOCITY (mm/sec)
0.15 ...--------------=C=O,.,-M=P=O=S=IT=E:-:M-=-A:-::T=E=R:':'IA':":L"""N:-:-o-.-,.....,4
z ~ fmax ... 0.114, PRESSURE 17.2 MPa (2.5 ksi) 0 0.12 Po, ~ kS------------~u------------~--------------~
U. o I- 0.09
~ ~ 0.06
8 C!)
~ 0.03 :J rn
o IDENTIFICATION TEST
0.00 +----1------+----+----+-----+-----1 o 100 200 300 400 500 600
VELOCITY (mm/sec)
Figure 4-5 Coefficient of Sliding Friction as Function of Bearing Pressure and Sliding Velocity for Composite Materials No.3 and 4 in Contact with Polished Stainless Steel
4-8
Table 4-11 Parameters in Model of Friction
PRESSURE MATERIAL fmax fmin a COMMENTS (MPa) (sec/m)
No.1 0.104 0.040 83.4
17.2 No.2 0.122 0.115 127.5 * No.3 0.120 0.090 47.0
No.4 0.114 0.114 --- * No.1 0.053 0.034 199.7
275.6 No.2 0.058 0.058 --- * No.3 0.062 0.062 --- *
* essentially Coulomb friction
4.3 Instrumentation
The instrumentation consisted of load cells, accelerometers and displacement transducers.
Figure 4-6 shows the overall instrumentation diagram, whereas Figures 4-7 and 4-8 shows
the instrumentation diagrams for accelerometers and displacement transducers,
respectively. A list of monitored channels and their corresponding descriptions are given
in Table 4-I1I. A total of 51 channels were monitored.
4.4 Test Program
Testing of the bridge model was performed in five different configurations, as shown in
Figure 4-9. These configuration were:
(1) The bearings were locked by side plates to represent a non-isolated bridge. In this
configuration, the structure was identified in tests with banded white noise table
motion. Furthermore, a selected number of seismic tests was conducted.
(2) Braces were installed to stiffen the piers (see Figure 4-1) and the deck was
4-9
SOUTH
connected by stiff rods to a nearby reaction wall. In this configuration, the shake
table was driven in displacement-controlled mode with specified frequency and
amplitude of harmonic motion. This motion was nearly the motion experienced
by the FPS bearings. Loops of bearing horizontal force versus bearing
displacement were recorded and used to extract the frictional properties of the FPS
bearings.
(3) Both piers were stiffened by braces so that they represented stiff abutments. In this
configuration, the model resembled a single span isolated bridge.
(4) The south location pier was stiffened by braces so that it represented a stiff
abutment. In this configuration, the model resembled a two-span bridge with two
stiff abutments and a centrally located flexible pier. A view of this configuration
on the shake table is shown in Figure 4-10.
(5) A configuration with two flexible piers which resembled portion of a multiple span
bridge between expansion joints. A view of this configuration on the shake table
is shown in Figure 4-11.
3
2
<4
~ RELATIVE D BETWEEN p:~:LACEMENT
AND DECK , AVOSE 2 AVOCE
'8 CHDNC , 9 DHBSE '0 3 AVOCw 20 4 AVONE DHBSW
5 2, DHBNE 8 24 AHDNE 6 AHDNW
22 DHBNW 7 AHPNE
23 DHPNE CELL Typ. 17 8 AHPNW
24 OHPNW & SHEAR rORC£) 9 A.HPSE
25 DHTNC '0 AHPSW
COLUMNS I " AHTNC WITH STRAI~S~~~~ENTEO , 2 AVTSC , 3 TO MEASURE SHE"'~ rORCE AVTNC
25 14 ATSO , 5 ATND '6 ATSP \7 ATNP
~D""","
Figure 4·6 Overall Instrumentation Diagram
4-10
M "!
0 N
.
~
I .....
.....
.;
SOU
TH
:1
o TR
AN
SVER
SE
DIR
ECTI
ON
A
CC
ELER
OM
ETER
VER
TIC
AL
DIR
ECTI
ON
A
CC
ELER
OM
ETER
HO
RIZ
ON
TAL
DIR
ECTI
ON
A
CC
ELER
OM
ETER
AHDN
E,
AHDN
II
AH
PNE,
AH
PNII
• ,
! I
I 0
I I
0 I
.J' I
! !~
AH
TNC
-----
AVRT
N
OR
TH
I I
AR
D::
: ALA
r I
I I
.. t
. T
EST
ING
D
IREC
TIO
NS
M '?
o H
OR
IZO
NTA
L D
IREC
TIO
N
AC
CEL
ERO
MET
ER
VER
TIC
AL
DIR
ECTI
ON
A
CC
ELER
OM
ETER
T
RA
NSV
ER
SE
DIR
ECTI
ON
A
CC
ELER
OM
ETER
:1 ~ -
AHDNII~
~AHDNE
~ AT
SP,A
TN~H
PNII
,L
,,-I
, AH
PNE
~
.;
LJ
Fig
ure
4
-7
Lo
cati
on
o
f A
ccel
ero
met
ers
(UN
ITS
:m)
+:00-
I .....
tv
SOU
TH
... on .;
a '" a
R ~ 0 ..
-H
OR
IZO
NTA
L D
IREC
TIO
N
DIS
P.
TRA
NSD
UC
ER
t V
ERTI
CA
L D
IREC
TIO
N
DIS
P.
TRA
NSD
UC
ER
o TR
AN
SVER
SE
DIR
ECTI
ON
D
ISP.
TR
AN
SDU
CER
DH
DN
C
• F
T.
..
DH
TNC
NO
RTH
TEST
ING
D
IREC
TIO
NS
:ri '" o H
OR
IZO
NTA
L D
IREC
TIO
N
DIS
P.
TRA
NSD
UC
ER
R
.;
~
~
.;
o .. "!
LJ
Fig
ure
4
-8
Lo
cati
on
o
f D
isp
lacem
en
t T
ran
sdu
cers
(U
NIT
S:m
)
Table 4-111 List of Channels (with reference to Figures 4-6 to 4-8)
CHANNEL I NOTATION INSTRUMENT RESPONSE MEASURED
1 AVDSE ACCL Deck Vertical Accel.-South East Corner
2 AVDCE ACCL Deck Vertical Accel.-East Side at Center
3 AVDCW ACCL Deck Vertical Accel.-West Side at Center
4 AVDNE ACCL Deck Vertical Accel.-North East Corner
5 AHDNE ACCL Deck Horizontal Accel.-North East Corner
6 AHDNW ACCL Deck Horizontal Accel.-North West Corner
7 AHPNE ACCL Pier Horizontal Accel.-North East
8 AHPNW ACCL Pier Horizontal Accel.-North West
9 AHPSE ACCL Pier Horizontal Accel.-South East
10 AHPSW ACCL Pier Horizontal Accel.-South West
11 AHTNC ACCL Table Horizontal Accel.-North Side at Center
12 AVTSC ACCL Table Vertical Accel.-South Side at Center
13 AVTNC ACCL Table Vertical Accel.-North Side at Center
14 ATSD ACCL Deck Transverse Accel.-South Side
15 ATND ACCL Deck Transverse Accel.-North Side
16 ATSP ACCL Pier Transverse Accel.-South
17 ATNP ACCL Pier Transverse Accel.-North
18 DHDNC DT Deck Total Horizontal Displ.-North Side Center
19 DHBSE DT Bearing Horizontal Displ.-South East
20 DHBSW DT Bearing Horizontal Displ.-South West
21 DHBNE DT Bearing Horizontal Displ.-North East
22 DHBNW DT Bearing Horizontal Displ.-North West
23 DHPNE DT Pier Total Horizontal Displ.-North East
24 DHPNW DT Pier Total Horizontal Displ.-North West
25 DHTNC DT Table Horizontal Displ.-North Side at Center
26 DHBAV DT Bearing Horizontal Average Displ.
ACCEL=Accelerometer, DT=Displacement Transducer
4-13
Table 4-111 (Cont'd)
CHANNEL NOTATION INSTRUMENT RESPONSE MEASURED
27 DLAT DT Table Horizontal Displ.
28 ALAT ACCL Table Horizontal Accel.
29 DVRT DT Table Vertical Displ.
30 AVRT ACCL Table Vertical Accel.
31 DROL DT Table Rolling Displ.
32 AROL ACCL Table Rolling Accel.
33 SXl LOAD CELL Shear Bearing Force-South West
34 SX2 LOAD CELL Shear Bearing Force-South East
35 SX3 LOAD CELL Shear Bearing Force-North West
36 SX4 LOAD CELL Shear Bearing Force-North East
37 SCNE LOAD CELL Column Shear Force-North East
38 SESE LOAD CELL Column Shear Force-South East
39 SCNW LOAD CELL Column Shear Force-North West
40 SCSW LOAD CELL Column Shear Force-South West
41 NISW LOAD CELL Axial Bearing Force-South West
42 N2SE LOAD CELL Axial Bearing Force-South East
43 N3NW LOAD CELL Axial Bearing Force-North West
44 N4NE LOAD CELL Axial Bearing Force-North East
45 SCN LOAD CELL Average Column Shear Force-North
46 SCS LOAD CELL Average Column Shear Force-South
47 DHDSW DT Deck Total Horizontal Displ.-South West Corner
48 DHDSE DT Deck Total Horizontal Displ.-South East Corner
49 LCNE LOAD CELL East Friction Force-North East Corner(lD-test)
50 LCNW LOAD CELL West Friction Force-North West Corner(lD-Test)
51 LCTOT LOAD CELL Average Friction Force(lD-Test)
ACCEL=Accelerometer, DT=Displacement Transducer
4-14
MODEL CONFIGURATION 1
MODEL CONFIGURATION
MODEL CONFIGURATION 3
MODEL CONFIGURATION 4
REACTION FRAME
MODEL CONFIGURATION 5
• FIXED o FPS BEARING
Figure 4-9 Model Configurations in Testing (l:Non-isolated Bridge, 2:Identification of Frictional Properties, 3:Single Span Model, 4:TwoSpan Model, 5:Multiple Span Model)
4-15
Figure 4-10 View of Bridge Model Configuration with One Flexible Pier and One Stiff Pier
Figure 4-11 View of Bridge Model in Configuration with Two Flexible Piers
4-16
A total of 173 earthquake simulation tests were performed on the model bridge. Tests
were conducted with only horizontal input and with combined horizontal and vertical
input. The earthquake signals and their characteristics are listed in Table 4-IV. The
earthquake signals consisted of historic earthquakes and artificial motions compatible with
(a) The Japanese bridge design spectra for levelland level 2 and ground conditions
1 (rock), 2 (alluvium) and 3 (deep alluvium) (CERC 1992). In Japan, it is required
that bridges are designed for two levels of seismic loading. In level 1 seismic
loading, it is required that the bridge remains undamaged and fully elastic. In level
2 seismic loading, inelastic behavior is permitted. Tables 4-V and 4-VI describe
the shapes of the 5%-damped acceleration spectra of the Japanese levelland 2
motions.
(b) The California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) bridge spectra (Gates
1979). These motions were identical to those used in the testing of another bridge
model by Constantinou, 1991 a.
(c) Site specific spectra for a location in Boston, Massachusetts.
Each record was compressed in time by a factor of two to satisfy the similitude
requirements. Figure 4-12 to 4-31 show recorded time histories of the table motion in
tests with input being the earthquake signals of Table 4-IV. The acceleration and
displacement records were directly measured, whereas the velocity record was obtained
by numerical differentiation of the displacement record. It may be observed that the peak
ground motion was reproduced well, but not exactly, by the table generated motion.
Figures 4-12 to 4-31 also show the response spectra of acceleration of the table motions.
The 5 % damped acceleration spectrum is compared to the spectrum of the target record
to demonstrate the good reproduction of the motion by the table.
4-17
Tab
le 4
-IV
Ear
thqu
ake
Mot
ions
Use
d in
Tes
t Pro
gram
an
d C
hara
cter
isti
cs in
Pro
toty
pe S
cale
------
--
--
NO
TA
TIO
N
RE
CO
RD
P
EA
K
PE
AK
P
EA
K D
IS. I
AC
C.
VE
L.
(mm
) (g
) (m
m/s
ec)
EL
CE
NT
RO
SO
OE
Impe
rial
Val
ly, M
ay 1
8 19
40 C
ompo
nent
SO
OE
0.34
33
4.5
108.
7
TA
FfN
21
E
Ker
n C
ount
y, J
uly
21,1
952
Com
pone
nt N
21E
0.
16
157.
2 67
.1
ME
XIC
O C
ITY
M
exic
o C
ity,
Sep
tem
ber
19,1
985
SC
T b
uild
ing,
Com
pone
nt N
90W
0.
17
605.
0 21
2.0
PA
CO
IMA
S16
E
San
Fer
nand
o, F
ebru
ary
9, 1
971
Com
pone
nt S
16E
1.
17
1132
.3
365.
3
PA
CO
IMA
S74
W
San
Fer
nand
o, F
ebru
ary
9, 1
971
Com
pone
nt S
74E
1.
08
568.
2 10
8.2
HA
CH
INO
HE
N-S
T
okac
hi, J
apan
, May
16,
196
8 H
achi
nohe
, Com
pone
nt N
-S
0.23
35
7.1
118.
9
MIY
AG
IKE
N O
K!
Miy
aki,
Japa
n, J
une
12,
1978
Ofu
nato
-Boc
hi, C
ompo
nent
E-W
0.
16
141.
0 50
.8
AK
ITA
N-S
N
ihon
kai
Chu
ubu,
Jap
an, M
ay 2
3,19
83 C
ompo
nent
N-S
0.
19
292.
0 14
6.0
JP. L
lGl
Art
ific
ial C
ompa
tibl
e w
ith
Japa
nese
Lev
ell
Gro
und
Con
diti
on 1
0.
10
215.
0 90
.0
JP.
LlG
2
Art
ific
ial C
ompa
tibl
e w
ith
Japa
nese
Lev
ell
Gro
und
Con
diti
on 2
0.
12
251.
0 69
.0
f"
.....
00
JP.
LlG
3
Art
ific
ial C
ompa
tibl
e w
ith
Japa
nese
Lev
ell
Gro
und
Con
diti
on 3
0.
14
274.
0 13
2.0
JP.
L2G
1 A
rtif
icia
l Com
pati
ble
wit
h Ja
pane
se L
evel
2 G
roun
d C
ondi
tion
1
0.37
86
4.0
526.
0
JP.L
2G
2
Art
ific
ial C
ompa
tibl
e w
ith
Japa
nese
Lev
el 2
Gro
und
Con
diti
on 2
0.
43
998.
0 52
7.0
JP.
L2G
3 A
rtif
icia
l Com
pati
ble
wit
h Ja
pane
se L
evel
2 G
roun
d C
ondi
tion
3
0.45
11
21.0
70
0.0
CA
L T
RA
NS
0.6
g A
2 A
rtif
icia
l Com
pati
ble
wit
h C
alT
rans
0.6
g 80
' -15
0' A
lluv
ium
Spe
ctru
m N
o.2
0.60
83
6.4
282.
9
CA
LT
RA
NS
O.6
g S
2 A
rtif
icia
l Com
pati
ble
wit
h C
alT
rans
0.6
g 10
' -80
' All
uviu
m S
pect
rum
No.
2 0.
60
765.
0 24
8.9
CA
L T
RA
NS
0.6
g S3
A
rtif
icia
l Com
pati
ble
wit
h C
alT
rans
0.6
g 10
'-80
' All
uviu
m S
pect
rum
No.
3 0.
60
778.
0 43
8.9
CA
L T
RA
NS
0.6
g R
1 A
rtif
icia
l Com
pati
ble
wit
h C
alT
rans
0.6
g R
ock
Spe
ctru
m N
o.1
0.60
53
0.9
443.
8
CA
LT
RA
NS
0.6
g R
2 A
rtif
icia
l Com
pati
ble
wit
h C
alT
rans
0.6
g R
ock
Spe
ctru
m N
o.2
0.60
51
0.0
274.
3
CA
L T
RA
NS
0.6
g R
3 A
rtif
icia
l Com
pati
ble
wit
h C
alT
rans
0.6
g R
ock
Spe
ctru
m N
o.3
0.60
57
1.0
342.
4
BO
ST
ON
1
Art
ific
ial C
ompa
tibl
e w
ith
a S
ite
in B
osto
n, N
o.1
0.
15
123.
5 26
.3
BO
ST
ON
2
Art
ific
ial C
ompa
tibl
e w
ith
a S
ite
in B
osto
n, N
o.2
0.
15
110.
1 25
.1
! B
OS
TO
N 3
A
rtif
icia
l C
ompa
tibl
e w
ith
a S
ite
in B
osto
n, N
o.3
0.
15
99.7
21
.7
Table 4-V Spectral Acceleration of Japanese Bridge Design Spectra, Levell
EJ Spectral Acceleration (SIO) in units of cmlsec2 as Function of Period T j in units of seconds
T j < 0.1 0.1 ::;; T j ::;; 1.1 1.1 < T j
1 SIO = 431 T/13 SIO=200 SIO=220fT j
SIO ~ 160
T j < 0.2 0.2::;; T j ::;; 1.3 1.3 < T j
2 SIO = 427T/13 SIO=250 SIO=325fT j
SIO ~ 200
T j < 0.34 0.34 ::;; T j ::;; 1.5 1.5 < T j
3 SIO = 430T/13 SIO=300 SIO=450fTj
SIO ~ 240
Table 4-VI Spectral Acceleration of Japanese Bridge Design Spectra, Level 2
EJ Spectral Acceleration (S20) in units of cmlsec2 as Function of Period T j in units of seconds
T j ::;; 1.4 1.4 < T j
1 S20 = 700 S20=980fT j
T j < 0.18 0.18 ::;; T j ::;; 1.6 1.6 < T j
2 S20 = 1506T/13 S20=850 S20=1360fT j
S20 ~ 700
T j < 0.29 0.29 ::;; T j ::;; 2.0 2.0 < T j
3 S20 = 1511T/13 S20=1000 S20=2000fT j
S20 ~ 700
4-19
0.5 -.!?J z 0 t= < a: w ...J W 0.0 (J (J « w ...J m « I-
-0.5 '---'--'--'-....L...-.l.-...J--'---'---'--...L...-L...-J..--'--'--...l....-L...-J..--'--'--...l....-l..-L--'---'---"---'---'--'---'---'
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
E E
30 ~~~~~~~~~~~,-~~,-~~,-~~~~r,200
-IZ w ::E w (J « ...J a.. en
15
o
Z5 w -15 ...J m « I-
, , .'
. , .' I, . '.
--- DISPLACEMENT ----------- VELOCITY
-() CD en .......
1 00 ~ -> I-
o (3 o ...J W >
-1 00 ~ m c( I-
-30 L.......<.--'--'--J.......1.--'--'--.I.-..I.--'--'--.l-....L--'--"-.l-....L--'--'-..I--J.--'--'-..I--J.---'--'-....L...-I--I -200 o 5 1 a 1 5 20 25 30
TIME (sec)
o 1.0 .--..--.--..--,..--.,---r---r--r---,.--,..--,..--,..--,..-..,--,--,--.,...--.,...--r--r--r--.---,---,---, -z o i= 0.8 < a: w ...J 0.6 w (J o c( 0.4 ...J < a: b 0.2 .......
5% DAMPING
SIMULATION
TARGET
w g, 0.0 L--'---'---I-..-L--'--....I.-..J---'---L-...I..-...J.---'--'--~::==~::z:::::,::::::i:::=:i:::d
o 1 2 3 4 5 PERIOD (sec)
Figure 4-12 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with EI Centro SOOE 100% Motion
4-20
-.!?)
z o i= 0.5 <C a: W -l W 0.0 o U <C
~ -0.5 [J] « I-
-1.0 L...-J.___'_-'--'--.1...-c----'--'--'--.1...-c--'-~_'__.l._..J___l...~__'__...L..._L..._L__'__'__...l.._'__'___'_.....!_.I
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
E E
70 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,-~~~300
-!z 35 w ~ w u « 0 -I D-C/)
a w -35 -l [J]
<C I-
-70
C, 3.0 -z 0 2.5 i= « a: 2.0 w .....J W u 1.5 u <C .....J 1.0 <C a: I- 0.5 u w D-en 0.0
0
0
Figure 4·13
5 10
1 2
--- DISPLACEMENT ----------- VELOCITY
15 TIME (sec)
20 25
5% DAMPING
SIMULATION TARGET ----------- .. -
PROTOTYPE SCALE
3 4 PERIOD (sec)
-(,) Q) en ......
150 E E -
5
Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with Taft N21E 400% Motion
4-21
0.8 -CI -Z 0
0.4 i= « II: w --I W 0.0 0 0 « w
-0.4 --I m « I-
-0.8 0 5 10 15 20
1 00 500 -E DISPLACEMENT 0' E .... _------ VELOCITY
CD en - .......
I- 50 .' 250 E z -': E w -~ > w ... I-0 '. C3 « 0 ..... 0 --I 0 a.. ....J en w C > w -50 '/ -250 W
--I --I m m « « l-I--100 -500
0 5 10 15 20
TIME (sec)
- 3 CI -z 5% DAMPING 0 i= : SIMULATION « :
II: 2 TARGET ----._---_ .. ,. w -l w
PROTOTYPE SCALE 0 0 « --I 1 « II: I-0 W _a..
- .-_------- .. _.-en 0 0 1 2 3 4 5
PERIOD (sec)
Figure 4-14 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with Hachinohe N-S 300% Motion
4-22
0.5 -.EJ z 0 i= « a: w ...J W 0.0 0 0 « w ...J m « t-
-0.5 0 5 10 15 20 25
60 300 - -E DISPLACEMENT 0
E 40 ........... VELOCITY CD - 200 ~ t- E z E w 20 100 -~ > W t-O 0 0 (3 « ...J 0 a. ...J en -20 w 0 -100 > w W
...J ...J -40 -200 m aJ « « t-
I--60 -300
0 5 10 15 20 25 TIME (sec)
c, 2.0 -z 5% DAMPING 0 t- 1.5 SIMULATION « a: TARGET .......... __ .. w ...J w PROTOTYPE SCALE 0 1.0 0 « -I « a: 0.5 I-0 W D.. en 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 PERIOD (sec)
Figure 4-15 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with Miyagiken Oki E-W 300% Motion
4-23
0.4 -.!?J z 0
0.2 i= < II: W ....J W 0.0 () ()
< w -0.2 ....J m < I-
-0.4
100 -E E -!z 50 w
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~400
DISPLACEMENT ........... VELOCITY
-o Q) II)
200 E E -~ ~ W I-
~ 0"--'-"- 0 5 ....J 0 ~ ....J 00 W > ~ -50 -200 ~ ....J m m < < l-I- -1 00 L...I-..J.....I,..-L-L--"-.L-I.....I-..J......l.-J.--"-l.....l-.l.-l...~--1-J'-'-J.-.J.....I...J.. ........... '-'-.L-I.....J.....I,.. ........... --"-.L-I.....l.--J -400
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 TIME (sec)
0; 1.2 r--.--,-,,-,-,-,.-..,..---r---r--r--r----r---r--r--r--.---.---.---.--.---,--r---r---,---, -
1
5% DAMPING
SIMULATION TARGET
PROTOTYPE SCALE
2 3 4 PERIOD (sec)
5
Figure 4-16 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with Akita N -S 200 % Motion
4-24
1.0 -OJ -Z 0
0.5 ~ < II: W -1
0.0 W C,) C,)
< w
-0.5 -1 aJ < ~
-1.0
40 -E 30 E -I- 20 z
w ~ w 10 C,)
0 -< -1 a.. -10 en C -20 w -1 aJ -30 < I-
-40
C, 3.0 -z 0 2.5 ~ -< a: 2.0 w -1 W C,) 1.5 C,)
< -1 1.0 -< a: ~ 0.5 C,) w a.. en 0.0
0 5 10 15
.-~--~~---r--,-~--~--r--r--,-~--~--r-~--'400
--- DISPLACEMENT ....... -_ .. VELOCITY
",' ......... ,'
-o 300 m ..... 200 ~ -100 >
I-o (3 o -100 irl
> -200~
m -300 <
~
~~--~~--~~--~~--~~--~~--~~--~~-400
0 5
0 1
10 TIME (sec)
5% DAMPING
SIMULATION TARGET
PROTOTYPE SCALE
2 3 4 PERIOD (sec)
15
5
Figure 4·17 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with Pacoima S74W 100% Motion
4-25
1.0 -2 z 0
0.5 i= <: a: w -I W 0.0 U u <: w -0.5 -I CD <: .-
-1.0
- 100 E E -.- 50 z W :::!: w 0 0 <: -I D.. en C
-50 w -I CD <: .-
-100
C, 4 -z 0 i= 3 <: a: w -I W 0 2 0 <: -I <: a: 1 .-0 W D.. en 0
0 5 10 15
~~--~~--~~--~~--~--r--,--~~--~-'--~500
--- DISPLACEMENT --------- VELOCITY
:
: t~:,.>v':: ':':-..... , ..•....... : ,.," ". ",. .... ,.- ....... .
-o Q) II) -...
250 E E ->~
o (3 o -I W >
-250 ~ CD <: .-
~~--~~--~~--~--~~--~~--~~--~--~~-500
0 5
0 1 2
10 TIME (sec)
5% DAMPING
SIMULATION TARGET ---------------
PROTOTYPE SCALE
3 4 PERIOD (sec)
15
5
Figure 4-18 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with Pacoima S16E 100% Motion
4-26
-!?J ~ 0.2 t= ~ 0.1 w ..J W O. 0 ~"v".~.A.r......y\./"J'\./Y o o ~ -0.1 ..J
~ -0.2 t-
-0.3 L--"'--'--'--L...--'---I---l--L---'---..!.--L.--L.--'----'-.......I...--'---"---'---'--L...J....-'--...J........J.........J
E E -
o 10 20 30 40 50
80 r-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~500 --- DISPLACEMENT
. VELOCITY 0-
CD II) ......
!z 40 w ~ w
250 E ..§
~ 0 ..J a.. en
>t-o o ..J W > a
w -40 ..J
-250 ~ CD c( t-
z o t= c(
-80 ~~---l~--L.---'---'---"-...J....~~~~~.I..-~---l---'---.J..--'---'----'----'-~-500 o 1 0 20 30 40 50
TIME (sec)
ffi 1 .0
5% DAMPING
SIMULATION TARGET
..J W o o c( ...J c( II: t-O w a.. en
PROTOTYPE SCALE
0.5
0.0 L...---i...---'--'--...L-'---L---'---'---L-~i..--I---'----l--'---.J.-j---'---L--'---==:;::::;==l o 1 2 3 4 5
PERIOD (sec)
CD c( t-
Figure 4-19 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with Mexico N90W 100% Motion
4-27
0.2 -C) -Z 0
0.1 i= « a: w ...J W 0.0 U 0 « w
-0.1 ...J m « I-
-0.2 0 5 10 15
20 150 '0 E DISPLACEMENT Q)
E U)
----------- VELOCITY ..... - E I- .'~'. E z 10 . ,
75 ,: : -W >-~ W : : I-U '. U < '~':""'·:··"·""'r~,., .... "
0 0 -I ...J D-
_. W en >
is w w -10 -75 -I m -I « m « l-I-
-20 -150 0 5 10 15
TIME (sec)
c, 0.3 -z 5% DAMPING 0 I- SIMULATION < a: 0.2 TARGET w -----------------I w
PROTOTYPE SCALE u u < -I 0.1 < a: I-u W D-en 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 PERIOD (sec)
Figure 4-20 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with JP. Level 1 G.e.1 100% Motion
4-28
- 0.2 C) -z 0
0.1 i= < a: w ...J W 0.0 U U < w
-0.1 ...J m < t-
-0.2
- 25 E E - 15 I-z W ~ 5 w u < ...J Il.. -5 C/)
C w -15 ....J m < t-
-25
- 0.4 C) -Z 0 i= 0.3 < a: w ....J W u 0.2 u < ...J < a: 0.1 t-u w a. C/) 0.0
0 5 10 15 20
~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~--~~----~~--~150
--- DISPLACEMENT ----------- VELOCITY
-o CD en
90 ...... E E -30 >I-".'" 8
-30 ...J w > w
-90 ....J m < I-
~~~~~~--~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~-150
0 5
0 1
10 TIME (sec)
5% DAMPING
SIMULATION TARGET
15
PROTOTYPE SCALE
2 3 4 PERIOD (sec)
20
5
Figure 4-21 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with JP. Level 1 G.C.2 100% Motion
4-29
-.EJ z o ~ 0.1 « a:
i 0.0 N ~ « ~ -0.1 m « ~
-0.2 L...-.L-.1..--'--....I..-.L.......C---'---'-....I..-.l-..J---'---'--'--..1......JC-.J,..--'--'---'--'--'---'--'---'-.......... --'-~
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
40 ~-r,-~-r,-~-,,-~-,,-~-,,-~~~~~~~,,200 E E -~ Z w :::E w () 0« ...J D-en
20
o
a w -20 ...J m «
--- DISPLACEMENT ----------- VELOCITY
0-CD en --1 00 ~ ->I-o o ...J W >
-100 ~ m « I-I- -40 L......J.--'--'--.1....-J.--L.......I...-.J..-J.--L.......I...--'---'--'---'---'--'--'---'--...J........I--'--'---'---''--'---'--....L....-'----' -200
o 5 1 0 1 5 20 25 30 TIME (sec)
C, 0.4 ""'--"-'--"""'-'--'r--1r--1---.---.---.---r---r---r--,---.,---.---r--r---.--,--,-....,--,----.---, -
1 2
5% DAMPING
SIMULATION TARGET
PROTOTYPE SCALE
3 4 PERIOD (sec)
5
Figure 4-22 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with JP. Level 1 G.C.3 100% Motion
4-30
-01 -Z 0 i= <C a: w ...J W 0 0 « w ...J [D
« I-
-E E -I-z w ::iE w 0 <C ..J Il.. ct)
C W ...J [D
<C I-
0.5
0.3
0.0
-0.3
-0.5
120
SO
0
-SO
0 5 10 15
.--r--~-'--~--'-~--'-~---r--~~--~--r--r--.SOO
DISPLACEMENT ---------- VELOCITY
' '
'.' ,,'
:
-() CD rn .....
300 E E ->I-
o C3 o -l W >
-300 ~ OJ « I-
-1 20 L.....---'--_-'------'-_-'-----l-_-'------l..._.l.....----l..._..l.----'-_...l....---'-_...l....----I -500 o 5 10 15
TIME (sec)
OJ 1.0 r--r-r-r--'"1r---1~-,--r___r___r___r~__,_-r__r_--r--r_,_~--r-~~~...,......., -
1 2
5% DAMPING SIMULATION TARGET
PROTOTYPE SCALE
3 4 PERIOD (sec)
5
Figure 4-23 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with JP. Level 2 G.C.II00% Motion
4-31
0.50 -.E z 0 i= « a: w -I
0.00 W 0 0 « w -I m « I-
-0.50 a 5 10 15 20
150 .-~~-r~-'--~~~~-'-'--~~~-r~~--~~~600 - DISPLACEMENT E -o CD E 100 ........... VELOCITY - 400 .!e
I- E ~ 50 200 .s ~ ~ W I-~ 0 ....................... 0 5 E 9 ~ -50 -200 ~ W ~ ffi -1 00 -400 ~ « l-I- -1 50 L--'---'-----'---'-----1 __ ~..l.--'-----'----l.~ __ ~..l.--'-----'----'-____''---'---~_' -600
o 5 10 15 20 TIME (sec)
C, 1.2 ,-,--,---,,---,---;---r---r---r---r-,--,---,---'--.,.---r-,..---,..--,--.--,--r--,---,-----,--, -
1 2
5% DAMPING
SIMULATION TARGET ............. ..
PROTOTYPE SCALE
3 PERIOD (sec)
4 5
Figure 4-24 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with JP. Level 2 G.C.2 100% Motion
4-32
0.8 -EJ z 0
0.4 i= < a: w ...J W 0.0 () () < w
-0.4 ...J III < I-
-0.8
200 E E -t- 100 z w ::= w ()
0 < ..J D.. en c -100 W ...J III < t-
-200
1.6 :9 z 0
1.2 i= < II: W ..J w
0.8 0 0 < ..J < II: 0.4 t-o W 0.. UJ
0.0
~
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~800
'. '. ,
--- DISPLACEMENT ........... VELOCITY
-() Q) en ......
400 E E ->t-~=-....,O 0 o
...J W >
-400 ~ III < t-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-800
0 5 10
0 1 2
15 TIME (sec)
20
5% DAMPING
SIMULATION
25
TARGET ............. .
PROTOTYPE SCALE
3 4 PERIOD (sec)
30
5
Figure 4-25 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with JP. Level 2 G.C.3 100% Motion
4-33
- 0.8 ~ z 0
0.4 i= < a: w ~ w 0.0 () ()
< w -0.4 ~ aJ < I-
-0.8
E 100
E -l- SO Z w ::! w ()
0 < ~ D-C/)
C -50 w
~ aJ < I-
-100
- 2.0 CI -Z 0 t= 1.5 < a: w ~ w () 1.0 ()
< ..J < 0.5 a: I-() W Il.. C/) 0.0
0 5 10 15 20
~'-~-'~-'--~~'--'~-'--~~'--r~~--~~~400 --- DISPLACEMENT ........... VELOCITY
a (I) en ......
200 E .§ >I-
- .. ~ .. ·~·., .. ~··"= .. ,,~···~ .. ,,=·,,,,=· .. ·=· .... = .. ·,,= .. ·-·~--~O 0 o ~ w >
-200~ aJ < I-
L-~~~~~--~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~-400
0 5
0 1 2
10 15 TIME (sec)
5% DAMPING
SIMULATION TARGET
PROTOTYPE SCALE
3 PERIOD (sec)
4
20
5
Figure 4·26 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with CalTrans Rock No.3 0.6g 100% Motion
4-34
1.0 -C) -Z 0
0.5 ~ < II: W ...J W 0.0 U U < w -0.5 ...J [D
< I-
-1.0
150 -E E 100 -I-Z w 50 ~ w u 0 < ...J c.. en -50 C w ...J -100 [D
< I-
-150
0 5 10 15 20
~~~~~-,--~~~~~-,--~~~~~-,--~.-~600
--- DISPLACEMENT ........... VELOCITY
,'.
'0 400 ~ -E 200 E.
>I-
........... ;::-0 .... =-.. ----10 U o ...J
-200~ w
-400 ffi < I-
~~~~~~--~~~~~~--~~~~~~--~~~-600
0 5 10 TIME (sec)
15 20
C» 3 ~~~~~-,-,-,~~~-T~-r-r-r~-r-r~~~~~ -z o I< II: W ...J W U U < ...J < a: t; w c.. en
2
1
5% DAMPING
SIMULATION
TARGET
PROTOTYPE SCALE
o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ o 1 2 3
PERIOD (sec) 4 5
Figure 4-27 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with CalTrans 10'-80' Alluvium No.3 0.6g 100% Motion
4-35
- 0.8 C) -Z 0
0.4 i= « a: w ...J W 0.0 0 0 « w -0.4 ...J m « I-
-0.8 0 5 10 15 20
150 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~600 -E E 100 - DISPLACEMENT
----------- VELOCITY 0'
400 m ....... I- E ffi 50 200 ..§. ~ > W I-o ..... -........ _-------::l 0 -« 0 ............... -... - 0 ...J 0 ~ ...J
~ -50 -200 ~ W W ~ -100 -400 ~ « ~ I- -1 50 '---'---'----'----'----'_.1.--'---'---'---'----'_.1.-...1.--'---'---'-__ '----'---'---' -600
o 5 10 15 20 TIME (sec)
C, 2.0 ~,--.----r__"'1r--T___,.___,_--r--r--,----r-.,..-.,.._,_-,---,---,---,--r-_r_-,---,----,----,---, -
1
5% DAMPING
SIMULATION
TARGET
PROTOTYPE SCALE
2 3 4 PERIOD (sec)
5
Figure 4-28 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with CalTrans 80'-150' Alluvium No.2 0.6g 100% Motion
4-36
]} 0.2 z o i= 0.1 < II: ~ 0.0 "'---"',111 W o ~ -0.1 w ...J
~ -0.2 ... -0.3 L---'-_'---.l....----J_-'----l_-'----'-_..l...----L.._...J...---'-_-'----'------'
o 3 6 9 12 15
E 15.-~-~~~-,_~-~~--~-,--~~--~~~90
..s 10 .... Z w :::!: w o « ...J D.. en is w
5
o
-5
ca -10 «
--- DISPLACEMENT .......... VELOCITY
-o CP rn e E
30 ->-
§ -30 ~
w ...J
-60 !Xl < .... .... -15 L-~-~~-.J....--L-.J....-~--~~_...J...---'-_...J...-~-~~-90
o 5 10 15 TIME (sec)
a 0.5 ,.--.,--r--r--r--"lr---T---r---r---r--;---r--r--.---r-,--,---r---r---r--;---,---,---,---.--, -z o .... 0.4 < a: w ...J 0.3 w o o < 0.2 ...J « a: t; 0.1 w D..
5% DAMPING
SIMULATION
TARGET
PROTOTYPE SCALE
en 0.0 L-'----''--'---I.---..L.--'-~~--'---'--~-'---'----'--"'--.1....-L...-..J---I.---I.---'---'----'---'---'
o 1 2 3 4 5 PERIOD (sec)
Figure 4·29 Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with Boston 1100% Motion
4-37
0.3
§ 0.2 z 0
0.1 i= c( a: w 0.0 -I W () ()
-0.1 c(
w -I ED -0.2 c( I-
-0.3 0
- 15 E E
10 -I-Z w 5 :E w 0
0 « ...J 0.. en -5 a w ...J -10 a::J « I-
-15 0
- 0.5 0) -z 0
0.4 I-« a: w 0.3 ...J w
0 0 « 0.2 ...J « a: I- 0.1 0 w 0.. en 0.0
0
Figure 4-30
5 10 15
90 -DISPLACEMENT 0
----------- VELOCITY CD 60 en ......
E
30 .s > I-C3 0 ...J
-30 w > W ....J
-60 a::J « I-
-90 5 10 15
TIME (sec)
5% DAMPING
SIMULATION
TARGET .---.- .. -.------------
PROTOTYPE SCALE
1 2 3 4 5 PERIOD (sec)
Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with Boston 2 100% Motion
4-38
- 0.3 ~ z 0.2 0 i= « 0.1 a: w -I W 0.0 () () « w -0.1 ...J aJ
-0.2 « I-
-0.3 0
15 -E E 10 -I-Z w 5 :::ii: w ()
0 « ...J a.. C/) -5 15 w -I -10 m « I-
-15 0
Ci 0.5 -z 0
0.4 ~ « a:: w 0.3 ...J w
() () « 0.2 ...J « a: I- 0.1 0 w D.. C/) 0.0
0
Figure 4-31
5 10 15
90 DISPLACEMENT 0'
---------- VELOCITY CD 60 U) ......
E
30 .§. >-I-(3 0 ...J
-30 w > W ...J
-60 aJ « I-
-90 5 10 15
TIME (sec)
5% DAMPING
SIMULATION
TARGET _._-----------._ ..
PROTOTYPE SCALE
1 2 3 4 5 PERIOD (sec)
Time Histories of Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectrum of Shaking Table Motion Excited with Boston 3 100% Motion
4-39
SECTION 5
EARTHQUAKE SIMULATOR TEST RESULTS
5.1 Results for Non-isolated Bridge
Testing of the non-isolated bridge (see Figure 4-9, configuration 1) was conducted with
only horizontal excitation. The experimental results for the bridge in its non-isolated
configuration are summarized in Table 5-1. For each test, the peak values of the table
motion in the horizontal direction are given. The displacement and acceleration were
directly measured whereas the velocity was determined by numerical differentiation of the
displacement record. The peak pier drift is given as a percentage of the pier height which
was 1290.3mm. This is the length of the column excluding the stiffeners at the ends (see
Figure 4-1). The peak shear force is given as a fraction of the axial load carried by the
pier (70 kN each pier).
5.2 Results for Isolated Bridge
Table 5-11 lists the earthquake simulation tests and model conditions in the tests of the
isolated bridge. The excitation in Table 5-11 is identified with a percentage figure which
represents a scaling factor on the acceleration, velocity and displacement of the actual
record. For example, the figure 200% denotes a motion scaled up by a factor of two in
comparison to the actual record.
Table 5-111 presents a summary of the experimental results of the isolated bridge. The
table includes the following results:
(a) Displacement of bearings located at the south pier (see Figures 4-7 to 4-9). The
transducers monitoring the south bearing displacement were continuously
monitored and not initialized prior to each test. Thus, the instruments recorded
correctly the initial and permanent bearing displacements. Figure 5-1 shows an
5-1
Tab
le 5
-1 S
umm
ary
of E
xper
imen
tal R
esul
ts o
f Non
-Iso
late
d B
ridg
e
--
------
~~-
~-
PE
AK
TA
BL
E M
OT
ION
D
EC
K
PIE
R S
HE
AR
I P
IER
DR
IFT
RA
TIO
A
CC
EL
. A
XIA
L L
OA
D
(%)
TE
ST
No.
E
XC
ITA
TIO
N
DIS
P.
VE
L.
AC
CE
L.
(g)
SO
UT
H
NO
RT
H
SO
UT
H
NO
RT
H
(nun
) (m
rn/s
ec)
(g)
FR
UN
05
EL
CE
NT
RO
SO
OE
25%
5.
8 40
.0
0.09
5 0.
25
0.26
6 0.
271
N/A
0.
381
FR
UN
06
TA
FT
N21
E 5
0%
7.0
32.7
0.
069
0.21
0.
230
0.23
4 N
/A
0.31
5
FR
UN
07
TA
FT
N21
E 7
5%
10.5
47
.7
0.10
2 0.
25
0.27
3 0.
278
N/A
0.
385
FR
UN
08
JP L
EV
EL
1 G
.C.l
100
%
16.6
96
.0
0.10
9 0.
21
0.23
1 0.
222
N/A
0.
346
FR
UN
09
JP L
EV
EL
1 G
.C.2
100
%
17.3
11
3.6
0.11
0 0.
26
0.28
0 0.
269
N/A
0.
414
FR
UN
10
JP L
EV
EL
1 G
.C.3
100
%
33.7
15
8.3
0.13
0 0.
33
0.35
3 0.
354
N/A
0.
623
FR
UN
ll
AK
ITA
N-S
75%
25
.1
108.
4 0.
138
0.26
0.
284
0.28
3 N
/A
0.47
4
! F
RU
N12
H
AC
HIN
OH
E N
-S 5
0%
15.8
66
.0
0.10
3 0.
18
0.20
0 0.
198
N/A
0.
311
Vl
I N
I F
RU
N13
M
IYA
GIK
EN
OK
I E
-W 7
5%
8.0
38.0
0.
080
0.22
0.
242
0.23
5 N
/A
0.38
4
! F
RU
N14
M
EX
ICO
N90
W 1
00%
51
.7
303.
1 0.
169
0.26
0.
286
0.28
4 N
/A
0.52
2
FR
UN
15
JPL
EV
EL
2G
.C.1
25
%
26.7
11
4.1
0.10
4 0.
17
0.18
9 0.
181
N/A
0.
301
FR
UN
16
JP L
EV
EL
2 G
.C.2
25%
25
.0
109.
8 0.
098
0.21
0.
232
0.22
5 N
/A
0.36
5
FR
UN
17
JP L
EV
EL
2 G
.C.3
25%
27
.6
116.
6 0.
117
0.26
0.
285
0.28
3 N
/A
0.49
7
FR
UN
18
PA
CO
IMA
S74
W 1
3%
4.0
36.4
0.
103
0.20
0.
221
0.21
4 N
/A
0.34
6
FR
UN
19
PA
CO
IMA
S16
E 1
3%
10.4
63
.9
0.09
5 0.
17
0.18
7 0.
186
N/A
0.
275
FR
UN
20
CA
LT
RA
NS
R3
0.6g
20%
23
.5
124.
8 0.
101
0.22
0.
227
0.23
4 N
/A
0.38
9
FR
UN
21
CA
L T
RA
NS
S3
0.6g
20%
32
.1
102.
4 0.
112
0.31
0.
320
0.34
5 N
/A
0.56
5
FR
UN
22
CA
LT
RA
NS
A2
0.6g
20%
47
.2
128.
3 0.
104
0.27
0.
278
0.29
8 N
/A
0.47
5
example of bearing displacement time history. The initial displacement is the
permanent displacement in the previous test and the initial displacement in the
current test.
(b) Maximum travel of bearings located at the North pier. The transducers monitoring
the North bearing displacements were initialized prior to each test so that the
initial displacement appeared always as zero. Thus, only the maximum travel
(MAX.-INIT. in Figure 5-1) could be accurately obtained and not the initial and
permanent displacements.
IZ W ~ W ()
< ....I n. U)
a
+ INITIAL DISPLACEMENT ON IT .)
'\ MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT (MAX.)
(MAX.-INIT.)
n~ /I l'
~y P:RMANENTDISPLAcL,PERMI
TIME \
Figure 5-1 Example of Bearing Displacement History
(c) Isolation system shear force normalized by the carried weight (140 kN for total
shear force and 70 kN for shear force at each pier). The isolation system shear
force is the sum of the horizontal components of bearing forces as recorded by the
load cells supporting the bearings.
(d) Pier acceleration. The peak accelerations of the top of the South and North piers
are reported.
(e) Deck horizontal acceleration.
(f) Pier shear force normalized by axial load. Each column was instrumented with
strain gages to measure the shear force. The reported quantity is the sum of the
5-3
shear forces in the two columns of each pier divided by the axial load on each pier
(140/2=70 kN). It should be noted that the pier shear force is, in general,
different than the isolation system shear force. The two forces differ by the inertia
force of the accelerating part of the pier between the sliding interface and the
location of the strain gages.
(g) Pier drift ratio. This is the displacement of the top of the pier relative to the shake
table, divided by the length of the column (1290.3 mm).
During testing of the model bridge in its isolated condition it was observed that the
overhangs of the shake table extension, which supported the piers (see Figure 4-1),
underwent significant vertical motion even when only horizontal table motion was
imposed. The two overhangs did not move vertically in unison. Rather, the motion of
the two overhangs was anti-symmetric with the two sides moving with different amplitude
and content in frequency. It was concluded that this vertical motion of the overhangs was
the combined result of table-structure interaction, vertical flexibility of the overhangs and
differences in the vertical stiffness of the overhangs (it was later found that on one side
of the concrete table extension the reinforcement was misplaced).
The implications of this phenomenon were to increase the severity of the testing. In
effect, in all tests the piers experienced out-of-phase vertical input at their bases. This
caused changes in the vertical load carried by the FPS bearings, which in turn affected
the stiffness and friction force of the bearings (see Equation 3-9). This explains the
differences in the isolation system shear force, pier acceleration and pier shear force and
drift between the South and North piers (see Table 5-III). Furthermore, it explains the
wavy nature of the recorded force versus displacement loops of the isolation system (see
Appendix A).
5-4
VI
I VI
TEST
No.
FPSA
RO
l
FPSA
R02
FPSA
R03
FPSA
R04
FPSA
R05
FPSA
R06
FPSA
R07
FPSA
R08
FPSA
R09
FPSA
R10
FPSA
R11
FPSA
R12
FPSA
R13
FPSA
R14
FPSA
R15
I FP
SAR
16
FPSA
R17
FPSA
R18
,
FPSA
R22
FPSA
R23
FPSA
R24
FPSA
R25
FPSA
R26
FPSA
R27
FPSA
R28
EXC
ITAT
ION
EL C
ENTR
O S
ooE
100%
EL C
ENTR
O S
OOE
200%
TAFT
N21
E 10
0%
TAFT
N21
E 4
00%
TAFT
N21
E 60
0%
JP L
EV
Ell
G.C
.l 10
0%
JP L
EV
Ell
G.C
.2 1
00%
JP L
EVEL
1 G
.C.3
100
%
JP L
EVEL
2 G
.C.1
100
%
JP L
EVEL
2 G
.C.2
1OO
%
JP L
EVEL
2 G
.C.3
100
%
CAL
TRAN
S R3
0.6
9 10
0%
CAL
TRAN
S S3
0.6
9 10
0%
CAL
TRAN
S A2
0.6
9100
%
HAC
HIN
OH
E N
-S 1
00%
HAC
HIN
OH
E N
-S 3
00%
AKIT
A N
-S 1
00%
AKIT
A N
-S 2
00%
MIY
AGIK
ENO
KI E
-W 3
00%
MIY
AGIK
ENO
KI E
-W 6
00%
MEX
ICO
N90
W 1
00%
MEX
ICO
N90
W 1
20%
EL C
ENTR
O S
OOE
100%
EL C
ENTR
O S
ooE
200%
TAFT
N21
E 10
0%
Tabl
e 5·1
1 Li
st o
f Ear
thqu
ake
Sim
ulat
ion
Test
s an
d M
odel
Con
ditio
ns in
Tes
ts o
f the
Isol
ated
Brid
ge
I PEA
K TA
BLE
MO
TIO
N
II PI
ER C
ON
DIT
ION
I
BEAR
ING
BE
ARIN
G
FRIC
TIO
NAL
I D
IS.
VEL.
AC
C.
SOU
TH
NO
RTH
M
ATER
IAL
PRES
SUR
E(M
Pa)
PRO
PER
TIES
C
OM
MEN
TS
(mm
) (m
m/s
) (g
) SO
UTH
N
OR
TH
SOU
TH
NO
RTH
fm
ax
fmin
23.8
16
6.8
0.35
0 ST
IFF
STIF
F No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
48.0
32
5.9
0.63
2 ST
IFF
STIF
F No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
14.2
66
.0
0.16
3 ST
IFF
STIF
F No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
57.6
26
1.8
0.60
6 ST
IFF
STIF
F No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
86.2
40
8.3
0.95
6 ST
IFF
STIF
F No
.1
NO.1
17.2
17
.2
0.10
4 0.
040
17.1
10
1.8
0.12
0 ST
IFF
STIF
F No
.1
NO.1
17.2
17
.2
0.10
4 0.
040
17.7
11
7.9
0.13
4 ST
IFF
STIF
F No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
34.4
16
8.9
0.15
6 ST
IFF
STIF
F No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
108.
4 47
0.6
0.48
9 ST
IFF
STIF
F No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
101.
6 45
7.4
0.40
7 ST
IFF
STIF
F No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
111.
7 50
5.4
0.67
3 ST
IFF
STIF
F No
.1
NO.1
17.2
17
.2
0.10
4 0.
040
* 95
.9
319.
0 0.
588
STIF
F ST
IFF
No.1
No
.1
17.2
17
.2
0.10
4 0.
040
119.
4 42
4.6
0.80
4 ST
IFF
STIF
F No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0 I
125.
5 55
9.3
0.65
3 ST
IFF
STIF
F No
.1
NO.1
17.2
17
.2
0.10
4 0.
040
.
32.3
13
8.6
0.26
3 ST
IFF
STIF
F No
.1
NO.1
17.2
17
.2
0.10
4 0.
040
95.9
41
5.3
0.71
2 ST
IFF
STIF
F No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
34.0
14
4.3
0.19
3 ST
IFF
STIF
F No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
67.9
28
6.0
0.35
4 ST
IFF
STIF
F No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
37.1
24
1.4
0.44
1 ST
IFF
STIF
F No
.1
NO.1
17.2
17
.2
0.10
4 0.
040
74.2
48
0.9
1.04
5 ST
IFF
STIF
F No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
52.5
30
6.1
0.19
4 ST
IFF
STIF
F No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
63.0
36
9.0
0.38
4 ST
IFF
STIF
F No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0 *
23.9
15
6.1
0.28
5 FL
EXIB
LE
FLEX
IBLE
No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
47.7
32
4.7
0.62
0 FL
EXIB
LE
FLEX
IBLE
No
.1
NO.1
17.2
17
.2
0.10
4 0.
040
14.8
64
.6
0.14
8 FL
EXIB
LE
FLEX
IBLE
No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
* : D
ISPL
ACEM
ENT
RES
TRAI
NER
AC
TIVA
TED
VI
I 0\
Tabl
e 5-1
1 C
ont'd
TEST
I
PEAK
TAB
LE M
OTI
ON
II
PIER
CO
ND
ITIO
N
I BE
ARIN
G
BEAR
ING
--
FRIC
TIO
NAL
1·-
1 N
o.
EXC
ITAT
ION
D
IS.
VEL.
AC
C.
SOU
TH
NO
RTH
M
ATER
IAL
PRES
SUR
E(M
Pa)
PRO
PER
TIES
C
OM
MEN
TS
(mm
) (m
mls
) (g
) SO
UTH
N
OR
TH
SOU
TH
NO
RTH
fm
ax
fmin
FPSA
R29
TA
FT N
21E
300%
43
.3
198.
1 0.
510
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
No.1
No
.1
17.2
17
.2
0.10
4 0.
040
FPSA
R30
TA
FT N
21E
400%
57
.6
268.
8 0.
713
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
No.1
No
.1
17.2
17
.2
0.10
4 0.
040
FPSA
R31
TA
FT N
21E
500%
71
.6
337.
0 0.
905
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
No.1
No
.1
17.2
17
.2
0.10
4 0.
040
FPSA
R32
TA
FT N
21E
600%
85
.9
408.
7 1.
067
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
No.1
No
.1
17.2
17
.2
0.10
4 0.
040
FPSA
R33
JP
LEV
EL1
G.C
.l1oo
%
17.4
10
5.1
0.10
5 FL
EXIB
LE
FLEX
IBLE
No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
FPSA
R34
JP
LEV
EL1
G.C
.210
0%
17.2
11
8.5
0.11
0 FL
EXIB
LE
FLEX
IBLE
No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
FPSA
R35
JP
LEVE
L1 G
.C.3
100%
34
.2
160.
1 0.
118
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
No.1
No
.1
17.2
17
.2
0.10
4 0.
040
FPSA
R36
JP
LEV
EL2
G.C
.l 75
%
81.2
35
8.1
0.27
7 FL
EXIB
LE
FLEX
IBLE
No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
FPSA
R37
JP
LEV
EL2
G.C
.110
0%
108.
8 47
4.8
0.37
7 FL
EXIB
LE
FLEX
IBLE
No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
FPSA
R38
JP
LEV
EL2
G.C
.2 1
00%
10
2.0
454.
2 0.
415
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
No.1
No
.1
17.2
17
.2
0.10
4 0.
040
FPSA
R39
JP
LEV
EL2
G.C
.3 7
5%
83.7
37
2.6
0.32
4 FL
EXIB
LE
FLEX
IBLE
No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
FPSA
R40
JP
LEV
EL2
G.C
.3 9
0%
97.1
45
0.4
0.42
7 FL
EXIB
LE
FLEX
IBLE
No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0 *
FPSA
R41
C
ALTR
ANS
R3 0
.691
00%
95
.7
315.
3 0.
608
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
No.1
No
.1
17.2
17
.2
0.10
4 0.
040
FPSA
R42
C
ALTR
ANS
S30
.69
100%
11
9.1
429.
5 0.
697
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
No.1
NO
.1 17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
FPSA
R43
C
ALTR
ANS
A2 0
.691
00%
12
5.3
558.
6 0.
631
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
No.1
No
.1
17.2
17
.2
0.10
4 0.
040
FPSA
R44
H
ACH
INO
HE
N-S
100
%
32.3
14
3.2
0.22
6 FL
EXIB
LE
FLEX
IBLE
No
.1
NO.1
17.2
17
.2
0.10
4 0.
040
FPSA
R45
H
ACH
INO
HE
N-S
300
%
96.0
42
5.9
0.80
9 FL
EXIB
LE
FLEX
IBLE
No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
FPSA
R46
AK
ITA
N-S
100
%
34.1
14
3.1
0.17
5 FL
EXIB
LE
FLEX
IBLE
No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
FPSA
R47
AK
ITA
N-S
200
%
68.0
29
1.1
0.35
2 FL
EXIB
LE
FLEX
IBLE
No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
I
FPSA
R48
M
IYAG
IKEN
OKI
E-W
300
%
37.0
23
4.1
0.45
2 FL
EXIB
LE
FLEX
IBLE
No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
FPSA
R49
M
IYA
GIK
EN
OK
IE-W
6oo%
74
.0
478.
0 1.
115
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
No.1
No
.1
17.2
17
.2
0.10
4 0.
040
I FP
SAR
50
MEX
ICO
N90
W 1
00%
52
.6
306.
1 0.
219
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
No.1
No
.1
17.2
17
.2
0.10
4 0.
040
I FP
SAR
51
PAC
OIM
A S7
4W 1
00%
29
.2
278.
6 0.
764
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
No.1
No
.1
17.2
17
.2
0.10
4 0.
040
. FP
SAR
52
PAC
OIM
A S1
6E 5
0%
40.7
24
7.7
0.41
9 FL
EXIB
LE
FLEX
IBLE
No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
FPSA
R53
TA
FT N
21E
H+V
400
%
58.2
27
2.4
0.68
4 FL
EXIB
LE
FLEX
IBLE
No
.1
No.1
17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
* : D
ISPL
ACEM
ENT
RES
TRAI
NER
AC
TIVA
TED
VI
I -....l
TEST
No.
FPSA
R54
FPSA
R55
FPSA
R56
FPSA
R57
FPSA
R58
FPSB
RO
l
FPSB
R02
FPSB
R03
FPSB
R04
FPSB
R05
FPSB
R06
FPSB
R10
FP
SB
Rll
FPSB
R12
FPSB
R13
FPSC
RO
l
FPSC
R02
FPSC
R03
FPSC
R04
FPSC
R05
FPSC
R06
FPSC
R07
FPSC
R08
FPSC
R09
FPSC
R10
-jP
EA
K T
ABLE
MO
TIO
N
II EX
CIT
ATIO
N
DIS
. VE
L.
ACC
.
(mm
) (m
m/s
) (~
)
EL C
ENTR
O S
OOE
H+V
200
%
46.7
32
3.8
0.64
4
TAFT
N21
E H
+V 4
00%
58
.7
273.
9 0.
590
EL C
ENTR
O S
OOE
H+V
200
%
47.0
32
8.3
0.66
1
PAC
OIM
A S7
4W 1
00%
29
.0
278.
7 0.
841
PAC
OIM
A S1
6E 5
0%
40.6
24
6.6
0.47
5
EL C
ENTR
O S
OOE
50%
12
.1
81.8
0.
184
EL C
ENTR
O S
OOE
100%
23
.9
161.
2 0.
330
TAFT
N21
E 10
0%
14.3
65
.8
0.15
2
TAFT
N21
E 20
0%
28.8
12
7.3
0.29
6
TAFT
N21
E 30
0%
43.2
19
6.8
0.44
2
MIY
AGIK
EN O
KI E
-W 1
30%
16
.0
104.
6 0.
185
HAC
HIN
OH
E N-
S 10
0%
32.2
13
4.8
0.26
2
BOST
ON
1 1
00%
9.
7 67
.2
0.14
5
BOST
ON
2 1
00%
8.
0 65
.9
0.13
4
BOST
ON
3 1
00%
7.
5 52
.3
0.15
6
EL C
ENTR
O S
OOE
200%
48
.1
318.
6 0.
622
TAFT
N21
E 4
00%
57
.4
265.
8 0.
606
TAFT
N21
E 60
0%
86.0
40
6.0
0.95
3
JP L
EVEL
2 G
.C.ll
oo%
10
7.7
469.
6 0.
522
CAL
TRAN
S R3
0.6
9100
%
95.5
31
7.1
0.58
7
CAL
TRAN
S A2
0.6
9 10
0%
125.
0 55
6.9
0.63
3
HAC
HIN
OH
E N
-S 1
00%
32
.1
137.
7 0.
252
HAC
HIN
OH
E N-
S 30
0%
95.8
42
1.6
0.69
4
AKIT
A N
-S 2
00%
67
.9
288.
0 0.
392
MEX
ICO
N90
W 1
00%
52
.3
312.
2 0.
185
Tabl
e 5-1
1 C
ont'd
PIER
CO
ND
ITIO
N
I BE
ARIN
G
BEAR
ING
FR
ICTI
ON
AL
I I
SOU
TH
NO
RTH
M
ATER
IAL
PRES
SUR
E(M
Pa)
PRO
PER
TIES
C
OM
MEN
TS
SOU
TH
NO
RTH
SO
UTH
N
OR
TH
fmax
fm
in
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
No.1
NO
.1 17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
STIF
F ST
IFF
No.1
No
.1
17.2
17
.2
0.10
4 0.
040
STIF
F ST
IFF
No.1
NO
.1 17
.2
17.2
0.
104
0.04
0
STIF
F ST
IFF
No.1
No
.1
17.2
17
.2
0.10
4 0.
040
STIF
F ST
IFF
No.1
No
.1
17.2
17
.2
0.10
4 0.
040
STIF
F ST
IFF
No.
2 N
o.2
275.
6 27
5.6
0.05
8 0.
058
STIF
F ST
IFF
No.
2 N
o.2
275.
6 27
5.6
0.05
8 0.
058
STIF
F ST
IFF
No.
2 N
o,2
275.
6 27
5.6
0.05
8 0.
058
STIF
F ST
IFF
No.
2 N
o,2
275.
6 27
5.6
0.05
8 0.
058
STIF
F ST
IFF
No.
2 NO
.2
275.
6 27
5.6
0.05
8 0.
058
STIF
F ST
IFF
No.
2 N
o.2
275.
6 27
5.6
0.05
8 0.
058
STIF
F ST
IFF
No.
2 N
o,2
275.
6 27
5.6
0.05
8 0.
058
STIF
F ST
IFF
No.
2 N
o,2
275.
6 27
5.6
0.05
8 0.
058
STIF
F ST
IFF
No.
2 NO
.2
275.
6 27
5.6
0.05
8 0.
058
STIF
F ST
IFF
No.
2 N
o,2
275.
6 27
5.6
0.05
8 0.
058
STIF
F ST
IFF
No.
3 N
o,3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
STIF
F ST
IFF
No.
3 N
o.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
STIF
F ST
IFF
No.
3 NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
STIF
F ST
IFF
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
STIF
F ST
IFF
NO.3
N
o.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
STIF
F ST
IFF
No.
3 NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
STIF
F ST
IFF
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
STIF
F ST
IFF
No.
3 N
o.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
STIF
F ST
IFF
No.
3 N
o.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
STIF
F ST
IFF
NO.3
N
o.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
til
I 00
TEST
No.
FPSC
R11
FPSC
R12
FPSC
R13
FPSC
R14
FPSC
R15
FPSC
R16
FPSC
R17
FPSC
R18
FPSC
R19
FPSC
R20
FPSC
R21
FPSC
R22
FPSC
R23
FPSC
R24
FPSC
R25
FPSC
R26
FPSC
R27
FPSC
R28
i FP
SCR
29
FPSC
R30
FPSC
R31
FPSC
R32
FPSC
R33
FPSC
R34
FPSC
R35
EXC
ITAT
ION
EL C
ENTR
O S
OOE
100%
TAFT
N21
E 20
0%
TAFT
N21
E 40
0%
HAC
HIN
OH
E N
-S 2
00%
CAL
TRAN
S R1
0.6
9100
%
CAL
TRAN
S R2
0.6
9100
%
CAL
TRAN
S S2
0.6
9100
%
CAL
TRAN
S S3
0.6
G 1
00%
AKIT
A N
-S 1
00%
MIY
AGIK
EN O
KI E
-W 2
00%
MIY
AGIK
EN O
KI E
-W 4
00%
MIY
AGIK
EN O
KI E
-W 6
00%
PAC
OIM
A S7
4W 1
00%
EL C
ENTR
O S
OOE
H+V
200
%
TAFT
N21
E H
+V 4
00%
JP L
EVEL
2 G
.C.2
100
%
JP L
EVEL
2 G
.C.3
75%
JP L
EVEL
2 G
.C.3
100
%
PAC
OIM
A S1
6E 5
0%
PAC
OIM
A S1
6E 7
5%
PAC
OIM
A S1
6E 8
5%
PAC
OIM
A S1
6E 1
00%
JP L
EVEL
2 G
.C.3
100
%
JP L
EVEL
2 G
.C.3
100%
REV
JP L
EVEL
2 G
.C.2
100%
Tabl
e 5-1
1 Co
nt'd
I PEA
K TA
BLE
MO
TIO
N
II PI
ER C
ON
DIT
ION
I
BEAR
ING
DIS
. VE
L.
(mm
) (m
m/s
)
24.7
16
7.2
28.6
13
0.3
57.4
26
4.6
64.0
27
3.30
118.
3 29
4.2
74.6
27
0.9
67.5
41
7.8
118.
8 42
9.8
33.9
14
5.7
24.7
16
2.2
49.4
31
7.6
74.1
47
6.4
29.6
27
7.4
46.9
32
7.1
58.6
27
3.7
101.
0 45
4.7
83.6
37
0.3
111.
4 50
1.3
40.4
23
9.8
60.5
37
5.7
68.4
42
2.3
80.5
49
3.8
111.
3 49
7.2
111.
5 50
0.5
101.
1 45
2.7
ACC
. SO
UTH
N
OR
TH
MAT
ERIA
L
(~)
SOU
TH
NO
RTH
0.35
1 ST
IFF
STIF
F NO
.3
No.
3
0.31
0 ST
IFF
STIF
F N
o.3
No.
3
0.60
8 ST
IFF
STIF
F N
o.3
No.
3
0.51
0 ST
IFF
STIF
F N
o.3
No.
3
0.60
9 ST
IFF
STIF
F NO
.3
No.
3
0.55
5 ST
IFF
STIF
F N
o.3
No.
3
0.75
5 ST
IFF
STIF
F N
o.3
No.
3
0.83
5 ST
IFF
STIF
F N
o.3
No.
3
0.19
7 ST
IFF
STIF
F N
o.3
No.
3
0.26
7 ST
IFF
STIF
F N
o.3
No.
3
0.61
2 ST
IFF
STIF
F NO
.3
No.
3
0.98
9 ST
IFF
STIF
F N
o.3
No.
3
0.82
9 ST
IFF
STIF
F N
o.3
No.
3
0.65
5 ST
IFF
STIF
F NO
.3
No.
3
0.61
4 ST
IFF
STIF
F NO
.3
No.
3
0.40
2 ST
IFF
STIF
F NO
.3
No.
3
0.34
8 ST
IFF
STIF
F NO
.3
No.
3
0.49
4 ST
IFF
STIF
F NO
.3
No.
3
0.50
1 ST
IFF
STIF
F N
o.3
No.
3
0.75
5 ST
IFF
STIF
F NO
.3
No.
3
0.83
7 ST
IFF
STIF
F NO
.3
No.
3
0.96
3 ST
IFF
STIF
F NO
.3
No.
3
0.48
3 ST
IFF
FLEX
IBLE
N
o.3
No.
3
0.51
6 ST
IFF
FLEX
IBLE
NO
.3
No.
3
0.40
0 ST
IFF
FLEX
IBLE
NO
.3
No3
* : D
ISPL
ACEM
ENT
RES
TRAI
NER
AC
TIVA
TED
RE
V:
POLA
RIT
Y R
EVER
SED
BEAR
ING
FR
ICTI
ON
AL
I I
PRES
SUR
E(M
Pa)
PRO
PER
TIES
C
OM
MEN
TS
SOU
TH
NO
RTH
fm
ax
fmin
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
* 17
.2
17.2
0.
120
0.09
0 *
(IMPA
CT
SOU
TH O
NLY
)
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
* (IM
PAC
T SO
UTH
ON
LY)
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
U\
I \0
TEST
No.
FPSC
R36
FPSC
R37
FPSC
R38
FPSC
R39
FPSC
R40
FPSC
R41
FPSC
R42
FPSC
R43
FPSC
R44
FPSC
R45
FPSC
R46
FPSC
R47
FPSC
R48
FPSC
R49
FPSC
R50
FPSC
R51
FPSC
R52
FPSC
R53
FPSC
R54
FPSC
R55
FPSC
RS6
FPSC
R57
FPSC
RS8
FPSC
RS9
FPSC
R60
---
EXC
ITAT
ION
JP L
EVEL
2 G
.C.1
100
%
EL C
ENTR
O S
OOE
200%
TAFT
N21
E 40
0%
TAFT
N21
E 60
0%
HAC
HIN
OH
E N-
S 30
0%
CAL
TRAN
S R1
0.6
9 10
0%
CAL
TRAN
S R2
0.6
9 10
0%
CAL
TRAN
S R
3 0.
69 1
00%
CAL
TRAN
S S2
0.6
9 10
0%
CAL
TRAN
S S3
0.6
9 10
0%
CAL
TRAN
S A2
0.6
9100
%
AKIT
A N
-S 2
00%
MEX
ICO
N90
W 1
00%
EL C
ENTR
O S
OOE
200%
H+V
TAFT
N21
E 40
0% H
+V
EL C
ENTR
O S
OOE
100%
EL C
ENTR
O S
OOE
200%
TAFT
N21
E 2
00%
TAFT
N21
E40
0%
TAFT
N21
ESO
O%
CAL
TRAN
S R1
0.6
9 10
0%
CAL
TRAN
S R2
0.6
9100
%
CAL
TRAN
S R
3 0.
69 1
00%
CAL
TRAN
S S2
0.6
9 10
0%
CAL
TRAN
S S3
0.6
9100
%
I PEA
K TA
BLE
MO
TIO
N
II D
IS.
VEL.
AC
C.
(mm
) (m
mls)
(~
)
107.
7 47
3.3
0.41
2
47.6
32
1.5
0.58
4
57.4
26
5.4
0.63
7
85.9
41
3.4
1.00
6
95.9
42
6.7
0.74
7
118.
4 28
5.5
0.52
5
74.6
26
9.9
0.56
8
95.5
31
5.9
0.59
5
67.6
41
6.2
0.80
0
118.
8 42
7.6
0.73
7
125.
1 55
8.2
0.64
6
67.8
28
9.8
0.35
0
52.4
30
6.5
0.20
5
46.7
32
9.6
0.59
1
58.6
27
2.6
0.61
4
23.7
15
7.9
0.28
9
47.6
32
5.3
0.63
9
28.7
12
9.0
0.34
6
57.3
26
6.3
0.69
9
71.S
33
9.1
0.86
4
118.
1 28
4.9
0.S6
8
74.S
27
1.6
0.S8
6
95.4
31
S.9
0.S9
8
67.6
42
0.2
0.78
S
118.
6 43
0.9
0.67
7
Tabl
e 5-1
1 C
ont'd
I
I I
PIER
CO
ND
ITIO
N
BEAR
ING
BE
ARIN
G
FRIC
TIO
NAL
SOU
TH
NO
RTH
M
ATER
IAL
PRES
SUR
E(M
Pa)
PRO
PER
TIES
C
OM
MEN
TS
SOU
TH
NO
RTH
SO
UTH
N
OR
TH
fmax
fm
in
STIF
F FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
N
o.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
STIF
F FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
N
o.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
STIF
F FL
EXIB
LE
No.
3 N
o.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
STIF
F FL
EXIB
LE
No.
3 NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
STIF
F FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
N
o.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
STIF
F FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
STIF
F FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
STIF
F FE
LXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
STIF
F FE
LXIB
LE
No.
3 NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
STIF
F FL
EXIB
LE
No.
3 NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
STIF
F FL
EXIB
LE
No.
3 NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
STIF
F FL
EXIB
LE
No.
3 NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
STIF
F FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
STIF
F FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
STIF
F FL
EXIB
LE
No.
3 NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
No.
3 N
o.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
No.
3 N
o.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
No.
3 N
o.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
N
o.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
N
o.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
VI
I ......
o
TEST
No.
FPSC
R61
FPSC
R62
FPSC
R63
FPSC
R64
FPSC
R65
FPSC
R66
FPSC
R67
FPSC
R68
FPSC
R69
FPSC
R70
FPSC
R71
FPSC
R72
FPSC
R73
FPSC
R74
I .
FPSC
R75
FPSC
R76
FPSC
R77
FPSC
R78
FPSC
R79
FPSC
R80
FPSC
R81
FPSC
R82
FPSC
R83
FPSC
R84
EXC
ITAT
ION
CAL
TRAN
S A2
0.6
g 10
0%
HAC
HIN
OH
E N
-S 1
00%
HAC
HIN
OH
E N
-S 3
00%
AKIT
A N
-S 1
00%
AKIT
A N
-S 2
00%
MIY
AGIK
EN O
KI E
-W 2
00%
MIY
AGIK
EN O
KI E
-W 4
00%
MIY
AGIK
EN O
KI E
-W 4
00%
PAC
OIM
A S7
4W 1
00%
JP L
EVEL
2 G
.C.l1
00%
JP L
EVEL
2 G
.C.2
100%
JP L
EVEL
2 G
.C.3
75%
JP L
EVEL
2 G
.C.3
85%
PAC
OIM
A S1
6E 5
0%
PAC
OIM
A S1
6E 7
5%
PAC
OIM
A S1
6E 8
5%
EL C
ENTR
O S
OOE
200%
H+V
TAFT
N21
E 40
0% H
+V
PAC
OIM
A S1
6E 1
00%
PAC
OIM
A S1
6E 1
00%
EL C
ENTR
O S
OOE
200%
TAFT
N21
E 60
0%
MEX
ICO
N90
W 1
00%
MEX
ICO
N90
W 1
00%
I PEA
K TA
BLE
MO
TIO
N
II D
IS.
VEL.
AC
C.
(mm
) (m
m/s
) (9
)
125.
0 55
7.2
0.64
8
32.2
14
2.5
0.22
6
95.6
42
7.8
0.76
4
34.0
14
3.5
0.17
2
67.7
28
6.5
0.37
9
24.8
15
3.5
0.29
4
49.2
31
4.1
0.64
4
49.1
31
3.1
0.64
2
28.8
27
9.0
0.73
4
107.
5 47
4.3
0.38
3
101.
1 45
2.1
0.41
2
83.8
37
1.4
0.32
4
94.4
42
1.4
0.36
8
40.7
24
7.2
0.42
6
60.7
37
0.6
0.63
7
68.7
41
7.4
0.72
5
46.5
32
9.1
0.65
8
58.4
26
8.6
0.64
9
80.4
48
2.2
0.84
1
80.5
48
6.4
0.89
2
47.8
32
1.6
0.64
5
85.7
40
9.6
0.96
9
52.2
30
4.4
0.19
6
52.2
30
4.6
0.21
8
Tabl
e 5-1
1 Co
nt'd
PIER
CO
ND
ITIO
N I
BEAR
ING
BE
ARIN
G
FRIC
TIO
NAL
I I
SOU
TH
NO
RTH
M
ATER
IAL
PRES
SUR
E(M
Pa)
PRO
PER
TIES
C
OM
MEN
TS
SOU
TH
NO
RTH
SO
UTH
N
OR
TH
fmax
fm
in
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
No.
3 NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
No.
3 NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
No.
3 NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
STIF
F FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
STIF
F ST
IFF
No.
3 NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
STIF
F ST
IFF
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
STIF
F ST
IFF
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
FLEX
IBLE
FL
EXIB
LE
NO.3
NO
.3
17.2
17
.2
0.12
0 0.
090
U\
I .....
.....
CJT I IN
IT.
FPSA
RO
l -0
.6
FPSA
R02
3.
1
FPSA
R03
1.
7
FPSA
R04
-0
.5
FPSA
R05
1.
0
FPSA
R06
-1
.1
FPSA
R07
-0
.5
FPSA
R08
-0
.9
FPSA
R09
-0
.5
FPSA
R10
0.
0
FP
SA
Rll
1.2
FPSA
R12
-1
1.6
FPSA
R13
2.
2
FPSA
R14
1.
3
FPSA
R15
-2
.1
FPSA
R16
-2
.2
FPSA
R17
-8
.8
FPSA
R18
-1
.0
FPSA
R22
-0
.2
FPSA
R23
-1
.1
FPSA
R24
-2
.1
FPSA
R25
-4
.5
FPSA
R26
-2
.6
FPSA
R27
0.
6
FPSA
R28
2.
5
Tabl
e 5-1
11 S
umm
ary
of E
xper
imen
tal R
esul
ts o
f Iso
late
d B
ridge
---
--
I BE
ARIN
G D
ISPL
ACEM
ENT
ISO
LATI
ON
SYS
TEM
D
ECK
PIER
AC
C.
(mm)
SH
EAR
I W
EIG
HT
ACC
. (g
)
SOU
TH
II N
OR
TH I
(g)
MAX
. PE
RM
. []
D SO
UTH
N
OR
TH
TOTA
L SO
UTH
N
OR
TH
INIT
.
12.3
3.
1 13
.0
0.12
3 0.
125
0.12
3 0.
145
0.48
3 0.
458
40.1
1.
7 37
.9
0.19
1 0.
160
0.17
3 0.
186
0.79
3 0.
757
-2.0
-0
.6
3.7
0.11
6 0.
117
0.11
4 0.
123
0.27
1 0.
276
-40.
4 1.
0 39
.7
0.20
2 0.
156
0.17
0 0.
183
0.82
6 0.
821
-78.
6 -1
.2
79.7
0.
291
0.21
1 0.
236
0.26
0 1.
183
1.12
5
-3.6
-0
.5
1.4
0.10
3 0.
110
0.10
7 0.
108
0.14
3 0.
159
2.1
-0.9
2.
5 0.
114
0.11
8 0.
112
0.11
7 0.
202
0.21
2
-5.8
-0
.5
4.9
0.11
6 0.
122
0.11
8 0.
128
0.22
4 0.
269
-68.
1 0.
0 67
.4
0.23
1 0.
200
0.21
2 0.
226
0.57
0 0.
641
59.3
-1
1.9
59.3
0.
217
0.19
5 0.
206
0.21
0 0.
483
0.47
0
-86.
9 -1
7.5
87.9
1.
195
0.81
2 0.
816
0.82
3 1.
437
1.50
6
30.8
2.
2 42
.3
0.16
2 0.
151
0.15
3 0.
169
0.99
3 0.
914
35.6
1.
3 33
.0
0.17
0 0.
173
0.17
0 0.
187
1.14
1 1.
194
71.9
-2
.1
70.4
0.
231
0.21
5 0.
215
0.22
3 0.
793
0.78
5
-8.8
-2
.2
6.8
0.13
0 0.
127
0.11
9 0.
126
0.36
5 0.
360
-62.
1 -1
0.0
59.4
0.
231
0.19
5 0.
208
0.22
3 1.
013
0.93
0
2.8
-1.0
11
.7
0.12
2 0.
121
0.11
9 0.
123
0.31
4 0.
324
45.0
-1
.0
45.9
0.
182
0.16
4 0.
172
0.18
0 0.
614
0.57
8
-15.
2 -1
.1
15.0
0.
150
0.14
1 0.
139
0.16
0 0.
782
0.81
0
41.0
-2
.5
41.9
0.
186
0.18
3 0.
181
0.18
3 1.
543
1.44
4
51.1
-4
.5
53.0
0.
202
0.18
5 0.
178
0.18
0 0.
311
0.26
9
87.2
-2
.4
90.6
1.
285
1.07
3 0.
834
0.83
2 1.
498
1.50
2
10.7
0.
6 13
.2
0.12
6 0.
128
0.12
5 0.
140
0.70
4 0.
667
36.8
2.
5 35
.9
0.15
6 0.
152
0.15
4 0.
168
1.57
4 1.
198
-4.1
-1
.1
6.5
0.11
7 0.
123
0.11
6 0.
120
0.26
6 0.
315
PIER
DR
IFT
RAT
IO
PIER
SH
EAR
I (%
) AX
IAL
LOAD
SOU
TH
NO
RTH
SO
UTH
N
OR
TH
0.06
0.
05
N/A
N
/A
0.06
0.
04
N/A
N
/A
0.04
0.
03
N/A
N/A
0.06
0.
04
N/A
N
/A
0.06
0.
05
N/A
N
/A
0.05
0.
02
N/A
N
/A
0.04
0.
03
N/A
N
/A
0.05
0.
03
N/A
N/A
0.06
0.
05
N/A
N
/A
I
0.06
0.
05
N/A
N/
A 0.
37
0.44
N
/A
N/A
0.08
0.
08
N/A
N/A
0.09
0.
09
N/A
N
/A
0.09
0.
07
N/A
N
/A
0.06
0.
05
N/A
N
/A
0.07
0.
08
N/A
N/A
0.06
0.
05
N/A
N
/A
0.09
0.
06
N/A
N
/A
0.08
0.
10
N/A
N
/A
0.12
0.
10
N/A
N
/A
0.07
0.
06
N/A
N/A
0.67
0.
62
N/A
N
/A
0.26
0.
24
0.18
2 0.
180
0.31
0.
29
0.21
9 0.
219
0.22
0.
21
0.14
7 0.
144
Vl
I ......
tv
I
D
FPSA
R29
FPSA
R30
FPSA
R31
FPSA
R32
FPSA
R33
FPSA
R34
FPSA
R35
FPSA
R36
FPSA
R37
FPSA
R38
FPSA
R39
FPSA
R40
FPSA
R41
FPSA
R42
FPSA
R43
FPSA
R44
FPSA
R45
FPSA
R46
FPSA
R47
FPSA
R48
FPSA
R49
FPSA
R50
FPSA
R51
FPSA
R52
FPSA
R53
INIT
.
-1.0
-1.1
-2.6
-3.1
-3.0
-0.5
0.3
-2.7
-1.5
-4.8
-5.1
-1.6
-5.0
4.2
0.0
1.5
-1.1
-11.
6
-0.5
0.0
-1.1
-0.4
-3.4
2.9
-7.6
---
---
-
1 BE
ARIN
G D
ISPL
ACEM
ENT
(mm)
SO
UTH
II
NO
RTH
I
MAX
. PE
RM
.
~
INIT
.
-26.
9 -1
.1
25.8
-47.
9 -2
.7
47.0
-63.
1 -3
.1
63.5
-80.
6 -3
.0
77.9
-9.7
-0
.5
6.2
-8.1
0.
3 7.
4
7.8
-2.7
7.
3
-47.
6 -1
.6
44.9
70.9
1.
0 72
.0
66.8
-5
.1
71.0
54.4
-1
.6
59.2
86.9
-5
.1
88.2
38.1
4.
2 43
.3
-34.
7 -0
.0
39.3
78.6
1.
5 78
.1
-10.
5 -1
.1
11.8
-62.
5 -1
1.7
62.3
6.3
-0.6
17
.9
54.5
0.
0 54
.7
-12.
8 -1
.2
12.5
-41.
6 -0
.1
40.4
69.7
-3
.4
70.0
29.5
3.
7 32
.5
38.1
-7
.7
41.4
-47.
9 -3
.1
40.2
Tabl
e 5-1
11 C
onrd
ISO
LATI
ON
SYS
TEM
D
ECK
PIER
AC
C.
PIER
DR
IFT
RAT
IO
PIER
SH
EA
R/
SHEA
R /
WEI
GH
T AC
C.
(9)
(%)
AXIA
L LO
AD
(9)
SOU
TH
NO
RTH
TO
TAL
SOU
TH
NO
RTH
SO
UTH
N
OR
TH
SOU
TH
NO
RTH
0.14
0 0.
141
0.13
5 0.
155
0.89
6 0.
929
0.32
0.
28
0.21
1 0.
214
0.19
3 0.
163
0.17
7 0.
180
1.20
9 1.
196
0.36
0.
33
0.24
3 0.
234
0.22
6 0.
181
0.20
2 0.
208
1.48
9 1.
448
0.37
0.
34
0.27
0 0.
250
0.25
6 0.
195
0.22
0 0.
227
1.64
0 1.
637
0.40
0.
36
0.25
8 0.
267
0.12
0 0.
125
0.12
2 0.
127
0.28
7 0.
309
0.23
0.
22
0.15
1 0.
151
0.12
1 0.
126
0.12
3 0.
129
0.33
3 0.
334
0.24
0.
29
0.15
4 0.
154
0.12
0 0.
124
0.12
2 0.
128
0.34
3 0.
371
0.23
0.
23
0.15
9 0.
154
0.18
8 0.
155
0.17
1 0.
176
0.67
3 0.
727
0.28
0.
27
0.20
0 0.
190
0.23
7 0.
213
0.21
4 0.
230
0.83
9 0.
911
0.37
0.
33
0.24
8 0.
230
0.21
3 0.
198
0.20
2 0.
229
1.05
5 1.
060
0.32
0.
36
0.26
6 0.
203
0.20
0 0.
172
0.18
0 0.
194
0.87
2 0.
913
0.28
0.
28
0.20
9 0.
193
0.66
2 0.
602
0.63
1 0.
624
2.19
1 2.
065
1.02
1.
04
0.71
4 0.
654
0.17
2 0.
163
0.16
6 0.
182
1.24
9 1.
393
0.34
0.
34
0.24
6 0.
243
0.17
8 0.
171
0.17
5 0.
196
1.87
7 2.
110
0.33
0.
35
0.24
6 0.
241
0.23
0 0.
221
0.22
3 0.
233
0.89
7 1.
021
0.37
0.
32
0.23
7 0.
242
0.12
1 0.
125
0.12
2 0.
126
0.29
8 0.
314
0.23
0.
20
0.15
2 0.
147
0.22
7 0.
186
0.20
2 0.
219
1.09
7 1.
125
0.35
0.
40
0.30
6 0.
226
0.12
1 0.
123
0.12
2 0.
126
0.44
1 0.
444
0.23
0.
21
0.15
2 0.
151
0.19
0 0.
183
0.18
6 0.
198
0.75
0 0.
729
0.29
0.
27
0.20
4 0.
191
0.12
6 0.
130
0.12
7 0.
144
0.67
6 0.
676
0.26
0.
25
0.17
8 0.
171
0.18
4 0.
165
0.16
9 0.
180
1.51
0 1.
610
0.37
0.
34
0.27
5 0.
242
0.21
7 0.
204
0.20
6 0.
216
0.54
5 0.
584
0.32
0.
32
0.22
7 0.
206
0.17
0 0.
168
0.16
7 0.
175
1.21
1 1.
331
0.33
0.
31
0.24
7 0.
244
0.17
7 0.
149
0.16
2 0.
177
0.78
6 0.
798
0.28
0.
27
0.19
6 0.
176
0.20
2 0.
170
0.18
2 0.
197
1.08
7 1.
107
0.40
0.
38
0.23
8 0.
230
Vl
I ,.....
W
i c::] I
FPSA
RS4
FPSA
RS5
FPSA
R56
FPSA
RS7
FPSA
RS8
FPSB
RO
l
FPSB
R02
FPSB
R03
FPSB
R04
FPSB
R05
FPSB
R06
FPSB
R10
FP
SB
Rll
FPSB
R12
FPSB
R13
FPSC
RO
l
FPSC
R02
FPSC
R03
FPSC
R04
FPSC
R05
FPSC
R06
FPSC
R07
FPSC
R08
FPSC
R09
FPSC
R10
INIT
.
-3.1
2.6
1.1
1.9
0.0
-0.5
1.5
1.0
-0.4
-0.5
-0.5
-0.3
-3.7
-0.6
-1.3
1.6
2.9
0.3
0.4
-2.3
2.5
-8.5
-2.0
-10.
8
-3.1
-
I BE
ARIN
G D
ISPL
ACEM
ENT
(mm
) SO
UTH
II N
OR
TH I
MAX
. PE
RM
. []
D
INIT
.
35.7
2.
6 38
.6
-38.
9 1.
1 41
.4
38.5
1.
95
37.3
-37.
5 -0
.2
39.3
-31.
8 -3
.3
31.8
5.0
1.7
5.6
17.6
0.
9 16
.0
-2.5
-0
.5
3.5
-15.
5 -0
.5
15.3
-37.
4 -o.
s 37
.0
-5.5
-0
.5
5.0
-14.
4 -3
.7
14.2
0.6
-0.6
4.
4
-2.7
-1
.3
2.2
2.3
1.0
3.6
36.3
2.
9 34
.7
-28.
0 0.
3 30
.7
-72.
5 0.
4 72
.8
-59.
1 -2
.3
59.5
26.5
2.
8 28
.8
-44.
3 -8
.5
46.8
0.4
-2.0
8.
9
-52.
6 -1
0.8
50.3
27.8
-3
.1
38.6
-9.5
-2
.7
12.6
Tabl
e 5-1
11 C
ont'd
ISO
LATI
ON
SYS
TEM
SH
EAR
I W
EIG
HT
SOU
TH
NO
RTH
TO
TAL
0.15
6 0.
160
0.15
5
0.17
9 0.
177
0.16
6
0.17
2 0.
168
0.16
0
0.17
4 0.
150
0.15
6
0.16
6 0.
149
0.15
5
0.07
0 0.
072
0.07
0
0.08
3 0.
094
0.08
8
0.06
7 0.
071
0.06
7
0.08
6 0.
087
0.08
6
0.12
3 0.
119
0.11
8
0.07
2 0.
076
0.07
3
0.08
2 0.
082
0.08
2
0.06
9 0.
073
0.07
1
0.06
6 0.
071
0.06
8
0.06
8 0.
073
0.06
9
0.20
9 0.
188
0.19
7
0.19
0 0.
166
0.17
2
0.29
3 0.
243
0.25
1
0.24
3 0.
213
0.22
6
0.16
6 0.
178
0.16
8
0.21
8 0.
211
0.20
7
0.16
9 0.
151
0.15
8
0.23
6 0.
214
0.22
5
0.16
9 0.
172
0.17
0
0.14
1 0.
142
0.14
0
_ ..
. _
_ ._
.
_.
_.
_ ..
-
--
DEC
K PI
ER A
CC
. PI
ER D
RIF
T R
ATIO
PI
ER S
HE
AR
I AC
C.
(g)
(%)
AXIA
L LO
AD
(g)
SOU
TH
NO
RTH
SO
UTH
N
OR
TH
SOU
TH
NO
RTH
0.18
2 1.
525
1.16
0 0.
42
0.36
0.
208
0.23
7
0.17
2 0.
922
0.81
9 0.
20
0.17
N
/A
N/A
0.19
5 0.
874
0.92
1 0.
15
0.13
N/
A N/
A 0.
181
0.94
5 0.
914
0.06
0.
05
N/A
N/A
0.16
7 0.
532
0.53
5 0.
05
0.04
N
/A
N/A
0.08
2 0.
241
0.23
5 0.
03
0.02
N
/A
N/A
0.09
7 0.
369
0.39
9 0.
04
0.02
N
/A
N/A
0.08
1 0.
235
0.22
7 0.
03
0.02
N/
A N/
A 0.
094
0.40
6 0.
400
0.04
0.
03
N/A
N/A
0.13
7 0.
571
0.56
4 0.
04
0.03
N/
A N/
A 0.
087
0.23
5 0.
246
0.04
0.
03
N/A
N/A
0.09
6 0.
316
0.30
1 0.
03
0.02
N/
A N/
A 0.
077
0.20
1 0.
215
0.03
0.
03
N/A
N/A
0.07
4 0.
193
0.20
1 0.
03
0.02
N/
A N/
A 0.
074
0.21
3 0.
212
0.03
0.
02
N/A
N/A
0.20
6 0.
878
0.86
9 0.
08
0.04
N/
A N/
A 0.
193
0.87
6 0.
878
0.07
O.
OS
N/A
N/A
0.28
5 1.
281
1.28
3 0.
09
0.07
N/
A N
/A
0.24
6 0.
659
0.60
7 0.
09
0.05
N/
A N/
A 0.
195
0.77
6 0.
844
0.09
0.
05
N/A
N/A
0.21
4 0.
679
0.69
8 0.
08
0.05
N/
A N/
A 0.
162
0.36
4 0.
357
0.05
0.
04
N/A
N/
A 0.
252
0.87
6 0.
871
0.08
0.
06
N/A
N/
A 0.
184
0.S4
0 0.
484
0.07
0.
04
N/A
N/A
0.14
9 0.
208
0.19
3 0.
06
0.03
N/
A N/
A
VI
I -~
I I I
I 0
1
FP
SC
Rll
FPSC
R12
FPSC
R13
FPSC
R14
FPSC
R15
FPSC
R16
FPSC
R17
FPSC
R18
FPSC
R19
FPSC
R20
FPSC
R21
FPSC
R22
FPSC
R23
FPSC
R24
FPSC
R25
FPSC
R26
FPSC
R27
FPSC
R28
FPSC
R29
FPSC
R30
FPSC
R31
FPSC
R32
FPSC
R33
FPSC
R34
FPSC
R35
INIT
.
-4.7
-4.8
-8.7
-6.8
-13.
8
-4.6
-8.8
-9.5
-8.6
-9.7
-8.3
-9.5
-9.6
-7.6
-4.8
-6.2
-13.
4
-8.7
-5.1
-10.
5
-13.
8
-7.7
-11.
5
-17.
4
-14.
0
Tabl
e 5-1
11 C
ont'd
-
T
BEAR
ING
DIS
PLAC
EMEN
T IS
OLA
TIO
N S
YSTE
M
{mm)
SH
EAR
I W
EIG
HT
SOU
TH
II N
OR
TH I
MAX
. PE
RM
. []
[] SO
UTH
N
OR
TH
TOTA
L IN
IT.
5.2
-4.8
9.
8 0.
139
0.14
7 0.
138
-12.
5 -8
.7
7.7
0.13
4 0.
143
0.13
5
-39.
2 -6
.8
30.3
0.
181
0.16
3 0.
165
-35.
5 -1
3.8
28.8
0.
162
0.15
7 0.
150
13.4
-4
.6
27.1
0.
175
0.17
2 0.
158
10.7
-8
.8
15.2
0.
154
0.15
9 0.
151
24.4
-1
1.7
33.2
0.
167
0.17
5 0.
168
26.4
-8
.6
35.9
0.
182
0.18
4 0.
176
-11.
8 -9
.7
3.3
0.14
3 0.
141
0.13
7
-14.
9 -8
.3
5.2
0.15
5 0.
141
0.14
4
-30.
7 -9
.5
22.5
0.
157
0.16
2 0.
159
31.0
-9
.6
40.3
0.
199
0.18
1 0.
183
-46.
6 -7
.6
37.1
0.
188
0.17
6 0.
172
29.9
-4
.8
37.5
0.
186
0.17
7 0.
172
-38.
5 -6
.3
33.5
0.
174
0.19
5 0.
185
48.0
-1
3.4
54.1
0.
213
0.20
3 0.
207
17.4
-8
.7
30.8
0.
189
0.16
3 0.
168
-82.
4 -5
.1
73.7
0.
249
0.21
7 0.
228
-32.
6 -1
0.5
27.6
0.
164
0.15
1 0.
152
-69.
4 -1
3.8
58.9
0.
245
0.20
4 0.
217
-79.
2 -1
3.5
65.4
0.
260
0.20
9 0.
230
-94.
2 -1
2.5
86.2
0.
488
0.41
8 0.
453
78.3
-1
7.4
82.7
0.
645
0.28
9 0.
410
78.8
3.
5 95
.3
0.78
4 0.
244
0.50
1
56.9
-1
4.6
65.6
0.
230
0.20
1 0.
212
--
~-
~----.-
DEC
K PI
ER A
CC
. PI
ER D
RIF
T R
ATIO
PI
ER S
HEA
R!
ACC
. (9
) (%
) AX
IAL
LOAD
(9)
SOU
TH
NO
RTH
SO
UTH
N
OR
TH
SOU
TH
NO
RTH
I
0.16
6 0.
519
0.45
1 0.
06
0.04
N/
A N/
A i
0.16
5 0.
486
0.46
7 0.
06
0.05
N/
A N/
A
0.18
8 0.
862
0.83
3 0.
07
0.05
N/
A N/
A i
0.18
8 0.
710
0.59
7 0.
07
0.05
N/
A N/
A
0.20
3 0.
751
0.68
6 0.
08
0.07
N/
A N/
A
0.17
2 0.
638
0.67
5 0.
07
0.05
N/
A N/
A
0.18
4 0.
824
0.82
3 0.
06
0.06
N/
A N/
A
0.20
4 1.
069
0.93
4 0.
09
0.05
N/
A N/
A
0.15
4 0.
303
0.28
7 0.
05
0.04
N/
A N/
A
0.17
4 0.
387
0.38
7 0.
06
0.05
N/
A N/
A
0.18
8 0.
949
0.89
0 0.
06
0.05
N/
A N/
A
0.20
6 1.
399
1.33
1 0.
08
0.06
N/
A N/
A
0.21
1 0.
974
0.97
3 0.
06
0.06
N/
A N/
A
0.21
9 0.
874
0.95
1 0.
15
0.13
N/
A N/
A
0.19
0 0.
961
0.82
1 0.
21
0.17
N/
A N/
A
0.22
2 0.
512
0.51
7 0.
08
0.05
N/
A N/
A
0.18
3 0.
463
0.47
8 0.
07
0.04
N/
A N/
A
0.23
8 0.
544
0.58
5 0.
09
0.05
N/
A N/
A
0.17
4 0.
531
0.48
8 0.
08
0.04
N/
A N/
A
0.24
6 0.
939
0.78
1 0.
06
0.05
N/
A N/
A
0.25
0 1.
061
0.91
2 0.
07
0.05
N/
A N/
A
0.48
4 1.
194
1.04
6 0.
13
0.11
N/
A N/
A
0.41
7 0.
612
1.23
9 0.
15
0.44
N/
A 0.
297
0.53
1 1.
206
0.99
3 0.
27
0.40
N/
A 0.
268
0.23
4 0.
511
1.04
7 0.
08
0.33
N/
A 0.
224
VI
I -VI
i I~;T I I
FPSC
R36
FPSC
R37
FPSC
R38
FPSC
R39
FPSC
R40
FPSC
R41
FPSC
R42
FPSC
R43
FPSC
R44
FPSC
R45
FPSC
R46
FPSC
R47
FPSC
R48
FPSC
R49
FPSC
R50
FPSC
R51
FPSC
R52
FPSC
R53
FPSC
R54
FPSC
R55
FPSC
R56
FPSC
R57
FPSC
R58
FPSC
R59
FPSC
R60
-----------
I BE
ARIN
G D
ISPL
ACEM
ENT
(mm
) SO
UTH
II
NO
RTH
I
INIT
. M
AX.
PER
M. [j
[J
INIT
.
-14.
6 -7
6.4
-6.4
57
.8
-6.4
31
.8
-2.5
35
.1
-2.5
-4
9.3
-9.2
43
.4
-9.1
-9
1.5
-8.5
78
.3
-8.5
-5
7.6
-19.
2 53
.8
-19.
2 20
.8
-7.9
36
.6
-7.8
13
.3
-6.1
19
.1
-6.1
27
.4
-4.6
30
.2
-4.6
28
.1
-9.7
30
.5
-9.7
33
.1
-4.7
38
.7
-4.7
67
.5
-9.2
68
.0
-9.2
43
.9
-6.5
48
.3
-6.9
-6
9.2
-11.
7 57
.8
-11.
6 33
.0
-2.7
41
.4
-2.7
-5
3.4
-8.4
47
.2
-8.4
4.
1 -6
.3
12.6
-6.3
31
.9
-4.5
38
.0
-4.5
-1
5.2
-8.0
10
.8
-8.0
-5
5.0
-10.
1 47
.8
-10.
4 -7
3.1
-10.
3 63
.9
-10.
4 -4
3.7
-10.
9 32
.7
-10.
9 15
.3
-5.8
25
.9
-5.8
29
.2
-2.1
35
.1
-2.1
-3
6.6
-7.5
34
.6
-7.4
31
.6
-7.0
39
.2
Tabl
e 5-1
11 C
ont'd
ISO
LATI
ON
SYS
TEM
SH
EAR
I W
EIG
HT
SOU
TH
NO
RTH
TO
TAL
0.24
0 0.
203
0.21
9
0.18
9 0.
157
0.16
9
0.21
0 0.
145
0.17
8
0.25
2 0.
217
0.23
3
0.21
9 0.
221
0.20
2
0.16
7 0.
153
0.15
0
0.14
7 0.
138
0.13
5
0.16
8 '0
.162
0.
165
0.16
9 0.
184
0.15
6
0.20
1 0.
183
0.16
2
0.23
3 0.
243
0.23
0
0.18
4 0.
203
0.19
1
0.23
4 0.
204
0.20
7
0.18
9 0.
153
0.16
7
0.20
1 0.
163
0.17
9
0.13
4 0.
134
0.12
4
0.16
1 0.
167
0.16
3
0.11
9 0.
131
0.12
3
0.20
1 0.
172
0.18
4
0.23
0 0.
204
0.21
7
0.16
6 0.
162
0.16
1
0.13
2 0.
152
0.14
1
0.16
1 0.
166
0.16
2
0.15
2 0.
162
0.15
2
0.16
2 0.
171
0.16
0
DEC
K PI
ER A
CC
. PI
ER D
RIF
T R
ATIO
PI
ER S
HEA
R I
ACC
. (9
) (%
) AX
IAL
LOAD
(9)
SOU
TH
NO
RTH
SO
UTH
N
OR
TH
SOU
TH
NO
RTH
0.23
8 0.
652
0.81
8 0.
07
0.41
N
/A
0.25
1
0.18
5 0.
914
1.67
5 0.
07
0.30
N
/A
0.20
8
0.19
0 0.
962
1.09
7 0.
07
0.30
N
/A
0.19
7
0.25
5 1.
311
1.66
3 0.
08
0.42
N
/A
0.28
5
0.22
0 0.
732
1.09
3 0.
07
0.39
N
/A
0.25
4
0.17
3 0.
699
1.33
9 0.
07
0.31
N
/A
0.21
1
0.16
3 0.
666
0.87
5 0.
07
0.26
N
/A
0.17
6
0.18
5 0.
915
1.18
3 0.
07
0.29
N
/A
0.21
6
0.16
6 0.
845
1.23
7 0.
07
0.32
N
/A
0.22
8
0.18
4 0.
914
1.88
2 0.
07
0.32
N
/A
0.23
3
0.23
6 0.
740
1.02
4 0.
08
0.39
N
/A
0.27
0
0.20
6 0.
583
0.74
8 0.
06
0.32
N
/A
0.22
0
0.21
9 0.
302
0.53
1 0.
06
0.32
N
/A
0.20
3
0.21
3 0.
818
1.55
1 0.
15
0.33
N
/A
0.21
4
0.19
5 0.
994
1.22
3 0.
20
0.35
N
/A
0.19
5
0.14
4 0.
850
0.80
2 0.
26
0.27
0.
181
0.16
8
0.17
6 1.
458
1.23
4 0.
27
0.27
0.
189
0.19
4
0.14
3 0.
647
0.70
6 0.
24
0.23
0.
163
0.16
3
0.20
2 1.
026
1.10
1 0.
30
0.30
0.
201
0.20
3
0.23
4 1.
233
1.31
6 0.
34
0.34
0.
230
0.22
2
0.17
8 1.
261
1.52
5 0.
30
0.32
0.
225
0.21
2
0.15
6 0.
774
0.88
9 0.
26
0.26
0.
172
0.17
6
0.18
6 1.
116
1.40
4 0.
30
0.34
0.
218
0.21
2
0.18
1 1.
195
1.24
7 0.
32
0.29
0.
199
0.21
0
0.18
9 1.
905
2.04
6 0.
29
0.37
0.
207
0.23B~
Vl
I -0'1
I 1-T~~T
II I
FPSC
R61
FPSC
R62
FPSC
R63
FPSC
R64
FPSC
R65
FPSC
R66
FPSC
R67
FPSC
R68
FPSC
R69
FPSC
R70
FPSC
R71
FPSC
R72
FPSC
R73
FPSC
R74
FPSC
R75
FPSC
R76
FPSC
R77
FPSC
R78
FPSC
R79
FPSC
R80
FPSC
R81
FPSC
R82
FPSC
R83
FPSC
R84
INIT
.
-6.9
-6.5
-8.8
-19.
2
-7.9
-7.0
-7.0
-"l.8
-7.8
-3.5
-4.8
-11.
4
-8.5
-15.
8
-14.
6
-12.
2
-10.
8
-4.4
-9.6
-9.9
-13.
2
-6.1
-8.8
-11.
9
----_
.. -
------
----
I BE
ARIN
G D
ISPL
ACEM
ENT
{mm)
SO
UTH
II
NO
RTH
I
MAX
. PE
RM
. []
[]
INIT
.
67.7
-6
.5
74.3
-18.
6 -8
.8
12.8
-67.
0 -1
9.2
59.2
-1.1
-7
.9
17.9
46.4
-7
.0
53.7
-0.1
-7
.0
6.9
-27.
2 -7
.8
20.0
12.2
-7
.8
20.0
-43.
6 -3
.2
36.5
-77.
9 -4
.8
74.1
58.2
-1
1.4
62.6
44.1
-8
.5
55.3
-84.
8 -1
5.5
77.3
-43.
2 -1
4.6
28.8
-63.
3 -1
2.2
50.1
-74.
5 -1
0.8
63.0
31.7
-4
.4
42.7
-54.
0 -9
.6
49.7
-90.
4 -9
.9
80.3
-93.
9 -1
3.6
81.1
33.1
-6
.1
46.5
-87.
4 -8
.8
81.3
43.0
-1
1.9
51.7
63.9
-1
0.3
75.7
Tabl
e 5-1
11 C
ont'd
----
ISO
LATI
ON
SYS
TEM
D
ECK
PIER
AC
C.
PIER
DR
IFT
PIER
SH
EA
RI
SHEA
R I
WEI
GH
T AC
C.
(g)
(%)
AXIA
L LO
AD
(g)
SOU
TH
NO
RTH
TO
TAL
SOU
TH
NO
RTH
SO
UTH
N
OR
TH
SOU
TH
NO
RTH
0.21
9 0.
247
0.22
9 0.
246
0.85
1 0.
995
0.39
0.
33
0.23
3 0.
265
0.12
7 0.
124
0.12
1 0.
131
0.27
5 0.
294
0.22
0.
22
0.14
7 0.
142
0.21
8 0.
189
0.20
2 0.
236
1.00
0 1.
250
0.34
0.
40
0.28
3 0.
222
0.12
1 0.
116
0.11
5 0.
124
0.42
1 0.
469
0.22
0.
24
0.15
4 0.
137
0.19
4 0.
201
0.19
4 0.
217
0.71
1 1.
004
0.30
0.
32
0.21
8 0.
207
0.11
3 0.
122
0.11
6 0.
138
0.47
2 0.
593
0.23
0.
26
0.15
8 0.
153
0.12
7 0.
135
0.13
0 0.
153
0.83
9 0.
943
0.27
0.
26
0.17
9 0.
171
0.12
8 0.
136
0.13
1 0.
152
0.83
6 0.
943
0.26
0.
26
0.18
0 0.
172
0.15
6 0.
164
0.16
0 0.
177
1.31
0 1.
423
0.30
0.
31
0.21
8 0.
217
0.23
0 0.
211
0.22
1 0.
240
0.79
9 0.
961
0.43
0.
36
0.24
0 0.
265
0.21
2 0.
207
0.20
5 0.
252
1.01
2 1.
235
0.32
0.
37
0.26
1 0.
211
0.20
4 0.
190
0.18
7 0.
207
0.74
9 0.
900
0.29
0.
32
0.21
2 0.
199
0.23
5 0.
223
0.21
5 0.
239
0.83
3 0.
993
0.35
0.
36
0.24
7 0.
242
0.17
0 0.
139
0.15
3 0.
177
0.69
1 0.
804
0.25
0.
28
0.18
5 0.
163
0.21
6 0.
181
0.19
3 0.
225
1.04
7 1.
053
0.33
0.
34
0.21
8 0.
208
0.23
0 0.
198
0.20
5 0.
238
1.10
7 1.
226
0.38
0.
38
0.24
3 0.
242
0.16
1 0.
168
0.16
0 0.
188
1.33
4 1.
230
0.37
0.
38
0.18
6 0.
199
0.19
5 0.
177
0.18
2 0.
207
1.02
3 1.
209
0.35
0.
37
0.20
4 0.
199
0.25
1 0.
223
0.23
1 0.
257
1.38
5 1.
584
0.43
0.
45
0.28
7 0.
274
0.28
4 0.
220
0.24
0 0.
258
1.42
8 1.
194
0.07
0.
45
N/A
0.27
7
0.17
3 0.
172
0.17
2 0.
191
0.77
3 0.
784
0.06
0.
04
N/A
N
/A
0.26
8 0.
213
0.22
8 0.
262
1.07
3 1.
100
0.06
0.
05
N/A
N/
A
0.20
5 0.
187
0.18
5 0.
198
0.27
9 0.
255
0.05
0.
04
N/A
N
/A
0.22
1 0.
216
0.20
6 0.
233
0.61
0 0.
684
0.33
0.
36
0.23
1 0.
223
5.3 Behavior and Effectiveness of Low Friction Isolation System
Tests were conducted with four different sliding interfaces at low and very high bearing
pressures. The four interfaces exhibited similar frictional behavior so that, effectively,
testing was conducted at two levels of friction: (a) at low level of friction with fmax=0.058,
and (b) at medium level of friction with fmax=O.lO to 0.12.
The isolation system with low friction (fmax=0.058) and isolation period of 1.5s (3s in
prototype scale) is appropriate for application in areas of moderate seismicity.
Accordingly, tests were primarily conducted with moderate excitation, including artificial
motions compatible with spectra for a site in Boston (see test series FPSCR in Table 5-II
and 5-III). For such excitations, it would be expected that bearings displacements be
small and, thus, the developed restoring forces would be insufficient to re-center the
isolated bridge.
The test results are summarized in Table 5-IV where they are compared to the results of
the non-isolated bridge. The latter results were either directly obtained in tests or
extrapolated from test results of the non-isolated bridge by assuming linear behavior.
Evidently, the isolated bridge performs significantly better than the non-isolated bridge.
Deck Accelerations (and accordingly forces in the substructure) are lower by factors of
the order of 4 to 6, while bearing displacements are of the same order or less than the
deck to ground displacement of the non-isolated bridge. Furthermore, the permanent
displacement in the FPS bearings is very small and does not accumulate with repeated
testing.
5-17
Table 5-IV Comparison of Response of Isolated (case of low friction) and Non-isolated Bridge
ISOLA TED (fmax= 0.058) NON-ISOLATED EXCITATION
DECK PEAK PERM. DECK DISPL. OF ACCEL. BEARING BEARING ACCEL DECK W.R.T
(g) DISPL.(rnm) DISPL.(rnm) (g) TABLE (mm)
EL CENTRO SOOE 25% N.A. N.A. N.A. 0.250 4.9
EL CENTRO SOOE 50% 0.082 5.6 1.7 0.500 9.8 *
EL CENTRO SOOE 100% 0.097 16.0 0.9 INELASTIC BEHAVIOR *
TAFT N21E 75% N.A. N.A. N.A 0.250 5.0
TAFT N21E 100% 0.081 3.5 0.5 0.333 6.6 *
TAFT N21E 200% 0.094 15.3 0.5 INELASTIC BEHAVIOR *
TAFT N21E 300% 0.137 37.0 0.5 INELASTIC BEHAVIOR *
MIYAGIKENOKI E-W 75% N.A. N.A. N.A. 0.220 4.9
MIYAGIKENOKI E-W 130% 0.087 5.0 0.5 0.509 11.4
HACHlNOHE N-S 50% N.A. N.A. N.A. 0.180 4.0
HACHlNOHE N-S 100% 0.096 14.2 3.7 0.360 8.0
*EXTRAPOLATED FROM LOWER AMPLITUDE TESTS AND ASSUMING LINEAR BEHAVIOR WHEN PIER SHEAR FORCE I AXIAL LOAD IS LESS THAN OR EQUAL 0.5
5-4 Effectiveness of Medium Friction Isolation System
The isolation system with medium level friction (fmax=0.104 or 0.120) is appropriate for
application in areas of strong seismicity. Nevertheless, the system was found to be
effective at all levels of input excitation. This is vividly illustrated in Figure 5-2 where
the deck acceleration and pier shear force of the isolated and non-isolated bridge models
is plotted against the peak table acceleration for all conducted tests. In contrast to the
behavior of the non-isolated bridge, the isolated one exhibits a response which is nearly
unaffected by the level of input excitation. The deck acceleration is maintained between
0.1 and 0.25g and the pier shear force between O.lW and nearly 0.25W (W = axial load
carried by pier), while the table acceleration varies between 0.1 and nearly Ig. This
demonstrates the significant benefits offered by seismic isolation.
5-18
Figure 5-2
1.5~----------------------------~/--------------~ o. NON ISOLATED CASE
_1.0 ,g o ~ ~
fi3 0 0.5
'V fmaxa 12.0% o fmax-l 0.4%
/ /
o
/
/
/ /
/08 0
/ 'AMPLIfiCATION fACTOR~2.2 /0
/ 0
0.5 TABLE ACC (g)
1.0
1.81""'"------------------:"..-------, ~ 9 ~ X 1.2 < II: < W :x: en II: ~0.6
:x:
~ z
o. 'V 0
NON ISOLA TED CASE 0 /
/ fmax-12.0% fmax-l0.4%
/ /
/ /
0 / / 0
/ /
0 oj!)
/ /
.R)
0
0.5 TABLE ACC (g)
o
1.0
1.8~--------------------------------~--------/ /0
~ g ~ Xl.2 < II: < W :x: en II: ~0.6 a..
~ :J o en
o. NON ISOLATED CASE 'V fmax-l 2.0% o fmax-l 0.4%
/ /
/ /
o
o /
/ O.()
o /' ;;/
o
/ /
/ o
0.0 -¥----+---+---+----Jf----+---+---+---+-__+----l 0.0 0.5 1.0
TABLE ACC (g) • : FROM TESTS 0: EXTRAPOLATED FROM TESTS
Comparison of Response of Medium Friction Isolated Bridge to Response of Non-isolated Bridge (Flexible Pier Case)
5-19
Figures 5-3 and 5-4 depict the response of the isolated bridge as a function of increasing
intensity of specific earthquake motions. It may be observed that the deck acceleration
is only marginally affected by the intensity of the input motion. This desirable behavior
is achieved with relatively small bearing displacements which are less or about the same
as the table displacement.
The experimental results demonstrate the benefits offered by the medium friction isolation
system in strong seismic excitation. It may be, however, argued that an isolation system
designed for optimum performance in strong seismic excitation might be ineffective in
weak seismic excitation. Indeed, this is the case in elastomeric isolation systems with
strain dependent properties (Maison, 1992). For example, high damping rubber exhibits
significantly more stiffness at low shear strains in comparison to shear strains exceeding
100%.
Exactly the reverse is true for the FPS system. The stiffness, being controlled by the
radius of curvature of the spherical sliding interface, is unaffected by the amplitude of
motion. Furthermore, the coefficient of sliding friction is velocity dependent so that in
weak excitation the sliding velocity is low and, accordingly, the mobilized friction force
is less than the one mobilized in strong excitation (see Figure 4-4, material No.1 at low
bearing pressure).
Figures 5-5 to 5-7 provide evidence for the performance of the medium friction isolation
system at low level excitation. The figures compare the response of the isolated bridge
(case of flexible piers, bearing material No.1 at low pressure with fmax=0.104) to that of
the non-isolated bridge for the Japanese level 1 input motion. The effectiveness of the
isolation system in these weak motions is clearly evident in the recorded loops of pier
shear force versus pier drift. Shear force and drift in the piers of the isolated bridge are
approximately half of those in the non-isolated bridge. Moreover, the insensitivity of the
isolated bridge to the frequency content of input (ground conditions 1 through 3) is noted
in the recorded loops of Figures 5-5 to 5-7.
5-20
TAFT N21 E STIFF PIER CASE fmax = 5.8%
0.60 60 0 DECK ACC. 0 TABLE DISPL.
0.45 300% f::, - - - BEARING DISPL. 45 E 0 .s :§ ,/ f::, I-d 200% ,/ / z
0 0.30 )2l' 30 w c( / :E ~ ,/ w 0 100~ . / 0 w 0.15 15
c(
~ c
0.00 0.1
0.60
0.45 :§ d 5i1 0.30 ~ 0 w 0.15 c
0.00 0.1
0.60
0.45 --.!?J d 5i1 0.30 ~ 0 w 0.15 c
0.00 0.1
Figure 5-3
...I D-en
K is 0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
TABLE ACC. (9)
fmax = 1 0.4%
100 0 DECK ACC. 600% 0 TABLE DISPL. _0 -. ~ E f::, BEARING DISPL. - /' 75
400% - /' E - /' -- I-...--0. /' /' Z - /' 50 w - :E - w
100% - ---0 c(
0
0 l::.
- 25 ...I D-
o- en -- is tr
0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
TABLE ACC. (g)
fmax = 12.0%
100 DECKACC. 600% TABLEDISPL ...£J
-...6 --BEARING DISPL - /' 75 E - E 400% - /' ---- /' .cY I-- /' Z - /' 50 w - :E
200% - w - 0 25
c( -- ...I D--- en
tr a 0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
T ABLE Ace. (g)
Response of Isolated Bridge Model under Taft Input with Increasing Intensity.
5-21
MIY AGIKENOKI E-W fmax = 1 2.0% S-S CASE
0.60 100 0 DECK ACC. 0 TABLE DISPL.
0.45 D. BEARING DISPL. -8 75 E :§ - ..§.
d - I-- Z 0 0.30 0- 50 w <C - ~ - _D. ~ - w
--- E) 0 0 B--- ----
0 <C w 0.15 25 c _Er- ...I D-en
{y- o 0.00 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
TABLE ACC. (9)
PACOIMA S16E fmax = 12.0% S-S CASE
0.60 100 0 DECK ACC. IMPACT ON RESTRAINER
0 TABLE DISPL. ./D. p-
0.45 D. BEARING DISPL /--- 75 E :§ ~ ..§.
d . ---./ -@'- I-Z
~ 0.30 ------/' 50 W /' ~
~ w (.) 0 w 0.15 25 <C c ...I
D-en 0
0.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
TABLE ACC. (g)
PACOIMA S16E fmax = 1 2.0% F-F CASE
0.60 100 0 DECK ACC. 0 TABLE DISPL.
~ --0.45 D. BEARING DISPL. "/ 75 E :§ --- .~
..§.
d .--0.
./ I-
--- ___ K z ~ 0.30 --- 50 w
~ ~
~ w 0 0 w 0.15 25 <C c ...I
D-en 0
0.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
TABLE ACC. (g)
Figure 5-4 Response of Isolated Bridge Model under Increasing Earthquake Intensity (S-S:case of stiff piers, F-F:case of flexible piers).
5-22
15 ---- BEARING (AVG. OF 4 BEARINGS) ISOLATED, fmax=0.1 04
_ 10 E E - 5 ~ z w ~ O~~~ w ()
:) -5 a.. en 0-10
- - - - - - DECK WITH RESPECT TO TABLE, ISOLATED . . ... . . .. .. .. .. DECK WITH RESPECT TO TABLE, NON-ISOLATED
-15 ~~ __ ~ __ ~~~~ __ ~ __ ~~ __ -L __ ~ __ ~~ __ ~ __ ~~
o 5 10 15
TIME (secs)
c c:( 0.4 .-~~~~~-.--~~~~~---. o -I ISOLATED
fmax = 0.104 -I c:(
X c:(
ex: / -c:( ~ w 0.0 <C 0.0 ~ w 00 ~ ~ 00
-w ~ ~ w ~ ~
NON-ISOLA TED
§ -0.4 '--~~~----~---'-~--'-~~~~-' ~ -0.4 L-~~~ ____ ~---'---,---,-~~ ___ ~-' Z ~ M ~o ~ M ~
z PIER DRIFT RATIO (%) PIER DRIFT RATIO (%)
Figure 5-5 Comparison of Response of Isolated Bridge (case of flexible piers) to Response of Non-isolated Bridge for Japanese Levell, Ground Condition 1 Input
5-23
15 ~~~~--~~~~--~~~~--~~~-.--~~~--r-o ---- BEARING (AVG. OF 4 BEARINGS) ISOLATED, fmax=0.1 04
- 10 E E
- 5 I-Z W ~ 0 w o :5 -5 a.. en 0-10
- - - - - - DECK WITH RESPECT TO TABLE, ISOLATED .. _ ..... " - -- . - DECK WITH RESPECT TO TABLE, NON-ISOLATED
-15 L-~~~~~~~~~ __ L-~~~~ __ L-~-L~ __ L-~~
o
C <C 0 0.4 ...J ...J <C X <C -a: <C w 0.0 X en a: w il: x l-
5
ISOLATED
10
TIME (secs)
C <C 0
0.4
...J
fmax=0.104 ...J <C X
/ <C -a:
0.0 <C w x en a: w a:: x
15 20
NON-ISOLATED
a: ~ ·0.4 0-0.4 0.7 Z -0.7 0.0 0.7 0 -0.7 0.0
Z PIER DRIFT RATIO (%) PIER DRIFT RATIO (%)
Figure 5-6 Comparison of Response of Isolated Bridge (case of flexible piers) to Response of Non-isolated Bridge for Japanese Levell, Ground Condition 2 Input
5-24
5.5 Effect of Vertical Ground Motion
The force-displacement of an FPS bearing is described by Equation (3-9). Under vertical
ground motion the load on the bearing varies, so that Equation (3-9) is modified to
F = (1 + iigv)[ W u+Il Wsgn(u)] g R
(5-1)
where iigV = vertical ground acceleration and g = acceleration of gravity. In effect, the
vertical ground acceleration modifies the load on the bearing and, thus, modifies both the
restoring force and the friction force. A second indirect effect of the vertical ground
motion is the modification of bearing pressure at the sliding interface. This, in turn,
modifies the coefficient of sliding friction which is pressure dependent.
It appears, in a casual review of these effects, that the vertical ground motion has
significant effects. The experimental results provide evidence to the contrary. Figures
5-8 and 5-9 compare the response of the isolated bridge (case of flexible piers, fmax=0.104)
to the EI Centro SOOE 200% and Taft N21E 400% input, with and without the vertical
ground component. Evidently, the vertical input has a minor effect which is primarily
seen in the wavy form of the isolation system hysteresis loop. The observed differences
in the loops of pier shear force versus pier deformation are not real but rather a result of
the vertical motion effect on the displacement transducer which measured the pier
deformation.
The reason for the rather minor effect of vertical motion on the response of the isolated
bridge is that the vertical ground motion contains frequencies different than those of the
horizontal ground motion and that the two motions are not in phase. The peaks of the
horizontal and vertical ground motions occur at different times so that their effects do not
coincide.
5-26
20 ---- BEARING (AVG. OF 4 BEARINGS) ISOLATED, fmax=0.1 04
.... Z W ~ a w () <C --I
fu-10 Cl
- - - - - - DECK WITH RESPECT TO TABLE, ISOLATED . . .. . . . . ... .. .. DECK WITH RESPECT TO TABLE, NON-ISOLATED
-20 ~~-L~~~~-L~~~~-L~~~~~~~~~~~~ a 10 20 30
TIME (secs)
c « 0.4 .---~~~~~----..~~~~~~-,
-ISOLATED fmax=0.104
o ..J ..J « ><
~ -< ~
/
«
w 0.0 « 0.0 ~ w w ~ ~ w w ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ o -0.4 L--,--~~~~--,-~~~~~~....J ~ -0.4 '--'---'---..~~~--'-~~~~~~-' Z ~ M VO ~ M V
z PIER DRIFT RATIO (%) PIER DRIFT RATIO (%)
Figure 5-7 Comparison of Response of Isolated Bridge (case of flexible piers) to Response of Non-isolated Bridge for Japanese Levell, Ground Condition 3 Input
5-25
60 -E HORIZONTAL
.s 40 - - - - - - HORIZONTAL + VERTICAL
..J c.. 20 en is (,!) 0 z a: -20 < w m
-40
-60 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
TIME (sec)
I- 0.3 :I: (,!) iIi 0.2
HORIZONTAL - - - - - - HORIZONTAL + VERTICAL
3: -.. 0.1 w 0 II: 0.0 0 LL ....,: -0.1 en >-en -0.2 0 5!2 -0.3
-60 -40 -20 o 20 40 60
BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
~ 0.4 "--'-HO--'--RI~Z~O~N-T A.,....L~,..........~'~~~-, iIi 0.3
0.4 ..---.....-~~-,--~~~~~~-,
3: 0.2 -..
0.3
0.2
~ 0.1 0.1 II: o 0.0 0.0 LL II:~ ~ < ~ -0.2 -0.2 CJ) II: -0.3 -0.3 W
HORIZONTAL +VERTICAL
ii: -0.4 -0.4 L...........-'-.......... _~~~ ........ -'-~~...J
~~~~M~UUU ~~~~M~UUU
Figure 5-8
PIER DRIFT RATIO (0/0) PIER DRIFT RATIO (%)
Comparison of Response of Isolated Bridge (flexible pier case, material No.1, fmax=0.104) for Horizontal Only and Horizontal plus Vertical EI Centro SOOE 200 % Input.
5-27
60 E HORIZONTAL
.§ 40 - - - - - - HORIZONTAL + VERTICAL
..J Il. 20 en 5 (!J 0 z a: -20 c( w [Xl
-40
-60 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
TIME (sec)
I- 0.3 :I: (!J W 0.2
HORIZONTAL - - - - - - HORIZONTAL + VERTICAL
3: - 0.1 w 0 a: 0.0 0 u. t-= -0.1 en >-rn -0.2 0 5Q -0.3
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
I- 0.4 0.4 :I: HORIZONTAL HORIZONT AL +VERTICAL C!:I [j 0.3 0.3
3: 0.2 0.2 -W 0.1 0.1 0 a: 0 0.0 0.0 LL a: -0.1 -0.1 c(
~ -0.2 -0.2 (J) a: -0.3 -0.3 W c::: -0.4 -0.4
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
PIER DRIFT RATIO (%) PIER DRIFT RATIO (%)
Figure 5-9 Comparison of Response of Isolated Bridge (flexible pier case, material No.1, fmax=0.104) for Horizontal Only and Horizontal plus Vertical Taft N21E 400% Input.
5-28
5.6 Effect of Impact on the Displacement Restrainer
In some tests with very strong excitation, such as the Pacoima Dam S 16E component, or
long period excitation, such as the Japanese Level 2, ground condition 3 excitation and
the Mexico City (amplified to 120%) excitation, the bearing displacement demand
exceeded the bearing displacement capacity. The displacement restrainer of the FPS
bearings (see Figure 4-2) was engaged and prevented further displacement at the expense
of higher accelerations in the superstructure and higher forces in the substructure. Figure
5-4 provides evidence to the effects of engaging the restrainer in the tests with Pacoima
Darn S 16E input. In this case, the impact at the engagement of the restrainer is on an
essentially rigid pier and the result is an almost 50% increase in deck acceleration.
Evidently, it is a prudent design practice to design the FPS bearings with sufficient
displacement capacity to prevent engagement of the restrainer. Nevertheless, the
engagement of the displacement restrainer does not result in response values which
exceed the values of the non-isolated bridge. An example is provided in Figure 5-10
which compares the response of the isolated bridge (flexible pier case, fmax=0.104, test No.
FPSAR40) to the response of the non-isolated bridge (extrapolated from the results of test
No. FRUN17 assuming linear behavior) for the Japanese level 2, ground condition 3
input.
5.7 System Adequacy
The performance of isolation bearings is assessed by testing as adequate if certain
conditions are satisfied. The AASHTO, 1991 requires that in over three cycles of testing
at five different amplitudes of displacement (0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.0 and 1.25 times the total
design displacement) the effective stiffness of the specimen differs by not more than 10
percent from the average effective stiffness. Furthermore, the AASHTO, 1991 requires
that in tests with at least 10 cycles of motion at the total design displacement, there is no
5-29
120 E ~IMPACT ISOLA TED, TEST FPSAR40 .§ 80 ..J a.. 40 en i5 ~ 0 z a: -40 c( w m
-80 ~IMPACT
-120 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
TIME (sec)
ISOLATED, TEST FPSAR40
-0.4
-0.6 L--,,---,,---"'-~--'--'----1.--'----'----'----L---'---'---'--'---'-....L--'--'--'--...J.-->---J
-120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120
BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
I- 2 2 :::c ISOLATED, TEST FPSAR40 NON-ISOLATED, EXTRAPOLATE C!' iii NORTH PIER FROM TEST FRUN1 7
== 1 1 NORTH PIER -. w
/ 0 II:
0 0 0 U-II: c( W -1 -1 :::c (J)
II: W c::: -2 -2
-2 -1 0 2 -2 -1 0 2
PIER DRIFT RATIO (%) PIER DRIFT RATIO (%)
Figure 5-10 Comparison of Response of Isolated Bridge with Engagement of Displacement Restrainer to Response of Non-isolated Bridge under the Japanese Level 2, Ground Condition 3 Input
5-30
greater than 20 percent change in either the effective stiffness or the effective damping
between the first and any subsequent cycle.
In FPS bearings, the stiffness is entirely controlled by the radius of curvature of the
spherical sliding surface (see Equation 3-8). Thus, the stiffness cannot change with
repeated testing. However, the coefficient of friction may change and this will affect both
the effective stiffness and the effective damping.
Evidence for the exceptional stability of the frictional properties of the sliding interface
in the tested FPS bearings is provided in Figure 5-11. The figure shows recorded force
displacement loops of all four bearings in identification tests using the model
configuration 2 in Figure 4-9. The bearing material is No.1 under pressure of 17.2 MPa
(see Figure 4-4). Five cycles of harmonic motion with 75mm amplitude and 0.4 Hz
frequency were imposed. The peak velocity of sliding exceeded 188 mrnIs. One test was
conducted prior to the seismic testing. The other identical test was conducted following
58 seismic tests (test No. FPSAROI to FPSAR58 in Tables 5-11 and 5-111). It may be
observed that the loops prior and following the 58 seismic tests are identical. The friction
coefficient remained unchanged after at least 30 cycles at approximately the displacement
capacity of the bearings and over 100 cycles at lower displacement.
5.8 Permanent Displacements
Permanent displacements may develop in all hysterestic isolation systems. The AASHTO
(AASHTO 1991) and UBC (rCBO 1991) specifications attempt to account for this
possibility by either specifying minimum stiffness requirements or by penalizing systems
which lack sufficient stiffness. Particularly, the AASHTO, 1991 specifications require
that the restoring force of an isolation system at the design displacement, dj , be at least
0.025W (W=total seismic dead load) greater than the restoring force at displacement equal
to d/2. Systems which do not meet this criterion need to be configured to accommodate
displacements equal to at least 3dj •
5-31
o < g ...J < X < .... a: < w :r en <!l Z a: < w m
o
NORTH-WEST BEARING 0.3 r--r-""-'~.....-r-r-r-r-'-"--'-'-r-r...,-,--'-~-'--r-r-'-.,......,..-r-r-r""-'--'-~-r-r-r-r-.,......,
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3 '-'-...J..-;'-'--'-'--'-..L-l.-I-~-'-'-'-...c.....J'-'--'--'--'-""""""-I-",-,--'-'-'-...c.....J'-'--'-'--'--"--,-I-.J......J
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 BEARING DISP. (mm)
NORTH-EAST BEARING
40 60 80 100
~ 0.3 r-r...,.-r-r-.....-r-r-r-r-,-.,--,-,-r-r...,-,r-r--r-r-r-r-r-,-.,--,-r-r-r...,-,--,-.....-r-r-r-r-,-.,-, ...J ...J < X < .... a: < w :r en <!l ii:::
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
II: < W m
-0.3 '-'--'-'-'--'-'--'-..L-l.-I-~-'-'-'-....l..-,-,--,--,--,-............ -I-~-'-'-'--'---''-'--'-'--'--'--J.--'-"'-'
-100 -80 -60 -40
o
-20 0 20 BEARING DISP. (mm)
SOUTH-WEST BEARING
40 60 80 100
~ 0.3 r-r-r-r-r...,-,--,-..,.,.-,-."-r-r-r--;-r-r...,......,-r-r-r-,--r-r-,-,.,.--r-r--r""-'--'-"""-"-"",,,,, ...J
;( 0.2 X < 0.1 .... ~ w :r en
0.0
-0.1
-0.2 <!l z a: < w m
-0.3 '-'-...c.....J--l.....J...-J.--'-..L-l.-I-J.....J...-'-'-'-...J.....J--I--'--'-I-........... -I-J.....J...-'-'--J--...J.....J--I-.J...-J.--'-.l..-I.-I-.J.......I
o < g
-100
~ 0.2 X < 0.1 .... ~ w :r en
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 BEARING DISP. (mm)
SOUTH-EAST BEARING
40 60 80 100
<!l Z a: < w m
-0.3 '-'-...J.....J--l.....J...-J.--'-..1......i..-I-J.....J...-'-'--J--...J.....J--I--'--J.-'-........... -I-J.....J...-'-'-'--'-'--'-.J...-J.--'-.1.......L-I-J.......J
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 BEARING DISP. (mm)
40 60
IDENTIFICATION TEST PRIOR TO SEISMIC TESTS
IDENTIFICATION TEST AFTER 58 SEISMIC TESTS
80 100
Figure 5-11 Recorded FPS Bearing Force-Displacement Loops for Five Cycles of Harmonic Motion of Amplitude=75mm and Frequency=O.4 Hz. Material No.1, Pressure=17.2 MPa.
5-32
The assumption in AASHTO is that systems which do not meet the aforementioned
criteria will have large permanent displacements (of the order of d) which will
accumulate in successive earthquakes. Indeed, this may be the case in systems which
completely lack restoring force. Evidence for this was provided by Constantinou, 1990b
and 1991b in tests of a sliding isolation system without restoring force.
The tested isolation system had a force-displacement relation expressed by Equations (3-
9) and (4-1). The force developed at displacement di is, thus, given by
d.W F.=+ W+_1
_ I Jrnax R
The requirement of AASHTO on the lateral restoring force is equivalent to
d. -.: > 0.05 R
(5-2)
(5-3)
For the tested FPS bearings, R=558.8mm, so that Equation (5-3) is equivalent to
di>27.9mm. Therefore according to AASHTO, it would be expected that in the tests with
peak bearing displacement exceeding this limit, the permanent displacements are small
and not cumulative. Indeed this has been the case. An inspection of Table 5-III reveals
that the permanent displacements were small and not cumulative.
However, the same behavior was also observed in tests with weak excitation when the
bearing displacements were less than the limit of 27.9mm. Particularly interesting is the
sequence of tests FPSBR (see Table 5-III). In nine of the ten conducted tests the bearing
displacements were less than this limit. Yet, the permanent displacements were small and
not cumulative.
5-33
SECTION 6
ANALYTICAL PREDICTION OF RESPONSE
6.1 Introduction
Analytical techniques for predicting the dynamic response of sliding isolation systems are
available (Mokha 1988, 1990b and 1991; Constantinou 1990a, 1990b, 1991a and 1991b).
These analytical techniques are employed herein in the prediction of the response of the
tested bridge model. The analytical model accounts for the pier flexibility, pier top
rotation and vertical motion effects on the properties of the FPS bearings.
6.2 Analytical Model
Figure 6-1 shows the analytical model in the case of the bridge with flexible piers. The
degrees of freedom are selected to be the deck displacement with respect to the table, U d'
the pier displacements with respect to the table, Upi and U p2' and the pier rotations, <Ppi
and <P p2'
Each pier is modeled by a beam element of length L i, moment of inertia Ii and modulus
of elasticity Ei (i=1 or 2). The beam element is fixed to the table and connected at its top
to a rigid block of height h, mass ~i and mass moment of inertia about the center of
mass (C.M.) Ipj. The center of mass is located at distance hi from the bottom of the
block. This block represents the pier top.
Free body diagrams of the deck and pier tops of the bridge model are shown in Figure
6-2. It should be noted that there is no transfer of moment between the deck and the
supporting pier top. The equations of motion are derived by consideration of dynamic
equilibrium of the deck and piers in the horizontal direction and of the piers in the
rotational direction:
6-1
m p1 Ud
m p2 --Ip1 Ip2 md
h h .. UP1 ... UP2
L1 L2
Figure 6-1 Longitudinal Direction Model of Isolated Bridge
Figure 6-2 Free Body Diagram of Bridge Model
6-2
(6-1)
(6-2)
(6-3)
(6-4)
(6-5)
where FbI and Fb2 are the lateral forces in the FPS bearings, and Fpi and MPi are the lateral
force and bending moment at the connection of the pier top to the end of the column:
{~:} 12
L: I
= E.!. I I 6
(6-6)
L2 I
The first part of Equation (6-6) describes the elastic forces, whereas the second part is
used to account for linear viscous energy dissipation in the piers.
The lateral force in the FPS bearings is given by (see section 3)
(6-7)
(6-8)
6-3
(6-9)
where Wi=weight carried by pier i(i=1,2), Wi*=normal load on the sliding interface,
Ubi=bearing displacement, /li=coefficient of sliding friction and Zi= variable describing
essentially rigid-plastic behavior.
(Constantinou 1990a):
Variable Zi satisfies the following equation
(6-10)
In this equation, Yi="yield" displacement (=0.25 mm) and ~ and r-parameters satisfying
the condition ~+r-1.
The coefficient of sliding friction follows the relation (Constantinou 1990a, see also
section 4)
11.::::1. . - (f. . -I. .. ) exp ( -a·1 Vb' I ) t"'z maxl maxl mml I I (6-11)
in which fmax and [min are, in general, functions of the bearing pressure.
6.3 Comparison of Analytical and Experimental Results
Analytical results are compared to experimental results in the test series FPSAR (see
Table 5-11 and 5-111). In these tests, the sliding interface consisted of composite material
No.1 (see section 4) at bearing pressure of 17.2 MPa. Analyses were performed for the
case flexible piers. The dynamic response of the isolated bridge model is described by
Equations (6-1) to (6-11). Solution of these equations was obtained by first reducing
these equations to a system of 12 first order differential equations (variables: Ud, Vd
, Upi'
6-4
Up!' <Ppi' ~Pi and Zi' i=1,2), and then numerically integrating the system by using an
adaptive integration scheme with truncation error control (Gear 1971).
The data used in the analytical model were: deck weight mdg=140 kN, pier weight
mpig=8.9 kN' L I=L2=1.6 m, hl=h2=98mm, h=413 mm, Ipl=Ip2=38.22 kN's2'mm,
EI=E2=200000 MPa, II=I2=3.022xlO-5m4 (2 AISC tubes Ts 6x6x5116). Based on these
data the fundamental period of each pier, in its cantilever position, was calculated to be
0.092s. This is in close agreement with the experimentally determined value of 0.096s.
The second mode of the cantilever pier had a calculated frequency of 102 Hz. This
frequency could neither be detected in the tests nor have any significance in the analysis.
Damping in the piers was described by the second term in Equation (6-6). The fact that
the calculated second frequency of the cantilever pier is much larger than the first
frequency indicates that the second mode of the pier may be neglected. Accordingly,
constant C:i in Equation (6-6) was set equal to zero and constant C;i was assigned a
value equal to 0.0062 kNs/mm. Based on this value, the damping ratio in the
fundamental mode of the cantilever pier was calculated to be 5% of critical. This is
consistent with the experimental data.
The parameters in the model of friction of Equation (6-11) were selected to be fmini=0.04
and aj=83.1 s/m. Both were assumed to be independent of the bearing pressure.
However, the coefficient of friction at high velocity of slicing was described as
f . = 0.12 - 0.07 tanh (ap.) m= I
(6-12)
where a=0.012 (MParl and pi=bearing pressure in MPa, described by
6-5
(6-13)
Equation (6-12) is consistent with experimental results on the frictional properties of
composite material No.1 in contact with polished stainless steel. This is demonstrated in
Figure 6-3. It should be noted that Equations (6-12) and (6-13) give, in the absence of
vertical acceleration, Pi= 17.2 MPa and fmaxi=O.1 05.
x ctI E -
0.12
~ 0.10 i= o if 0.08 C) z § 0.06 en u. o ~ 0.04 z w (3 H: 0.02 w g
• Tests at U. Buffalo (This StUdy)
o Tests at U.C. Berkeley (Component Tests 89)
• Tests at U. Buffalo (7-Story Model 9/91 )
• • o 0
0.00 L-....L--'-....L-.I.......I.--'-....L-"---'---'--'--J...-J,.--'-......... ~.....i.--'--"-'--'-.......... --'--'-"""'--'--'--
o 50 1 00 1 50 200 250 300 BEARING PRESSURE (MPa)
Figure 6-3 Variation of Coefficient of Friction at High Velocity of Sliding (fmax) with Pressure (solid line described by equation 6-12)
Equations (6-1) to (6-13) describe the one-directional response of the isolated bridge
model, including the full effect of the vertical ground motion. As discussed in section
5, the piers of the model underwent vertical motion even in the case of testing with only
horizontal excitation. As an example, Figure 6-4 shows the recorded vertical
accelerations at the base of the piers of the isolated model in four tests of the FPSAR
series (see Tables 5-II and 5-ill) , in which the model was excited with the EI Centro
200% and Taft 400% motions, without and with the vertical component. In the tests with
only horizontal excitation, the two piers have out-of-phase vertical acceleration.
6-6
---0> --o o « -I « o ~ a: w >
o o « -I « o fa: ill >
o o « -I « o Ia: w >
---0> --o o « -I « o Ia: ill >
0.5
0.0
-0.5 o
0.5
0.0
-0.5 2
0.5
0.0
-0.5 o
0.5
0.0
-0.5 2
Figure 6-4
1
3
"
1
3
SOUTH PIER NORTH PIER
EL CENTRO SOOE 200% H, TEST FPSAR27
2 3 4 TIME (secs)
TAFT N21 E 400% H, TEST FPSAR30
5 6 TIME (secs)
II I, \
II/
EL CENTRO SOOE 200% H+V, TEST FPSAR54
2 3 4 TIME (secs)
TAFT N21E 400% H+V, TEST FPSAR53
456 TIME (secs)
5
7
5
7
Recorded Vertical Acceleration at the Base of Piers in Tests with only Horizontal and with Combined Horizontal-Vertical Excitation
6-7
Comparisons of analytical and experimental results are presented in Figures 6-5 to 6-15
in the case of tests with only horizontal excitation. The analysis was based on Equations
(6-1) to (6-13) but with UVi set equal to zero (vertical acceleration effects were
neglected). Evidently, the analytical results are in very good agreement with the
experimental results. This demonstrates that the vertical acceleration effects are not
significant.
Figures 6-16 and 6-17 compare experimental and analytical results in the tests with
combined horizontal-vertical EI Centro 200% and Taft 400% inputs. The analysis
accounted for the vertical acceleration effects. The analysis captures correctly the wavy
form of the bearing shear force-displacement loops and the two sets of results appear to
be in very good agreement.
6-8
E E --...J
0... en o (!J z a: « w III
lI
40
20
o
-20
-40
(!J 0.2 w ~ UJ 0.1 o a: o 0.0 LL
r-: ~ -0.1 en
-- ANALYTICAL - - - - EXPERIMENTAL
SW BEARING
o 10 20 30 TIME (sees)
.J o en -0.2 ~~ __ -L __ ~ __ ~ __ ~~ __ -L __ ~ __ ~ __ L-~ __ ~ __ ~ __ ~ __ ~~
fI (!J
UJ ~ ~ o UJ o a: « ill I en
-40
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-20 0 20 40 SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
NORTH PIER
a: ill
-0.4 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
c.. -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 PIER DISPLACEMENT (mm) -.9 2.0 ,-------,-----r------,----,-------,--------,-----...,-----,.----,------,
5 NORTH PIER
~ a: ill ...J ill o o « a: ill c::
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0 1 2 3 4 5 6
TIME (sees) Figure 6-5 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results in Tests with EI
Centro 200% Input (Test No. FPSAR27). Analysis Performed without
the Effect of Vertical Pier Acceleration( V . = 0) VI
6-9
E E -
~ o Cf)
lI CD iIi ~ ~ o w o 0: « w I Cf)
cr: W 0..
-0> -z o ~ cr: W -l . W o o « cr: w a..
60 ~-.~~-r'-~'-~~-.~-r'-'-~.-~-'-r-'~'-~'-~"
40 -- ANALYTICAL - - - - EXPERIMENTAL
TIME (sees)
-0.2 L-L-~~-L-L~~--L-L-~J-~-L-L~~--L-L-~~-L-L~~60 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
NORTH PIER 0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
PIER DISPLACEMENT (mm)
2.0 ~--~----~----'----,----~----,----'-----r----'----. NORTH PIER
1.0
0.0 ~ ______ ...,r-"",
-1.0
-2.0 L-__ -L ____ ~ ____ L-__ ~ ____ ~ ____ L_ __ ~ ____ ~ ____ L_ __ ~
1 234 5 6 TIME (sees)
Figure 6-6 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results in Tests with Taft N21E 400% Input (Test No. FPSAR30). Analysis Performed without
the Effect of Vertical Pier Acceleration( (j . = 0) VI
6-10
E E '-"
--l a.. Cf)
Cl (!) z a: <t: w [l)
lI
100
50
0
-50
-100 0 5
TIME (sees)
-- ANALYTICAL EXPERIMENTAL
SW BEARING
10 15
(!) 0.3 ,-~~--~~-,--~~~--~,-~--~'-~--r-~-,--~~-, w ~ 0.2 w (,) 0.1 a: o 0.0 LL
....,: -0.1 Cf)
~ -0.2 -.J o Cf)
-0.3 L-J-~ __ L-~~ __ L-~~ __ L_~~ __ L-~~ __ L_~~ __ ~-L~
lI (!)
w 3: ~ (,) W o a: « w I Cf)
a: w a::
-100 -50 0 50 100 SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
0.5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0
-0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4
NORTH PIER
7
-0.5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PIER DISPLACEMENT (mm) -~ 2.0 '---~----.-----~--~----.-----r----'----~----~---' z o ~ a: w --l W (,) (,) « a: w a..
NORTH PIER
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0 L-__ -L ____ J_ ____ L-__ ~ ____ J_ ____ L_ __ ~ _____ J_ ____ L_ __ ~
1 2 3 4 5 6 TIME (sees)
Figure 6-7 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results in Tests with Japanese Level 2 G.C.1 100% Input (Test No. FPSAR37). Analysis
Performed without the Effect of Vertical Pier Acceleration( UVi = 0)
6-11
- 100 E E ----' 50
D.. C/)
0 0 (!J z a: -50 « w CD -100
0
l-I (!J 0.3 ill ~ 0.2 w
0.1 0 a: 0 0.0 LL
~ -0.1 C/)
>- -0.2 CJ)
-.i -0.3 0 -80 CJ)
l-I (!J 0.5 w 0.4 ~ 0.3 ~ 0.2 0 0.1 w 0 0.0 --- -0.1 a: « -0.2 w I -0.3 CJ) -0.4 a: -0.5 w 0::: -7
C> 2.0 -z 0 ~ 1.0 « cr. w 0.0 --' w 0 0 -1.0 « cr. UJ -2.0 0::: 4
-- ANALYTICAL
r~ -" I , , , , "
, I I I I
I I " " I I I I
I I I I " I I - '-I , \ -~ - -
10 TIME (sees)
-- , ,
:11,: \ I ',11
: I
" " 1:)\ 'I I
, I , \ 11M, II \ ~~-
-\ 11'
I I I I I I I, I -
EXPERIMENTAL
SW BEARING
- - ~ - -- - -~ ,
I I II I I I II I
W/~" I
IJ " - --'- - - --
-40 0 40 SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
NORTH PIER
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 PIER DISPLACEMENT (mm)
NORTH PIER
5 6 7 8 TIME (sees)
20
80
7
9
Figure 6-8 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results in Tests with Japanese Level 2 G.C.2 100% Input (Test No. FPSAR38). Analysis
Performed without the Effect of Vertical Pier Acceleration( V , = 0) VI
6-12
E E ----....J a.. en 0 C} z a: « w OJ
fI
60
30
0
-30
-60
-- ANALYTICAL - - - - EXPERIMENTAL
SW BEARING
0 4 8 12 TIME (secs)
C) 0.3 ~~~--~~--~~--'--'--r-~-,--'--,--'--,--r--r--'-~-. w ~ 0.2 w () 0.1 a: o 0.0 LL
~ -0.1 en ~ -0.2 -i o en
-0.3 L-~~ __ L-~~ __ L-~~ __ L-~~ __ L-~~ __ ~~~ __ ~~~
fI C}
w ~ ~ () W o a: « w I en a: w a..
.-C>
----z o ~ a: w -I W () () « a: w a..
-50 -25 0 25 50 SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
0.5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~TT"~"TT"-r"~.-rr,,,, 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0
-0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4
NORTH PIER
=>£ 2£
-0.5 LL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
PIER DISPLACEMENT (mm)
2.0 ~--~~--~----~-----'----~----'-----'-----r-----r----. NORTH PIER
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0 2 3 4 5 6 7
TIME (secs)
Figure 6-9 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results in Tests with CalTrans R3 0.6g 100% Input (Test No. FPSAR41). Analysis
Performed without the Effect of Vertical Pier Acceleration( (j . = 0) VI
6-13
E E ........
.....J 0... (J)
(5 C) z
30
o
-- ANALYTICAL EXPERIMENTAL
a: -30 « SW BEARING UJ (Q
lI Ci UJ ~ UJ (.) a: o LL
~ (J)
>(J)
.J o (J)
lI Ci UJ 3: ~ (.) UJ o a: « UJ I (J)
a:: UJ 0...
---.
-60 L-~-L __ L-~-L __ L-~~ __ L-~~ __ L-~~ __ ~~~ __ ~~~
o 5 10 15 20 TIME (sees)
0.3 r-~-'--'-~-'--'-~~--.-~~--~~~--,-~~--~-r-,
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2 -0.3 L-~~ __ L-~~ __ L-~~ __ L-~~ __ L-~~ __ L-~~ __ ~~~
-50 -25 0 25 50 SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
0.5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~rn 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0
-0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4
NORTH PIER
- -.-:;: - --.-
-0.5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
PIER DISPLACEMENT (mm)
~ 3.0 r---~---r---'--~,---~--~---.---,----.---,----,----z o ~ a:: UJ .....J W (.) (.) « a: w 0...
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
NORTH PIER
-3.0 L-__ ~ __ ~ __ ~ __ ~ ____ L-__ ~ __ ~ __ ~ ____ ~ __ ~ __ ~ __ ~
1 2 3 4 TIME (sees)
5 6 7
Figure 6-10 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results in Tests with CalTrans S3 0.6g 100% Input (Test No. FPSAR42). Analysis
Performed without the Effect of Vertical Pier Acceleration( 0 . = 0) VI
6-14
..-.. E E--.J 0... (f)
0 CJ z a: « w co
lI CJ W
~ W () a: o u.. t-= (f)
>(f)
-i o (f)
lI CJ w 3: ~ () W o --a: « w I (f)
a: w (L
z o ~ a: w -.J W () () « a: w 0...
100
50
0
-50
-100 0
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3 -100 -75
0.5 0.4 NORTH PIER 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0
-0.1 -0.2 --0.3 -0.4 -0.5
-6 -5 -4
2.0 NORTH PIER
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0 1 2
5 10 TIME (sees)
-- ---
-- ANALYTICAL EXPERIMENTAL
15
SW BEARING
\
I
I I J \. ----=: - - -,/- -
/.-;-
-50 -25 0 25 50 75 SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
~
7
) - - - - - -. if
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 PIER DISPLACEMENT (mm)
3 4 5 6 TIME (sees)
20
100
6
7
Figure 6-11 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results in Tests with CalTrans A2 0.6g 100% Input (Test No. FPSAR43). Analysis
Performed without the Effect of Vertical Pier Acceleration( (j . = 0) VI
67 15
E E --I a.. (f)
o (!J z
-- ANALYTICAL
40 - - - - EXPERIMENTAL
a: -40 «
SW BEARING ill co
lI (!J
iIi ~ ill () a: o LL
-80 L-~-L __ L-~~ __ L-~~ __ L-~~ __ L-~~ __ L-~~ __ L--L __
o 5 10 15 20 TIME (sees)
0.3 ~~~~~~~~~~,-~~-,~,-~~-,~,-~~-,~~,-
0.2
0.1
0.0
r.: -0.1 (f)
~ -0.2 ..J o (f)
lI (!J
iIi ~ ~ () ill o --a: « ill I (f)
a: ill a..
-0) -z o ~ a: ill .....J ill () () « a: ill c:::
-0.3 ~~~~~~~-L~~~~-L~~~~-L~~L-~~-L~~~ -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
0.5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~rr~"~,,~,, 0.4 NORTH PI ER 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0
-0.1 -0.2 -0.3 =---0.4 -0.5 uu~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 PIER DISPLACEMENT (mm)
NORTH PIER
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0 L-~ __ ~ __ L-~ __ ~ __ L-~ __ ~ __ L-~ __ ~ __ L-~ __ -L __ ~~
1 2 345 6 7 8 9 TIME (sees)
Figure 6-12 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results in Tests with Hachinohe N-S 300% Input (Test No. FPSAR45). Analysis Performed
without the Effect of Vertical Pier Acceleration( V . = 0) VI
6-16
E E '-'
.....J 0... Cf)
(5 (!) z
40
o r------'""l
a: -40
-- ANALYTICAL EXPERIMENTAL
~ SW BEARING m -80 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
l-I (!) ijj
~ () a:
0.2
0.1
o 0.0 LL
r: -0.1 Cf)
>Cf) -0.2
o 5 1 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 TIME (sees)
-.J -0.3 L-.lL---l---l.--L---'-----'----'-----'-----'---'---'--'-----'--L----1--L----'----'-----'---'-------'-----'--'---'---'-.L..-L.......l
o -70 Cf) -35 0 35 70 SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm) l
I (!) 0.5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0.4 0.3
~ 0.2 ill 0.1 Cl 0.0 a: -0.1 ~ -0.2 :r: -0.3 Cf) -0.4
NORTH PIER
a: -0 . 5 L...L.l---'-'-..L.LLLJ.....LJ......J....l.....L...LJ....LJ......J....l.....LL..JL..L.l....J....l.....LL..JL..L.l.--,--"---L.LJL.L.L---'-..L..L..LL..1....l.---'-'-..L.LLLJ.....LJ......J....l.....LL-J
W -6 0...
---Ol '-'
z o I« a: W .....J ill ()
1.0
0.0
~ -1.0 a:
-5 -4
NORTH PIER
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 PIER DISPLACEMENT (mm)
3 4 5 6
ill 0...
-2.0 "-------'----'-----'------'-------'----'----''------'-----'----'---'-----'----'-----' 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
TIME (sees)
Figure 6-13 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results in Tests with Akita N-S 200% Input (Test No. FPSAR47). Analysis Performed
without the Effect of Vertical Pier Acceleration( (j . = 0) VI
6-17
----E E ---....J
0... C/)
0 c..'J z a: « w co
lI c..'J W ~ w () a: o LL
r: C/)
>C/)
....J o C/)
lI c..'J w 3: ~ () W o --a: « ill I C/)
cr: ill 0...
----C> ---z o ~ a: ill ....J W () () « cr: ill c:::
50
25
0
-25
-50
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
0 5 10 15 TIME (secs)
-- ANALYTICAL EXPERIMENTAL
SW BEARING
20 25
-0.3 ~~~--~~~--~~--~~~--~~--~~~--~~--~~~ -50 -25 0 25 50
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
0.5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,,~no~,,~~,,~~~~ 0.4 NORTH PJIER 0.3 0.2 ~ 0.1 0.0 ufP
-0.1 -0.2 -0.3 --=-- if
-0.4 -0.5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 PIER DISPLACEMENT (mm)
2.0 ,----.----.-----,----,----.-----.----,----~----,----. NORTH PIER
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0 6 7 8 9 10 11
TIME (secs) Figure 6-14 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results in Tests with
Miyagiken Oki 600% Input (Test No. FPSAR49). Analysis Performed
without the Effect of Vertical Pier Acceleration( (j . = 0) VI
6-18
E E-....J a.. (f)
(5 (9 z a: « w CD
lI
40
20
0
-20
-40 0
-- ANALYTICAL - - - - EXPERIMENTAL
-\_J----- -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - __
I, SW BEARING
5 10 15 TIME (sees)
~ 0.3 ~~--~--~~'-~--~--~~---r--~--r_~--_r--~--~-. iJj ~ 0.2 w () 0.1 a: o 0.0 u..
~ >(f)
-0.1
-0.2
'( -y
~. - - -- -
-- ., I
I I
I , ..' -
---~
~ - , \
,1 ~[t~ ~ I ,
I I I
I' ,
I
" ,I I
"
, ) I "~v ,
/
-~ -
..J o (f)
-0.3 ~~ __ ~ __ L-~ __ ~ __ L-~ __ ~ __ L-~ __ ~ __ L-~ __ ~ __ ~~
lI (9
W ~ ~ () w o --ex: « w I (f)
ex: w CL
-40
0.5 I I
004 - NORTH PIER 0.3 I-
0.2 '--
0.1 I-
0.0 I-
-0.1 I-
-0.2 - --0.3 c-
-004 I-
-0.5 , I
-5 -4 -3
-20 0 20 40 SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
I I I I I I I
--
----==--------
I , II ~ I I
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 PIER DISPLACEMENT (mm)
---~ 2.0 .----,----~-----,----_r----,_----._----~----r_--_,r_--_. z o ~ a: w .....J W () () « a: w CL
NORTH PIER
1.0
0.0 \------""-"
-1.0
-2.0 ~ __ ~ ____ -L ____ ~ ____ L-__ -J ____ -L ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ __ ~
1 2 3 4 5 6 TIME (sees)
Figure 6-15 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results in Tests with Pacoima S74W 100% Input (Test No. FPSAR51). Analysis Performed
without the Effect of Vertical Pier Acceleration( (j . = 0) VI
6-19
,-.. 40 E S
20 ....J
-- ANALYTICAL - - - - EXPERIMENTAL
a.. (J)
is 0 ~-~---------~-----
CJ Z 0: -20 « w SW BEARING CD -40
0 10 20 30 TIME (sees)
0.2
0.1 I
I
0.0
-0.1
-0.2 -40 ~o 0 20 40
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
NORTH PIER
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
PIER DISPLACEMENT (mm) ,-.. Ol 3.0 ........ z NORTH PIER 0 2.0 i= « 0:
1.0 w 0.0 ....J W (J -1.0 (J « -2.0 0: w -3.0 a.. 1 2 3 4 5 6
TIME (sees)
Figure 6-16 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results in Tests with EI Centro 200% H+V Input (Test No. FPSAR54). Analysis Performed with the Effect of Vertical Pier Acceleration.
6-20
.-.. E E ---....J 0.. en 0 (!) z a: « w CD
lI (!)
W
~ W () a:: o LL
~
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
0.1
0.0
-- ANALYTICAL - - - - EXPERIMENTAL
SW BEARING
0 10 20 30 TIME (sees)
~ -0.1 en ..J o en lI (!) ij]
~ :::c::: () w o --a: « w I en a: w a:::
.-.. Cl ---z o ~ a: w ....J W () () « a: w 0..
-0.2 ~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~ -60 -40 -20 o 20 40 60
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
NORTH PIER
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 SW PIER DISPLACEMENT (mm)
2.0 ,----,----~----.---_,----~----r_--_,----_r----~--_, NORTH PIER
1.0
0.0 ~ ___ ....,r-.......
-1.0
-2.0 L-__ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ __ ~ ____ ~ ____ L-__ ~ ____ -L ____ ~ __ ~
1 2 3 4 5 6 TIME (sees)
Figure 6-17 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results in Tests with Taft N21E 400% H+ V Input (Test No. FPSAR53). Analysis Performed with the Effect of Vertical Pier Acceleration.
6-21
SECTION 7
CONCLUSIONS
An extensive experimental study of a seismically isolated bridge model with Friction
Pendulum (or FPS) bearings was conducted. The conditions of testing allowed the study
of a number of effects which were not previously studied in bridge seismic isolation.
These effects included the pier flexibility, realistic energy dissipation in the piers, pier top
rotation, vertical ground motion and low amplitude excitation. Tests were conducted at
two levels of friction, one at low value (fmax=0.058) and another at medium value
(fmax=O.lO to 0.12). The latter case may regarded as appropriate for application in areas
of strong seismic excitation, such as California and Japan. The summary and conclusions
in this section are for this most interesting case. They are presented below:
(1) The medium friction isolation system was designed for good performance in strong
seismic excitation. Indeed, the test results demonstrated substantial reductions of
deck acceleration and pier shear force and drift in comparison to the response of
a non-isolated comparable (also tested) bridge.
(2) The isolated bridge performed better than the non-isolated bridge in weak seismic
excitation, such as the Japanese Level 1 motions. In these motions with peak
ground acceleration of only about O.lg, the piers of the isolated bridge had less
than half shear force and drift than the piers of the non-isolated bridge. Figures
5-5 to 5-7 provide vivid illustration of the differences in the pier response in the
two cases.
(3) The vertical ground acceleration was found to have a minor effect on the response
of the isolated bridge.
(4) The engagement of the displacement restrainer of the FPS bearings resulted in
considerable increase in the substructure forces and displacements. Nevertheless,
these forces and displacements were much less than those in the non-isolated
bridge (see Figure 5-10).
(5) The frictional properties of the bearings remained markedly stable after extensive
7-1
testing. Recorded loops of shear force versus displacement of the FPS bearings
prior and following 58 seismic tests were identical.
(6) Permanent displacements were found to be very small and not cumulative in
successive earthquakes. This was true even in weak excitation in which the
bearing displacements were not sufficiently large to mobilize strong restoring
force.
An analytical model was presented which was capable of describing the response of the
isolated bridge, including the full effects of the vertical ground motion. Comparison of
experimental and analytical responses showed very good agreement. This demonstrates
that the behavior of FPS bearings is very well understood to allow for accurate prediction
of the response of isolated structures with these bearings.
7-2
...
SECTION 8
REFERENCES
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials-AASHTO (1991). "Guide specifications for seismic isolation design." Washington, D.e.
Buckle, l.G and Mayes, R.L. (1990). "Seismic isolation history, application, and performance - a world view." Earthquake Spectra, 6(2), 161-201.
Civil Engineering Research Center-CERC (1992). "Temporary manual of design method for base-isolated highway bridges." Japan (in Japanese).
Constantinou, M.e., Mokha, A and Reinhorn, AM. (1990a). "Teflon bearings in base isolation II: Modeling." J. Stuct. Engrg., ASCE, 116(2), 455-474.
Constantinou, M.e., Mokha, A and Reinhorn, AM. (1990b). "Experimental and analytical study of a combined sliding disc bearing and helical steel spring isolation system." NCEER-90-0019, Nat. Ctr. for Earthquake Engrg. Res., State Univ. of New York, Buffalo, NY.
Constantinou, M.e., Kartoum, A, Reinhorn, AM. and Bradford, P. (199Ia). "Experimental and theoretical study of a sliding isolation system for bridges." Report No. NCEER-91-0027, Nat. Ctr. for Earthquake Engrg. Res., State Univ. of New York, Buffalo, NY.
Constantinou, M.C., Mokha, A and Reinhorn, AM. (1991b). "Study of sliding bearing and helical-steel-spring isolation system." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 117(4), 1257-1275.
Constantinou, M.e. Kartoum, A, Reinhorn, AM. and Bradford, P. (1992a). "Sliding isolation system for bridges:experimental study." Earthquake Spectra, 8(3), 321-344.
Constantinou, M.e. (1992b). "NCEER-Taisei research on sliding isolation systems for bridges." NCEER Bulletin, Nat. Ctr. for Earthquake Engrg. Res., State Univ. of New York, Buffalo, NY, 6(3), 1-4.
Eisenberg J.M., Melentyev, AM., Smirnov, V.l. and Nemykin, A.N. (1992). "Applications of seismic isolation in the USSR." Proc. 10th WCEE, Madrid, Spain, 4:2039-2046.
Gates, J.H. (1979). "Factors considered in the development of the California seismic design criteria for bridges." Proc. Workshop on Earthquake Resistance of Highway Bridges, Applied Technology Council, Palo Alto, Calif., 141-162.
8-1
Gear, C.W. (1971). "The automatic integration of ordinary differential equations." Numer. Math., Commun. of ACM, 14(3), 176-190.
International Conference of Building Officials ICBO (1991). "Uniform building code, earthquake regulations for seismic-isolated structures." Whittier, Calif.
Kartoum, A, Constantinou, M.e. and Reinhorn, AM. (1992). "Sliding isolation system for bridges: analytical study." Earthquake Spectra, 8(3), 345-372.
Kawamura, S., Kitazawa, K, Hisano, M. and Nagashima, 1. (1988). "Study of a slidingtype base isolation system. System composition and element properties." Proceedings of 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Vol. V, 735-740.
Kawashima, K, Hasegawa, K and Nagashima, H. (1991). "A perspective of menshin design for highway bridges in Japan" First US-Japan Workshop on Earthquake Protective Systems for Bridges, Buffalo, NY, September.
Kelly, J.M., Buckle, LG., and Tsai, H-e. (1986). "Earthquake simulator testing of a baseisolated bridge deck." Report No. UCBIEERC-85/09, Earthquake Engrg. Res. Ctr., Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif., Jan.
Kelly, J. (1993). "State-of-the-art and state-of-the-practice in base isolation." ATC-17-1 Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy Dissipation and Active Control, San Francisco, CA, March.
Maison, B.P. and Ventura, e.E. (1992). "Seismic analysis of base-isolated San Bernardino county building." Earthquake Spectra, 8(4), 605-633.
Marioni, A (1991). "Antiseismic devices for bridges in Italy." 3rd World Congress on joint Sealing and Bearing Systems for Concrete Structures. Vol. 2 of Preprints, 1263-1280, Toronto, Canada.
Martelli, A, Parducci, A and Forni, M. (1993). "State-of-the-art on development and application of seismic isolation and other innovative seismic design techniques in Italy" ATC-17 -1 Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy Dissipation and Active Control, San Francisco, CA, March.
Mayes, RL., Jones, L.R and Buckle, I.G., (1990). "Impediments to the implementation of seismic isolation" Earthquake Spectra, 6(2), 283-296.
Medeot, R (1991). "The evolution of aseismic devices for bridges in Italy." 3rd World Congress on Joint Sealing and Bearing Systems for Concrete Structures, Vol. 2 of Preprints, 1295-1320, Toronto, Canada.
8-2
Mokha, A, Constantinou, M.C., and Reinhorn, AM. (1988). "Teflon bearings in aseismic base isolation. Experimental studies and mathematical modeling." Report No. NCEER-88-0038, Nat. Ctf. for Earthquake Engrg. Res., State Univ. of New York, Buffalo, NY.
Mokha, A., Constantinou, M.C. and Reinhorn, AM. (1990a). "Teflon bearings in base isolation. I: Testing." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 116(2), 438-454.
Mokha, A, Constantinou, M.e. and Reinhorn, AM. (1990b). "Experimental study and analytical prediction of earthquake response of a sliding isolation system with a spherical surface." Report No. NCEER-90-0020, Nat. Ctf. for Earthquake Engrg. Res., State Univ. of New York, Buffalo, NY.
Mokha, A,Constantinou, M.e., Reinhorn, A.M., and Zayas, V. (1991). "Experimental study of friction pendulum isolation system." 1. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 117(4), 1201-1217.
Palfalvi, B., Amin, A, Mokha, A, Fatehi, H. and Lee, P. (1993). Implementation issues in seismic isolation retrofit of government buildings." ATC-17 -1 Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy Dissipation and Active Control, San Francisco, CA, March.
Sabnis, G.M., Harris, H.G., White, R.N. and Mirza, M.S. (1983). "Structural modeling and experimental techniques." Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Soong, T.T. and Constantinou, M.e. (1992). "Base isolation and active control technology case studies in the U.S.A" Proc. IDNDR IntI. Symp. on Earthq. Disaster Reduction Technol.-30th Anniv. of IISEE, Tsukuba, Japan, 455-469.
Zayas, V., Low, S.S and Mahin, S.A (1987). "The FPS earthquake resisting system, experimental report." Report No. UCBI EERC-87/01, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Calif., June.
8-3
APPENDIX A
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
This appendix contains experimetal results of the tested bridge model in the test series
FPSAR (bearing material No.1, fmax=O.104) in the configuration with two flexible piers.
The recorded time histories of the SW bearing displacement, the loops of isolation force
versus SW bearing displacement, and the loops of North pier shear force versus pier
deformation are presented for each test. A set of three figures is presented for each test.
The set is identified by the input motion and test number.
A-I
E 520 I-z ~ 10 w o :5 0 Cl.. (J)
Q -10 o z
~
~-20 ~ 0
l-I 00.2 w ;: ....... 0.1 w o ~O.O u..
~-0.1 >-(J)
0-0 .2
-
-
(J) -20
lI
/1
In
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = 10.7 mm
1\
)~ IIl~W o,..,--~
I
5
[
I I
10 15
TIME (sec)
20 25
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE / WEIGHT
T ~ r; \.r ~
'--~
-10 0 10 SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE / WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
30
20
00.2~----~----~--~~--~----~----~----~--~ w ;: ~ 0.1 o a: fr 0.0 a: L1j-O.1 I (J)
a:-024-----~----~--~----_+----~----~----J---~ w· Cl.. -10 ~ 0 5 10
PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
Figure A-I El Centro SOOE 100% (FPSAR26)
A-2
-E .s 40 I-Z
~ 20 w ()
::5 0 CL (f)
°-20 c:l z a: -40 « W 0 c:o
I:::c c:l 0.3 W ;: 0.2
--W 0.1 ()
~ 0.0 u.. ~-0.1 (f) >--0.2 (f)
0-0.3 (f) -40
I:::c c:l 0.3 W ;: 0.2
W () 0.1 a: 00.0 u..
~-0.1 W :::c -0.2 (f)
ffi-O.3 0... -10
~
v
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = 36.8 mm
A ., ,n nr~
J
I
5
II
(\f"'" U 'v Ir-'~"'I
10 I
15
TIME (sec)
20
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE / WEIGHT
~
-20 o 20
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE / WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
./
dJij ~ ....-::; ,
~ -5 0 5
PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
I
25
Figure A-2 El Centro SOOE 200% (FPSAR27)
A-3
30
-./
40
10
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = -4.1 mm
~n nil. .N1 , Vv---' '~
I I I
5 10 15 20 25 30
TIME (sec)
I ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE / WEIGHT :J: ~0.2~----~----~--~r---~----~-----.----~--~
W :: .... 0.1 w ()
~ 0.0 -;------t-----+---------1H--ttt-
u..
~-0.1 ~ 0-0.2 -l-----l..----+-------..II....-----+-----..1...------1-----....J.....------l
S!2 -20
I:J: ~0.2 w :: ~ 0.1 () a: f2 0.0 a: Lti-0.1 :J: en ffi-0.2
-
-
Il.. -10
-10 0 10
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE / WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
V' ,/
·-5 o 5 PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
Figure A·3 Taft N21E 100% (FPSAR28)
A-4
20
10
E g 30 I-
m 20 ~ L.LJ 1 0 ()
:5 0 0... (/')-10 o C) -20 z ~ -30
~ 0
I:c C} 0.3 L.LJ ~ 0.2
--L.LJ 0.1 ()
~ 0.0 lJ.. ~-0.1 (/') >--0.2 (/')
0-0.3 (/') -30
I:c C} 0.3 w ~ 0.2 w () 0.1 a: t2 0.0
~-0.1 w :c-O.2 (/') . ffi-0.3 0... -10
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = -26.9 mm
~r r ~ fl--., 0 1
V
r H W\lv~\r \..., ~
I I I
5 10 15 20 25 30
TIME (sec)
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE / WEIGHT
I i"\
I
~ - ./
-20 -10 0 10 20 30
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm) PIER SHEAR FORCE / WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
~ r I/'
~ ~
,....
-5 o 5 10
PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
Figure A-4 Taft N21E 300% (FPSAR29)
A-5
-E g 60 I-m 40 ~ w 20 (,)
5 0 11.
~-20 c CJ -40 z a: -60 « W 0 CD
lI CJ 0.3 ill :: 0.2 ........ W 0.1 (,)
~ 0.0 lL. ~-0.1 C/') >--0.2 C/)
0-0.3 ~ -60
lI CJ 0.3 w :: 0.2 ........ W (,) 0.1 a: t2 0.0
~-0.1 w I-0.2 C/)
fE-0.3 a:: -10
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = -47.9 mm
11 AN f'I'l M " rJ~ 1/ ~~ 1liV"""~ 'V
V" '--r-~
I I
5 10 15 20
TIME (sec)
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE I WEIGHT
\..
-- 1 II I~ I m[ ..-'
"--
-40 -20 o 20
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE I WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
./7
~ ~
-Y-P'
-5 o 5 PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
Figure A-5 Taft N21E 400% (FPSAR30)
A-6
I
25
40
30
60
10
E ~OO IZ
~ 50 w ()
:5 0 Q.. Cf)
0-50 C!:) z 0:100 <t W 0 CD
I:x: C!:) 0.3 W :: 0.2 ...... W 0.1 ()
~ 0.0 u.. ~-0.1 Cf) >--0.2 Cf)
0-0.3 C/) -100
I:x:
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = -65.7 mm
/1 Ah ('v...~\ , " fI
rv~ \1 \..J ~ ·uu .~ lJ V"" L.-~
1/ ,
V
I I I
5 10 15 20 25 TIME (sec)
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE I WEIGHT
-1'-~"'" "'\,.-11 p~
'-::::-f-
-50 o 50
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE / WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
30
100
C!:)0.3~----------~-------r------_____ ~-----~----------~-----------r-------~--~ W ::0.2~----+---~-----+----~----+-~--~---4----~
~0.1~----+-----~--~~---4--~~----~----~--~ a: ~ 0.0
~-0.1 ~----+-----~------W :x:-0.2 ~----+---~~~=--+-----+-----+------+-----+------l Cf)
ffi-0.3 Q.. -10 -5 o 5 10
PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
Figure A-6 Taft N21E 500% (FPSAR31)
A-7
E ~OO .... z ~ 50 w (.)
:5 0 0.. (/)
C'I -50 ~ z ~100 W 0 co
.... ::I: ~0.3 iIi ~0.2 -W 0.1 ()
gs 0.0 ll.. ..,.:-0.1 CJ') >--0.2 (/)
0-0.3 ~ -100
.... ::I:
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = -80.6 mm
~
I AA~.I> R ~I ~ M n I V' 11 lJ \r IVU VU"v ~-v vv \....r ~ '-vJ
/ v
I(
J
5
/'"
J
10 15 20
TIME (sec)
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE /WEIGHT
~~. -h
t.--r-'\J
i-" ~
-50 o 50 SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE / WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
I
25 30
100
~0.3'-----.----'-----r----.-----.----'r---~----~ w ~0.2~----+----4-----+----~----~~--r---~----~ -~ 0.1 ~----+----4-----+----~--: a: ~ 0.0 -t---+----+---;----:
~-0.1 -t---+-----+----,. w ::I:-0.2 -t----+-----+~~_+_----_+_----+_--___ I__--_+---__l CJ')
ffi-0.3 -t-----..L..-----+------'----_+_-----'---___ I__----L..---__l
0.. -10 -5 o 5 10
PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
Figure A-7 Taft N21E 600% (FPSAR32)
A-8
-E E.. 20 ~ z ~ 10 w ()
5 0 a.. C/)
Cl -10 (!) z ~ -20 ~ 0
l-I (!) 0.2 w 3: -... 0.1 -w ()
~ 0.0 u.
~-0.1 ->-C/)
0-0.2 ~ -20
lI (!) 0.2 w 3: ;:u 0.1 (,) a: 00.0 u. a: Lii-o.1 I C/)
ffi-O.2
-
-
a.. -10
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = -9.7 mm
f"I ~
",r--1 v IJ\.,-J '\
~
5 10 15
TIME (sec)
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE / WEIGHT
--",
r---({ /'
I
v ~ ~
-10 0 10
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE / WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
/ t? V
-5 o 5 PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
Figure A-8 Japanese Levell G.C.l 100% (FPSAR33)
A-9
20
20
10
-E E.. 20 ~ z ~ 10 w ()
:5 0 0-C/)
0-10 CD z ~ -20 ~ 0
~ J: CD 0.2 w ~ __ 0.1 w ()
~ 0.0 LL
t;5-0.1 fu 0-0.2
-
-
C/) -20
~ J: CD 0.2 w ~ ~0.1 () a: f2 0.0 a: lIJ-0.1 J: C/)
ffi-0.2
-
-
a.. -10
~
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = -8.1 mm
"",.1\ ,... (\
~ I V ,-",v ~'-'-'
v
~
5 10 15
TIME (sec)
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE /WEIGHT
r r
I ~
-10 0 10
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE / WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
V / /
-5 o 5 PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
Figure A-9 Japanese Level 1 G.C.2 100% (FPSAR34)
A-lO
20
20
10
-E .s 20 f-Z W ~ 10 w o 5 0 Q.. C/)
0-10 CJ z a: -20 « ~ 0
f-
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = 7.8 mm
h n
.I~r-r'\ ~ ilL.,
,nn \N~U\ M r-.0 UI...J~" " , u
I
5
'\1 v
10
VV U V
I
15
TIME (sec)
20
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE / WEIGHT
\J l-
I
25 30
J: CJO.2~----~----~--~----~----~----~----~--~
w ~ ....... 0.1 w o § 0.0 -+----+----+--+-th~lt-HHH-LL
~-0.1 >-C/)
0-0.2 --t-------'------t-------'----+------'------t----....L.-----;
~ -20
fJ:
-10 0 10 SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE / WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
20
CJO.2,-----~----r_--_,----_.----_r----~----,_--~ w ~ ~ 0.1 o a: fi: 0.0 a: lfi-o.1 J: C/)
a:-02~-----'------r-------'-----+------'-----~----~--~ w' Q.. -10 -5 o 5 10
PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
Figure A-I0 Japanese Levell G.C.3 100% (FPSAR35)
A-ll
-E .s 60 r-ill 40 ~ w 20 ()
11 :5 0 r----' D.. (f) -20 o CJ -40 z ~ -60 W 0 c:o
rI CJ 0.3 W ~0.2 -.. W 0.1 ()
gs 0.0 1L r-=-0.1 (f) >--0.2 C/)
0-0.3 C/) -60
rI CJ 0.3 W
~0.2 -..
~ 0.1 a: ~ 0.0
~-0.1 W I-0.2 (f)
ffi-0.3 D.. -10
V
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = -47.6 mm
U ~~ r-l0. .= -=
V v v \...... ~
5 10 15
TIME (sec)
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE I WEIGHT
-------.... --"'--......, ,..---'
-40 -20 o 20
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE I WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
~ ,
l/" ~
~ .-
-5 o 5 PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
40
Figure A-U Japanese Level 2 G.C.l 75% (FPSAR36)
A-12
20
60
10
E -S100 to-z ~ 50 w ()
:5 0 Q.. (/')
c -50 (!) z 0:100 « W 0 CD
I::c (!) 0.3 jjj ~0.2 -. W 0.1 ()
~ 0.0 u..
.-0.1 to-(/') >--0.2 (/')
0-0.3 5Q -100
to::c (!) 0.3 W ~ 0.2 -W () 0.1 ex: f2 0.0
~-0.1 W ::c-0.2 (/')
ffi-0.3 a: -10
"
\l
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = -72.4 mm
!\ \ \ r-.. {\ ,--... f"I r"
lr.. ( 'J V \.r-J'f V \....-.J
5 10 15
TIME (sec)
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE / WEIGHT
~ ~ v~
-- 11
III '.:::::;?'-...----~
,./
-50 o 50
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE / WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
rt>
~ ~
~ ~
~ ,....
P'
-5 o 5 PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
Figure A·12 Japanese Level 2 G.e.1 100% (FPSAR37)
A-13
20
100
10
E ~OO I-Z
~ 50 w o :5 0 CL Cf)
0-50 C) z 0:100 «
r---'
W 0 CD
I-::c C) 0.3 W 3: 0.2
--W 0.1 o ~ 0.0 LI.. ~-0.1 Cf) >--0.2 Cf)
0-0.3 Cf) -100
I::c C!) 0.3 W 3: 0.2 w 0 0.1 a: ~O.O
~-0.1 W ::c-0.2 Cf)
ffi-0.3 a:: -10
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = 66.8 mm
(\
\ f'--... ~
n f\ f\ \ 1\ f \ I \ 11 '-JV I \rJ '-J } 11\ \..J \ /
rv V V
5 10 15
TIME (sec)
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE / WEIGHT
~ V
""" r- J
II 1 111 Lb ~~
-50 o 50
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE / WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
~ ,
~ ~ III"'"
-5 o 5 PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
Figure A-13 Japanese Level 2 G.C.2 100% (FPSAR38)
A-14
20
100
10
-E E.100 I-z ~ 50 w <.)
A ~A :s 0
a.. '-'"'V v Cf)
0-50 CJ z 0:100 <t: W 0 CO
IJ: CJ 0.3 iIi ~0.2 -. W 0.1 <.)
~ 0.0 u... r-:-0.1 Cf) >--0.2 Cf)
ci-0.3 ~ -100
IJ: CJ 0.3 W ~0.2
~ 0.1 c:: 00.0 u.. ~-0.1 W J:-Q-.2 Cf)
ffi-0.3 a.. -10
I
5
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = -59.6 mm
(\ 11 \ n ft r. ~ A fI f\ ,J '\ )\n 1\ n J,!1 llJ \
(Vi -vV II \/ VV J J v
v v
v IV ~ V V V
I
10 15 20
TIME (sec)
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE / WEIGHT
/\
'-
-50 o 50
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE / WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
L ~ £ ~
~ ,....
-5 o 5
PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
I
25
Figure A·14 Japanese Level 2 G.C.3 75% (FPSAR39)
A-I5
30
100
10
E ~Oo r z ~ 50 w (,)
:5 0 a.. (f)
0-50 CJ z ~100 W 0 m
r J: CJ 1.0 UJ ~ ....... 0.5 UJ (,)
~ 0.0 LL.
~-0.5 >-(f)
0-1.0
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = -87.5 mm
n
Il 1\ I ~ t1 r'\
~n r \ \ r"'" \/ f\r1 'vll ~~
v
J u
v LL u
I I I
5 10 15 20 25 TIME (sec)
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE / WEIGHT
/)
...-l
/ 1~ -H- ILHt'
t-'
~ -100 -50 o 50
r J: CJ 1.0 W 3: ~ 0.5 (,) II: ~ 0.0 II:
~-0.5 J: C/')
ffi-1.0 0: -10
~f"""
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE / WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
~-
-5 o 5 PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
---
Figure A·IS Japanese Level 2 G.C.3 90% (FPSAR40)
A-16
30
100
10
E .s 60 I-
m 40 ~ w 20 () ~
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = 38.2 mm
A ~ i'---~ 0
a.. ~ -20 Cl
---1 tJ '\/ IlL
(!} -40 z ~-60 W 0 CD
IJ: (!} 0.3 jjj ;: 0.2 -W 0.1 ()
~ 0.0 LL. r-:-0.1 Cf) >--0.2 Cf)
0-0.3 ~ -60
IJ: (!} 0.3 W ~0.2 -W () 0.1 a: ~O.O
~-0.1 W J:-0.2 Cf)
ffi-0.3 a:: -10
\I
5 10 15
TIME (sec)
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE / WEIGHT
--- /' \
r- "\.;" v )
II U ~ ~ ~L '--
-40 -20 o 20 40
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE / WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
~
~ ,
A
/ -5 o 5
PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
Figure A-16 CalTran R3 O.6g 100% (FPSAR41)
A-I7
20
60
10
-E .s 60 I-
~ 40 ~ 1\ ~ w 20 ()
:s 0 ~ /\j
a.. (f) -20 o ~ -40 z a: -60 <t: W 0 ID
l-I ~0.3 W ~ 0.2 ........ W 0.1 ()
~ 0.0 LL ~-0.1 (f) >--0.2 (f)
0-0.3
\
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max == 39.6 mm
I~
fV If LrJ
5
\ n A n f\ f\ ~w lJ V
10
TIME (sec)
15
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE / WEIGHT
~~ ,-- M'Y
,-- '-. I~ n I
: I 11 ~ -
sa -60 -40 -20 0 20 40
lI
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE 'I WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
20
60
~0.3~----.-----~----~----~----r-----.---~r---~ W ~0.2~----+---~-----+----~----~~~~---+----~
~ 0.1 -I------+-----+-----_t_----~-"'""'" a: OO.O-l------+-----+------t---~~----~----~--~~--~ LL
~-0.1 -1------+-----+----, w I-0.2 -I----+-----+-~~_t_----+__----~----~--~~--~ (f)
ffi-0.3 -I-____ ...1..-____ +-____ ...J..-____ +__---.l-----~---L...-..--~
a.. -10 -5 o 5 10
PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
Figure A·I7 CalTran S3 O.6g 100% (FPSAR42)
A-I8
-E ~OO IZ
~ 50 w o :5 0 0-(/')
°-50 <9 z 0:100 .ex: W 0 IX!
IJ: (') 0.3 iIi ~0.2 -.. W 0.1 o ~O.O LL r:-0.1 (/') ~-0.2 (/')
0-0.3 ~ -100
IJ: (') 0.3 W ~0.2 W 0 0.1 a:: 00.0 LL
~-0.1 W J:-0.2 C/)
ffi-0.3 a:: -10
II
I~ I
V
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = 78.6 mm
II f\ ~ ~JL, r- .......---.
1lJ' ./ VVV \ ( ) L.· V
v
5 10 15
TIME (sec)
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE / WEIGHT
--v _ =r
~ I :,s:.. V
,. :""'-
-50 o 50 SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE / WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
~
~
~ ~ IJIIIII""
-5 o 5 PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
_I--'
Figure A-IS CalTran A2 O.6g 100% (FPSAR43)
A-19
20
100
10
E .s 20 I-Z
~ 10 w ()
:3 0 0... (f)
0-10 Ci z a: -20 « ~ 0
I-::r: Ci 0.2 w ~ ....... 0.1 w ()
~ 0.0 LL
t;-0.1 >-(f)
0-0.2
-
-
~ -20
I::r: Ci 0.2 w ~ ~ 0.1 () a: ~o.o
a: ~-0.1 ::r: (f)
ffi-O.2
-
-
a:: -10
n I
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = -10.5 mm
=-- r J! I'-~
~
~J ~-rtJlr1 u u
5 10 15
TIME (sec)
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE I WEIGHT
./" "'" t?" f' "'" ~if ::-.. r.
.J, ~ \" v
-10 0 10
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE I WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
V' ~ V
-5 o 5
PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
Figure A-19 Hachinohe N-S 100% (FPSAR44)
A-20
20
20
10
....
E ~OO ~ z ~ 50 w ()
:5 0 a.. CJ)
°-50 C} z 0::100 « W 0 III
~ :r: C} 0.3 jjj ~ 0.2
--W 0.1 ()
§ 0.0 u.. ...,:-0.1 CJ) >--0.2 CJ)
0-0.3 ~ -100
~ :r:
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = -62.5 mm
n I\A / 11\ /\ /\ / \ I/V\ n
I J 'vV\/V \r \ JV .~~ I~ I .I v v V
5 10 15
TIME (sec)
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE / WEIGHT
..--.
I '?:::: ;;>0' -
-50 o 50 SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE / WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
20
100
C}O.3~----~--~----~----~----~----~--~----~ w ~O.2~----+---~-----+----~----+-~--r---~----~ --w ()O.1~----+---~-----+----~~~~----r---~----~ ex: ft 0.0 ~----+---~----+----:
~-0.1 -+---+-----I---~ W :r:-0.2 -+---+-----I--7Ir::;;,e::....-+--~--+_---r_--~---~ CJ)
fE-0.3 a:: -10 -5 o 5 10
PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
Figure A-20 Hachinohe N-S 300% (FPSAR45)
A-21
E g 30 I-
ill 20 ~ w 10 o ~ 0 Il.. (/)-10 o (!) -20 z a: -30 < W 0 co
I-
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = -11.9 mm
~ f'1 ~ ~,~ -'I,..
r~ ~I IV L.J
10 20 30 40
TIME (sec)
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE / WEIGHT :r:: (!)0.2,-------~----~r_----~------_r------~----~
W 3: ..... 0.1 W o ~ 0.0 -4------+---~H_1j..H-+-H_IIf U.
~-0.1 >-(/)
0-0.2 -t----+------t------+----+-----t---~ ~ -30
I:r:: (!) 0.2 W 3: ~0.1 o a: f2 0.0 a: L5-0.1 :r:: (/)
ffi-O.2
-
-
Il.. -10
-20 -10 o 10
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE / WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
V ~ /
-5 o 5 PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
Figure A-21 Akita N-S 100% (FPSAR46)
A-22
20 30
10
-E .s 60 f-
rE 40 ~ w 20 u ::s 0 a... (f) -20 o CD -40 z a: -60 <t: W 0 co
lI CD 0.3 W ;: 0.2 ....... W 0.1 u ~ 0.0 u.. ~-0.1 (f) >--0.2 (f)
d-0.3 (f) -60
fI CD 0.3 W 3: 0.2 W u 0.1 a: eo.o ~-0.1 W I-0.2 (f)
ffi-0.3 a... -10
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = 54.5 mm
""
-40
\ ~,."
~ ~
10
.rt~ V
~
20
TIME (sec)
J"\n "'-'\f ""V\J
30
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE / WEIGHT
.r I -20 o 20
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE / WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
~ ~ V
~ ~ ~
-5 o 5 PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
Figure A-22 Akita N-S 200% (FPSAR47)
A-23
~
40
40
60
10
E .s 20 ~ z ~ 10 w ()
:5 0 0-en 0-10 o z ~ -20 W 0 a:l
~ :c 00.2 W ~ __ 0.1 W ()
§O.O u.
~-0.1 ~ 0-0.2
-
-
en -20
~ :c
I
5
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = -12.8 mm
n I rJ 1 h
-, "Ir'-'lf Iri
I
10 15 20
TIME {sec}
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE /WEIGHT
f'r/ fe>- ~I'J- :-""\
U 1'1.. V./ ). ,/ ~ \
-10 o 10
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE / WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
I
25 30
20
00.2~----~----~---.----~----~-----~----~--~ W ~ ~ 0.1 () a: ~O.O
a: ~-0.1 :c en ffi-0.2 -t----....L----i-----JL------+-------l-----1------L-__ ~
a: -10 -5 o 5 10 PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
Figure A-23 Miyagiken Oki E-W 300% (FPSAR48)
A-24
-E 560 f-
ti:i 40 ::E w 20 ()
S 0 CL (j) -20 o " -40 z a: -60 « W 0 CD
fI " 0.3 W ~ 0.2 ........ W 0.1 ()
~ 0.0 LL ~-0.1 (j) >--0.2 (j)
0-0.3 (j) -60
fI
" 0.3 W
~ 0.2 ........
~ 0.1 a: 00.0 LL
~-0.1 w I-O.2 (j)
ffi-O.3 a... -10
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = -41.6 mm
1\
r ~ 1\ 1\ JI!1 ~ "l '-" v
tA
V
I I I
5 10 15 20 25 30
TIME (sec)
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE / WEIGHT
~
I I I
I--
I
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE / WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
..L2.
~
~ ~ ~
/
-5 o 5 10 PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
Figure A-24 Miyagiken Oki E-W 600% (FPSAR49)
A-25
-E ~OO IZ
~ 50 w ()
:s 0 Cl.. ~ 0-50 CD z ~100 w 0 CD
I-:c CD 0.3 W ~ 0.2 -w 0.1 ()
~O.O u.. ~-0.1
>--0.2 (/)
0-0.3 ~ -100
I:c CD 0.3 w ~0.2 -~ 0.1 0: f2 0.0
~-0.1 w :c-O.2 (/)
0:-03 w' a:: -10
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = 69.7 mm
A
A 1\ v-v vv
10 20 30 40
TIME (sec)
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE I WEIGHT
------=--- I~ .-::; -~ =---
o 50
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE I WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
~ ~ /
~ jPP~
-5 o 5 PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
Figure A-25 Mexico City N90W 100% (FPSAR50)
A-26
50
100
10
-E .s 40 f-Z
~ 20 w o 5 0 0.. Cf)
°-20 (!) z a: -40 <t
L=1
W a m
f:c (!) 0.3 w ~ 0.2 -.... w 0.1 o ~ 0.0 u. r:-0.1 Cf) >--0.2 Cf)
0-0.3 ~ -40
f:c (!) 0.3 w ~ 0.2 -....
~ 0.1 a: ft 0.0
~-0.1 W· :c-0.2 Cf)
ffi-0.3 0.. -10
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = -33.7 mm
n
1\ n I"'u L~
-
5 10 15
TIME (sec)
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE / WEIGHT
-20 0 20 SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE / WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
./'/
A# ~
7 ~ ~ ~
-5 o 5 PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
Figure A-26 Pacoima S74W 100% (FPSAR51)
A-27
20
.J
40
10
E .s 60 I-
m 40 ~ w 20 ()
:5 0 a.. (J) -20 o (!J -40 z ~-60 W 0 co
lI (!J 0.3 w ;: 0.2 -w 0.1 ()
g5 0.0 LL ~-0.1 (J) >--0.2 (J)
6-0.3 C/) -60
lI (!J 0.3 w 3: 0.2 -w () 0.1 a: 00.0 LL
~-0.1 W I-0.2 C/)
ffi-O.3 a.. -10
I
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = -38.1 mm
,rVl :v
U
5 10 15 20 TIME (sec)
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE / WEIGHT
-----'r ,.-- y I :1
~ -
·-40 -20 0 20 40 60
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE / WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
~ V , /"
~ ~
~ 0 5 10
PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
Figure A-27 Pacoima S16E 50% (FPSAR52)
A-28
E S 60 l-rE 40 ~ w 20 ()
:5 0 0.. ~-20 CI
(!) -40 z
f--.J
~-60 W 0 CD
~ (!) 0.3 W 3: 0.2 -W 0.1 ()
~O.O u.. ~-0.1 CJ) >--0.2 CJ)
0-0.3 CJ) - -60
lI
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = -47.9 mm
AIh {VI, M n [llt
\...--"'"
·ll V" ~ ww-VV'~ v-- '-.r ~ V
I I I
5 10 15 20 25 TIME (sec)
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE / WEIGHT
I """'"
~ V ;;;>o-~
-40 -20 o 20 40 SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE / WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
30
60
(!)0.3~----~----r---~----~-----r----~----~--~ W 3:0.24-----+-----~--~~--_+----~~~~----4_--~ -~ 0.1 --I-------+-----+-----I----+-? a: o 0.0 --I-----+-----i---+-...", LL
~-0.1 _+_-----l-----t--~ W I-0.2 -+-----+-----~~~I----+-----+----+------+---~ CJ)
fE-0.3 4----..L.-----~-----'----+----~----_t_----....I..---~ 0: -10 -5 o 5 10
PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
Figure A-28 Taft N21E H+V 400% (FPSAR53)
A-29
-E 's40 I-z ~ 20 w ()
:5 0 a.. CIl
°-20 ~ z
I,
~ -40 W 0 a:l
l-I ~0.3 W ~0.2
--W 0.1 ()
§ 0.0 LL r=-0.1 C/) >--0.2 C/)
0-0.3 f£2 -40
lI
SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT max = 35.7 mm
A .f1 nl v-",
lr-i v ~'v~ r~"V v
I
5 I
10 15 20 TIME (sec)
ISOLATION SYSTEM FORCE / WEIGHT
(
.iI .B\\Ll ~
'---
-20 o 20 SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)
PIER SHEAR FORCE / WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)
I
25 30
--./
40
~0.3~----~----~--~----~----~----~----~--~ W ~0.24-----+---~~---+----~----~~~~---4----~ --~ 0.1 -+------f-----+-----i-----+~ ~.~~~----+----~ a: f2 0.0 -1-----+------;-----+----,:;2
~-0.1 -1-----+------;----:::3..-
w I-0.2 4_----+----t--~--i---_+--_+_----_t_--4_-__I CIl ffi-0.3 4----'----t------''-----+-----L----t-----'-----I
a.. -10 -5 o 5 10
PIER DEFORMATION (mm)
Figure A·29 EI Centro SOOE H+V 200% (FPSAR54)
A-30
....
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH LIST OF TECHNICAL REPORTS
The National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER) publishes technical reports on a variety of subjects related to earthquake engineering written by authors funded through NCEER. These reports are available from both NCEER's Publications Department and the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). Requests for reports should be directed to the Publications Department, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, Red Jacket Quadrangle, Buffalo, New York 14261. Reports can also be requested through NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. NTIS accession numbers are shown in parenthesis, if available.
NCEER-87-0001 "First-Year Program in Research, Education and Technology Transfer," 3/5/87, (PB88-134275).
NCEER-87-0002 "Experimental Evaluation of Instantaneous Optimal Algorithms for Structural Control," by R.C. Lin, T.T. Soong and A.M. Reinhorn, 4/20/87, (PB88-134341).
NCEER-87-0003 "Experimentation Using the Earthquake Simulation Facilities at University at Buffalo," by AM. Reinhorn and R.L. Ketter, to be published.
NCEER-87-0004 "The System Characteristics and Performance of a Shaking Table," by J.S. Hwang, K.C. Chang and G.C. Lee, 6/1/87, (PB88-134259). This report is available only through NTIS (see address given above).
NCEER-87-0005 "A Finite Element Formulation for Nonlinear Viscoplastic Material Using a Q Model," by O. Gyebi and G. Dasgupta, 11/2/87, (PB88-213764).
NCEER-87-0006 "Symbolic Manipulation Program (SMP) - Algebraic Codes for Two and Three Dimensional Finite Element Formulations," by X. Lee and G. Dasgupta, 11/9/87, (PB88-218522).
NCEER-87-0007 "Instantaneous Optimal Control Laws for Tall Buildings Under Seismic Excitations," by J.N. Yang, A. Akbarpour and P. Ghaemmaghami, 6/10/87, (PB88-134333). This report is only available through NTIS (see address given above).
NCEER-87-0008 "IDARC: Inelastic Damage Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frame - Shear-Wall Structures," by YJ. Park, AM. Reinhorn and S.K. Kunnath, 7/20/87, (PB88-134325).
NCEER-87-0009 "Liquefaction Potential for New York State: A Preliminary Report on Sites in Manhattan and Buffalo," by M. Budhu, V. Vijayakumar, R.F. Giese and L. Baumgras, 8/31/87, (PB88-163704). This report is available only through NTIS (see address given above).
NCEER-87-0010 "Vertical and Torsional Vibration of Foundations in Inhomogeneous Media," by A.S. Veletsos and K.W. Dotson, 6/1/87, (PB88-134291).
NCEER-87-0011 "Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Seismic Margins Studies for Nuclear Power Plants," by Howard H.M. Hwang, 6/15/87, (pB88-134267).
NCEER-87-0012 "Parametric Studies of Frequency Response of Secondary Systems Under Ground-Acceleration Excitations," by Y. Yong and Y.K. Lin, 6/10/87, (PB88-134309).
NCEER-87-0013 "Frequency Response of Secondary Systems Under Seismic Excitation," by J.A HoLung, J. Cai and Y.K. Lin, 7/31/87, (PB88-134317).
NCEER-87-0014 "Modelling Earthquake Ground Motions in Seismically Active Regions Using Parametric Time Series Methods," by G.w. Ellis and AS. Cakmak, 8/25/87, (PB88-134283).
NCEER-87-0015 "Detection and Assessment of Seismic Structural Damage," by E. DiPasquale and AS. Cakmak, 8/25/87, (PB88-163712).
B-1
NCEER-87-0016 "Pipeline Experiment at Parkfield, California," by J. Isenberg and E. Richardson, 9/15/87, (PB88-163720). This report is available only through NTIS (see address given above).
NCEER-87-0017 "Digital Simulation of Seismic Ground Motion," by M. Shinozuka, G. Deodatis and T. Harada, 8/31/87, (PB88-155197). This report is available only through NTIS (see address given above).
NCEER-87-00l8 "Practical Considerations for Structural Control: System Uncertainty, System Time Delay and Truncation of Small Control Porces," J.N. Yang and A Akbarpour, 8/10/87, (PB88-163738).
NCEER-87-0019 "Modal Analysis of Nonc1assically Damped Structural Systems Using Canonical Transformation," by IN. Yang, S. Sarkani and PX Long, 9/27/87, (PB88-187851).
NCEER-87-0020 "A Nonstationary Solution in Random Vibration Theory," by lR. Red-Horse and P.D. Spanos, 11/3/87, (PB88-163746).
NCEER-87-0021 "Horizontal Impedances for Radially Inhomogeneous Viscoelastic Soil Layers," by AS. Veletsos and K.W. Dotson, 10/15/87, (PB88-150859).
NCEER-87-0022 "Seismic Damage Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Members," by Y.S. Chung, C. Meyer and M. Shinozuka, 10/9/87, (PB88-150867). This report is available only through NTIS (see address given above).
NCEER-87-0023 "Active Structural Control in Civil Engineering," by T.T. Soong, 11/11/87, (PB88-187778).
NCEER-87-0024 "Vertical and Torsional Impedances for Radially Inhomogeneous Viscoelastic Soil Layers," by K.W. Dotson and AS. Veletsos, 12/87, (PB88-187786).
NCEER-87-0025 "Proceedings from the Symposium on Seismic Hazards, Ground Motions, Soil-Liquefaction and Engineering Practice in Eastern North America," October 20-22, 1987, edited by K.H. Jacob, 12/87, (PB88-188115).
NCEER-87-0026 "Report on the Whittier-Narrows, California, Earthquake of October 1, 1987," by J. Pantelic and A Reinhorn, 11/87, (PB88-187752). This report is available only through NTIS (see address given above).
NCEER-87-0027 "Design of a Modular Program for Transient Nonlinear Analysis of Large 3-D Building Structures," by S. Srivastav and J.P. Abel, 12/30/87, (PB88-187950).
NCEER-87-0028 "Second-Year Program in Research, Education and Technology Transfer," 3/8/88, (PB88-219480).
NCEER-88-000l "Workshop on Seismic Computer Analysis and Design of Buildings With Interactive Graphics," by W. McGuire, J.F. Abel and C.H. Conley, 1/18/88, (PB88-187760).
NCEER-88-0002 "Optimal Control of Nonlinear Flexible Structures," by J.N. Yang, PX Long and D. Wong, 1/22/88, (PB88-213772).
NCEER-88-0003 "Substructuring Techniques in the Time Domain for Primary-Secondary Structural Systems," by G.D. Manolis and G. Juhn, 2/10/88, (PB88-213780).
NCEER-88-0004 "Iterative Seismic Analysis of Primary-Secondary Systems," by A. Singhal, L.D. Lutes and P.D. Spanos, 2/23/88, (PB88-213798).
NCEER-88-0005 "Stochastic Finite Element Expansion for Random Media," by P.D. Spanos and R. Ghanem, 3/14/88, (PB88-213806).
B-2
NCEER-88-0006 "Combining Structural Optimization and Structural Control," by F.Y. Cheng and c.P. Pantelides, 1/10/88, (PB88-213814).
NCEER-88-0007 "Seismic Performance Assessment of Code-Designed Structures," by H.H-M. Hwang, J -W. Jaw and H-J. Shau, 3/20/88, (PB88-219423).
NCEER-88-0008 "Reliability Analysis of Code-Designed Structures Under Natural Hazards," by H.H-M. Hwang, H. Ushiba and M. Shinozuka, 2/29/88, (PB88-229471).
NCEER-88-0009 "Seismic Fragility Analysis of Shear Wall Structures," by J-W Jaw and H.H-M. Hwang, 4/30/88, (PB89-102867).
NCEER-88-0010 "Base Isolation of a Multi-Story Building Under a Harmonic Ground Motion - A Comparison of Performances of Various Systems," by F-G Fan, G. Ahmadi and I.G. Tadjbakhsh, 5/18/88, (PB89-122238).
NCEER-88-0011 "Seismic Floor Response Spectra for a Combined System by Green's Functions," by F.M. Lavelle, L.A. Bergman and PD. Spanos, 5/1/88, (PB89-102875).
NCEER-88-0012 "A New Solution Technique for Randomly Excited Hysteretic Structures," by G.Q. Cai and Y.K. Lin, 5/16/88, (PB89-102883).
NCEER-88-0013 "A Study of Radiation Damping and Soil-Structure Interaction Effects III the Centrifuge," by K. Weissman, supervised by J.H. Prevost, 5/24/88, (PB89-144703).
NCEER-88-0014 "Parameter Identification and Implementation of a Kinematic Plasticity Model for Frictional Soils," by J.H. Prevost and D.V. Griffiths, to be published.
NCEER-88-0015 "Two- and Three- Dimensional Dynamic Finite Element Analyses of the Long Valley Dam," by D.V. Griffiths and J.H. Prevost, 6/17/88, (PB89-144711).
NCEER-88-0016 "Damage Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Structures in Eastern United States," by A.M. Reinhorn, M.J. Seidel, S.K. Kunnath and YJ. Park, 6/15/88, (PB89-122220).
NCEER-88-0017 "Dynamic Compliance of Vertically Loaded Strip Foundations in Multilayered Viscoelastic Soils," by S. Ahmad and A.S.M. Israil, 6/17/88, (PB89-102891).
NCEER-88-0018 "An Experimental Study of Seismic Structural Response With Added Viscoelastic Dampers," by R.C. Lin, Z. Liang, T.T. Soong and R.H. Zhang, 6/30/88, (PB89-122212). This report is available only through NTIS (see address given above).
NCEER-88-0019 "Experimental Investigation of Primary - Secondary System Interaction," by GD. Manolis, G. Juhn and A.M. Reinhorn, 5/27/88, (PB89-122204).
NCEER-88-0020 "A Response Spectrum Approach For Analysis of Nonclassically Damped Structures," by J.N. Yang, S. Sarkani and F.x. Long, 4/22/88, (PB89-102909).
NCEER-88-0021 "Seismic Interaction of Structures and Soils: Stochastic Approach," by A.S. Veletsos and A.M. Prasad, 7/21/88, (PB89-122196).
NCEER-88-0022 "Identification of the Serviceability Limit State and Detection of Seismic Structural Damage," by E. DiPasquale and A.S. Cakmak, 6/15/88, (PB89-122188). This report is available only through NTIS (see address given above).
NCEER-88-0023 "Multi-Hazard Risk Analysis: Case of a Simple Offshore Structure," by B.K. Bhartia and E.H. Vanmarcke, 7/21/88, (PB89-145213).
B-3
NCEER-88-0024 "Automated Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings," by Y .S. Chung, C. Meyer and M. Shinozuka, 7/5/88, (PB89-122170). This report is available only through NTIS (see address given above).
NCEER-88-0025 "Experimental Study of Active Control of MDOF Structures Under Seismic Excitations," by L.L. Chung, R.C. Lin, T.T. Soong and A.M. Reinhorn, 7/10/88, (PB89-122600).
NCEER-88-0026 "Earthquake Simulation Tests of a Low-Rise Metal Structure," by lS. Hwang, K.C. Chang, G.C. Lee and R.L. Ketter, 8/1/88, (PB89-102917).
NCEER-88-0027 "Systems Study of Urban Response and Reconstruction Due to Catastrophic Earthquakes," by F. Kozin and H.K. Zhou, 9/22/88, (PB90-162348).
NCEER-88-0028 "Seismic Fragility Analysis of Plane Frame Structures," by H.H-M. Hwang and Y.K. Low, 7/31/88, (PB89-131445).
NCEER-88-0029 "Response Analysis of Stochastic Structures," by A. Kardara, C. Bucher and M. Shinozuka, 9/22/88, (PB89-174429).
NCEER-88-0030 "Nonnormal Accelerations Due to Yielding in a Primary Structure," by D.C.K. Chen and L.D. Lutes, 9/19/88, (PB89-131437).
NCEER-88-0031 "Design Approaches for Soil-Structure Interaction," by A.S. Veletsos, A.M. Prasad and Y. Tang, 12/30/88, (PB89-174437). This report is available only through NTIS (see address given above).
NCEER-88-0032 "A Re-evaluation of Design Spectra for Seismic Damage Control," by C.J. Turkstra and A.G. TaHin, 11/7/88, (PB89-145221).
NCEER-88-0033 "The Behavior and Design of Noncontact Lap Splices Subjected to Repeated Inelastic Tensile Loading," by V.E. Sagan, P. Gergely and R.N. White, 12/8/88, (PB89-163737).
NCEER-88-0034 "Seismic Response of Pile Foundations," by S.M. Mamoon, P.K. Banerjee and S. Ahmad, 11/1/88, (PB89-145239).
NCEER-88-0035 "Modeling of R/C Building Structures With Flexible Floor Diaphragms (lDARC2)," by A.M. Reinhorn, S.K. Kunnath and N. Panahshahi, 9/7/88, (PB89-207153).
NCEER-88-0036 "Solution of the Dam-Reservoir Interaction Problem Using a Combination of FEM, BEM with Particular Integrals, Modal Analysis, and Substructuring," by C-S. Tsai, G.C. Lee and R.L. Ketter, 12/31/88, (PB89-207146).
NCEER-88-0037 "Optimal Placement of Actuators for Structural Gontro!," by F.Y. Cheng and C.P. Pantelides, 8/15/88, (PB89-162846).
NCEER-88-0038 "Teflon Bearings in Aseismic Base Isolation: Experimental Studies and Mathematical Modeling," by A. Mokha, M.C. Constantinou and A.M. Reinhorn, 12/5/88, (PB89-218457). This report is available only through NTIS (see address given above).
NCEER-88-0039 "Seismic Behavior of Flat Slab High-Rise Buildings in the New York City Area," by P. Weidlinger and M. Ettouney, 10/15/88, (PB90-145681).
NCEER-88-0040 "Evaluation of the Earthquake Resistance of Existing Buildings in New York City," by P. Weidlinger and M. Ettouney, 10/15/88, to be published.
NCEER-88-0041 "Small-Scale Modeling Techniques for Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Loads," by W. Kim, A. El-Attar and R.N. White, 11/22/88, (PB89-189625).
B-4
NCEER-88-0042 "Modeling Strong Ground Motion from Multiple Event Earthquakes," by G.W. Ellis and AS. Cakmak, 10/15/88, (PB89-174445).
NCEER-88-0043 "Nonstationary Models of Seismic Ground Acceleration," by M. Grigoriu, S.E. Ruiz and E. Rosenblueth, 7/15/88, (PB89-189617).
NCEER-88-0044 "SARCF User's Guide: Seismic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frames," by Y.S. Chung, C. Meyer and M. Shinozuka, 11/9/88, (PB89-174452).
NCEER-88-0045 "First Expert Panel Meeting on Disaster Research and Planning," edited by J. Pantelic and I. Stoyle, 9/15/88, (PB89-174460).
NCEER-88-0046 "Preliminary Studies of the Effect of Degrading Infill Walls on the Nonlinear Seismic Response of Steel Frames," by C.Z. Chrysostomou, P. Gergely and I.F. Abel, 12/19/88, (PB89-208383).
NCEER-88-0047 "Reinforced Concrete Frame Component Testing Facility - Design, Construction, Instrumentation and Operation," by S.P. Pessiki, C. Conley, T. Bond, P. Gergely and R.N. White, 12/16/88, (PB89-174478).
NCEER-89-0001 "Effects of Protective Cushion and Soil Compliancy on the Response of Equipment Within a Seismically Excited Building," by lA. HoLung, 2/16/89, (PB89-207179).
NCEER-89-0002 "Statistical Evaluation of Response Modification Factors for Reinforced Concrete Structures," by H.H-M. Hwang and J-W. Jaw, 2/17/89, (PB89-207187).
NCEER-89-0003 "Hysteretic Columns Under Random Excitation," by G-Q. Cai and Y.K. Lin, 1/9/89, (PB89-196513).
NCEER-89-0004 "Experimental Study of 'Elephant Foot Bulge' Instability of Thin-Walled Metal Tanks," by Z-H. Jia and R.L. Ketter, 2/22/89, (PB89-207195).
NCEER-89-0005 "Experiment on Performance of Buried Pipelines Across San Andreas Fault," by J. Isenberg, E. Richardson and T.D. O'Rourke, 3/10/89, (PB89-218440). This report is available only through NTIS (see address given above).
NCEER-89-0006 "A Knowledge-Based Approach to Structural Design of Earthquake-Resistant Buildings," by M. Subramani, P. Gergely, C.H. Conley, J.F. Abel and A.H. Zaghw, 1/15/89, (PB89-218465).
NCEER-89-0007 "Liquefaction Hazards and Their Effects on Buried Pipelines," by ToO. O'Rourke and P.A Lane, 2/1/89, (PB89-218481).
NCEER-89-0008 "Fundamentals of System Identification in Structural Dynamics," by H. Imai, C-B. Yun, O. Maruyama and M. Shinozuka, 1/26/89, (PB89-207211).
NCEER-89-0009 "Effects of the 1985 Michoacan Earthquake on Water Systems and Other Buried Lifelines in Mexico," by AG. Ayala and MJ. O'Rourke, 3/8/89, (PB89-207229).
NCEER-89-R010 "NCEER Bibliography of Earthquake Education Materials," by K.E.K. Ross, Second Revision, 9/1/89, (PB90-125352).
NCEER-89-0011 "Inelastic Three-Dimensional Response Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Building Structures (IDARC-3D), Part I - Modeling," by S.K. Kunnath and A.M. Reinhom, 4/17/89, (PB90-114612).
NCEER-89-0012 "Recommended Modifications to ATC-14," by CD. Poland and lO. Malley, 4/12/89, (PB90-108648).
B-5
NCEER-89-0013 "Repair and Strengthening of Beam-to-Column Connections Subjected to Earthquake Loading," by M. Corazao and AJ. Durrani, 2/28/89, (PB90-109885).
NCEER-89-0014 "Program EXKAL2 for Identification of Structural Dynamic Systems," by O. Maruyama, C-B. Yun, M. Hoshiya and M. Shinozuka, 5/19/89, (PB90-109877).
NCEER-89-0015 "Response of Frames With Bolted Semi-Rigid Connections, Part I - Experimental Study and Analytical Predictions," by PJ. DiCorso, AM. Reinhorn, J.R. Dickerson, LB. Radziminski and W.L. Harper, 6/1/89, to be published.
NCEER-89-0016 "ARMA Monte Carlo Simulation in Probabilistic Structural Analysis," by P.D. Spanos and M.P. Mignolet, 7/10/89, (PB90-109893).
NCEER-89-P017 "Preliminary Proceedings from the Conference on Disaster Preparedness - The Place of Earthquake Education in Our Schools," Edited by K.E.K. Ross, 6/23/89, (PB90-108606).
NCEER-89-0017 "Proceedings from the Conference on Disaster Preparedness - The Place of Earthquake Education in Our Schools," Edited by K.E.K. Ross, 12/31/89, (PB90-207895). This report is available only through NTIS (see address given above).
NCEER-89-0018 "Multidimensional Models of Hysteretic Material Behavior for Vibration Analysis of Shape Memory Energy Absorbing Devices, by EJ. Graesser and F.A. Cozzarelli, 6!7/89, (PB90-164146).
NCEER-89-0019 "Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Three-Dimensional Base Isolated Structures (3D-BASIS)," by S. Nagarajaiah, AM. Reinhorn and M.C. Constantinou, 8/3/89, (PB90-161936). This report is available only through NTIS (see address given above).
NCEER-89-0020 "Structural Control Considering Time-Rate of Control Forces and Control Rate Constraints," by F.Y. Cheng and C.P. Pantelides. 8/3/89, (PB90-120445).
NCEER-89-0021 "Subsurface Conditions of Memphis and Shelby County," by K.W. Ng, T-S. Chang and H-H.M. Hwang, 7/26/89, (PB90-120437).
NCEER-89-0022 "Seismic Wave Propagation Effects on Straight Jointed Buried Pipelines," by K. Elhmadi and MJ. O'Rourke, 8/24/89, (PB90-162322).
NCEER-89-0023 "Workshop on Serviceability Analysis of Water Delivery Systems," edited by M. Grigoriu, 3/6/89, (PB90-127424).
NCEER-89-0024 "Shaking Table Study of a 1/5 Scale Steel Frame Composed of Tapered Members," by K.C. Chang, J.S. Hwang and G.C. Lee, 9/18/89, (PB90-160169).
NCEER-89-0025 "DYNA1D: A Computer Program for Nonlinear Seismic Site Response Analysis - Technical Documentation," by Jean H. Prevost, 9/14/89, (PB90-161944). This report is available only through NTIS (see address given above).
NCEER-89-0026 "1:4 Scale Model Studies of Active Tendon Systems and Active Mass Dampers for Aseismic Protection," by AM. Reinhorn, T.T. Soong, R.C. Lin, Y.P. Yang, Y. Fukao, H. Abe and M. Nakai, 9/15/89, (PB90-173246).
NCEER-89-0027 "Scattering of Waves by Inclusions in a Nonhomogeneous Elastic Half Space Solved by Boundary Element Methods," by P.K. Hadley, A Askar and A.S. Cakmak, 6/15/89, (PB90-145699).
NCEER-89-0028 "Statistical Evaluation of Deflection Amplification Factors for Reinforced Concrete Structures," by H.H.M. Hwang, J-W. Jaw and AL. Ch'ng, 8/31/89, (PB90-164633).
B-6
NCEER-89-oo29 "Bedrock Accelerations in Memphis Area Due to Large New Madrid Earthquakes," by H.H.M. Hwang, C.H.S. Chen and G. Yu, 11/7/89, (PB90-162330).
NCEER-89-oo30 "Seismic Behavior and Response Sensitivity of Secondary Structural Systems," by Y.Q. Chen and T.T. Soong, 10/23/89, (PB90-164658).
NCEER-89-oo31 "Random Vibration and Reliability Analysis of Primary-Secondary Structural Systems," by Y. Ibrahim, M. Grigoriu and T.T. Soong, 11/10/89, (PB90-16l951).
NCEER-89-oo32 "Proceedings from the Second U.S. - Japan Workshop on Liquefaction, Large Ground Deformation and Their Effects on Lifelines, September 26-29, 1989," Edited by T.D. O'Rourke and M. Hamada, 12/1(89, (PB90-209388).
NCEER-89-oo33 "Deterministic Model for Seismic Damage Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Structures," by J.M. Bracci, A.M. Reinhorn, J.B. Mander and S.K. Kunnath, 9/27/89.
NCEER-89-oo34 "On the Relation Between Local and Global Damage Indices," by E. DiPasquale and A.S. Cakmak, 8/15/89, (PB90-173865).
NCEER-89-oo35 "Cyclic Undrained Behavior of Nonplastic and Low Plasticity Silts," by AJ. Walker and H.E. Stewart, 7 (26(89, (PB90-183518).
NCEER-89-oo36 "Liquefaction Potential of Surficial Deposits in the City of Buffalo, New York," by M. Budhu, R. Giese and L. Baumgrass, 1117189, (PB90-208455).
NCEER-89-oo37 "A Deterministic Assessment of Effects of Ground Motion Incoherence," by A.S. Veletsos and Y. Tang, 7/15/89, (PB90-l64294).
NCEER-89-oo38 "Workshop on Ground Motion Parameters for Seismic Hazard Mapping," July 17-18,1989, edited by R.V. Whitman, 12/1/89, (PB90-173923).
NCEER -89-0039 "Seismic Effects on Elevated Transit Lines of the New York City Transit Authority," by C.J. Costantino, C.A. Miller and E. Heymsfield, 12/26/89, (PB90-207887).
NCEER-89-oo40 "Centrifugal Modeling of Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction," by K. Weissman, Supervised by J.H. Prevost, 5/10(89, (PB90-207879).
NCEER-89-oo41 "Linearized Identification of Buildings With Cores for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment," by I-K. Ho and A.E. Aktan, 11/1/89, (PB90-251943).
NCEER-90-ooOl "Geotechnical and Lifeline Aspects of the OCtober 17, 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake in San Francisco," by T.D. O'Rourke, H.E. Stewart, F.T. Blackburn and T.S. Dickerman, 1/90, (PB90-208596).
NCEER-90-0002 "Nonnormal Secondary Response Due to Yielding in a Primary Structure," by D.C.K. Chen and L.D. Lutes, 2/28/90, (PB90-251976).
NCEER-90-oo03 "Earthquake Education Materials for Grades K-12," by K.E.K. Ross, 4/16/90, (PB9l-251984).
NCEER-90-oo04 "Catalog of Strong Motion Stations in Eastern North America," by R.W. Busby, 4/3/90, (PB90-251984).
NCEER-90-oo05 "NCEER Strong-Motion Data Base: A User Manual for the GeoBase Release (Version 1.0 for the Sun3)," by P. Friberg and K. Jacob, 3/31/90 (PB90-258062).
NCEER-90-oo06 "Seismic Hazard Along a Crude Oil Pipeline in the Event of an 1811-1812 Type New Madrid Earthquake," by H.H.M. Hwang and C-H.S. Chen, 4/16/90(PB90-258054).
B-7
NCEER-90-0007 "Site-Specific Response Spectra for Memphis Sheahan Pumping Station," by H.H.M. Hwang and C.S. Lee, 5/15/90, (PB9I-108811).
NCEER-90-0008 "Pilot Study on Seismic Vulnerability of Crude Oil Transmission Systems," by T. Ariman, R. Dobry, M. Grigoriu, F. Kozin, M. O'Rourke, T. O'Rourke and M. Shinozuka, 5/25/90, (PB91-108837).
NCEER-90-0009 "A Program to Generate Site Dependent Time Histories: EQGEN," by G.W. Ellis, M. Srinivasan and AS. Cakmak, 1/30/90, (PB91-108829).
NCEER-90-0010 "Active Isolation for Seismic Protection of Operating Rooms," by M.E. Talbott, Supervised by M. Shinozuka, 6/8/9, (PB91-110205).
NCEER-90-00ll "Program LINEARID for Identification of Linear Structural Dynamic Systems," by C-B. Yun and M. Shinozuka, 6/25/90, (PB91-110312).
NCEER-90-0012 "Two-Dimensional Two-Phase Elasto-Plastic Seismic Response of Earth Dams," by AN. Yiagos, Supervised by J.H. Prevost, 6/20/90, (PB91-110197).
NCEER-90-0013 "Secondary Systems in Base-Isolated Structures: Experimental Investigation, Stochastic Response and Stochastic Sensitivity," by G.D. Manolis, G. Juhn, M.C. Constantinou and AM. Reinhorn, 7/1/90, (PB91-110320).
NCEER-90-0014 "Seismic Behavior of Lightly-Reinforced Concrete Column and Beam-Column Joint Details," by S.P. Pessiki, C.H. Conley, P. Gergely and R.N. White, 8/22[90, (PB91-108795).
NCEER-90-0015 "Two Hybrid Control Systems for Building Structures Under Strong Earthquakes," by J.N. Yang and A. Danielians, 6/29/90, (PB91-125393).
NCEER-90-0016 "Instantaneous Optimal Control with Acceleration and Velocity Feedback," by J.N. Yang and Z. Li, 6/29/90, (PB91-125401).
NCEER-90-0017 "Reconnaissance Report on the Northern Iran Earthquake of June 21, 1990," by M. Mehrain, 10/4/90, (PB91-125377).
NCEER-90-0018 "Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential in Memphis and Shelby County," by T.S. Chang, P.S. Tang, C.S. Lee and H. Hwang, 8/10/90, (PB91-l25427).
NCEER-90-0019 "Experimental and Analytical Study of a Combined Sliding Disc Bearing and Helical Steel Spring Isolation System," by M.C. Constantinou, A.S. Mokha and A.M. Reinhorn, 10/4/90, (PB91-125385).
NCEER-90-0020 "Experimental Study and Analytical Prediction of Earthquake Response of a Sliding Isolation System with a Spherical Surface," by AS. Mokha, M.C. Constantinou and AM. Reinhorn, 10[11/90, (PB9l-125419).
NCEER-90-0021 "Dynamic Interaction Factors for Floating Pile Groups," by G. Gazetas, K. Fan, A Kaynia and E. Kausel, 9/10/90, (PB91-170381).
NCEER-90-0022 "Evaluation of Seismic Damage Indices for Reinforced Concrete Structures," by S. Rodriguez-Gomez and AS. Cakmak, 9/30/90, PB91-171322).
NCEER-90-0023 "Study of Site Response at a Selected Memphis Site," by H. Desai, S. Ahmad, E.S. Gazetas and M.R. Oh, 10/11/90, (PB91-l96857).
NCEER-90-0024 "A User's Guide to Strongmo: Version 1.0 of NCEER's Strong-Motion Data Access Tool for PCs and Terminals," by P.A. Friberg and C.A.T. Susch, 11/15/90, (PB91-171272).
B-8
NCEER-90-0025 "A Three-Dimensional Analytical Study of Spatial Variability of Seismic Ground Motions," by L-L. Hong and A.H.-S. Ang, 10/30/90, (PB91-170399).
NCEER-90-0026 "MUMOID User's Guide - A Program for the Identification of Modal Parameters," by S. Rodriguez-Gomez and E. DiPasquale, 9/30/90, (PB91-171298).
NCEER-90-0027 "SARCF-II User's Guide - Seismic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frames," by S. Rodriguez-Gomez, Y.S. Chung and C. Meyer, 9/30/90, (PB91-171280).
NCEER-90-0028 "Viscous Dampers: Testing, Modeling and Application in Vibration and Seismic Isolation," by N. Makris and M.C. Constantinou, 12/20/90 (PB91-190561).
NCEER-90-0029 "Soil Effects on Earthquake Ground Motions in the Memphis Area," by H. Hwang, C.S. Lee, K.W. Ng and T.S. Chang, 8/2/90, (PB91-190751).
NCEER-91-0001 "Proceedings from the Third Japan-U.S. Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures for Soil Liquefaction, December 17-19,1990," edited by TD. O'Rourke and M. Hamada, 2/1/91, (PB91-179259).
NCEER-91-0002 "Physical Space Solutions of Non-Proportionally Damped Systems," by M. Tong, Z. Liang and G.C. Lee, 1/15/91, (PB91-179242).
NCEER-91-0003 "Seismic Response of Single Piles and Pile Groups," by K. Fan and G. Gazetas, 1/10/91, (PB92-174994).
NCEER-91-0004 "Damping of Structures: Part 1 - Theory of Complex Damping," by Z. Liang and G. Lee, 10/10/91, (PB92-197235).
NCEER-91-0005 "3D-BASIS - Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Three Dimensional Base Isolated Structures: Part II," by S. Nagarajaiah, A.M. Reinhorn and M.C. Constantinou, 2/28/91, (PB91-190553).
NCEER-91-0006 "A Multidimensional Hysteretic Model for Plasticity Deforming Metals in Energy Absorbing Devices," by E.J. Graesser and F.A. Cozzarelli, 4/9/91, (PB92-108364).
NCEER-91-0007 "A Framework for Customizable Knowledge-Based Expert Systems with an Application to a KBES for Evaluating the Seismic Resistance of Existing Buildings," by E.G. Ibarra-Anaya and SJ. Fenves, 4/9/91, (PB91-210930).
NCEER-91-0008 "Nonlinear Analysis of Steel Frames with Semi-Rigid Connections Using the Capacity Spectrum Method," by G.G. Deierlein, S-H. Hsieh, Y-J. Shen and J.F. Abel, 7/2/91, (PB92-1l3828).
NCEER-91-0009 "Earthquake Education Materials for Grades K-12," by K.E.K. Ross, 4/30/91, (PB91-212142).
NCEER-91-0010 "Phase Wave Velocities and Displacement Phase Differences in a Harmonically Oscillating Pile," by N. Makris and G. Gazetas, 7/8/91, (PB92-108356).
NCEER-91-0011 "Dynamic Characteristics of a Full-Size Five-Story Steel Structure and a 2/5 Scale Model," by K.C. Chang, G.C. Yao, G.C. Lee, D.S. Hao and Y.C. Yeh," 7/2/91, (PB93-1l6648).
NCEER-91-0012 "Seismic Response of a 2/5 Scale Steel Structure with Added Viscoelastic Dampers," by K.C. Chang, T.T. Soong, S-T. Oh and M.L. Lai, 5/17/91, (PB92-110816).
NCEER-91-0013 "Earthquake Response of Retaining Walls; Full-Scale Testing and Computational Modeling," by S. Alampalli and A-W.M. Elgamal, 6/20/91, to be published.
B-9
NCEER-91-0014 "3D-BASIS-M: Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Multiple Building Base Isolated Structures," by P.e. Tsopelas, S. Nagarajaiah, M.C. Constantinou and A.M. Reinhorn, 5/28/91, (PB92-113885).
NCEER-91-0015 "Evaluation of SEAOC Design Requirements for Sliding Isolated Structures," by D. Theodossiou and M.C. Constantinou, 6/10/91, (PB92-114602).
NCEER-91-0016 "Closed-Loop Modal Testing of a 27-Story Reinforced Concrete Flat Plate-Core Building," by H.R. Somaprasad, T. Toksoy, H. Yoshiyuki and A.E. Aktan, 7/15/91, (PB92-129980).
NCEER-91-0017 "Shake Table Test of a 1/6 Scale Two-Story Lightly Reinforced Concrete Building," by AG. El-Attar, R.N. White and P. Gergely, 2/28/91, (PB92-222447).
NCEER-91-0018 "Shake Table Test ofa 1/8 Scale Three-Story Lightly Reinforced Concrete Building," by AG. El-Attar, R.N. White and P. Gergely, 2/28/91, (PB93-116630).
NCEER-91-0019 "Transfer Functions for Rigid Rectangular Foundations," by AS. Veletsos, AM. Prasad and W.H. Wu, 7/31/91.
NCEER-91-0020 "Hybrid Control of Seismic-Excited Nonlinear and Inelastic Structural Systems," by J.N. Yang, Z. Li and A Danielians, 8/1/91, (PB92-143171).
NCEER-91-0021 "The NCEER-91 Earthquake Catalog: Improved Intensity-Based Magnitudes and Recurrence Relations for U.S. Earthquakes East of New Madrid," by L. Seeber and J.G. Armbruster, 8/28/91, (PB92-176742).
NCEER-91-0022 "Proceedings from the Implementation of Earthquake Planning and Education in Schools: The Need for Change - The Roles of the Changemakers," by K.E.K. Ross and F. Winslow, 7/23/91, (PB92-129998).
NCEER-91-0023 "A Study of Reliability-Based Criteria for Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings," by H.H.M. Hwang and H-M. Hsu, 8/10/91, (PB92-140235).
NCEER-91-0024 "Experimental Verification of a Number of Structural System Identification Algorithms," by R.G. Ghanem, H. Gavin and M. Shinozuka, 9/18/91, (PB92-l76577).
NCEER-91-0025 "Probabilistic Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential," by H.H.M. Hwang and e.S. Lee," 11/25/91, (PB92-143429).
NCEER-91-0026 "Instantaneous Optimal Control for Linear, Nonlinear and Hysteretic Structures - Stable Controllers," by IN. Yang and Z. Li, 11/15/91, (PB92-163807).
NCEER-91-0027 "Experimental and Theoretical Study of a Sliding Isolation System for Bridges," by M.C. Constantinou, A Kartoum, AM. Reinhorn and P. Bradford, 11/15/91, (PB92-176973).
NCEER-92-0001 "Case Studies of Liquefaction and Lifeline Performance During Past Earthquakes, Volume 1: Japanese Case Studies," Edited by M. Hamada and T. O'Rourke, 2/17/92, (PB92-197243).
NCEER-92-0002 "Case Studies of Liquefaction and Lifeline Performance During Past Earthquakes, Volume 2: United States Case Studies," Edited by T. O'Rourke and M. Hamada, 2/17/92, (PB92-197250).
NCEER-92-0003 "Issues in Earthquake Education," Edited by K. Ross, 2/3/92, (PB92-222389).
NCEER-92-0004 "Proceedings from the First U.S. - Japan Workshop on Earthquake Protective Systems for Bridges," Edited by LG. Buckle, 2/4/92.
NCEER-92-0005 "Seismic Ground Motion from a Haskell-Type Source in a Multiple-Layered Half-Space," AP. Theoharis, G. Deodatis and M. Shinozuka, 1/2/92, to be published.
B-lO
....
NCEER-92-0006 "Proceedings from the Site Effects Workshop," Edited by R. Whitman, 2/29/92, (PB92-l97201).
NCEER-92-0007 "Engineering Evaluation of Permanent Ground Deformations Due to Seismically-Induced Liquefaction," by M.H. Baziar, R. Dobry and A-W.M. Elgamal, 3/24/92, (PB92-222421).
NCEER-92-0008 "A Procedure for the Seismic Evaluation of Buildings in the Central and Eastern United States," by C.D. Poland and lO. Malley, 4/2/92, (PB92-222439).
NCEER-92-0009 "Experimental and Analytical Study of a Hybrid Isolation System Using Friction Controllable Sliding Bearings," by M.Q. Feng, S. Fujii and M. Shinozuka, 5/15/92, (PB93-l50282).
NCEER-92-0010 "Seismic Resistance of Slab-Column Connections in Existing Non-Ductile Flat-Plate Buildings," by AJ. Durrani and Y. Du, 5/18/92.
NCEER-92-0011 "The Hysteretic and Dynamic Behavior of Brick Masonry Walls Upgraded by Ferrocement Coatings Under Cyclic Loading and Strong Simulated Ground Motion," by H. Lee and S.P. Prawel, 5/11/92, to be published.
NCEER-92-00l2 "Study of Wire Rope Systems for Seismic Protection of Equipment in Buildings," by G.F. Demetriades, M.C. Constantinou and A.M. Reinhorn, 5/20/92.
NCEER-92-0013 "Shape Memory Structural Dampers: Material Properties, Design and Seismic Testing," by P.R. Witting and F.A. Cozzarelli, 5/26/92.
NCEER-92-00l4 "Longitudinal Permanent Ground Deformation Effects on Buried Continuous Pipelines," by MJ. O'Rourke, and C. Nordberg, 6/15/92.
NCEER-92-00l5 "A Simulation Method for Stationary Gaussian Random Functions Based on the Sampling Theorem," by M. Grigoriu and S. Balopoulou, 6/11/92, (PB93-127496).
NCEER-92-00l6 "Gravity-Load-Designed Reinforced Concrete Buildings: Seismic Evaluation of Existing Construction and Detailing Strategies for Improved Seismic Resistance," by G.W. Hoffmann, S.K. Kunnath, A.M. Reinhom and lB. Mander, 7/15/92.
NCEER-92-0017 "Observations on Water System and Pipeline Performance in the Limon Area of Costa Rica Due to the April 22, 1991 Earthquake," by M. O'Rourke and D. Ballantyne, 6/30/92, (PB93-12681l).
NCEER-92-0018 "Fourth Edition of Earthquake Education Materials for Grades K-12," Edited by K.E.K. Ross, 8/10/92.
NCEER-92-0019 "Proceedings from the Fourth Japan-U.S. Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures for Soil Liquefaction," Edited by M. Hamada and T.D. O'Rourke, 8/12/92, (PB93-163939).
NCEER-92-0020 "Active Bracing System: A Full Scale Implementation of Active Control," by A.M. Reinhom, T.T. Soong, R.C. Lin, M.A. Riley, Y.P. Wang, S. Aizawa and M. Higashino, 8/14/92, (PB93-l27512).
NCEER-92-0021 "Empirical Analysis of Horizontal Ground Displacement Generated by Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreads," by S.F. Bartlett and T.L. Youd, 8/17/92, (PB93-188241).
NCEER-92-0022 "IDARC Version 3.0: Inelastic Damage Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures," by S.K. Kunnath, A.M. Reinhorn and R.F. Lobo, 8/31/92, (PB93-227502, A07, MF-A02).
NCEER-92-0023 "A Semi-Empirical Analysis of Strong-Motion Peaks in Terms of Seismic Source, Propagation Path and Local Site Conditions, by M. Kamiyama, M.J. O'Rourke and R. Flores-Berrones, 9/9/92, (PB93-150266).
NCEER-92-0024 "Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures with Nonductile Details, Part I: Summary of Experimental Findings of Full Scale Beam-Column Joint Tests," by A. Beres, R.N. White and P. Gergely, 9/30/92, (PB93-227783, A05, MF-A01).
B-11
NCEER-92-oo25 "Experimental Results of Repaired and Retrofitted Beam-Column Joint Tests in Lightly Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings," by A. Beres, S. El-Borgi, R.N. White and P. Gergely, 10/29/92, (PB93-227791, A05, MFAOl).
NCEER -92-0026 "A Generalization of Optimal Control Theory: Linear and Nonlinear Structures," by IN. Yang, Z. Li and S. VongchavalitkuL 11/2/92, (PB93-188621).
NCEER-92-oo27 "Seismic Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures Designed Only for Gravity Loads: Part I -Design and Properties of a One-Third Scale Model Structure," by 1M. Bracci, A.M. Reinhorn and J.B. Mander, 12/1/92.
NCEER-92-oo28 "Seismic Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures Designed Only for Gravity Loads: Part II -Experimental Performance of Subassemblages," by L.E. Aycardi, J.B. Mander and A.M. Reinhorn, 12/1/92.
NCEER-92-oo29 "Seismic Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures Designed Only for Gravity Loads: Part III -Experimental Performance and Analytical Study of a Structural Model," by 1M. Bracci, A.M. Reinhorn and J.B. Mander, 12/1/92, (PB93-227528, A09, MF-AOl).
NCEER-92-oo30 "Evaluation of Seismic Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures: Part I - Experimental Performance of Retrofitted Subassemblages," by D. Choudhuri, J.B. Mander and A.M. Reinhorn, 12/8/92.
NCEER-92-oo31 "Evaluation of Seismic Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures: Part II - Experimental Performance and Analytical Study of a Retrofitted Structural Model," by J.M. Bracci, A.M. Reinhorn and J.B. Mander, 12/8/92.
NCEER-92-oo32 "Experimental and Analytical Investigation of Seismic Response of Structures with Supplemental Fluid Viscous Dampers," by M.C. Constantinou and M.D. Symans, 12/21/92, (PB93-191435).
NCEER-92-oo33 "Reconnaissance Report on the Cairo, Egypt Earthquake of October 12, 1992," by M. Khater, 12/23/92, (PB93-188621).
NCEER-92-oo34 "Low-Level Dynamic Characteristics of Four Tall Flat-Plate Buildings in New York City," by H. Gavin, S. Yuan, J. Grossman, E. Pekelis and K. Jacob, 12/28/92, (PB93-188217).
NCEER-93-oo01 "An Experimental Study on the Seismic Performance of Brick-Infilled Steel Frames With and Without Retrofit," by lB. Mander, B. Nair, K. Wojtkowski and J. Ma, 1/29/93, (PB93-227510, A07, MF-A02).
NCEER-93-oo02 "Social Accounting for Disaster Preparedness and Recovery Planning," by S. Cole, E. Pantoja and V. Razak, 2/22/93, to be published.
NCEER-93-oo03 "Assessment of 1991 NEHRP Provisions for Nonstructural Components and Recommended Revisions," by T.T. Soong, G. Chen, Z. Wu, R-H. Zhang and M. Grigoriu, 3/1/93, (PB93-188639).
NCEER-93-oo04 "Evaluation of Static and Response Spectrum Analysis Procedures of SEAOC/UBC for Seismic Isolated Structures," by C.W. Winters and M.C. Constantinou, 3/23/93, (PB93-198299).
NCEER-93-oo05 "Earthquakes in the Northeast - Are We Ignoring the Hazard? A Workshop on Earthquake Science and Safety for Educators," edited by K.E.K. Ross, 4/2/93, (PB94-103066, A09, MF-A02).
NCEER-93-oo06 "Inelastic Response of Reinforced Concrete Structures with Viscoelastic Braces," by R.F. Lobo, J.M. Bracci, K.L. Shen, A.M. Reinhorn and T.T. Soong, 4/5/93, (PB93-227486, A05, MF-A02).
NCEER-93-oo07 "Seismic Testing of Installation Methods for Computers and Data Processing Equipment," by K. Kosar, T.T. Soong, K.L. Shen, J.A HoLung and Y.K. Lin, 4/12/93, (PB93-198299).
B-12
NCEER-93-0008 "Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete Frames Using Added Dampers," by A. Reinhorn, M. Constantinou and C. Li, to be published.
NCEER-93-0009 "Seismic Applications of Viscoelastic Dampers to Steel Frame Structures," by K.C. Chang and T.T. Soong, to be published.
NCEER-93-0010 "Seismic Performance of Shear-Critical Reinforced Concrete Bridge Piers," by J.B. Mander, S.M. Waheed, M.T.A. Chaudhary and S.S. Chen, 5/12/93, (PB93-227494, A08, MF-A02).
NCEER-93-0011 "3D-BASIS-TABS: Computer Program for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Three Dimensional Base Isolated Structures," by S. Nagarajaiah, C. Li, A.M. Reinhorn and M.C. Constantinou, 8/2/93.
NCEER-93-0012 "Effects of Hydrocarbon Spills from an Oil Pipeline Break on Ground Water," by O.I. Helweg and H.H.M. Hwang, 8/3/93.
NCEER-93-0013 "Simplified Procedures for Seismic Design of Nonstructural Components and Assessment of Current Code Provisions," by M.P. Singh, L.E. Suarez, E.E. Matheu and G.O. Maldonado, 8/4/93.
NCEER-93-0014 "An Energy Approach to Seismic Analysis and Design of Secondary Systems," by G. Chen and T.T. Soong, 8/6/93.
NCEER-93-0015 "Proceedings from School Sites: Becoming Prepared for Earthquakes - Commemorating the Third Anniversary of the Lorna Prieta Earthquake," Edited by F.E. Winslow and K.E.K. Ross, 8/16/93, to be published.
NCEER-93-0016 "Reconnaissance Report of Damage to Historic Monuments in Cairo, Egypt Following the October 12, 1992 Dahshur Earthquake," by D. Sykora, D. Look, G. Croci, E. Karaesmen and E. Karaesmen, 8/19/93.
NCEER-93-0017 "The Island of Guam Earthquake of August 8, 1993," by S.W. Swan and S.K. Harris, 9/30/93.
NCEER-93-00l8 "Engineering Aspects of the October 12, 1992 Egyptian Earthquake," by A.W. Elgamal, M. Amer, K. Adalier and A. Abul-Fadl, 10/7/93.
NCEER-93-0019 "Development of an Earthquake Motion Simulator and its Application in Dynamic Centrifuge Testing," by 1. Krstelj, Supervised by lH. Prevost, 10/23/93.
NCEER-93-0020 "NCEER-Taisei Corporation Research Program on Sliding Seismic Isolation Systems for Bridges: Experimental and Analytical Study of a Friction Pendulum System (FPS)," by M.C. Constantinou, P. Tsopelas, Y-S. Kim and S. Okamoto, 11/1/93.
B-13