nceer.:faisei corporation research program on sliding

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


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


4-23 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



4-26 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


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



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



xiv

FIGURE

5-8

5-9

5-10

5-11

6-1

6-2

6-3

6-4

6-5


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


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


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


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


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





xvii


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-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


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



REACTION FRAME


• 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


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


-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 «


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


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


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


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


0.45 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


~ --0.45 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 (%)


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 (%)


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


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


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


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..


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


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


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-~~ __ ~~~


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


~ 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)

-- ---


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


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~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


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


~ 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)


SW BEARING

20 25

-0.3 ~~~--~~~--~~--~~~--~~--~~~--~~--~~~ -50 -25 0 25 50


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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


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


6-18

E E-....J a.. (f)

(5 (9 z a: « w CD

lI

40

20

0

-20

-40 0


-\_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


6-19

,-.. 40 E S

20 ....J


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


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


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


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 ~

'--~


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


A ., ,n nr~

J

I

5

II

(\f"'" U 'v Ir-'~"'I

10 I

15

TIME (sec)

20


~

-20 o 20



./

dJij ~ ....-::; ,

~ -5 0 5


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



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


~r r ~ fl--., 0 1

V

r H W\lv~\r \..., ~

I I I

5 10 15 20 25 30

TIME (sec)


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


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


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


PIER SHEAR FORCE I WEIGHT (NORTH PIER)

./7

~ ~

-Y-P'

-5 o 5 PIER DEFORMATION (mm)


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:


/1 Ah ('v...~\ , " fI

rv~ \1 \..J ~ ·uu .~ lJ V"" L.-~

1/ ,

V

I I I

5 10 15 20 25 TIME (sec)


-1'-~"'" "'\,.-11 p~

'-::::-f-

-50 o 50



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



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:


~

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)


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



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


f"I ~

",r--1 v IJ\.,-J '\

~

5 10 15

TIME (sec)


--",

r---({ /'

I

v ~ ~

-10 0 10



/ t? V


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

~


"",.1\ ,... (\

~ I V ,-",v ~'-'-'

v

~

5 10 15

TIME (sec)


r r

I ~

-10 0 10



V / /


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-


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


\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:



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


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


U ~~ r-l0. .= -=

V v v \...... ~

5 10 15

TIME (sec)


-------.... --"'--......, ,..---'

-40 -20 o 20



~ ,

l/" ~

~ .-


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


!\ \ \ r-.. {\ ,--... f"I r"

lr.. ( 'J V \.r-J'f V \....-.J

5 10 15

TIME (sec)


~ ~ v~

-- 11

III '.:::::;?'-...----~

,./

-50 o 50



rt>

~ ~

~ ~

~ ,....

P'


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


(\

\ f'--... ~

n f\ f\ \ 1\ f \ I \ 11 '-JV I \rJ '-J } 11\ \..J \ /

rv V V

5 10 15

TIME (sec)


~ V

""" r- J

II 1 111 Lb ~~

-50 o 50



~ ,

~ ~ III"'"


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


(\ 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)


/\

'-

-50 o 50



L ~ £ ~

~ ,....

-5 o 5


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


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)


/)

...-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"""



~-


---

Figure A·IS Japanese Level 2 G.C.3 90% (FPSAR40)

A-16

30

100

10

E .s 60 I-

m 40 ~ w 20 () ~


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)


--- /' \

r- "\.;" v )

II U ~ ~ ~L '--

-40 -20 o 20 40



~

~ ,

A

/ -5 o 5


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


~~ ,-- M'Y

,-- '-. I~ n I

: I 11 ~ -

sa -60 -40 -20 0 20 40

lI


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


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


II f\ ~ ~JL, r- .......---.

1lJ' ./ VVV \ ( ) L.· V

v

5 10 15

TIME (sec)


--v _ =r

~ I :,s:.. V

,. :""'-



~

~

~ ~ IJIIIII""


_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


=-- r J! I'-~

~

~J ~-rtJlr1 u u

5 10 15

TIME (sec)


./" "'" t?" f' "'" ~if ::-.. r.

.J, ~ \" v

-10 0 10



V' ~ V

-5 o 5


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:


n I\A / 11\ /\ /\ / \ I/V\ n

I J 'vV\/V \r \ JV .~~ I~ I .I v v V

5 10 15

TIME (sec)


..--.

I '?:::: ;;>0' -



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


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-


~ 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



V ~ /


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


""

-40

\ ~,."

~ ~

10

.rt~ V

~

20

TIME (sec)

J"\n "'-'\f ""V\J

30


.r I -20 o 20



~ ~ V

~ ~ ~


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


n I rJ 1 h

-, "Ir'-'lf Iri

I

10 15 20

TIME {sec}


f'r/ fe>- ~I'J- :-""\

U 1'1.. V./ ). ,/ ~ \

-10 o 10



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


1\

r ~ 1\ 1\ JI!1 ~ "l '-" v

tA

V

I I I

5 10 15 20 25 30

TIME (sec)


~

I I I

I--

I

-40 -20 0 20 40 60 SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)


..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


A

A 1\ v-v vv

10 20 30 40

TIME (sec)


------=--- I~ .-::; -~ =---

o 50



~ ~ /

~ jPP~


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


n

1\ n I"'u L~

-

5 10 15

TIME (sec)




./'/

A# ~

7 ~ ~ ~


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


,rVl :v

U

5 10 15 20 TIME (sec)


-----'r ,.-- y I :1

~ -

·-40 -20 0 20 40 60



~ V , /"

~ ~

~ 0 5 10


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


AIh {VI, M n [llt

\...--"'"

·ll V" ~ ww-VV'~ v-- '-.r ~ V

I I I

5 10 15 20 25 TIME (sec)


I """'"

~ V ;;;>o-~

-40 -20 o 20 40 SW BEARING DISPLACEMENT (mm)


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


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


A .f1 nl v-",

lr-i v ~'v~ r~"V v

I

5 I

10 15 20 TIME (sec)


(

.iI .B\\Ll ~

'---



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


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

nceer.:faisei corporation research program on sliding

Documents