ANALYSIS OF BRIDGE

Vidyaskandan S
OBJECTIVE
 Describe basic classification of bridges based on behaviour &
load transfer mechanism

 Provide better understanding about the loads coming on the

bridge structure

 Elucidate the simplified procedures involved in the analysis

of slab-beam bridge

 Elaborate, how sophisticated computer software are useful in

modeling and analysing bridge structure
THE BRIDGE
 There's no doubt you've seen a bridge
 It's almost as likely that you've traveled over one
 If you've ever laid a plank or log down over a stream to
keep from getting wet, you've even constructed a bridge
 Bridges are truly ubiquitous -- a natural part of everyday
life
 Controlling feature - Size of the obstacle i.e. How far is
it from one side to the other?
DEFINITION

“A Bridge is a structure providing passage over an

obstacle without closing the way beneath”

 The required passage may be for a road, a railway,

pedestrians, a canal or a pipeline.

 The obstacle to be crossed may be a river, a road, railway or a

valley
“Of all the inventions, the alphabets and the printing press alone
excepted, those inventions which abridge distance have done the
most for the civilization of our species”

- Thomas B.
Macaulay
TYPES OF BRIDGES

 Major types of bridges –

 Beam Bridge

 Arch Bridge

 Suspension Bridge
CHOICE OF BRIDGE

Major factors influencing the choice of bridge type

 Type of traffic
 Navigation Clearance
 Climatic & Environmental conditions
 Surrounding scenery
 Topographic & Soil conditions
 Economy
COMPONENTS OF A BRIDGE
LOADS FOR ANALYSIS
TYPES OF LOADS
 Dead load
 Live load
 Snow load
 Impact load due to vehicles
 Wind load
 Longitudinal forces
 Centrifugal forces
 Water current forces
 Buoyancy
 Earth pressure
 Temperature effects
 Deformation effects
 Secondary effects
 Erection stresses
 Seismic forces
 Dead load
 Aggregate weight of all structural elements
 Including deck, wearing coat, railings, parapets, stiffeners &
utilities
 Unit weights of materials as specified in IRC 6-2000

 Vehicle live load

 Load that moves along the length of the span
 Hypothetical loadings, reasonably realistic evolved by IRC
 Categorization based on configuration & intensity
 4 types of standard loading for road bridges
i. IRC Class AA loading

 Treated as heavy loading

 Bridges in industrial areas and highways
2 cases to be considered
Tracked vehicle - 700 kN
Wheeled vehicle - 400 kN
 Nose to tail spacing between 2 successive vehicles shall not
be less than 90m
 For multi-lanes, severer of these 2 shall be considered for
every two-lane width
 Structure to be checked for Class A loading also
IRC Class AA loading
i. IRC Class AA loading (contd..)

 Spacing between vehicles measured

 from rear-most point of ground contact of the leading vehicle to the
forward-most point of ground contact of the following vehicle in
case of tracked vehicles
 from centre of the rear-most wheel of the leading vehicle to the
centre of the first axle of the following vehicle in case of wheeled
vehicles

 No other live load shall be considered on any part of the lanes

carriageway when the Class AA train of vehicles is on the
bridge.
i. IRC Class 70R loading

 Treated as heavy loading

 Used for rating of existing bridges
2 cases to be considered
Tracked vehicle - 700 kN
Wheeled vehicle - 1000 kN
 Nose to tail spacing between 2 successive vehicles shall not be less
than 30m
 Bridge components are to be checked for the effect due to bogie
loading of 400 kN
IRC Class 70R loading
i. IRC Class A loading

 Wheel load trains composed of a driving vehicle and trailers

of specified axle spacing & loads
 Normally adopted on all roads on which permanent bridges
and culverts are constructed
 Nose to tail spacing between 2 successive trains shall not be
less than 18.5m
 No other live load shall be considered on any part of the
carriageway when the Class A trains of vehicles are on the
bridge
i. IRC Class B loading

 Similar to Class A loading but with smaller axle loads

 Normally adopted on all roads on which permanent bridges
and culverts are constructed

 Alignment of live loads

 Aligned parallel to the length of the bridge

 Arranged in such a manner as to produce the severest
bending moment or shear at any section considered
IRC Class A & B loading
 Impact effect
 Stresses due to live loads would be greater than the stationary vehicle
loads
 To account for the increase in stresses due to dynamic action and still
proceed with statistical analysis.
 Largely depends on weight of the vehicle, its velocity and surface
characteristics of the road
 Expressed as a fraction or percentage of the applied live load
For IRC Class A or B loading,

A
If 
BL

where If = impact factor fraction

A = 4.5 for RC bridge & 9.0 for steel bridge
B = 6.0 for RC bridge & 13.5 for steel bridge
L = span in m
Fig 1 - Impact percentage curve for Class A & B
loadings
 Impact effect (contd..)
For IRC Class AA or 70R loading,
For spans less than 9m
a) For tracked vehicle -- 25% for spans up to 5m linearly reducing to
10% for spans of 9m

b) For wheeled vehicle -- 25%

For spans of 9m & above

a) For tracked vehicle -- For RC bridges, up to 40m >> 10%
above 40m >> as per graph in Fig 1

For steel bridges, 10% for all spans

b) For wheeled vehicle -- For RC bridges, up to 12m >> 25%

above 12m >> as per graph in Fig 1

For steel bridges, up to 23m >> 25%

above 23m >> as per graph in Fig 1
 Wind load
 Acting horizontally in a direction causing maximum stresses
 Values recommended in IRC shall be used.
 The variation along height will be non-linear
 Contributing area shall be –
 For deck structure, the area seen in elevation including the floor system
and railings, less area of perforations
 For through or half-through structure, area of the elevation of the wind
truss, plus half the area of elevation above the deck level of all other
trusses or girders
 Total assumed force shall not be less than 4.5 kN per linear metre
in the plane of the loaded chord
Wind Velocities & Wind Pressures
 Longitudinal forces
• Tractive effort through acceleration of driving wheels

• Braking effect due to wheel brakes –

 Single lane or two lane:

20% of 1st train load + 10% of succeeding trains

 Multi-lane:

Same as in two lanes + 5% of loads on the lane in excess of two

• Frictional resistance offered by bearing due to temperature change or any

other causes
• No impact allowance is included for this computation

• Force at fixed bearings shall be the algebraic sum of longi. Forces at the
free bearings and force due to breaking effect.
 Centrifugal forces
• Due to movement of vehicles on curves

• Centrifugal force is given by the equation –

WV 2
C
12.7 R
where C = centrifugal force in kN or kN/m
W = live load in kN or kN/m
V = design speed in kmph
R = radius of curvature in m
• Acts at a ht of 1.2m above the level of carriage way

• No increase is done for impact effect

 Horizontal forces due to water currents
• For the portion of the bridge structure submerged in running water.

• Intensity of pressure on piers parallel to the direction of running water is

given by,

V 2 
P  KW  
 2g 
where P = intensity of pressure in kN/m2 due to water current
W = unit weight of water
V = velocity of the water current in m/sec at that point
g = acceleration due to gravity in m/sec 2
K = constant – 1.5 for sq. piers, 0.66 for circular

• Velocity components shall be used for currents having oblique approach

towards the piers
 Buoyancy effect
• Wherever submersion in water of a part or whole of the structure is possible
• Submerged part of substructure and foundations in case of high level bridges
• Full buoyancy is allowed for foundations in sand
• Suitable proportions assumed in case of foundations in soils other than sand
 Temperature effect
• Thermal forces are caused by fluctuations in temperature
• Vulnerable portions are bearings and deck joints
• Temperature stresses are tensile in nature
• Rise & fall in temperature shall be determined from meteorological
meteorologica records
• Reinforcement shall be provided to abate this which is laid perpendicular to the
main reinforcement
 Earth pressure
• Earth pressure shall be considered for structures retaining earthfills

• Coulomb’s
Coulomb theory is acceptable
• Centre of pressure acts at 0.42h instead of usual 0.33h

• The thrust P according to Coulomb’s theory is expressed as,

 
 
1 2 csc  sin(   ) 
P  wh
2  sin(  z ) sin(   ) 
 sin(  z )  
 sin(   ) 
• Spangler’s equation shall be used to determine its effect for bridge
abutment as prescribed in IRC standards
where P = total active pressure acting at 0.42h
w = unit weight of earthfill
h = height of wall
θ = angle subtended by the earthside wall with the horizontal
on the earthside
Φ = angle of internal friction of the earthfill
z = angle of friction of the earthside wall with the earth
δ = inclination of the earthfill surface with the horizontal
 Deformation stresses
• Deformation stresses considered only for steel bridges

• Defined as the bending stress in any member of a open-web girder caused

by the vertical deflection of the girder combined with the rigidity of the
joints
• Design & erection of steel bridges are so arrange as to keep the
deformation stresses to a minimum
• In the absence of detailed computations, it shall be assumed to be not less
than 16% of the dead and live load stresses

 Erection stresses
• Erection stresses are induced in the structural members during erection

• Due to construction equipment

• The stresses may not be present during the actual service of the structure
 Secondary stresses
• In steel bridges –
Eccentricity of connections
Floor beam loads at intermediate points in the panel
Cross girder connected away from panel points
Movement of supports

• In RCC bridges –
Deformation in the geometrical shape of the structure

Restrictive shrinkage of concrete floor beams

Movement of supports
 Seismic forces
• Force depends on geographical location of the bridge
• Force is defined as a function of
Dead load of the structure
Ground motion
Period of vibration
Nature of soil

• Horizontal force is given by

F   hW
where F = horizontal force owing to
earthquake
αh = seismic coefficient for the region
W = weight of the dead and live loads
 Forces for Railway bridges
 Standard loadings formed by Indian Railway Standards laid down
by the Ministry of Railways, Govt. of India
 Standard axle & train loads comprise of
 Modified BG loading, branch line
 Modified MG loading, main line, branch line & standard C
 Dynamic effect is considered by adding a load equivalent to a
Coefficient of Dynamic Augment (CDA) multiplied by the live load
Typical pattern of MBG & MMG loadings
 Torsion
 Resonance
 Prestressing force
Load Combinations & Permissible stresses (IRC 6)
ANALYSIS METHODS
Components of T-beam bridge
METHODS OF ANALYSIS
 Five methods to analyse deck slab –

Effective width method

Westergaards method
Pigeaud’s coefficient method
Rankine-Grashoff method
Diagonals method
 Three methods to analyse Longitudinal Girders –

Guyon – Massonnet method

Hendry – Jaegar method
Caurbon’s method
Rankine-Grashoff method
 It is an approximate method
 In Rankine-Grashoff method ,the slab is divided into no. of strips
 Determines load distribution on the basis that the deflection at the
point of crossing of two strips are equal
Diagonals method
 It is an approximate method
 Itassumes that the diagonals of the slab approx. define the critical
section
Westergaards method
 Recommends moment coefficient
 Forms the basic part of ACI code
 Not used in India
Effective width method

 Applicable when one way action prevails

 Certain width of the slab participates in taking the load called
effective width
 Extend of effective width depends on
Location of wheel load with reference to supports
Dimensions of the slab
 Uniformly distributed load,

Concentrated wheel load

w =
Dispersion length x Effective width
Load dispersion on slab
 Effective width for slab supported on Two edges is

 x
bef  x1    b1
 l

where bef = width of the slab over which the load is effective
l = effective span of the simply supported slab
(clear span in case of continuous slab)
x = distance of the c.g. of the concentrated load
from the nearest support
α = a constant having values depending on B/l
value
b1 = width of dispersion area of the wheel load on
the slab through the wearing coat (w+2h), h being the
thickness of the wearing coat
Dispersion profile
Values of α for slabs (IRC 21)
Pigeaud’s coefficient method

 Applicable when slabs are supported along 4 edges with restrained

corners and loads placed symmetrically.
 Values of moment coefficients m1 (for shorter span) and m2 (for long
span) are given by Pigeaud’s curves
 Moment coefficients vary for w.r.t K = B/L, ratios U/B and V/L

V = l + 2t ---- along long span

U = b + 2t ---- along short span
Dispersion dimensions of wheel contact on the slab
Moment Coefficients m1 and m2 for K = 0.4
Moment Coefficients m1 and m2 for K = 0.5
Moment Coefficients m1 and m2 for K = 0.6
Moment Coefficients m1 and m2 for K = 0.7
Moment Coefficients m1 and m2 for K = 0.8
Moment Coefficients m1 and m2 for K = 0.9
Moment Coefficients m1 and m2 for K = 1.0
Pigeaud’s coefficient method (contd..)

 Bending moments in the slabs are calculated form the

relation

Short span BM, Mb = W(m1 + 0.15m2)

Long span BM, Ml = W(m2 + 0.15m1)
Pigeaud’s coefficient method (contd..)

 Limitations in this method

Loads placed at the centre can be considered. When number of wheel

loads occur on a single slab panel, some approximation will have to be
used while considering non-central loads

For small V/L ratios, reading m1 and m2 from the curves becomes less
accurate. Most useful when K > 0.55
Analysis of longitudinal Girders

 Courbon’s method
 Reaction of cross beam on any girder is computer assuming linear
variation of deflection in the transverse direction

Deflection of girders owing to an eccentric load

Analysis of longitudinal Girders (contd..)
Analysis of longitudinal Girders (contd..)

 Hendry – Jaegar method

Variables affecting the behaviour of girder bridges are

Variables relating to mechanical properties of materials (modulus of

rigidity & elasticity)
Variable relating to geometry of the bridge (flexural stiffness &
torsional stiffness)
Variable relating to loading ( longitudinal position of the load, number
of wheel loads and their position on the bridge)
Analysis of longitudinal Girders (contd..)
Analysis of longitudinal Girders (contd..)
 Guyon-Massonnet method

Application of orthotropic plate theory to concrete bridges

Structural properties of the deck under analysis are defined in terms of some special
parameters (θ & α)
0.25
b i G (i0  j0 )
   
2a  j  2 E ij

where i = longitudinal second moment of area of the equivalent

deck/unit width = I/p
I= second moment of area of the longitudinal girder
p= spacing of longitudinal girders
j = transverse second moment of area of the equivalent deck/unit
width
I= second moment of area of cross beam
q= spacing of cross beams
E= Young’s modulus of the deck material
G= modulus of rigidity of the deck material
i0,j0 = longitudinal & torsional stiffness/unit length respectively
Analysis of longitudinal Girders (contd..)

Actual deflection at each of these nine stations are given by distribution

coefficients K

Distribution coefficients for deflections are applied for longitudinal

bending moments and therefore to longitudinal bending stresses
 GRILLAGE ANALYSIS
 Representation of deck by an equivalent grillage of beams
 Slab’s longitudinal stiffnesses are concentrated in the longitudinal beams while
the transverse stiffnesses are concentrates in the transverse beams

Deflection

Moments
Resultant Stresses on the
cross section of the slab
the beam represents
Shear force

Torsion
Prototype deck and equivalent grillage
 GRILLAGE ANALYSIS (Contd..)
 Edge grillage shall be close to the resultant of the vertical shear flows at
the edge of the deck (0.3d)
0.3d
 Total no. of longitudinal members shall be from 1 to 20 or so depending
on the width of the deck
 Spacing shall be 2 to 3 times the depth of the slab
 Transverse members shall be placed at spacing less than 1/4th of the
effective span
 Closer spacing shall be followed in the place of sudden changes line
internal supports
 Point load represents loads distributed over the width represented by the
member
Grillage meshes at internal supports
Grillage of solid slab deck section & plan
SUBSTRUCTURE ANALYSIS
 PIER
 Stresses on Piers due to

 Dead load and self weight – Reaction

 Effect of buoyancy – Submerged volume of pier
 Eccentricity of live load – Position of loads
 Longitudinal forces – % live loads,
Friction coeff. of bearings
 Wind load – Contributing area
 Water current – 20° oblique
 BEARINGS
 Classification of bearings
 Expansion bearings
Sliding plate bearing
Sliding cum rocker bearing
RC rocker expansion bearing
Elastomeric bearing
 Fixed bearings
Rocker bearing
Steel hinge
Steel rocker bearing
RC rocker fixed bearing
 Standard sizes and properties prescribed in IRC 83
 FOUNDATIONS
 Demands knowledge of hydraulics, soil mechanics & structural
analysis
 Loads, Forces, Stability & stresses prescribed in IRC 78
 Reactions obtained from external forces mentioned above shall be
used
 Type of bridge foundations
 Shallow foundation
 Deep foundation
Pile foundation
Caisson foundation
CASE STUDY
BRIDGE DESCRIPTION

Type : Elevated Highway bridge

Location : Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi

KEY PLAN OF LAJPAT NAGAR BRIDGE
6 lane flyover covering 3 junctions along with pedestrian subway facilities

Superstructure consists of 2 independent carriageways of pre-cast segmental box

girder,
girder continuous over 4 spans.
Total length of the bridge 824m

Horizontal layout
Straight profile of 527m.
527m
Curved profile of 297m with radius of the arc 206m.

Total number of piers is 19 with pile foundation.

Maximum elevation is 8.5m from G.L.

MODELING OF SUBSTRUCTURE
&
SUPERSTRUCTURE
The bridge structure has been modelled in SAP2000,
SAP2000 a FEA
computer program.

Each pier has been divided into small segments and modeled
as rectangular cross section having equivalent average
segment area.
area

Deck section follows a parabolic profile at the bottom and

hence it is modeled as approximately equivalent trapezoidal
deck section
Actual cross section provided

Equivalent SAP2000 model

Properties Actual Modeled

Ix 3.333m4 3.323m4

Iy 31.424m4 32.662m4

rx 0.76m 0.79m

ry 2.334m 2.56m

A 5.767m2 5.31m2

Cy 1.537m 1.579

Cx 4.877m 4.815m
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Abutments roller supports in the longitudinal

direction, free to rotate about all axes, but restrained
against vertical translation.

The bearings are not allowed to translate in the

vertical direction

Pier base restrained against translation and

rotation in all the directions (fixed support).
support
MATERIAL PROPERTIES

Piers have been defined with M45 grade concrete

having Elastic Modulus 3.35 x 107 kN/m2.

M50 grade concrete has been used for decks with an

Elastic Modulus 3.53 x 107 kN/m2.
X-Y Plane
X-Z Plane
Y-Z Plane
Extruded view of piers
TYPES OF BEARINGS MODELED

POT cum PTFE (Poly Tetra Fluoro Ethylene)

sliding bearing

Laminated Rubber Isolator (LRB)

LRB

Lead Rubber Isolator (N-Z)

N-Z
POT / PTFE BEARING
 ub Schematic diagram of Pure
Friction sliding bearing

üg

Fb

xb
Ideal Force Deformation Plot of
sliding type bearing
 RUBBER BEARINGS

Section View of
LRB system

kb

ub Schematic diagram of
LRB system

cb

üg
 Section View of N-Z
system

ub Schematic diagram of
N-Z system
cb

üg
Ideal Force-Deformation Plot Of Rubber Isolators
FREE VIBRATION ANALYSIS
The fundamental Natural Period of the bridge with

Pot/PTFE bearing = 2.96 sec.

LRB system = 5.42 sec.

N-Z system = 4.78 sec.

N
Z

S
Y
S
T
E
M
SEISMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS
The earthquake motions selected for the present study are

1940 El Centro Earthquake recorded at Imperial Valley

El Centro Array

1995 Kobe earthquake recorded at KJMA

1989 Loma Prieta earthquake recorded at Gilroy Array #3

1994 Northridge earthquake recorded at Beverly Hills

2001 Bhuj Earthquake recorded at Ahmedabad

SEISMIC RESPONSE
Displacement Time History.

Base Shear Time History.

Input Energy Time History.

Time History of Energy Dissipated.

Dissipated

Force – Displacement Hysteresis Plot

Bearing Displacement Trajectory

Acceleration & Displacement Spectra

RESULTS AND
CONCLUSIONS
 8000

6000

4000
Total Base Shear (kN)

2000
Base Shear
Time History
0

-2000

-4000

-6000
PTFE LRB N-Z
-8000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Time (sec) El Centro

8000 4000

6000 3000
4000
2000
Total Base Shear (kN)

2000

Total Base Shear (kN)

0 1000
-2000
0
-4000
-6000 -1000

-8000
-2000
-10000 PTFE LRB N-Z
PTFE LRB N-Z -3000
-12000
-14000 -4000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Time (sec) Kobe Time (sec)

Loma Prieta
 Total Base Shear (kN)

Earthquake Ground Motion

Bearing
Type El Loma
Kobe Northridge Bhuj
Centro Prieta

Pot / PTFE 5984 11707 3331 751 4354

LRB 2941 3646 1515 443 894

N-Z 2985 4631 1636 555 1046

 200

150
Displacement at Pier Head 11 (mm)

100

50
Displacement
0

-50
Time History
-100

-150

-200 PTFE LRB N-Z

-250
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Time (sec) El Centro

300
Displacement at Pier Head 11 (mm)

200

100

-100

-200

-300
PTFE LRB N-Z
-400
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Time (sec) Kobe Loma Prieta

 Maximum Displacement (mm)

Earthquake Ground Motion

Bearing
Type El Loma
Kobe Northridge Bhuj
Centro Prieta

Pot / PTFE 129 253 74 16 93

LRB 221 267 118 29 64

N-Z 175 285 94 33 56

 PTFE
300
Deck Displacement(mm)

250
Absolute Maximum

200

150

100

50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Pier Number
El-Centro Kobe Loma Prieta Northridge Bhuj
 LRB
300
250
Deck Displacement(mm)
Absolute Maximum

200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Pier Number

El-Centro Kobe Loma Prieta Northridge Bhuj

 N-Z
Deck Displacement(mm) 350
300
Absolute Maximum

250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Pier Number
El-Centro Kobe Loma Prieta Northridge Bhuj
 PTFE
40

30
Bearing Shear Force (kN)

Bearing Hysteresis
20

10

0 under El Centro EQ
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
-10

-20

-30

-40
Bearing Displacement (mm)

LRB N-Z
80 150

60
100
40
Isolator Shear Force (kN)

Isolator Shear Force (kN)

20 50

0
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
0
-20 -200 -100 0 100 200
-40 -50

-60
-100
-80

-100
-150
Isolator Displacement (mm) Isolator Displacement (mm)
 PTFE
40

30
Bearing Shear Force (kN)

20

10 Bearing Hysteresis
-200 -100
0
0 100 200 300
under Kobe EQ
-10

-20

-30

-40
Bearing Displacement (mm)

N-Z
LRB 150
100
80 100

Isolator Shear Force (kN)

60
Isolator Shear Force (kN)

40 50

20
0 0
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300
-300 -200 -100 -20 0 100 200 300
-50
-40
-60 -100
-80
-100 -150
Isolator Displacement (mm) Isolator Displacement (mm)
 PTFE
40

30
Bearing Shear Force (kN)

20

10 Bearing Hysteresis
0 under Loma Prieta EQ
-100 -50 0 50 100
-10

-20

-30

-40
Bearing Displacement (mm)

LRB N-Z
60 80

60
40
Isolator Shear Force (kN)

Isolator Shear Force (kN)

40
20
20

0 0
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100
-20
-20
-40
-40
-60

-60 -80
Isolator Displacement (mm) Isolator Displacement (mm)
The Hysteresis pattern exactly match with the corresponding Ideal
Force - Deformation plots

These plots indicate the mode of energy dissipation during the

ground motion.

Sliding Friction - PTFE bearing

Shear Deformation - Rubber bearings
 2.00
Spectral Acceleration (g)

PTFE

1.50

1.00 Acceleration
0.50 Spectra
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time Period (sec)

Bhuj El-Centro Kobe Loma Northridge

1.20 1.6
LRB N-Z
Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.00

Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.2
0.80

0.60 0.8

0.40
0.4
0.20

0.00 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Time Period (sec) Time Period (sec)

Bhuj El-Centro Kobe Loma Northridge Bhuj El-Centro Kobe Loma Northridge
 25
Spectral Displacement(mm)
PTFE
20

15

10
Displacement
5 Spectra
0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time Period (sec)

Bhuj El-Centro Kobe Loma Northridge

35 35
LRB
N-Z
30 30

Spectral Displacement (mm)

Spectral Displacement(mm)

25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10

5 5

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Time Period (sec) Time Period (sec)

Bhuj El-Centro Kobe Loma Northridge Bhuj El-Centro Kobe Loma Northridge
 150
El Centro

100
Transverse Displacement (mm)

Displacement Trajectory
50

0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
of PTFE Bearing
-50

-100

-150

Longitudinal Displacement (mm)

300 100
Kobe Loma Prieta
250 80

60
200

Transverse Displacement (mm)

Transverse Displacement (mm)

40
150
20
100
0
50 -2 -1 0 1 2
-20
0
-40
-7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7
-50 -60

-100 -80

-150 -100

Longitudinal Displacement (mm) Longitudinal Displacement (mm)

 200
El Centro
150

100
Transverse Displacement (mm)
50

-3.5 -2.5 -1.5 -0.5

0
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5
Displacement Trajectory
-50

-100 of LRB System

-150

-200

-250

Longitudinal Displacement (mm)

300 150
Kobe Loma Prieta

200 100
Transverse Displacement (mm)

Transverse Displacement (mm)

100 50

0 0
-13 -8 -3 2 7 12 -2 -1 0 1 2

-100 -50

-200
-100

-300
-150
Longitudinal Displacement (mm)
Longitudinal Displacement (mm)
 200
El Centro
150

Transverse Displacement (mm)

100

Displacement Trajectory
50

of N-Z System
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-50

-100

-150

-200

Longitudinal Displacement (mm)

300 100
Kobe Loma Prieta
80
200
60
Transverse Displacement (mm)

Transverse Displacement (mm)

100
40

20
0
-9 -4 1 6
0
-100 -2 -1 0 1 2
-20

-200 -40

-60
-300
-80

-400 -100

Longitudinal Displacement (mm) Longitudinal Displacement (mm)

For all the earthquake ground motions, the Rubber bearings are
effective in reducing the Base Shear at the same time increasing the
Deck Displacement there by dissipating considerable energy.

Maximum displacements are experienced when the bridge structure is

subjected to Kobe earthquake ground motion the value being 285mm.
285mm

Due to the presence of Lead core there was a marginal decrease in the
displacement in case of N-Z system when compared with that of LRB
system.
Seismic Base Isolation using Rubber bearings was very effective.
effective

Noticed that how contemporary software packages are handy in

modeling the base isolated structure.

Hence for every structure, different alternatives are to be looked in

to, opt finally which results in the best response reduction.

If there exist any other site-specific constraints on the maximum

allowable displacements at the bridge site, then supplimental
damping devices may be used to limit the excessively large
displacements at isolation level.
BRIDGES ACROSS THE WORLD
Pont du Gard, France
The Khaju Bridge, Iran
The Bridge of Sighs
The Iron Bridge, England
Ponte Vecchio, Italy
Chengyang Bridge, China
The Brooklyn Bridge, New York
Tower Bridge, London
Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco
The Millau Viaduct, Connecting Paris & Barcelona
Chesapeake Bay Bridge, Maryland
Pont Gustave Flaubert, France
Leonard P. Zakim Bridge, Massachusetts
Sydney Harbour Bridge, Australia
Sunshine Skyway Bridge,Florida
Grand Canyon sky walk
Howrah Bridge, Kolkata
Pamban Bridge, Rameswaram
REFERENCES
“BRIDGE DECK BEHAVIOUR” by E.C. Hambly

“ESSENTIALS OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING”

ENGINEERING by D. Johnson Victor

IRC Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges

“DESIGN OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES”

STRUCTURES by T.R. Jagadeesh and M.A Jayaram

R.S. Jangid, “SEISMIC RESPONSE OF ISOLATED BRIDGES”

BRIDGES Journal of Bridge
Engineering, ASCE, March 2004, p156-166.

Vasant A. Matsagar and R. S. Jangid, “SEISMIC RESPONSE OF SIMPLY

SUPPORTED BASE-ISOLATED BRIDGE WITH DIFFERENT ISOLATORS”, ISOLATORS
International Journal of Applied Science and Engineering 2006. 4, 1: 53-69.

‘‘Response History Analysis of Structures with Seismic Isolation and Energy Dissipation
Systems: Verification Examples for Program SAP2000’’,
SAP2000 J. Scheller, M. Constantinou,
MCEER-99-0002, Feb, 1999.