4.5 Article

Seismic Response of Isolated Bridges

期刊

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 156-166

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2004)9:2(156)

关键词

Bridges; Earthquakes; Interactions; Lead; Seismic isolation; Parameters; Elastomer; Bearings

资金

  1. Department of Sciences and Technology, India, through SERC [SR/FTP/ET-107/2001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The seismic response of bridges seismically isolated by lead-rubber bearings (L-RB) to bidirectional earthquake excitation (i.e., two horizontal components) is presented in this paper. The force-deformation behavior of L-RB is considered as bilinear, and the interaction between the restoring forces in two orthogonal horizontal directions is duly considered in the response analysis. The specific purpose of the study is to assess the effects of seismic isolation on the peak response of the bridges, and to investigate the effects of the bidirectional interaction of restoring forces of isolation bearings. The seismic response of the lumped mass model of continuous span isolated bridges is obtained by solving the governing equations of motion in the incremental form using an iterative step-by-step method. To study the effectiveness of L-RB, the seismic response of isolated bridges is compared with the response of corresponding nonisolated bridges (i.e., bridges without isolation devices). A comparison of the response of the isolated bridges obtained by considering and ignoring the bidirectional interaction of bearing forces is made under important parametric variation. The important parameters included are the flexibility of the bridge piers and the stiffness and yield strength of the L-RB. The results show that the bidirectional interaction of the restoring forces of the L-RB has considerable effects on the seismic response of the isolated bridges. If these interaction effects are ignored, then the peak bearing displacements are underestimated, which can be crucial from the design point of view.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据