2

This article was downloaded by: [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zrich]
On: 24 September 2013, At: 10:05

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Earthquake Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF ISOLATION SYSTEMS FOR

BRIDGE STRUCTURES
a a
GIAN MICHELE CALVI & ALBERTO PAVESE
a
Dipartimento di Meccanica Strutturale, Universit degli Studi di Pavia, via Ferrata 1, Pavia,
27100, Italy
Published online: 21 May 2007.
To cite this article: GIAN MICHELE CALVI & ALBERTO PAVESE (1997) CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF ISOLATION SYSTEMS FOR BRIDGE
STRUCTURES, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 1:1, 193-218, DOI: 10.1080/13632469708962366
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632469708962366
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Earthquake Engineering Vol. 1, No. 1 (1997) 193-218
@ Imperial College Press
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF ISOLATION SYSTEMS FOR

BRIDGE STRUCTURES
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zrich] at 10:05 24 September 2013
GIAN MICHELE CALVI and A L B E R T 0 PAVESE

Univer~itcidegli Studi di Pavia, Diportimento d i Meccanica Struttumle,
via Fewato 1, Pouia, 27100, Italy
Received 25 July 1996

Revised 28 July 1996
Accepted 23 September 1996
In the first part of this paper the objectives of an isolation system for a bridge structure
are discussed, in relation to modelling options and modification of the traditional capacity
design principles. A displacement-based design approach is then presented, using a linear
equivalent single degree-of-freedom model. The preliminary design of an isolation system
for existing bridges is based on the definition of a "structure regularity" which allows the
estimation of whether the response of the real structufe will be similar t o that predicted
in the preliminary design phase. The efficiency of the approach is shown in designing
the isolation system for a highly irregular bridge.
Keywords: bridge, isolation, displacement-based design, regularity
1. Introduction
It is believed that several hundred isolated bridges exist in the world, but very
few codes of practice and design documents have been published on the topic [Au-
tostrade, 1991; EC8-2, 1994; Japan Min., 19941. Several devices have been designed
and successfully tested, but effective design methods have yet t o be developed. A
sound base on which to relate the safety level and device features also need further
studies. It is therefore true that in this field, practice and technology went further
than research'and codes. The limited experience on response during severe earth-
quakes is certainly contributing to this dichotomy, even if there is a good capacity
of simulating the non-linear response of isolated structures and a high and reliable
technological production level. On the other hand, broad probabiIistic studies to
estimate the safety level associated with different protection factors and response
parameters have not yet been completed and are an important field of research in
the future.
The problem of designing an isolating system is particularly difficult, and inter-
esting, when dealing with an existing bridge, in which case strength and stiffness of
each pier is given and it is not possible to tailor them to the global desired response.
This paper focuses on the conceptual, preliminary design of an isolation system,
and therefore on the capacity of predicting the expected response of an isolated
bridge based on relatively simple models. The paper is largely based on the research
work done for the preparation of the book [Priestley et al., 19961,but relevant novel
material is presented, particularly on the design of an isolating system for existing
bridges based on the evaluation of a measure of the "regularity" of the structure.
2. Objectives of a n Isolating/Dissipating (I/D) S y s t e m

There are several conditions that, alone or together, may support the idea of
isolating a bridge:
there is a need to avoid brittle failure modes in some pier, and it is difficult or
expensive to strengthen a specific failure mode;
the bridge has stiff piers, with a low period of vibration;
the bridge is highly non-regular, for example, for piers with significantly different
height and therefore a high potential for concentration of ductility demands;
the nature of the expected motion is very well characterised for the given site,
with high dominant frequencies and low energy at large periods of vibration: in
most cases, this means shallow earthquake, near fault and foundation on rock.
Similarly, different objectives may coexist and have different relevance when
conceiving an isolation system:
The capacity design protection of undesired collapse modes has a fundamental
importance when dealing with existing bridges. Limiting the shear force passing
through the isolator a t the top of the pier at a level lower than the weakest
assessed failure mode, the whole soil-foundation-pier system is protected.
A proper selection of the stiffness, and particularly of the strength, of each iso-
lator allows a regularization of the response, with a consequent decrease in the
sensitivity to tnotion characteristics and a protection of the deck against cracking
and the possibility of yielding.
The increase of the energy dissipation capacity, obtained through a stable hys-
teretic response of the isolators, reduces both shear forces and horizontal dis-
placements, thus increasing the effective equivalent damping.
Since the only elements where a non-linear response is expected are the isolators,
an increased reparability and a better damage control normally results, particu-
larly if repositioning and substitution of the isolating devices is conceived in the
design phase.
A period elongation and a consequent decrease in the effective accelerations re-
sults automatically due to the insertion of additional deformable elements. This
effect should not be pursued per se, because .of the potential implication of
increased displacements.
3. Design a n d Modelling Principles for Isolated Bridges

The design of a bridge provided with I/D devices can be simpler than the design of
a standard bridge, since elastic response of all members (with the obvious exclusion
Conceptual Deaign of Isolation Systems for Bridge Structures 195
FORCE
1
Stiffness Damping
Fig. 1. Substitute structure model [Priestley el al., 19961.
0.00 1.OO 2.00 3.00 4.00

Period (s)
Fig. 2. Acceleration response spectra, with period and damping variations (EC8 (EC8-2, 19941,
soil type B, ground acceleration 0.5 g).
of the isolators) can be assured. On the contrary, it is usually more demanding
in the analysis phase, since a non-linear analysis is to be recommended in most
cases. When designing an isolated bridge the bridge geometry and the pier and deck
sections have usually already been defined, resulting from functional and aesthetic:
requirements and non-seismic load conditions. The piers reinforcement and the
characteristics of the isolating system are therefore the unknown design. When
dealing with the problem of retrofitting an existing bridge the pier reinforcement is
also known and the isolating system becomes the only unknown.
It is easy to recognise that the "force reduction factor approach" (q-factor
approach in Europe), commonly applied to design ordinary bridges, becomes quite
unsatisfactory for the case of isolated bridges. Unfortunately, little effort has been
devoted to develop an dternative design procedure, and it is common to design
isolating system without any rational basis by simply analysing a tentative isolated
bridge and accepting it when the results are satisfactory. Obviously, in this way,
there is no guarantee of an efficient design. Attempts of developing simple models for
designing [Priestley et al., 19961 have been based on the concept of "equivalent struc-
ture [Shibata and Sozeu, 19763, where a linear model representing the real structure
0.00 1 .OO 2.00 3.00 4.00

Period (s)
Fig. 3. Displacement response spectra, with period and damping variations (EC8 [ECS-2, 19941,
soil type B , ground acceleration 0.5 g).
Conceptual Design of Isolation Systems for Bridge Sttuctums 197
is characterised by equivalent stiffness and damping. To this end a secant stiffness to

an equivalent displacement is adopted, together with a viscous damping equivalent
to the damping due to the energy dissipated by the hysteretic response (see Fig. 1).
The response of the real structure and of the substitute model should, in prin-
ciple, be characterised by the same maximum displacement, which is considered to
be a sufficiently accurate measure of the structural damage, and therefore of the
target limit state.
The substitute model will be used to enter acceleration and displacement re-
sponse spectra, using the equivalent period of vibration and the appropriate level
of equivalent viscous damping (Figs. 2 and 3).
4. Capacity Design Principles

To design an isolated bridge, one fundamental capacity design principle will be
applied, i.e. the isolating system will be the only element where a non-linear response
will be permitted. This means to set the yielding strength of each isolator a t a
strength not greater than a fraction of the lowest strength (flexure, shear, footing,
etc.) of the corresponding pier.
More appropriately, it may be assumed that the greater part of the energy
dissipation takes place in the isolating system, and only in extreme cases some
ductility is induced into the piers. When the response of the isolating system shows
some strain hardening, the force corresponding t o the expected displacement, rather
than the yielding force, should be considered in setting the pier design force levels.
The protection factor to be applied obviously depends on the reliability of the
mechanical characteristics of the isolating system; in most cases it is required that
the actual strength of an I/D device does not differ more than 10% from its ideal
strength, and it is therefore appropriate to require the strength of the device at the
expected displacement to be equal to 85% of the design nominal strength of the
pier. The protection factors applied to calculate the design strength will therefore
protect the pier against yielding. Some initial yielding could still take place in
the most external reinforcement because of the bi-linear idealisation of the actual
force-displacement curve, which implies that yielding starts at a significantly lower
force.
When designing a new bridge the capacity design principles usually applied to
avoid undesirable failure modes in the pier and in the foundation system may still
be applied, but considering the force level assured by the isolation system, it will no
longer be necessary to ensure that the column shear strength (for example) exceeds
column flexural strength. Capacity protection factors have to be applied also to the
strength of supports, connections and abutments.
The ultimate displacement capacity to be required of each device will be calcu-
lated by applying a safety factor to the expected maximum displacement obtained
from a preliminary analysis. The value of the safety factor will depend on the
198 C.M. Calvi Ef A. P o u e ~ e
reliability of the expected displacement (i.e. on the reliability of the input motion
and of the method of analysis) and on the consequences of larger-than-expected
displacement demand (i.e. on the properties of the pier and of the isolating system).
For example, if the device shows an increasing strain-hardening at large deformation,
as in the case of some steel damper, a larger-than-expected displacement demand
will result in some ductility demand in the piers. This should not be considered an
undesirable event in the case of an extremely large earthquake, and a significant

safety margin in the ultimate displacement may not be necessary. On the other
hand, for other kinds of devices a larger displacement demand could result in a
local failure that will change the response of the bridge to the remaining part of
the seismic excitation completely. This is obviously not acceptable and will require
larger safety margins.
lZ0 1 Pier
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
- Displacement ductility (components)
-
-
- Pier plastic
-
-
Bearing plastic deformation
-
-
-
-
0 4 8 12 16 20 ' 24 28
Displacement ductility (compqsite)
Fig. 4. Pier response, isolator response and combined response [Priestlby c t al., 19961.
Conceptual Design of Isolation Systems for Bridge Structures 199
Therefore, it is important t o underline that a significant (and possibly increasing

with deformation) strain-hardening is a desirable property of I/D devices that will
favour the exploitation of the structural resources when needed. Unfortunately, the
contribution of the eventual pier ductility to the global ductility of the system could
be significant only if the pier was rather flexible with respect to the isolating system,
and will be negligible for very stiff piers, as shown in Fig. 4. For the case of a pier
approximately 4 times stiffer than the isolator, a pier ductility equal to 4 and an
isolator ductility equal to 6.
5. Application of Displacement-Based Design Approaches
Recently, there has been growing interest in the development of displacement-based

seismic design (DBD) procedures for bridges. Displacement-based design offers the
ability to control explicitly the displacement demand in each member rather than
assigning a single, forcebased behaviour factor to the entire structure.
The fundamental conceptual shift required in switching from a force-based to a
displacement-based design approach has been presented by Kowalski and Priestley
[I9951for the case of a single degree-of-freedom (SDOF) bridge pier structure. In
summary, the required design displacement demand for the structure can be spec-
ified, and the displacement response spectra consulted to determine the required
period of vibration (stiffness) necessary to achieve it, provided that the structure
has been modelled assuming a linear behaviour and a viscous damping equivalent
to the actual non-linear response. In this manner, strength and stiffness become
end-products of the design rather than primary design goals. For simple SDOF
structures, the process outlined has been applied successfully to bridge piers over a
range of possible design parameters. The application of the method to more complex
MDOF structural systems is not necessarily straightforward, and requires some ad-
ditional steps [Calvi and Kingsley, 19951. The development of an equivalent SDOF
representation of a MDOF structure has been suggested to allow SDOF design spec-
tra to be used. This is achieved by imposing a predefined displaced shape on the
structure and establishing the other properties of the equivalent SDOF structure
accordingly.
When designing a new isolated bridge the best choice is to set all the isolators
at the same strength and to compensate the stiffness of each pier with the stiffness
of the corresponding isolator in order to obtain a perfectly regular system, where
the deck would remain almost undeformed during the earthquake. This philosophy
will be applicable to existing bridges as well, but it may imply a significant loss
in strength, since the weakest pier will govern thestrength of all piers. A better
exploitation of piers strength will require more refined non-linear analyses and pos-
sible iterations of the final analysis process. In general, attempts will be made to
obtain a regular structure with a single dominating mode, where the energy dissi-
pation capacity of the isolation system wilI dominate the global equivalent damping
of the structure.
200 G. M. Calvi U A. Pavese
The application of a displacement-based approach to isolated bridges allows the

definition of a set of displacements, one for each foundation-pier-isolation system,
setting aside the problem of defining a single force reduction factor. The criteria
to define the appropriate set of displacements constitute the essence of the design
approach presented in this paper. It is also recognised that the yield strength of
each isolator can be treated as an independent variable, its only requirement being
lower than 85% of the critical strength of the corresponding pier.
6. Modelling and Analysis of Isolated Bridges

Modelling and analysing an isolated bridge requires a somewhat different attitude in
comparison t o that for a non-isolated structure. In particular, a number of connec-
tion elements need to be more carefully considered because of their increased influ-
ence on structural response. These comprise not only the isolating devices, but the
bearing support (if existent) with the appropriate friction forces, any displacement-
limiting device to protect possible failure due to I/D displacement limitation, and
any connection element between different adjacent decks a t movement joints. On
the other hand, if the structure is assumed to be protected through the isolating
system, then there is no need to take into account a non-linear response of the pier
elements, where the reinforcement should not yield (and of course this has t o be
checked at the end of the analysis). It may be more important, however, t o take
into account the pier masses and their own modes of vibration, since the isolation of
the lower frequency modes involving the deck mass may increase the importance of
higher frequency modes due t o the response of the piers done, fixed a t the base and
restrained at the top. The deck can obviously be simulated with linear elements, ,
but again, a more detailed mass distribution and careful consideration of higher
modes of vibration would be appropriate.
The appropriate selection of a model and analysis tool has to be based on the
earthquake level or on the limit state. As an example, consider that a t the design
earthquake level only a moderate penetration into the non-linear range of the isola-
tion system is likely t o be required, while a t the extreme earthquake level the large
displacement demand may imply hardening of the isolation system, or operating of
the stopping system, with a consequent exploitation of the ductility capacity of the
structure [Priestley et al., 19961.
Two specific topics deserve special attention: the known sensitivity of isolated
structures to the characteristics of soil motion, and their potentially high sensitivity
to non-synchronous input. The first problem addresses the recourse to site-specific
studies rather than using standard spectral shapes. On the second topic, a pio-
neering work by Monti et al. [I9951seems to indicate that variability of the motion
does not alter the order of magnitude of the displacements, which however seem to
increase systematically, and particularly a t the piers closer to the bridge ends. The
combination of spatial variability and input frequency content different from that
assumed in the design phase may well result in displacement increase in the order
Conceptual Design of Isolation Systems /or Bridge Structures 201
of 50%. The focus of this paper is on the definition of a simple equivalent structure.
Therefore, there is a need to define an appropriate model for each foundation-pier-
isolator system and then of the bridge as a whole. The first step is the definition of
equivalent stiffness and damping.
6.1. S t i f i e s s evaluation
The purpose of this section is to define a stiffness value globally equivalent to the
variable stiffness of the pier-isolator system. Here, the interaction with soil will be
neglected for simplicity, but the extension to this case is rather obvious.
The effective stiffness of each pier can be taken to be equal to the secant stiffness
to yielding ( K p , ) , the effective stiffness of the isolating system located a t its top
as the secant stiffness to the. expected maximum displacement (KDE). The global
,
effective stiffness of the system is therefore
In some designs, as discussed subsequently, the global pier-bearing stiffness will be

established to optimise response. The effective stiffness of the damper can be then
computed, as a function of global stiffness and pier stiffness, by inverting Eq. (6.1),
obtaining
It should be noted that the effective stiffness of the isolator is not taken a t the
maximum displacement capacity of the isolator, but at the expected displacement
demand. The ratio between the two values, to be assumed in the design phase, will
depend on the type of response of the isolator and on the desired protection.
/'equivalent
/ -" stiffness
displacement
Fig. 5. Qualitative response of the pier-isolator system.

6.2. Damping evaluation
The soil-foundation-pier system is assumed to have a linear elastic response, with
a standard viscous damping ( E p ) equal to, say, 5%. The isolating system could be
characterised by a high viscous damping ( ( ~ v )and by an essentially linear response,
or by an effective damping ( [ D E ) equivalent to the dissipated hysteretic energy. In
the first case, the globaI damping ([G) of the pier-isolator system can be calculated
according to the following relation, which assumes a stiffness proportional damping
[Priestley et al., 19961.

APJP + ADEDV
<G =
AP + A D
In the second case, the effective damping of the isolator should be evaluated as a
function of its hysteretic response and of the expected ductility demand a t
the equivalent displacement. For example, in the case of a response essentially
elastic-perfectly-plastic,the following relation applies:
while a smaller damping corresponds to thinner cycles or more complex non-linear

response pardis and Panagiotakos, 19963. It is often convenient to express the
2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00

Isolator ductility
Fig. 6. Global ductility a s a function of isolator ductility and ratio (r) between ultimate isolator
displacement and elastic structure displacement.
Conceptual Design of Isolation Systems for Bridge Structures 203
hysteretic dissipation capacity of a damper giving the ratio of the area of its typical
cycle to the area of a corresponding elastic-perfectly-plastic cycle, in which case
Eq. (6.4) can be simply factorized with the given value.
The effective global ductility of the pier-isolator system is related to the damper
ductility by the expression (see Fig. 4 and the qualitative response shown in Fig. 5):
Therefore, a flexible pier reduces the equivalent global ductility, and consequently
the global equivalent damping, since the pier displacement does not increase after
the yielding of the isolator, as shown in Fig. 6.
Possible relations between equivalent damping and structure displacement duc-
tility are shown in Fig. 7. It is worth noticing that for large value of ductility there
is little variation on the damping value for each one of the cumes.
O'" 1 EPP = Elastic-Perfectly Plaiic
50% EPP
/---'--
Takeda et al. [I 9701
/'
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.0

Displacement ductility
Fig. 7. Equivalent viscous damping according to different kinds of non-linear response.
7. Design of N e w Bridges Using Isolation S y s t e m s

A procedure to design new bridges using isolation systems has been described
in Priestley et al. [1996], and is summarised in the following. It is important
to observe that the philosophy of this procedure is such that a very different
204 G. M. Calui d A . Pavese
design of the pier reinforcement will result, if compared with the case of standard
non-isolated bridge. Actually the fundamental assumption consists of imposing a
rigid deformation of the deck, obtained by forcing each pier-isolator system t o re-
spond with the same peak force. This implies that taller piers should be capable of
resisting higher bending moments, and will therefore require larger reinforcement
percentage than shorter piers. Clearly, this is exactly the opposite of what usually
happens for non-isolated bridges, where shorter piers are stiffer, tend t o attract
larger forces and therefore require larger reinforcement percentages. On the con-
trary, this is consistent with the standard requirement of a gravity (non-seismic)
design, in which case higher piers normally require larger strength, and therefore
larger reinforcement for the case of similar sections.
The assumption of having a rigid deformation of the deck allows a very good esti-
mation of the expected response, since a SDOF model will be accurate in describing
the structure response.
The design procedure can be described in the following steps:
(i) The accepted maximum displacement (A,) to be expected during the design
earthquake will be decided. This maximum displacement will, in principle,
apply t o all piers and abutments because a theoretically perfectly regular
structure will be designed.
(ii) The yielding displacement of each pier (Ap,) will be calculated from the
following relationship, i.e. integrating the curvature along the column height
and assuming proportionality between moment and curvature:
w h e ~ eq5Py,i is the yield rotation and Hi is the height of the ith pier.
This relationship assumes a single bending moment condition along the
height, and can be easily modified to consider different restraints at the top
or the influence of soil-foundation deformation. The yield rotation may be
.
estimated from the following approximate relations [Priestley et al., 19961:
with C = 2.45 and 15% is the maximum estimated error for circular sections
and with C = 2.14 and 10% maximum error for rectangular sections. These
equations have been essentidly derived from experimental results and take
into account the global pier response, including the effect of steel deformation
outside the critical sections.
(iii) The effective displacement of each isolator will be obtained from the following
equation, which assumes that the force in each isolator at the expected dis-
placement will be 85% of the yield force of each pier, as previously discussed:
Conceptual Design of Isolation S y s t e m s for Bridge Structures 205
(iv) The ductility demand desired for the isolators a t the effective displacement
(pDE) will be decided, by applying an appropriate factor to the isolator duc-
tility capacity, to avoid collapse in the case of an extreme seismic event. The
yield displacement of each device (AD,,;) will be calculated by dividing the
effective displacement by the ductility:
It is often difficult to impose the yield displacement of the isolator to the

manufacturer, who tends to design the devices for a yield strength and a max-
imum displacement capacity. It has to be noted, however, that the structural
response is not very sensitive t o a variation of the yield displacement, i.e. the
initial stiffness of the isolator, provided that the required displacement ca-
pacity is available. Also, for large values of ductility, the equivalent viscous
damping does not vary significantly, as mentioned in relation to Fig. 7.
(v) The effective ductility demand of each foundation-pier-isolator system will be
calculated as:
Ae
pE,i =
ADU,i + Apv,i
(vi) The corresponding effective damping (ti) will be calculated from the appro-
priate form of Eq. (6.4), i.e. considering the appropriate equivalent viscous
damping, either by using a more accurate expression cr a t least factorizing
the equation valid for an elastic-perfectly-plastic response, or alternatively
from the appropriate curve in Fig. 7. In addition to the reduced dissipation
with respect to an elastic-perfectly-plastic response, the probability of several
reduced amplitude cycles during the seismic response should be considered.
This means that extensive parametric studies will be needed to calibrate the
equivalent damping to be used in the preliminary design phase.
(vii) The global effective damping of the structure can be approximately com-
puted from the following equation, which expresses a weighted average of the
different damping ratios (Miis the tributary mass of pier i and Md is the
total mass of the deck). This equation takes into account empirically that
the equivalent yield displacement is shifted from the first yield displacement
according to the ratio of the last yield force to the first yield force, but the
area of the hysteresis loop is also progressively reduced. A better expression
could be derived by using the appropriate force-displacement curves for each
foundation-pier-isolator system coupled in parallel.
(viii) Entering the spectra of Fig. 3 with displacement and damping, the period of
vibration (Tb)and effective acceleration (S,) of the first mode of vibration of
the bridge can be computed.
206 C. M . Calvi & A . Pavcsc
(ix) The equivalent stiffness of the bridge (Kb) will then result from the following
equation:
where Md is the total mass of the deck and the stiffness of each foundation-
pier-isolator system can be calculated assuming proportionality between stiff-
ness and tributary mass:

MiKb
Ki = -
Md
(x) In accordance with the previous discussion of capacity design principles, it
will also be assumed that the yielding force of the damder is equal t o 85%
of the pier strength. The proportionality between displacement and stiffness,
used in conjunction with Eq. (6.1) will then imply the foIlowing relations:
(xi) The design forces for each pier can be obtained by multiplying stiffness by
displacement, and the pier reinforcement will finally be designed in the usual
way.
As already mentioned, the above procedure does not ensure that a consistent
and effective design will result. For example, the stiffness and strength obtained
for the piers could be incompatible with a reasonable reinforcement ratio, or the
effective coupling of the deck could cause a response that is significantly differ-
ent from the expected one. A more refined analysis should therefore be always
performed to check the response of the bridge and some iteration may also be nec-
essary. The outlined design procedure is intended t o serve essentially as a guide to
the way of reasoning and it is aimed a t obtaining a regular structure; where all the
(foundation)-pier-isolator systems should vibrate in phase, with similar periods of
vibration and amplitudes, and stiffness proportional to the tributary masses.
8. Retrofit of Existing Bridges Using Isolation Systems

When the reinforcement of the piers of a bridge is already given, for example, when
it is required t o design the retrofit of a bridge, or when it is desired to keep the
reinforcement obtained from non-seismic constraints, only the I/D system has to
be designed, but it wilI be difficult to obtain a regular response in a similar sense
as that used in the previous design approach. Since the strength of the piers will
be known, the strength of the isolators at design response could be set a t 85% the
strength of the corresponding pier. In this case, it will be impossible to have both
similar stiffness and similar expected displacement for different piers if the strengths
Conceptual Design of Isolation System3 for Bridge Structures 207
are different. A time history analysis to check the design is fundamental in this
case, since the real response could be significantly different from that obtained with
a simplified model, because the coupling effect of the deck could have important
effects. Another possible choice is to design the isolators using the strength of the
weakest pier as a reference. In this case, the design process becomes easier, and the
bridge response more regular, but the global low strength could imply the necessity
of very large damping and low stiffness. In general, a compromise should be pursued
by iterating the design process and verifying the effectiveness of the solution with
the use of a time history analysis.
8.1. Equal (minimum) strength approach

This approach is likely to provide a structure whose actual non-linear response
will be similar to the response predicted in the preliminary design phase. It is
not considered important in simplifying the design, but rather to obtain a reliable
response and therefore a good estimation of the safety of the structure. The cost
to be paid is in providing larger dissipation capacity and/or larger displacement
capacity, since the global strength of the structure win be lowered. The procedure
can be summarised in the following steps:
(i) All the yield forces of the isolators will be set a t the strength level of the weakest
pier, factorizing the forces according to the tributary masses. At the abutments
there is often a certain freedom, because they may have been designed more
conservatively and because different forces will not imply a deformation of the
deck. It could be convenient to have a higher yield strength in the devices used
at the abutments in order to reduce the importance of the torsional mode in
the horizontal plane. For the same reason, it is appropriate to try to have a
rotationally equilibrated system of forces when all the isolators have yielded.
(ii) Entering the design spectra with the total force, a reasonable couple of damping
and period of vibration will be selected, thus obtaining a value for the effective
dispIacernent of the equivalent system, which should be kept in a range of 1-5%
of the height of all piers, where possible.
(iii) The pier yield displacement and the pier displacement corresponding to yield
in the isolators will be computed.
(iv) The effective displacement required from each isolator will be obtained as the
difference between global displacement and pier displacement.
(v) The accepted maximum ductility for the isolators will be decided, and the
global ductility of each foundation-pier-isolator system will be computed. The
equivalent damping of the bridge will be then computed.
(vi) If the value of the global damping is not compatible with that assumed in step 2,
some iteration is needed, either by accepting different ductility demands in the
isolators, or by accepting a different displacement (i.e. a different period of
vibration) a t step 2.
208 C. M. Calvi & A . Pavese
Since all the foundation-pier-isolator systems have a similar effective force, dis-
placement and stiffness, it is very likely that the time history analysis will confirm
the expected response, assuming that the total force was shared according to a trib-
utary mass principle. The higher frequency response modes of the piers themselves
should also be checked a t the end of the design process, since it is very likely that
they will be uncoupled from the global response modes of the bridge.
8.2. Masimum strength approach

The assumption of equal forces in the piers allows a regular response with negligible
deformation of the deck, but forcing all strengths to be cut at the level of the weakest
pier leads t o the potential need for a large period of vibration and large equivalent
viscous damping, i.e. large displacement and large energy dissipation demand (see
Fig. 8).
It is therefore worthwhile to explore the possibility of designing an isolating
system where the yield forces of the isolators are as close to the pier shear strength
as possible. In this case, the starting point is obviously to adopt the factorized pier
strengths. Doing so, an unacceptable design, with extremely different displacement
0.00 1 .OO 2.00 3.00 4.00

Period (s)
Fig. 8. Possible couples period-darnping as a function of the global equivalent strength.

Conceptual Design of Isolation Syatems for Bridge Structurer 209
and ductility demand to the isolators, may result (see the appropriate example given
in the next section). To improve the design of the isolating system, the maximisation
of a "regularity index1' is proposed.
8.2.1. Definition of regularity

The problem of regularity has been the object of previous studies [Calvi et al., 19941,
where the objective was to enable the prediction of whether a bridge - will respond
as expected in the preliminary design phase. To this end an index was defined as
follows: n n
y:[(l - ~ij)l2fAUi~ll
where $, g f are ~ the modal shapes of the bridge and the modal shapes and
the mass matrix of the deck alone (i.e. considered as a beam supported at the
abutments).
This index is therefore based on geometry only, and is a measure of the differ-
ence of the modal shape of the bridge and of the deck alone. The reason why it
appeared to work is that a t increasing damage; and therefore non-linearity, in the
pier response, the deck tends t o drive the response and when it tends to keep the
same deformed shape of the whole structure the ductility demand in the piers tends
to be the same.
An improvement of this index would be to consider the higher response modes
and the kxpected frequency content of the input.
An alternative, and more efficient, definition of reguIarity has been attempted
starting from the assumption of knowing a desired displacement shape of the bridge.
This is the case when a displacement-based approach is adopted and a target d e
formed shape has been defined. In this case, a measure of regularity may be based
on the measure of the difference between a vector containing the product of modal
mass and spectral amplification, .which defines the algebraic combination of the
modal displacements produced by the input motion, and a vector containing the
coefficients producing the target deformed shape, when applied to the modes. This
is expressed in the following relationships:
where
210 C. M. Calvi t3 A . Pavese
so that
-v = ~ l 9 1 ++ 2 2 9 2 + ~ + ...
3 % (8.4)
and
Zi = Disdi
where pi is the modal participating factor, g is the vector of the imposed dis-
placements, 2i are the eigenvectors of the whole bridge, and Sd; are the spectral
dispIacement s.
In the case of a linear response, it is essential to realise that the factor R2 will
assume a value equal to one for a perfectly "regular" structure, i.e. for a structure
which is likely to behave as expected, and it would tend to zero in the opposite
case.
Unfortunately, the non-linear response of the structure will impair this index
from working properly, since the strengths of the piers have not been considered
and it is possible that a pier will still be elastic when another has penetrated sig-
nificantly into the non-linear range. It has to be kept in mind that in a preliminary
design phase an "equivalent linear structure" is being used and therefore a different
displacement implies a different force, while in a non-linear simulation the forces
will remain constant after yielding.
To overcome the problem, it is necessary to include a measure of the difference
between the yield strength of each pier and the force that would be reached with
an hypothetical elastic response in the index. Equation (8.2) is therefore modified
by adding a second term as shown below:
where the first part of the equation is the same as Eq. (8.2), K are the yield
strengths of the piers (or of the isolators, if present, i-e. 85% of the critical strength
of the, corresponding pier), kei are the elastic stiffness of the isolators and Aei are
the yielding displacements of the isolators (both values are proportional to the
corresponding values for the substitute structure).
8.2.2. Use of a regularity index to design an isolating system

The design of the isolating system. can be based on the definition of a regular
structure, in which case the prediction of the preliminary design is more likely to
be confirmed by a non-linear analysis. A possible approach can be surnmarised in
the following steps:
(i) Choice of a deformed shape, based on maximum and minimum drifts, on sym-
metry considerations and on the first mode of vibration of the deck.
Conceptual Design of I ~ o l a t i o nSystems for Bridge S t r u c t u n ~ 211
(ii) Computation of the contribution of each pier displacement to the corresponding

deck displacement, assuming a complete exploitation of the pier strength (with
an appropriate safety factor, here taken as 0.85) in the first trial.
(iii) Computation of the global ductility from Eq. (6.5) and consequent equivalent
viscous damping of each pier-isolator system (modified form of Eq. (6.4)).
(iv) Computation of eigenvdues and eigenvectors of the linear equivalent struc-
ture (using the secant stiffness to the target displacement of each pier-isolator
system).
(v) Computation of the coefficientsy, from Eq. (8.3) and of the coefficients zi from
the design spectrum according to Eq. (8.5).
(vi) Computation of the regularity index. If RQ is close to 1, the bridge will be able
to produce the deformed shape assumed. The displacement demand of each
pier-isolator system will therefore be similar to the displacement assumed in the
preliminary design phase. In the case of a low value of R3 the procedure will be
repeated by selecting a different displacement shape. If it should be impossible
to obtain an acceptable value of Rg,the strengths of the isolators will be
modified (obviously reducing them, since the first iteration loop is tempted
with all the forces at 85% of the critical values) and the iterative procedure
on the deformed shape will be repeated. Several algorithms are available to
optimize the choice of new deformed shapes and isolators strengths. For the
present case the algorithm presented in Gagliardo and Sacchi [I9781 has been
implemented in the procedure.
Clearly, in principle there is no guarantee. that the resulting global strength
will be significantly larger than the "minimum strength" discussed in the previous
section, but the difference could be significant, with a consequent reduction in
the displacement and energy dissipation capacity provided t o the isolators. This
approach will be defined as the "optimal strength approach".
To clarify the concepts expressed in the above discussion, a sample bridge is con-
sidered in the following section, showing the results obtained by applying different
design approaches.
9. Design Examples
(i) A bridge without isolators, designed according to EC8/2 (EC8-2, 19941, is

shown in Fig. 9. It can be noted that the bridge geometry is highly irregular,
with piers of very different heights. The reinforcement percentages are 0.5%)
0.92% and 0.5%, where 0.5% has been assurqed as the minimum reinforcement.
The results obtained from a non-linear analysis with peak ground acceleration
equal to 1.2 times the design ground acceleration (0.35 g was assumed in the
design phase, the peak acceleration resulting in the non-linear analysis was
0.446 g) are shown in Table 1 and Fig. 10(a). The regularity index of this
bridge is Rl = 0.7564.
212 G. M. Calvi 5 A. Pavese
,0.30 I
I
I
Y
1
ix
pier
deck pier
area [rr? ] 6.88 4.16
[ft2] 74.5 45.0
Ix [m4] 87.24 7.39
[R4] 10221 865.8
ly[m4] 5.26 0.67
[ft4j 616 79
w [kNIm] 200 104
[Wt] 13.7 7.1
Fig. 9. The bridge used for the examples.
Table 1. ResuIts of the non-linear analyses performed on the non-isolated bridge

shown in Fig. 9, using 7 accelerogram generated from the EC8 response spectrum,
soil type 'B',peak ground acceleration 0.446 g.
Pier height Ultimate C.0.V. Yielding Ductility Yield

displacement * displacement demand strength
[mml [mml [kNl
14 m 64 13% 65 - 2920
7 m 68 14% 17 4.1 7791
21 m 80 6% 147 - 1945
Conceptual Design of Iaolation System8 for Bridge Structures 213
It has to be noted that the displacement ductility demand of the three piers
is significantly different, even if it is assumed to be constantly equal to 3 in the
preliminary design phase.
(ii) An isolation system has been designed according to the "minimum strength"
design approach presented in the previous section, i.e. setting all the isolator
strengths to 85% of the critical strength of the weakest pier. A constant duc-
tiiity capacity equal t o 4 has been assumed for all the isolators.
The main results of both preliminary design and non-linear analysis are
shown in Table 2. It can be immediately recognised that the bridge responds
essentially as predicted in the design phase, with errors in a range of 15% ("er-
ror" is defined as the perceptual difference between the displacement predicted
in the preliminary design phase and the displacement obtained from the non-
linear analysis). This value is significantly lower than the dispersion of the
results due to different input motions. The dispersion of the displacements ob-
tained by the non-linear analysis is significantly increased as a consequence of
the period elongation. It has to be noted that the low strength of the isolators
(the global strength of the bridge is equal to 16.5% of the total weight of the
deck) is paid in terms of much larger displacement demands. The regularity
indices of this bridge have the following values: R2 = 0.9996, Rj = 0.9560.
Table 2. 'LMinimumstrength" design approach (isolator strengths equal to 85% of the weakest
pier): comparison of the results of preliminary design and non-linear analysis.
Abutments/
I Design
Average Isolators
I
Average
Non-linear analysis
C.O.V. over 7 Average error

piers displacement strength displacement accelerograms
IkNl Imml
Deck Isolat. Deck Lolat. Deck Isolat. Deck Iaolat.
Abutment 210 210 825 183 183 29% 29% -13% -13%
14 m pier 210 145 1650 178 141 21% 26% -15% -3%
7 m pier 210 193 1650 173 169 18% 18% -18% -12%
21 rn pier 210 63 1.350 188 71 22% 38% -10% 13%
Abutment 210 210 825 242 242 27% 27% 15% 15%
(iii) A second isolation system has been designed according to the "madmum
strength" design approach, setting all the isolator strengths to 85% of the
critical strength of the corresponding pier and assuming a constant ductil-
ity capacity of 4 for all the isolators, The displacement shape of the bridge
has been defined according to the R2 factor presented in the previous section,
i.e. without considering any possible correction of the isolator strength, nor
any influence of the strength on the regularity factor. The regularity indices
of this bridge have the following values: Rz = 0.9999, R3 = 0.8811.
214 G.M. Calvi d A . Pavese
The main results of both the preliminary design and non-linear analysis
are shown in Table 3. In this case, the results of the non-linear analysis are
completely different from the prediction of the preliminary design. The errors
are in the range of SO%, i.e. much larger than the dispersion of the results due
to different input motions.
The increased strength of the system with respect to the minimum strength
approach (actual strength equal to 36% of the total weight of the deck), does
not result in significantly lower displacements.
Table 3. "Maximum strength" design approach (isolator strengths equal to 85% of the correspond-
ing pier): comparison of the results of preliminary design and non-linear analysis.
Design Non-linear analysis
Abutments/ Average Isolators Average C.O.V. over 7 Average error

piera displacement strength displacement accclerogramd
[mml IkNl Imml
Deck Isolat. Deck Isolat. Deck Isolat. Deck Isofat.
Abutment 71 71 1793 111 111 18% 16% 58% 56%

14 rn pier 178 113 2482 98 47 14% 25% -45% -58%
7 m pier 1 148 129 6623 1 I00 85 8% 0% -32% -34%
Abutment 105 105 1793 161 181 12% 12% 53% 53%
(iv) A third isolation system has been designed according to the "optimal strength"
design approach, assuming variable strength for the isolators, with an upper
limit equal to 85% of the critical strength of the corresponding pier. A constant
ductility capacity of 4 for all the isolators is still assumed (consistent with the
previous examples). The displacement shape of the bridge has been defined
according to the Rg factor presented in the previous section, i.e. optimising the
displaced shape as a function of both displacement shape and isolators strength.
The regularity indices of this bridge have the following values: R2 = 0.9891,
RS = 0.9650. The global strength of the system is now equal to 38% of the
total weight of the deck. The main results of both preliminary design and
non-linear analysis are shown in Table 3. The results of the non-linear analysis
are similar to the prediction of the preliminary design, with errors smaller than
20%, i.e. within the dispersion due to different input motions.
The higher global strength of the bridge, combined with the optimal de-
sign of the displaced shape, allows a significant reduction of the displacement
demand for both the deck and isolators.
It is also interesting to observe that the application of the "optimal
strength" approach results in the elimination of the isolator on the taller pier,
Conceptual Design of I ~ o l a f i o nSystem3 for Bridge Structures 213
Table 4. "Optimal strength" design approach (isolator strengths optimised to obtain a target-
displaced shape consistent with the expected response): comparison of the results of preliminary
design and non-linear analysis.
Design Non-linear analysia

I
Abutments/ Average Isolators Average C.O.V. over 7 Average error
pien displacement strength displacement accelerograrns
Imml [kNl Imml
Deck Isolat. Deck Isolat. Deck Isolat. Deck Isolat.
Abutment
14 m pier
7 m pier
110
138
123
110
73
106
2317
2219
6344
1 113
108
112
113
57
98
22%
17%
8%
22%
32%
9%
3%
-22%
-9%
3%
-22%
-8%
2 1 rn pier 147 0 1630 113 0 11% - 23% -
Abutment 89 89 2572 105 104 22% 22% 18% 17%
which is'not required. Obviously, the pier can be still protected by designing
a shear key with the appropriate strength level.
10. Conclusions
In this paper, a bridge structure protected by an isolation system is modelled with
a single degreeof-freedom linear equivalent model, according to approaches already
presented in previous works [Priestley et al., 1996; Calvi and Kingsley, 1995; Kowal-
ski et al., 19951.
Using this model, a procedure for the design of an "optimal" isolation system
is presented for the case of a new or an existing bridge. The approach adopted for
this last case is particularly interesting because of the difficulty of the problem, the
large number of existing bridges which may need to be retrofitted and because of
the novelty of the approach.
Two different "coefficients of regularity" are discussed in this paper. The first
one [Eq. (8.1)]was proposed in a former paper, and is based on purely geometric
concepts. Therefore, it can be applied to bridges for which the piers reinforcement
(and therefore the piers strength) is not known. The second coefficient [Eq. (8.6)]
also takes into account the input characteristics and the piers strength, therefore,
it can be applied only to existing bridges or after completion of the design.
This second coefficient is particularly valuable when used to design an isolation
system for an existing bridge, with the purpose of protecting all the undesired failure
mode. An algorithm based on the index allows the selection of isolators strength and
stiffness such that the isolated bridge will respond as predicted by the preliminary
design phase.
This result is clearly shown in Fig. 10, where the deformed shapes of the four
bridges considered are depicted, considering the results of the preliminary design
phase and the response obtained from a series of non-linear dynamic analyses. The
216 C. M. Calvi d A . Pauese
0.w 50.w Im.OO 150.00 m.OO

lmgiiudinaldeck d i n a t e (rn)
0.00
0.00 50.00 1m.m 150.00 m m
longitudinal dedc amdinate (m)
. ,
(b)
Fig.10. Ultimate displacement shapes obtained using different design methods. (a) Forced based
design, (b) minimum strength approach, (c) maximum strength approach, and (d) optimal strength
approach.
C o n c e p t u a l D e s i g n of I s o l a t i o n System8 f o r Bridge structure^ 217
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 2W.M

deck mordinate (m)
longitd~nal
0.m 50.00 1m.00 150.m m.00

longitudinal deck coordinate (rn)
Fig. 10. ( C o n t i n u e d )
218 C. M . CaIvi # A . Pavese
superiority of the bridge designed using the approach proposed in this paper (num-
ber 4) is evident, both considering the similarity of the results and the limitation
of the displacement values.
The sound definition of the regularity index and the results obtained in these
first cases considered, particularly difficult because of the irregularity of the original
bridge, allow for some optimism and an extensive applicability for design. Extensive
parametric analyses and consideration of more realistic cases are needed before
finding a practical use of the design approach.
Acknowledgments
The research presented in this paper has been partially funded by the Italian
"Gruppo Nazionale per la Difesa dai Terremoti" (GNDT).
References
Autostrade [I9911 Guidelines for Seismic Design of Bridges with Isolator/Dissipator
Devices (1991), Autostrade S.p.a., Roma.
Calvi, G. M., Elnashai, A. and Pavese, A. [I9941 "Analytical behaviour factor of irregular
RC bridges for seismic design," 2nd International Workshop on Seismic Design and
Retrofitting of RC Bridges, Queenstown, pp. 83-93.
Calvi, G. M. and Kingsley, G. R. [1995] "Displacement based design of multi-degree-
of-freedom bridge structures," Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2 4 ,
1247-1266.
EC8-2 [I9941 Eurocode 8 - Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures -
Part 2: Bridges, E W 1998-2, CEN, Brussels.
Fardis, M. N. and Panagiotakos, T. B. (19961 "Histeretic damping of R. C. elements," 11
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 464, Acapulco, June.
Gagliardo, E. and Sacchi, G. [I9781 "An operator improving the efficiency of minimization
algorithms," Rivistn di Infomatica, 111,51-59.
Japan Min. [I9941 Ministry of Construction, Japan, Manual for Menshin Design of Bridges,
(translated by H . Sugita and S. A. Mahin), Report No. UCB/EERC-94/10, Berkeley.
Kowalski, M. J., Priestley, M. J. N. and MacRae, G. A. [I9951 "Displacement-based de-
sign of RC bridge columns in seismic regions," Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 1623-1643.
Monti, G., Nuti, C. and Pinto, P. E. I19951 "Response of conventional and isolated bridges
under non-synchronous seismic motion," Proc. of the 5th SECED Conf., Chester,
pp. 117-124.
Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F. and Calvi, G . M. [I9961 Seismic Design and Retrofit of
Bridges (John Wiley, New York).
Shibata, A. and Sozen, M. 119761 "Substitute-structure method for seismic design in R/C,"
J. Str. Div. ASCE 102, 1-18.
Takeda, T., Sozen, hi. and Nielsen, N. [I9701 "R/C response to simulated earthquakes,"
J . Struct. Div. ASCE 96 S T l 2 , 2557-2573.

2

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

2

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

This article was downloaded by: [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zrich]

On: 24 September 2013, At: 10:05

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF ISOLATION SYSTEMS FOR

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632469708962366

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF ISOLATION SYSTEMS FOR

GIAN MICHELE CALVI and A L B E R T 0 PAVESE

Received 25 July 1996

Keywords: bridge, isolation, displacement-based design, regularity

2. Objectives of a n Isolating/Dissipating (I/D) S y s t e m

3. Design a n d Modelling Principles for Isolated Bridges

Fig. 1. Substitute structure model [Priestley el al., 19961.

0.00 1.OO 2.00 3.00 4.00

0.00 1 .OO 2.00 3.00 4.00

is characterised by equivalent stiffness and damping. To this end a secant stiffness to

4. Capacity Design Principles

undesirable event in the case of an extremely large earthquake, and a significant

Therefore, it is important t o underline that a significant (and possibly increasing

isolator ductility equal to 6.

5. Application of Displacement-Based Design Approaches

Recently, there has been growing interest in the development of displacement-based

The application of a displacement-based approach to isolated bridges allows the

lower than 85% of the critical strength of the corresponding pier.

6. Modelling and Analysis of Isolated Bridges

effective stiffness of the system is therefore

In some designs, as discussed subsequently, the global pier-bearing stiffness will be

Fig. 5. Qualitative response of the pier-isolator system.

[Priestley et al., 19961.

while a smaller damping corresponds to thinner cycles or more complex non-linear

2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00

O'" 1 EPP = Elastic-Perfectly Plaiic

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.0

Fig. 7. Equivalent viscous damping according to different kinds of non-linear response.

7. Design of N e w Bridges Using Isolation S y s t e m s

It is often difficult to impose the yield displacement of the isolator to the

ness and tributary mass:

8. Retrofit of Existing Bridges Using Isolation Systems

8.1. Equal (minimum) strength approach

8.2. Masimum strength approach

0.00 1 .OO 2.00 3.00 4.00

Fig. 8. Possible couples period-darnping as a function of the global equivalent strength.

8.2.1. Definition of regularity

8.2.2. Use of a regularity index to design an isolating system

(ii) Computation of the contribution of each pier displacement to the corresponding

(i) A bridge without isolators, designed according to EC8/2 (EC8-2, 19941, is

Fig. 9. The bridge used for the examples.

Table 1. ResuIts of the non-linear analyses performed on the non-isolated bridge

Pier height Ultimate C.0.V. Yielding Ductility Yield

C.O.V. over 7 Average error

not result in significantly lower displacements.

Design Non-linear analysis

Abutments/ Average Isolators Average C.O.V. over 7 Average error

Abutment 71 71 1793 111 111 18% 16% 58% 56%

Design Non-linear analysia

Deck Isolat. Deck Isolat. Deck Isolat. Deck Isolat.

0.w 50.w Im.OO 150.00 m.OO

0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 2W.M

0.m 50.00 1m.00 150.m m.00

finding a practical use of the design approach.

Potrebbero piacerti anche