1989, Aiken, Kelly, Tajirian, EERC-89-13

REPORT NO.
UCB/EERC-89/13
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER
NOVEMBER 1989
MECHANICS Of
lOW SHAPE FACTOR
ElASTOMERIC SEISMIC
ISOlATION BEARINGS
by
IAN D. AIKEN
JAMES M. KELLY
FREDERICK F. TAJIRIAN
Report to the Rockwell International Corporation
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY
MECHANICS OF LOW SHAPE FACTOR ELASTOMERIC

SEISMIC ISOLATION BEARINGS
by
Ian D. Aiken
Earthquake Engineering Research Center
James M. Kelly
Frederick E Tajirian
Bechtel National, Inc
Report to Sponsor: Rockwell International Corporation
Report No. UCB/EERC-89/13

College of Engineering
University of California at Berkeley
November, 1989
ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of an experimental and analytical study of low shape factor
(LSF) elastomeric seismic isolation bearings. The test bearings were of a design developed for a
seismic isolation application to provide horizontal and vertical isolation. This dual requirement led to a
bearing design with a shape factor smaller than usual for bearings designed to provide horizontal isolation only.
The experimental phase of the project involved the dynamic testing of a range of LSF bearings,
subjected to a variety of test conditions. The bearings were all of one basic design, but varied in the
elastomer from which they were manufactured and the details of the end-plate connections. Connections used were of the doweled-type, currently the preferred shear connection for seismic isolation
bearings, and the bolted type, which has yet to see common use in the United States. Bearings were
manufactured from both a filled, high-damping, natural rubber compound and an ordinary unfilled,
natural rubber compound.
An extensive series of tests was undertaken to investigate the performance characteristics of the
different types of bearings. One particular objective of the test program was to evaluate the merit of
the standard cyclic shear test (with constant axial load) as a representative test for more generalized
loading conditions. A large number of tests was performed to study the behavior of the LSF bearings
when subjected to cyclic vertical loading. Buckling tests and shear and tension failure tests were also
conducted.
On the basis of the test results a number of comparisons were made of the different bearings.
The influences of axial load and shear strain on the bearing characteristics of shear stiffness, vertical
stiffness, and damping behavior were investigated, with particular emphasis on evaluating the consequences of a low shape factor. Comparisons of the bolted and doweled connections, and the filled
and unfilled elastomers were also made.
Design equations for elastomeric bearings were reviewed for their particular suitability to LSF
bearings.
A previously developed analytical model for the prediction of bearing behavior was
reviewed and extended for application to LSF bearings. The suitability of the model was evaluated in
light of the experimental results.
- ii -
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research reported herein was supported by grant no. R84PNZ88418060 from Rockwell
International Corporation, and was conducted at the Earthquake Simulator Laboratory of the Earthquake Engineering Research Center of the University of California at Berkeley, Professor James
Kelly was the principal investigator for this project.
The authors would like to express their thanks to Messrs. D. Clyde, W. Neighbour, J. McNab,
and L Van
A~ten
of the Earthquake Simulator Laboratory for their assistance during the experimental
phase of the project. Thanks also are due to Dr. Beverley Bolt for invaluable advice and assistance
during the preparation of the report.
- iii -
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ...
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Vii
HHH
LIST OF FIGURES .H.
ix
1. INTRODUCTION ..... .
1.1 Base !solation Overview
HHHHoHHHH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
1.2 Interest in Low Shape Factor Bearings

1.3 Objectives and Scope of Studies
HH .... H.H
.......... H
..... H
................ H
... H
... H.H ...... .
.H.H .......................................... H....................................
1.4 Literature Review .............................................................................................................. .
1.5 Summary ..........................................................
2. BEARING DESIGN PARAMETERS .

2.1 Introduction
......
.... H
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
"
..
.....
.. H
.....
.. H
....
H.....
H.H ............................... ..
2.2 Shear Stiffness ....
............ H
2.3 Compression Stiffness
2.4 Stability -
"H"
... H
.... H
.............. H
................................................................... H
........ H
.. H
.. H
.. HH
Buckling Load .
3. DESIGN OF LSF BEARINGS

3.1 Introduction
H.
10
13
15
15
3.2 Description of SAFR Plant ............................................................................................ ..
15
3.3 Dynamic Analysis .............................................................................................................. .
15
3.4 SAFR Bearing Design
16
- IV -
3.5 Test Bearing Designs
16
3.6 Comments on Design
17
4. TESTS OF LSF BEARINGS
19
19
4.2 Description of Test Facility ...
19
4.3 Description of Tests
21
4.4 Rate Effects ................................................................ ..
25
-n
5. TEST RESULTS .............. ..

5.1 Introduction ......................................... ..
5.2 Shear Tests ................... .
27
.... ,, ......
27
5.3 Vertical Tests .................................................................... .
37
5.4 Combined Loading Tests ...................... .
40
5.5 Failure Mode Tests ............................... .
41
5.6 Buckling Tests
46
5.7 Vertical Test Results and Design Equations
47
6. A.N ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR THE BEHAVIOR OF

LSF BEARINGS . .........
.. ..
6.1 Introduction .............. ..
49
49
6.2 A Two-Spring Physical Model for Elastomcric

Bearing Behavior ......... ..
50
6.3 Nonlinear Two-Spring Model
51
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
53
7.1 Summary ............................ .
53
7.2 Conclusions ...... .
53
-v -
57
REFERENCES .....
.. . ........ ......................
63
FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................................
89
TABLES............................ ............
........ .
................
APPENDIX A: Haringx Theory of Bearing Stability ....
163
APPENDIX B: Two-Spring Model for Elastomeric Bearings ....................................... .
169
- vii -
List of Tables
Table
301
page
Dimensions and Design Properties of the Prototype and

Reduced-Scale LSF Bearings ,0,,,,
00o0,000hOOOOOOhhhoo OOOOOO,OhooooooohOO>OOOhooooooooOOO>Oooooooooo,oo
Oo
401
42
43
4A
45
406
407
408
409
Channel List for LSF Bearing Tests

Notation Adopted for Test Bearings
Test List: Load Case 1
Test List: Load Case 3 00000000000000,
Test List: Load Case 5 000000 00000
64

Shear Failure Tests 0,000000
75
65
66
67
68
70
74
76
4010 HB 2 Vertical Failure Tests ooO

4011 Characteristics of Test Signals 0 ooooooooooo,ooo,OooO OOoO,OOoOhoO>OOOO OOOOoohoo,o,OO,OOOOOohooooo,oOOoOooooooooo,o,ooHOoOooooo,oooo>o
501
Shear Hysteresis Loop Parameters, HD 1 Bearing
55
Shear Hystcoresis Loop Parameters, LB Bearing

Wct- ya Dependence ooO
oooooo,,,,,o,OOOOOOOOoO
77
78
79
52 Shear Hysteresis Loop Parameters, HB 1 Bearing

53 Shear Hysteresis Loop Parameters, LD Bearing Oohoho OHHOOOoOooo
SA
63
80
81
82
83
84
507
Vertical Stiffness Results: Load Cases 1 and 2

Load Case 3 Test Results: HD 1 and HB 1 Bearings
5B
Load Case 3 Test Results: HD 1 and HB 1 Bearings
86
506
Hysteresis Loop Parameters: Load Case 6 0000

SolO Compression Stiffness: Theory and Experiment
509
85
87
88
- ix -
List of Figures
page
Figure
3.2
Horizontal Spectral Responses, Isolated and Unisolated Conditions
89
90
3.3
Vertical Spectral Responses, Isolated and Unisolatcd Conditions
90
3.4
Prototype SAFR Bearing Design ......................................... .
91
3.5
Test Bearing Design: Doweled Connections ..
92
3.6
Test Bearing Design: Bolted Connections
93
4.1
Schematic Diagram of Test Facility ........ ..
94
3.1
Cross-Section of SAFR Plant
4.2
Single Bearing Test Machine .................. .
95
4.3
Single Bearing Test Machine ....... .
96
4.4
Test Machine Instrumentation ...
97
5.1
Typical Shear Force vs. Displacement Loop, HB 1 Bearing .................................................................. .
98
5.2
Typical Shear Force vs. Displacement Loop, LD Bearing ..................................................................... ..
5.3
Example of Nonlinear Hysteresis Behavior, LD Bearing ......................................... ,.. ., .................. ., .... .,.
99
100
5.4
Definitions of Kh,. and~ on Typical Hysterests Loop, HB 1 Bearing ............ ,.... ,.............................. ..
101
5.5
Shear Modulus vs. Shear Strain, Unfilled and Filled Elastomers
102
5.6
Hysteresis Loops for Cyclic Shear Test, Constant Strain
5.7
and Variable Axial Load, HD 1 Bearing ... ., .. ,.............. ,.. ,........ ,.......... ., ....... .,.,....................
Kh,ff vs. Axial Load, HD 1 Bearing .. ., ... ,.... ., ............... ,., ............................. ., ............................... ,........ ..
5,8
Hysteresis Loops for Cyclic Shear Tests, Constant Strain

108
5.9
and Variable Axial Load, HB 1 Bearing ................... ,............ ., .... ,..... ,,.................................
Hysteresis Loops for Cyclic Shear Tests, Constant Axial
Load and Variable Strain, HD 1 Bearing ............. ,................... ,...................................... ,.. .

5.10 Hysteresis Loops for Cyclic Shear Tests, Comtant Axial
112
Load and Variable Strain, HB 1 Bearing

5.11 LD Bearing at Approximately 200% Shear Strain
114
116
5.12 Dissipated Area vs. Axial Load, HB 1 Bearing
117
5.13 "Normalized" Wd vs. Axial Load, HB 1 Bearing

5.14 Hysteresis Loops for Cyclic Shear Tests, Constant Strain
117
and Variable Axial Load, LD Bearing ,................ ., .. .,.,, .................... ., ................. ., ........... ..
103
107
118
5.15 Hysteresis Loops for Cyclic Shear Tests, Constant Strain

and Variable Axial Load, LB Bearing .
vs, Axial Load, W Bearing ............ , ...
5.16 Kh
5.17
'"
K, vs. Axial Load, LD Bearing .............. ,.. ..
5.18 Kh
'"
vs. Axial Load, LB Bearing ................. ..
122
126
126
127
- X -
5.19 Hysteresis Loops for Cyclic Shear Tests, Constant Axial

Load and Variable Strain, LD Bearing ................................................... .
128
5.20 Hysteresis Loops for Cyclic Shear Tests, Constant Axial

Load and Variable Strain, LB Bearing ....
130
........................... .
5.21 Monotonic Vertical Loading, HD 1 Bearing .........
5.22 Monotonic Vertical Loading, HB 1 Bearing .............................................. .
132
5.23 Monotonic Vertical Loading, LD Bearing .................................. ., ................ .
134
5.24 Monotonic Vertical Loading, LB Bearing .......................................... .
135
5.25 Cyclic Vertical Loading about Initial Load, HD 1 Bearing ... ., .................... .
5.26 Cyclic Vertical Loading about Initial Load, HB 1 Bearing .
136
133
137
5.27 Cyclic Vertical Loading about Initial Load, LD Bearing
138
5.28 Cyclic Vertical Loading about Initial Load, LB Bearing
139
5.29 Cyclic/Monotonic Vertical Stiffness Ratio vs. Axial
140
Prestrain, High Damping Bearings

5.30 Cyclic/Monotonic Vertical Stiffness Ratio vs. Axial
Prestrain, Low Damping Bearings ............................................. .
141
5.31 Typical Cyclic Vertical Hysteresis Loop, HB 1 Bearing ....................................... ., ... ., ..
142
5.32 K,"' vs. Horiwntal Displacement Offset ..................................................................................................
143
5.33 l; vs. Horizontal Displacement Offset .......................................................................................................
145
5.34 Shear Hysteresis Loop for HB 1 Bearing, Standard Test with Shear
Strain Amplitude
= 100% and Axial Load = 31.8
12.8 kips ...
147
5.35 Shear Force--Displacement Relationships for

Incremental Strain Tests to Failure, HB 1 Bearing ............................................................. .
148
5.36 LB Bearing at Approximately 330% Shear Strain

During Shear Failure Test .................................................................................................. .
149
5.37 Shear Force--Displacement Relationships for

Incremental Strain Tests to Failure, LB Bearing
150
5.38 Shear Force-Displacement Relationships for

Incremental Strain Tests to Failure, HB2 Bearing ...
151
5.39 HB 2 Bearing at Approximately 260% Shear Strain

During Shear Failure Test ..................... .
5.40 Overturning (Roll-Out) Condition in a Doweled Bearing .................. .
152
152
5.41 Shear Force-Displacement Relationships for Incremental

Strain Tests to Failure, LD Bearing, Axial Load = 31.8 kips
153
5.42 LD Bearing at Approximately 250% Shear Strain During

Shear Failure Test ................................................... .
154
5.43 Shear Force--Displacement Relationships for Incremental

Strain Tests to Failure, LD Bearing, Axial Load = 15.9 kips
5.44 Tension-Compression Axial Load Cycles, HB 1 Bearing ..... .
155
156
5.45 Half-Cycle Tensile Load vs. Axial Displacement Failure Tcsl>,

HB 1 Bearing ..................................................................... .
5.46 HB 1 Bearing Undeformed Configuration .............................................. .
157
158
- xi 5.47 HB 1 Bearing During Tensile Failure Test ................................................................................................
158
5.48 Axial Load vs. Horizontal Displacement for HD Bearing Buckling Test ..............................................
159
6.1
A Two-Spring Physical Model for an Elastomeric Bearing .....................................................................
160
6.2
Force-Deformation Relationship of Non-linear Two-Spring Model
161
Al
Haringx's Column for Modeling an Elastomeric Bearing
A2
Subjected to End Loads ............ .... .......... ..... .. ... .. .. ... .. ................. ...........................................
162
Equilibrium and Kinematics at an Arbitrary Section of a Haringx Column .... .. ........................ ............
162
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Base Isolation Overview

Base isolation is a seismic design concept which reduces the level of ground motion that a structure experiences during an earthquake by moving the period of the structure away from the predominant period of the ground motion. This is achieved by introducing a flexible connection, usually at
the foundation level, between the structure and the ground.
Many techniques have been proposed since the turn of the century to achieve the "flexible foundation" goal (1], but so far only a very limited number have actually been implemented. Among the
techniques that have gained acceptance, the most common is the elastomeric bearing-based system.
This approach uses elastomeric bearings, which consist of multiple bonded layers of elastomer and
steel shims, to simultaneously carry the gravity load of the isolated structure and provide the horizontal flexibility necessary to reduce the level of seismic forces transmitted to the superstructure. Other
systems that have been utilized in practice include elastomeric bearing-slider bearing systems, elastomeric bearings coupled with devices to provide additional energy dissipation (these devices which
are many and varied, include lead extrusion dampers, lead inserts in the bearings themselves, lead
flexural dampers, flexural and torsional mild steel dampers, hydraulic viscous dampers, and friction
dampers [2-4]) and sleeved-pile systems to provide horizontal flexibility, coupled with mechanical
energy dissipating devices [5].
The number of base isolation applications has grown considerably over the last decade [6]. The
list of buildings and other structures incorporating base isolation is now extensive (approximately 122
structures worldwide at the end of 1988 [7,8]) but applications in the U.S. are still limited. At the time
of writing, there were 7 buildings, 8 bridges, and 4 pieces of heavy equipment that incorporated base
isolation either complete or under construction in the U.S. In addition, a number of other projects
were at the feasibility stage.
- 2 -
The elastomeric bearing systems that have been implemented can be separated into two types:
those which include additional devices to supplement the overall damping of the isolation system, and
those which have no extrinsic devices which add to the system damping. The latter can be of the
lead-rubber type, in which elastomeric bearings contain a lead-plug insert to supplement damping, or
of the filled type, in which a filler material is added to the rubber to enhance the damping and
stiffness properties of the compound.
Shape factor is a dimensionless ratio that provides a measure of the "relative size" of a layer of
elastomer (Section 2.3), and it is commonly used to characterize layers of elastomer in bearings. High
values of shape factor correspond to thin layers of material (that have high vertical stiffness), and low
values correspond to thick layers (with low vertical stiffness). Thus, a bearing that is designed to provide horizontal isolation only and which is intended to be stiff vertically will have high shape factor
layers, while a bearing which is designed for both horizontal and vertical isolation will have layers
with a low shape factor. ln this report, bearings that are designed to provide both horizontal and vertical isolation are referred to in terms of the shape factor of their elastomer layers and are denoted as
low shape factor or LSF bearings.
1.2 Interest in Low Slrnpe Factor Bearings

A number of recent isolation research programs in the U.S. and Japan have focused on the
development of LSF bearings to provide horizontal and vertical isolation protection to several different
types of structures.
In Japan, interest in LSF bearings has been mainly for the development of isolation systems that
can protect buildings from earthquake loadings (horizontal isolation) as well as vibration isolation
(vertical and horizontal isolation). Two different isolation concepts (SAFR and PRISM, see Section
L4) [9] for the protection of advanced liquid metal reactors (LMRs) have received considerable attention in the U.S. The SAFR concept has as its basis the horizontal and vertical isolation of a modular
type LMR plant The design requires bearings of appropriately low stiffness in the vertical direction
(Le., of low shape factor) as well as the usual low horizontal stiffness property. The SAFR research
and development program was the origin of the bearings for the current study.
-3-
As well as possessing low vertical stiffness as a consequence of the vertical isolation an additional feature is necessary -
namely, bolting of the bearings to the superstructure and to the founda-
tion., Seismic jsoJation bea."rings .have more usually featured do\veled, shear -connect:h::ms, but in the
light of the increased vertical displacements (and the, albeit unlikely, possibility of vertical tension
loads on the bearing) bolting is likely to be necessary to maintain the integrity of the bearing end-plate
connections. This leads to a further distinctive aspect of this study: the evaluation of the behavior of
bolted elastomeric bearings compared with similar doweled bearings.
For a number of years it has been known that the damping of an elastomeric hearing is
influenced by axial load if the load is near that which causes buckling of the bearing [10,11]. Recent
work by Koh and Kelly has shown that the increase in the damping ratio under high axial loads is due
both to an increase in energy dissipated per cycle and to a reduction in bearing horizontal stiffness
[12]. This research program provides a further opportunity to investigate this phenomenon.
The failure mode of doweled, elastomeric bearings is weil-understood (for most axial loads,
"roll-out" or lateral instability represents failure) and it is possible to predict such failure. Bearings
with boiled connections, and particularly those of low aspect ratio (that is, squat bearings with a low
value of height to width ratio) are not susceptible to roll-out and there is an obvious need to verify
experimentally the failure modes of such bearings when subjected to large strain lateral loadings. Bolting of the end-plates raises the additional question of the tensile strength of elastomeric bearings and
the experimental program included tests to answer this question.
Bearings which are much wider than they are tall (i.e., of low aspect ratio) introduce the possibility of taking advantage of another desirable physical characteristic of natural rubber. At large
strains, natural rubber undergoes a strain-induced crystallization [11,13] which is evidenced by an
increase in material stiffness and, consequently, in the stiffness of the bearing as a whole. If this
stiffening effect were able to be utilized, the behavior of elastomeric bearings under extreme loadings
could be enhanced by this inherent reserve of stiffness. For bearings to operate safely at these high
levels of strain several things are necessary: in particular, that the bearings be of low aspect ratio (so
that geometric instability under lateral deformation is avoided), and that the end-plate connections be
bolted to ensure that the bearing-superstructure and bearing-foundation connections are maintained
even under the most extreme loadings. The viability of making use of the physical characteristic of
-4high-strain stiffening as a valid design approach must be verified by experiment, and this is an additional motive for the current study.
1.3 Objectives and Scope of Studies

1.3.1 Objectives
The principle objectives of the studies reported herein were to conduct a series of experimental
tests on a set of LSF bearings to evaluate the influence of shape factor on the perfom1ance characteristics of elastomeric seismic isolation bearings and to endeavor to develop a mechm1ical model suitable
for predicting the behavior of LSF bearings when subjected to static and dymunic loads.
The design of the test bearings was extended to allow two further aspects of elastomeric bearings to be studied. These aspects were response comparisons of bearings with bolted end-plate connections and bearings with doweled connections; and comparisons of bearings made from two
different natural rubber compounds: a filled (high-damping), natural rubber and a conventional
unfilled, natural rubber.
1.3.2 Scope
To achieve the objectives outlined above, an extensive series of experimental tests was conducted. The following tests and studies were undertaken:
e
A review of current analytical and experimental information on the behavior of elastomcric

seismic isolation bearings.
'"
A series of tests to ascertain the vertical stiffness properties of the bearings, and also the
influence of lateral displacement on vertical stiffness.
A series of tests to determine the dynamic properties of shear stiffness and damping as
influenced by the vertical loading and the shear strain applied to the bearings.
A series of tests to investigate the modes of failure of doweled bearings subjected to shear and
compression loads, bolted bearings subjected to shear and compression loads and bolted bearings subjected to tension loads. Tests to evaluate the buckling loads of the bearings were also
conducted.
- 5 -
The evaluation of the suitability of existing design equations to accurately predict the parameters
necessary for the design of LSF bearings.
The development of an -analytical model (or the extension of a suitable existing -m"odel)- to-
predict the behavior of LSF bearings to static and dynamic loadings.

The evaluation of the test results regarding the suitability of LSF bearings to provide vertical
and horizontal seismic isolation for structures in regions of seismic risk
1.4 Literature Review

Interest in the general concept of base isolation has grown significantly since the early 1970's,
and a large proportion of the experimental research effort since that time has been devoted to the
study of elastomeric bearings and elastomeric bearing-based isolation systems. Substantial early efforts
were made in several countries, in particular, in New Zealand, the U.S., France. In the 1980's Japan
has made significant contributions to the field.
New Zealand
Research in New Zealand has tended to focus on lead-rubber bearings, which are natural rubber
bearings that incorporate a lead-plug insert to enhance the damping behavior of the bearing unit [14].
These bearings arc typically combined with ordinary natural rubber bearings for buildings, or slider
bearings for bridges to provide a complete isolation system. Extensive testing has been performed to
investigate the dynamic behavior of these bearings [15-17].
France
Base isolation research in France has emphasized the development of systems suitable for the
seismic protection of Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) nuclear power plants.
A system using
neoprene bearings (additionally with a sliding frictional interface in regions of higher seismic risk) has
been developed and implemented in six plants, four in France and two in South Africa [18-20]. The
bearings used in this system, however, differ significantly from most other types of elastomeric base
isolation bearings. Typically, they consist of only a few layers of neoprene. This means that the
overall thickness of elastomer is much less than that for more usual isolation bearings. As a result,
the bearings are only able to sustain small lateral deformations for moderate shear strains in the
-6-
neoprene, compared with deformations that are 5 to 10 times greater for most other types of isolation
bearings. In zones of high seismicity, because of the limited shear strain capacity of the bearings,
sliding plates- are placed bef!,veen the top of the bearings and the uppe-r foundation to limit the
neoprene shear strains.

U.S A.
Substantial research devoted to elastomeric, seismic isolation bearings has taken place in the
U.S.A. A joint project between the Earthquake Engineering Research Center (EERC) of the University
of California at Berkeley and the Malaysian Rubber Producers' Research Association (MRPRA) led to
the development of isolation bearings utilizing carbon black-filled natural rubber, with properties well
suited to base isolation applications. The carbon black filler enhances the material damping characteristics and produces a nonlinear shear modulus-shear strain relationship. The modulus is high at
small strains and decreases nonlinearly as the deformation increases. This is a particularly desirable
characteristic, as it allows bearings to provide high stiffness to the isolation system for wind and lowlevel earthquake loads while having a (preferable) lower stiffness under large seismic excitations.
Further, the modulus is largely independent of strain in the 50--100% range and this permits simple,
but accurate, preliminary design calculations [21,22].
Performance evaluation of a large number of different types of bearings has taken place over the
last few years in conjunction with earthquake simulator studies of base isolated structures [23-28].
Using results from tests of bearings designed for earthquake simulator testing of a base isolated,
bridge-deck model [29], Koh and Kelly evaluated the effects of axial load on the behavior of elastomeric isolation bearings [12]. This study led to the development of a simplified mechanical model
for the behavior of such bearings, which is able to accurately predict the effects of axial load on the
fundamental bearing properties of damping, and horizontal and vertical stiffness [30]. Results are
available for tests performed on high-damping, natural rubber bearings used in the first base isolated
structure in the U.S. -
the Foothill Communities Law and Justice Center located in Rancho
Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California [31].

Interest in the possibility of applying base isolation to the seismic protection of LMR nuclear
power plants has heightened considerably in both the U.S. and Japan in recent years. In the U.S., two
advanced modular, compact concepts have emerged: the Power Reactor Inherently Safe Module
- 7 -
(PRISM) developed by a team led by General Electric Company, and the Sodium Advanced Fast
Reactor (SAFR) developed by a team led by Rockwell International Corporation. Department of
Energy funding of the SAFR project stopped in 1989 when the PRISM concept
was
selected as the
U.S. reference design. PRISM [32] uses high-damping, elastomeric bearings to provide horizontal
protection of only the reactor module, whereas SAFR [33] employs low shape factor, elastomeric
bearings to achieve horizontal and vertical isolation of the entire reactor building [9]. Tests have been
conducted at EERC on 1/2-scale PRISM bearings [34,35].
Recently, real time tests of 1/4-scale
PRISM bearings were performed, and in the near future real time tests of full-scale PRISM bearings
are planned.
Japan
The pace of isolation research in Japan has accelerated dramatically in the 1980's with the
growth of interest in isolation for nuclear power plants. Extensive tests have been conducted on
numerous different types of isolation bearings and these different systems have found their way into
more than 34 buildings [8].
Kajima Corporation has constructed a research laboratory building on LSF bearings, completed
in 1987 [36]. The isolation system, which provides both horizontal and vertical isolation, consists of
eighteen laminated rubber bearings, fourteen hysteretic dampers (cantilever steel rods), and a number
of oil (viscous) dampers. The elastomer compound used for the bearings did not provide sufficient
damping for earthquake loading and so the hysteretic dampers and oil dampers were included to
enhance the horizontal and vertical damping, respectively, of the isolation system. The LSF bearings
are intended to provide a degree of vertical isolation and to filter out micro-tremors caused by external
ground-transmitted vibrations. Fail-safe blocks which limit ultimate system displacements are incorporated to provide secondary protection against primary system failure. The horizontal frequency of
the building is 0.5 Hz and the vertical frequency at the design weight is 5 Hz. The LSF bearings have
a shape factor of 5.2 and consist of four rubber layers (each 1.9 inches thick) and four steel shim
plates (each 0.2 inch thick). Bolted type connections are used. The bearings are supported on steel
boxes that allow for adjustments to compensate for creep effects, which for LSF bearings are expected
to be larger than for conventional bearings. Analysis, vibration testing, and recorded earthquake data
have demonstrated that the isolation system can reduce earthquake peak accelerations by a factor of 4
-8-
to 5. Forced vibration tests showed that more than 20 dB of vibration reduction can be attained at frequencies over 10 Hz.
Ohbayaslii Corp(Jratiori has constructed a one story, reinforced concrete test structure, 19.7 ft by
29.5 ft in plan, supported on four high-dampirrg rubber bearings which are soft vertically [37]. Several
tests and earthquake observations have demonstrated that the isolation system is effective in reducing
the effects of micro-vibrations as well as earthquake motions.
Bolted bearing connections have become a common feature of LSF as well as conventional isolation bearings designed in Japan. The use of this detail in the U.S. or N.Z., however, has not yet
reached acceptance. Recent tests have been performed by Fujita and Shiojiri [38,39] to evaluate the
failure modes of high-damping rubber, lead-rubber, and ordinary rubber bearings. These tests demonstrated that Japanese bearings are capable of accommodating shear strains in excess of 450 % prior to
failure.
1.5 Summary
The growth of interest in base isolation as a seismic design strategy has substantially increased
experimental studies of elastomeric bearings worldwide. The scope and number of tests performed has
grown markedly, but to date no experimental tests of LSF bearings designed specifically to provide
seismic isolation in both the horizontal and vertical directions have been reported. Bolted bearing
connections are not employed in the U.S., and will not be until the influence of this detail on material
and bearing behavior has been thoroughly investigated by experiment.
-9-
CHAPTER 2
BEARING DESIGN PARAMETERS
2.1 Introduction
The design of elastomeric bearings for seismic isolation applications requires the determination
of three important bearing properties. These properties are:
(i)
the horizontal stiffness of the bearings, so that a specific horizontal natural frequency can be
designed for;
(ii)
the vertical stiffness of the bearings, so the designer can ensure that no undesirable vertical or
rocking modes will occur, and that the predominant vertical frequency is controlled; and
(iii)
the stability of the bearings under combined vertical load and lateral displacement This combined loading condition must be checked to ensure that a reasonable factor of safety exists
against instability caused by extreme loading.
ln this chapter the various different analytical and empirical relationships currently used for the
determination of these elastomeric bearing design parameters are reviewed and discussed.
2.2 Shear Stiffness

The usual equation used to calculate the shear siiffness of a bearing is
(2.1)
where
As = shear area of bearing
T, = total rubber thickness
= nt, for n rubber layers each of thickness
and G is the shear modulus of the elastomer. The equation assumes that lateral deformation of bearings is a result of shear deformation; that is, that flexural deformation is negligible in comparison.
- 10 -
For nonlinear material behavior, it should be noted that the value used for G is important.
Z.3 Compression Stiffifess-
The equation generally used to calculate the compression stiffness of a bearing is

K
Ec A
=--
(2.2)
'
where
A - shim area of bearing

Ec - bearL'1g compression modulus
and T, is as defined for Eq. 2.1. Ec can be evaluated using a number of different equations. The
equations for Ec that are applicable to bearings of low shape factor are outlined below.
Method 1 by Gent & Lindley (1959)

The commonly used equation for the compression stiffness of rubber blocks, derived by Gent
and Lindley in 1959 [40], is
Ec
Eo (1 + 2k5 2
(2.3)
where
0 - Young's modulus
k =material modifying factor (determined by experiment, [11])

S = shape factor.
The shape factor S (first defined by Keys in 1937 [41]) for a rubber layer is the ratio of the
loaded area of the layer to the total force-free area. It is used in most equations for the compression
stiffness of rubber blocks. Specifically,
one loaded area

total force -free area
D
41
for a circular bearing, diameter D
- 11 where t = the thickness of one rubber layer.

Young's modulus E 0 is defined as the modulus in the region of zero strain (usually y < 10% is con-
Experimental studies have led to relations between E 0, 0 and rubber hardness [11,42], which
were utilized irr the design calculations for the LSF bearings.
Hardness tests for rubber involve
measuring the penetration of the rubber by a specially shaped indentor under a specified load. It is
essentially a measurement of a reversible elastic deformation and is therefore related to the Young's
modulus of the rubber. This contrasts with the various metal hardness tests which consist of measuring an irreversible plastic indentation. Tests for rubber hardness differ from those for metal in another
the readings from the different types of tests (International Rubber Hardness Degrees
respect
(!RHD), British Standard Hardness Degrees (0 BS) and the Shore Durometer A Scale) are all approximately the same, so that equations based on hardness are generally applicable.
Variations of this method (Eq. 2.3) depend on the value used for Young's modulus, E 0. These
are:
(i)
E0
30 ,
and 0 is obtained either from material tests or empirical data. This value assumes that Poisson's
ratio, v = 0.5; that is, that the material is incompressible.
(ii) 0 = 40 ,
and 0 is obtained either from material tests or empirical data. According to [13], for harder
rubbers containing a fair proportion of non-rubber constituents, thixotropic and other effects
increase E 0 to about 40 . Therefore, for the case of a high-damping rubber with a substantial
amount of carbon black filler we would expect 4G to be a better estimate for E 1P and 30 to be
more suitable for unfilled, low-damping rubbers.
Method 2 by Derham
Research by Derham [43] has suggested that when S > 3 it is reasonable to use
E, = 5.6 OS 2
and that 0
(2.4)
should be obtained from material tests or empirical data. The LSF test bearings are
- 12 actually outside the recommended range of application for this equation (for the LSF bearings
S
2.5, see Table 3,1 and Section 3,3) but for purposes of interest it will be evaluated,
Method 3 by Rocard (1937)

This derivation [44 J is based on equating the stored energy with the work done on deformation
of an incompressible material, The exact solution obtained by Rocard involves an infinite series and
is not easy to evaluate, The equation can be evaluated for the two limiting cases of very small and
very large shape factors, giving a practical equation for the compression modulus:
(2.5)
where k 1
4,8 and k 2
4, The values of k 1 and k 2 depend on what function is chosen for the varia-
tion between small and large shape factor,

Method 4
Derham has studied Rocard 's equation (Eq, 2,5) and found that closer agreement to experiment
is obtained if the values k 1
9 and k 2
4 are used instead of those originally recommended by
Rocard [43], Derham further modified Eq, 25 to express E, in terms of hardness instead of G,
obtaining
(2,6)
where H is the rubber hardness,

There are several further equations for E, that take into account compressibility effects by
including the bulk modulus of the elastomer, However, compressibility only becomes significant when
the shape factor is high, and in the case of the LSF bearings these equations would not provide any
significant improvement over those already presented, For this reason, these equations are not be discussed here, (For discussion of compressibility effects see [40,45 ]),
- 13 -
2.4 Stability -
Buckling Load
The stability condition of bearings must also be considered. The lateral stiffness of a multilayer
compression and shear some flexural bending of the bearing takes place. This bending causes some
tilting of the internal shims and thus the faces of the individual elements of elastomer are no longer
parallel, so that the behavior of the layers is changed.
The theory for this deformation was first developed by Haringx [46] and subsequently applied to
rubber bearings by Gent [47]. The Haringx theory as it applies to elastomeric bearings is developed
in Appendix A. The buckling load of a bearing, taking into account the shear and flexural stiffnesses,
is expressed in Eq. A.17 as
Ps
(A.l7)
where
Ps; GA.,
; 'tLE!eff
z2
Most isolation bearings are quite squat, with I z R. This leads to a reasonable approximation
for Per , given by
(A.19)
- 15 -
CHAPTER3
DESIGN OF LSF BEARINGS
3.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the SAFR plant, the SAFR bearing design, and the reduced-scale designs
selected for testing. A summary of the bearing parameters is presented and some aspects of the
designs are discussed.
3.2 Description of the SAFR Plant

The SAFR plant is a compact. advanced, nuclear power plant concept which employs a 450
MWe pool type Liquid Metal Reactor (LMR) as its basic module [9,33]. The reactor assembly module
is a standardized, shop-fabricated unit that can be shipped to the plant site by barge for installation.
Several passive features have been incorporated in the design to improve safety. The reactor vessel
and steam generator arc housed in a building with plan dimensions of 124 ft by 82 ft. The total
weight of the reactor building and its contents is 29,000 tons. The seismic design basis for SAFR is a
safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) with a maximum horizontal and vertical acceleration of 0.3g
anchored to the NRC Regulatory Guide 1.60 design response spectra. This is expected to cover 85
percent of potential U.S. nuclear sites, excluding high seismic zones such as California. It was decided
to seismically isolate the standardized SAFR reactor building to enhance seismic margins and to permit siting in regions of high seismicity. The selected system employs low shape factor (LSF) elastomeric bearings under the reactor building to provide isolation in both the horizontal and vertical
directions (Fig. 3.1).
3.3 Dynamic Analysis

Dynamic time history analyses were performed to evaluate the response of the SAFR reactor
with and without isolation. A comparison of the horizontal and vertical response spectra of the reactor
supports is shown in Figs. 3.2 and 3.3. It can be seen that there are substantial reductions of horizontal acceleration for all resonant frequencies of the internal equipment. In the vertical direction, the
- 16 -
response is amplified in the range of the vertical isolation frequencies, but at frequencies greater than
4 Hz, which is the range of vertical frequencies of most components, fhe response is reduced. The
tal direction. In general, a large arnount of rocking may result in buildings supported on LSF bearings.
The SAFR building, however, has a sufficiently low center of gravity and a wide base to limit rocking
to acceptable levels.
3.4 SAFR Bearing Design

The SAFR bearings are 42 inches in diameter and have an overall height of 16.75 inches (Fig.
3.4). The bearings consist of three 4 inch rubber layers separated by two 1/8 inch steel shims and
with 2 inch thick end-plates. An external rubber cover layer (2 inches fhick) is provided for protec
tion. The design horizontal frequency is 0.5 Hz and the vertical frequency is approximately 3 Hz. For
a carried mass of about 290 tons per bearing, the compressive stress on each bearing is approximately
416 psi. The elastomer used for the bearings is a filled, high-damping natural rubber. Tests are
required to verify the suitability of existing design formulas (as presented in Chapter 2) for the design
of LSF bearings and to evaluate the behavior of bearings with bolted connections.
3.5 Test Bearing Designs

The full-scale bearings for the SAFR reactor module are large by current standards so the test
bearings needed to be of a reduced scale in order to be of a reasonable size and stiffness for testing
using fhe existing facilities at EERC
It was felt that a bearing of 10 inches diameter would be a reasonable size for testing and this
led to a test bearing design corresponding to 1/4-scale. The test bearings were designed with both
bolted and doweled end-plate connections" One further design variable was added: to evaluate bearings manufactured from two different rubber compounds, a filled, high-damping natural rubber, and an
ordinary unfilled, natural rubber. The design properties and dimensions of the prototype and reducedscale SAFR bearings are presented in Table 3"1.
- 17 -
Doweled Bearing Design

The doweled bearings are of 10 inches overall diameter and 5.25 inches in height. The end-
_________________________ -----_:pla!es--a.re--1--in.,..h---thick, urith
f"'"'"-1-~ete.:-}
7/8 ineh deep dovvd holes
Oif
a- 6 htdt diameter in
each end-plate. The bearings consist of three 1 inch thick rubber layers, separated by two 9 inch
diameter, 12 gauge steel shims. The external cover layer is 0.5 inch thick. To preserve the vertical and
horizontal frequencies of the prototype bearing the vertical load was selected to be 31.8 kips. The
doweled bearing design is shown in Fig. 3.5.
The elastomer for the test bearings was compounded by LTV Energy Products Co. of Arlington,
Texas. The bearings were manufactured by the Structural Bearings Division of Fluorocarbon, Athens,
Texas. The high-damping rubber was of a formulation designated 243-62 by the compounder and had
a Duromctcr hardness of 62, with a shear modulus of approximately 130 psi at 50 % shear strain.
The unfilled rubber was of a formulation designated 247-55 by the compounder, with a shear modulus
of approximately 120 psi at 50 % shear strain. The elongation-at-break (EB) of the high-damping
material was 562 %, and 662 % for the unfilled rubber.
Bolted Bearing Design

The design of the bolted bearings differed only from that of the doweled bearings in the endplate detail. End plates of 18 inches diameter and 1 inch thickness, with eight 1 inch diameter bolt
holes on a 14 inch center were provided in this design. The bolted bearing design is shown in Fig.
3.6.
3.6 Comments on Design

The general design methodology for elastomeric bearings for seismic isolation represents several
significant departures from the design requirements for elastomeric bearings used for vibration isolation or to accommodate service loads in bridge structures. In particular, slenderness, rated load, and
lateral displacement criteria are substantially different from those currently used for bridge bearings.
Further discussion of these aspects is offered by Stanton and Roeder in [ 48] and Kelly eta!. in [49].
In the context of current practice in the field of seismic isolation bearing design, the LSF bearings of this test program are of particular interest for two main reasons:
- 18 -
The relatively thick rubber layers -
necessary to achieve the desired vertical isolation -
represent a much lower shape factor than typical for current isolation bearing designs. This
---- ---ilOOld havc-Un..p!icati<w.U}n the-suitohili! oLthe design_e4JllliiDlllLfuLJbese types (LSfJ
Q(I:J>car~
ings.
"
The use of oversize end plates to facilitate bolting of the bearings is a detail not currently
employed in the U.S. (although it is used in Japan), but could prove to be advantageous in the
future. It is an aspect of isolation bearing design that warrants investigation.
__
- 19 -
CHAPTER 4
TESTS OF LSF BEARINGS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a description of the types of tests performed on the LSF bearings and an
outline of the complete test program. The facilities at EERC for the testing of single isolator bearings
are also described.
4.2 Description of Test Facility

This section presents a brief description of the test setup, instrumentation layout, and the control
and data acquisition systems used. Fig. 4.1 shows an overall schematic diagram of the facility and the
various stages of testing and data analysis.
4.2.1 Test Setup

All of the tests of the LSF bearings were performed in a test machine capable of subjecting single bearings to simultaneous generalized horizontal and vertical dynamic loadings. Fig. 4.2 shows the
details of fhe test machine and Fig. 4.3 is a general view of the machine with a test bearing in place.
The test machine consists of two rigid reaction frames supporting one horizontal actuator and
two vertical actuators. The test bearing is mounted on a force transducer which measures shear force,
axial force and bending moment. The force transducer is located on a braced pedestal which is
attached to a base block. The base block consists of a concrete block and a wide flange steel beam to
provide anchorage to the test floor. Loads arc applied to the test bearing by a beam; vertical loads by
two vertical actuators to simulate gravity loads on the bearings, and the horizontal loads by a horizontal actuator which acts along the longitudinal axis of the load beam.
The rigid pedestal is placed between rhe transducer and the test floor to maximize the length of
the vertical actuators so that the change in the vertical load component due to horizontal displacements
during testing is not significant. Two lateral struts are connected to opposite ends of the load beam to
stabilize fhe setup in the transverse direction. For constant axial loads applied to fhe test bearing the
- 20 vertical actuators are under force control, which means that the vertical load is maintained constant
and is independent of the horizontal displacements of the load beam. In addition, the differential dis_.. .. _ . . - . . ~ . . . . ~ . . -f~~pA; . . betweeP..-the-b!J.o.. . . e:cticaLartJrators
is . .maintain.e.dlli. . &G:X.~suring thatJhe load beam is kept
horizontal.
Control of the hydraulic system is performed by an MTS 443 Controller. The hydraulic actuator
can develop a maximum dynamic load of 76.2 kips at a hydraulic pressure of 3000 psi. The maximum
travel of the horizontal actuator is 6 inches (i.e., 12 inch stroke). Maximum piston velocity is 30.3
in!s and the servo-valve on the actuator has a flow capacity of 200 gpm. If displacements in excess
of the
6 inch limit are required the setup can be modified to obtain a maximum displacement of 10
inches for loading in one horizontal direction only. A maximum load of 300 kips can be applied by
the two vertical actuators, each with a servo-valve capacity of 25 gpm.
Signal control is performed by an IBM-AT 286 personal computer. Control signals for both
components of loading can be completely general in nature.
4.2.2 Instrumentation
A total of 14 channels of data was recorded for the tests of the LSF bearings. The attributes
(response component, units and channel name) for each of the channels arc presented in Table 4.1 and
their spatial orientation is indicated in Fig. 4.4. A brief description of the components that were measured follows.
The loads applied by the hydraulic actuators were measured by prccalibrated load cells. The
compression load on the bearing is calculated by summation of the measured forces in the two vertical
actuators. Shear force, axial force and bending moment are measured by a force transducer located
underneath the bearing. A linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) built into the horizontal
actuator measures the horizontal displacement of the load beam (this being the lateral displacement of
the bearing). Linear potentiometers attached to both of the vertical actuators provide feedback signals
for the control of the vertical load. Four direct current differential transformers (DCDTs) measure the
vertical displacements of the load beam near the corners of the top of the bearing. To observe any
shortening of the pedestal assemblage and other components below the test bearing, two DCDTs were
connected between the base block and the bottom bearing plate (situated between the bearing and the
- 21 -
force transducer).
4 2 3 Data "'-cquisiti<>a aa<i fodlalysis
Data acquisition was performed by a DEC LSI 11/23 computer. The acquired signals were
filtered and amplified by Pacific Signal Conditioners and multiplexed through a 12-bit analog-to-digital
signal converter at a burst rate of 250 kHz. For the dynamic loading tests the channel list was scanned
at a rate of 25 or 60 Hz, depending on the characteristics of the test. The data acquisition system can
monitor a maximum of 64 channels. Typically, however, usual experimental configurations require
only about 1-30 channels. The digitized data recorded during testing were stored on magnetic tape
and subsequently transferred to a VAX 11-750 computer and SUN 3/50 workstation network for data
processing and analysis. Data analysis was performed using an interactive, data analysis programming
language and environment [50].
4.3 Description of Tests

A total of 6 bearings of 4 different types was used in the test program. The complete set of test
bearings consisted of two high-damping (filled), natural rubber bolted bearings; one low-damping,
(unfilled) natural rubber bolted bearing; two high-damping, doweled bearings, and one low-damping,
doweled bearing. Details of the bearings and a convenient notation selected to denote the different
bearings are presented in Tables 3.1 and 4.2. The notation adopted is reiterated here:
HB 1
High-damping, Bolted
HB 2
High-damping, Bolted (failure tests only)
HD 1
High-damping, Doweled
HD 2
High-damping, Doweled (buckling tests only)
LB
Low-damping, Bolted
LD
Low-damping, Doweled
The matrix of tests conducted was extensive. A total of 265 nondestructive tests was performed
on the HDI> HBI> LD, and LB bearings. Failure tests were performed on the HBI> HBz, and LD
- 22 -
bearings. The HD2 bearing was used for the buckling load tests.
Testing of isolation bearings has in recent years had as a basis the so-called standard cyclic
shear test, which is a displacement-controlled, sinusoidal, lateral shear test performed under a state of
constant compression load. This test, while widely believed to produce bearing behavior which is
representative of behavior under more complicated and less uniform loading conditions, has yet to be
shown to be conclusively acceptable as a test procedure from which to draw generalized conclusions
regarding behavior under many different types of loading. One of the objectives of the study was to
subject bearings to a number of non-standard loading conditions and to evaluate the behavior of the
bearings in terms of the standard cyclic shear test procedure.
With this in mind, the following loading conditions were chosen:
(1)
monotonic vertical load
(2)
cyclic vertical load about an initial vertical load (no horizontal displacement permitted)
(3)
cyclic vertical load about initial vertical load with constant horizontal displacement offset
( 4)
cyclic horizontal displacement with constant vertical load
(5)
cyclic horizontal displacement about an initial horizontal displacement offset with constant vertical load
(6)
simultaneous, cyclic horizontal and vertical excitations.

Each of load cases (4), (5) and (6) consisted of tests performed at increasing increments of shear
strain and a range of vertical loads. With these three different load cases the aim was to be able to
draw some conclusions regarding the suitability of the standard tests to reveal the overall behavior of
the bearing in cases of more complicated, non-standard loading.
The complete list of tests is presented in Tables 4.3-4.10. The tests are presented separately for
each load case, and are characterized in terms of shear strain, vertical load, displacement offset and
the test signal used. The specific characteristics of the test signals used to apply the different load
cases are detailed in Table 4.1 L The various combinations of loading required a total of 13 test signals. Each of the six different load cases is described in more detail in the following section.
- 23 .
Description of Load Cases

Load Case 1 : Monotonic vertical load
This load case consisted of monotonic vertical load applied to the bearing with no horizontal displacement permitted. This test allowed observation of the vertical stiffness under monotonic loading
conditions. Load cycles to peak loads of 15.9, 31.8, 47.7, and 63.6 kips were performed. These
loads correspond to 50, 100, 150, and 200% of the design vertical load, and peak pressures of 250,
500, 750, and 1000 psi, respectively. The complete list of tests performed for this load case is
presented in Table 4.3.
Load Case 2 : Cyclic vertical load abour initial vertical load (no horizontal displacement permitted)
The bearing was subjected to an initial vertical load and then the vertical load was cycled about
the initial load with no horizontal displacement allowed. These observations revealed the cyclic
loading-unloading vertical stiffness properties of the bearings. Initial vertical loads of 15.9, 3L8,
47.7, and 63.6 kips were applied with a vertical load cycle of 10 kips for all tests. The complete
list of tests performed for this load case is presented in Table 4.4.
Load Case 3 : Cyclic vertical load about initial vertical load with constant horizontal displacement
offset
This load case provided another loading variation for evaluation of vertical stiffness properties.
In this instance the test was constructed so as to reveal any influence of horizontal displacement offset
on the vertical stiffness of the bearings. An initial vertical load of 3L8 kips was used for all of these
tests. Horizontal displacement offsets of 0, 0.75, 1.50, 2.25, and 3.00 inches and cyclic vertical load
amplitudes of 6.4, 12.8, and 25.6 kips were applied. The complete list of tests performed for this
load case is presented in Table 4.5.
Load Case 4 : Cyclic horizontal displacement with constant vertical load

This load case has become the standard test for elastomeric seismic isolation bearings. Axial
loads of 15.9, 31.8, 47.7, and 63.6 kips and shear strain amplitudes of 10, 25, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150,
- 24 -
and 160% were used for these tests. The complete list of tests performed for this load case is
Load Case 5
Cyclic horizontal displacement about initial horizontal displacement offset with constant vertical load
An initial displacement was imposed on the bearing and then the standard test (load case 4) was
conducted to achieve sinusoidal displacement excitation with constant vertical load about a constant
horizontal displacement offset position. An axial load of 31.8 kips was used for all of these tests. An
offset displacement of 1.5 inches (50% shear strain) and cyclic strain amplitudes of 50% and 100%
were used. The complete list of tests performed for this load case is presented in Table 4.7.
Load Case 6 : Simultaneous cyclic horizontal and vertical loading

The basis for these tests was to investigate the effect of horizontal and vertical excitations of the
bearing occurring simultaneously, representing quasi-resonant loading conditions. The bearings were
subjected to 5 cycles of vertical excitation for every cycle of horizontal excitation. This relationship
between loading rates represents approximately the ratio of the vertical frequency to the horizontal frequency for the test bearings under their design loading (Table 4.1). An initial axial load of 31.8 kips
was used for all of these tests. Shear strain amplitudes of 50% and 100% and cyclic axial load amplitudes of 6.4 and
12.8 kips were used. The complete list of tests performed for this load case is
4.3.2 Failure Tests

Failure tests were conducted on the bearings to determine their modes of failure in shear and
tension. One doweled bearing was tested to failure in shear (for doweled bearings, failure in shear
actually corresponds to a geometric instability phenomenon, termed "roll-out"), two bolted bearings
were used for tension tests to failure, and a third bolted bearing was used for shear failure tests. The
failure tests performed are listed in Tables 4.9 and 4.10.
- 25 -
4.3.3 Buckling Tests

Buckling tests were conducted on the HD 2 doweled bearing. These consisted of applying a
onoton;coJ!y
increasing-<OOalJood-t~ring-wi!hfufrffiad{,eam-free--teH!isp!aee-in1lle-ttoriii7ZOO:!n:11t!aalt------
direction. (The equilibrium condition of a bearing in the test machine at the onset of buckling is
evaluated in Section (iii) of Appendix A).
4.4 Rate Effects

Test rate is known not to have any significant influence on the dynamic properties of elastomeric
isolation bearings [51]. However, to observe any rate-related phenomena a number of standard tests
were performed at frequencies of 0.01, 0.5, and 1.0 Hz. The specific rates of the test signals used are
given in Table 4.1 L
- 27 -
CHAPTER 5
TEST RESULTS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the results for the tests of the LSF bearings. Results for the standard and
non-standard tests, buckling tests and failure mode tests are presented and discussed. Results are compared with predictions by design equations for vertical stiffness, bukling load and roll-out displacement.
5.2 Shear Tests

Standard cyclic shear tests of a total of four bearings were performed for a shear strain range of
10%-160%, with axial loads varying from 15.9 kips to 63.6 kips (202 psi to 808 psi). The complete
list of these tests is presented in Table 4.6, and the tests have been previously described in Section
4.3.1. Typically, each test consisted of 5 cycles of sinusoidal displacement loading applied under constant axial load conditions. The testing sequence consisted of applying a constant axial load to the
bearing and performing tests at increasing shear strain amplitude, changing the axial load setting and
repeating the sequence of increasing strain tests, and so on. The tests were performed in the order
listed in Table 4.6.
Typical shear force-displacement hysteresis loops for the standard tests on the four bearings are
presented in Figs. 5.1 and 5.2 as examples of the results obtained from these tests. Because of the
large number of tests performed (166) individual hysteresis loops arc not presented for every test.
5.2.1 Analysis of Hysteresis Loops

The hysteresis loops obtained for the szandard shear tests were analyzed to obtain a number of
different performance parameters for the LSF bearings.

Depending on the loading conditions (axial load and shear strain) and the type of bearing under
investigation, the bearing stiffness as revealed by the test hysteresis loops was in some instances
highly nonlinear. Fig. 5.3 illustrates an example of this nonlinear behavior. The hysteresis loop
- 28 represents the 150% shear strain test of the LD bearing under an axial load of 63.6 kips. It is clear
that the bearing undergoes a substantial change of stiffness from the small strain to the large strain
determined for all of the standard shear tests.

A simple calculation of stiffness based on values of peak force and peak displacement is defined
as
(5.1)
where Fmax Frnin, dmax and drnin are the maximum and minimum values of shear force and displacemen!, respectively. This stiffness is interpreted as the "effective" or overall stiffness of the bearing
during the test. In the case of highly nonlinear stiffness behavior (Fig. 5.3), however, Kh
good measure of the total behavior of the bearing. For this reason, a second stiffness,
K:.
'"
is not a
was defined
as the slope of the tangent to the hysteresis loop at zero displacement Fig. 5.4 shows the definition of
Kt.," and K: in
terms of a typical hysteresis loop. K, was calculated as

Fo+ - Fo-
(5.2)
-------
do+- dowhere
do+,
and d0 - are the first positive and negative displacement data points on either side of d = 0,
and F 0+ , F0- are the corresponding force values.

The hysteresis loops were also analyzed to obtain the equivalent viscous damping ratio of the
bearings for each test. A hysteresis loop is a plot of force against
displacemen~
and the area con-
tained within such a loop represents the energy dissipated by the bearing.
The equivalent viscous damping ratio exhibited by the bearings is evaluated in the usual (structural
engineering) fashion [52]
(5.3)
where
Wd = dissipated energy (hysteresis loop area)

W, = stored (clastic) energy
- 29 These bearing characteristics (Kh,rr
K.
and !;) were determined for all of the standard tests on
each of the HD 1, HBh LD, and LB bearings. These results, as well as the actual vertical load on the
--~---OO&r.ffig,-~1""'k- displac'ffle-t,{--aifai!Wd~1fle--er:espomliffg--pealf.
s!lem stram for -etteb--test4l'fe---------- --------
presented in Tables 5.1-5.4 for the four test bearings. As mentioned above, each test consisted of 5
cycles of loading. The analyses of the loops were performed for the middle three cycles of loading,
i.e., cycles 2, 3, and 4, with the first and last cycles not considered for analysis. The parameters
presented in Tables 5.1-5.4 represent averaged values for these three cycles of response.
In the subsequent sections the influence of bearing axial load and peak shear strain on these calculated bearing parameters is investigated. Section 5.2.3 presents the results obtained from a study of
the high-damping bearing parameters, and Section 5.2.4 presents a similar study of the low-damping
bearings.
5.2.2 Material Shear Modulus

The shear modulus G for the filled and unfilled elastomers was determined from coupon tests of
the materials. These tests consisted of sinusoidal shear tests of small material samples performed
under conditions of no axial load. The shear modulus-shear strain relationships for the unfilled and
filled elastomers are presented in Figs. 5.5a and 5.5b, respectively, The nonlinearity of G with shear
strain is apparent from the figures. The filled rubber (243-62) has a much larger G in the low strain
range than does the unfilled rubber (247-55) hut at large strains G for both materials is about the
same. For sbear strains in excess of 50-75% G for the filled rubber can be regarded as almost conslant
5.2.3 Observations of Behavior: High-Damping Bearings

The bearing parameters Kh " K,, and
"'
s were evaluated from the hysteresis loops for all of the
standard cyclic shear tests using the relationships described in Section 5.2.1. This section discusses
the trends in these parameters for the high-damping (HD 1 and HB 1) bearings, with respect to both
bearing axial load and shear strain.
Before evaluating the data obtained from analyses of the hysteresis loops several observations
regarding the consistency of the results must be drawn. The detailed behavior of the bearings (in particular, those manufactured from the high-damping, filled rubber compound) was not entirely
- 30 -
independent of the loading history of the bearing. That is, scragging as a result of prior tests
influenced the observed results (to some extent) for any given test. Thus, the results obtained are
that the apparent stiffness degradation is not a permanent effect, but rather a short-term phenomenon
from which the bearings do recoveL Fletcher and Gent found that the dynamic modulus of filled
natural rubber decreases after cycles of large amplitude deformation [53,54]. They observed that the
modulus subsequently increases with time, reaching its original value after 24 hours at room temperature. Further work has suggested that this recovery time may be less [55,56]. Their results indicate
that filled, high-damping rubbers will show small short-term decreases in stiffness for repeated large
amplitude deformation cycles, but will recover to their original stiffness after a short time. Nonetheless, this fact compounds the difficulty in making definitive statements regarding the effects of single
factors on the behavior of the LSF bearings.
(a) Shear Stiffness

Hysteresis loops for the HD 1 bearing plotted for constant values of peak shear strain (25175%) and overlaid for the four test axial loads of 15.9, 31.8, 47.7, and 63.6 kips applied to the bearing are presented in Fig. 5.6. The general trend apparent from these loops is that increasing axial load
leads to a gradual reduction in bearing stiffness up to about 125% strain (Figs. 5.6a--c), beyond
which point the bearing exhibits a marked increase in stiffness (for constant strain) with increasing
axial load (Figs. 5.6f and 5.6g). This is evident in Fig. 5. 7, which shows Kh
'"
as a function of axial
load for the HD 1 bearing, plotted for curves of constant strain. The two lower curves correspond to
strains of 25, 50, 75, and 100% and show a decrease in Kh
'"
with increasing axial load while the
upper curves, for strains of 125, 150, and 175%, increase with increasing P.
The phenomenon of increasing stiffness for high axial loads and strains in excess of 100% is
caused by two separate factors. The first of these is the strain-induced stiffening property of natural
rubber which is due to crystallization at high shear strains. This crystallization is not accompanied by
a brittle transition, as is commonly associated with materials that crystallize, but is primarily a
stiffening and toughening phenomenon. This material nonlinearity is accentuated by the presence of
the carbon black filler, which has the effect of increasing the "effective strain" occurring in the elastomer. The filler causes constrictions in the elastomer-filler matrix and these in turn cause increased
- 31 local strains in the materiaL Qualitatively, the effect the filler has on the shear modulus at high strains
can be regarded as one of strain amplification. At the microscopic level of behavior in the compound,
-~~-------J.l:te__ dc.sktipliQll._oUhis.~LiJLc.ompl icate d..{13J._.:r:he.. add; !ion a! shear~-~ilh ''Grtica!
load on the bearing is the second factor contributing to the nonlinear stiffness behavior. The compression strains corresponding to the (higher) axial loads, 47.7 and 63.6 kips, are of the order of 1316%. Axial load on the bearing has the effect of compressing the elastomer-filler matrix, which in
turn causes localized strain-amplifications and magnifies the strain nonlinearity of the filled material.
The maximum shear strain induced in a layer of elastomer by a compression load (derived from
a strain energy approach) is

(5.4)
where S
Ec
shape factor
=
compression strain,
Eq. (5.4) indicates that for an <c of 10-15%, the maximum compression shear strain is 135-200%.
A5suming an average strain of -12SE0 this means that the (average) increase in shear strain in the
material due to the compression loading is about 55-80%. This represents a substantial increase in
the shear strains as a result of high axial loading, and when combined with the imposed cyclic shear
deformation it is easy to sec that the elastomer is being deformed into strain regions for which the
material behavior is significantly nonlinear. This nonlinear behavior is apparent in Fig. 5.6g, which
shows hysteresis loops for the HD 1 bearing at 175% shear strain and axial loads of 15.9, 31.8, 47.7,
and 63.6 kips. The loops showing the greatest nonlinearity correspond to the higher loads of 47.7 and
63.6 kips.
The sequence of constant strain tests at the different axial loads for the HB 1 bearing is shown in
Fig. 5.8. The results are similar to the HD 1 results, with stiffness decreasing with increasing axial load
a! low shear strains and then increasing with increasing axial load at high shear strains. Figs. 5.8f and
5.8g (shear strains of 150 and 160%) show a substantial increase in stiffness with increasing axial
load. As described above for the HD 1 bearing, this is due to the material nonlinearity of filled rubber
which is amplified by the additional shear strain caused by the high axial loads.
--------------~
- 32 The tangent stiffness, K,, showed a slight decrease with increasing axial load (at constant strain)
and decreased with increasing strain for constant axial load conditions. These K, trends were observed
Figs. 5.9 and 5.10 present overlaid hysteresis loops for tests of the HD 1 and HB 1 bearings under
constant axial load and increasing shear strain amplitude. The effect of scragging on the stiffness of
the bearings is evident in these plots. Fig. 5.10b, for example, shows hysteresis loops for the HB 1
bearing under 31.8 kips axial load and at shear strain cycles of 10-160%. This sequence of tests is
tabulated in Table 4.6b. With reference to the table, it can be seen that the tests up to 100% were the
first shear tests conducted on the bearing, and that the high strain shear cycles (125, 150, and 160%)
were not performed until the later stages of the HB 1 tests. The consequence of this sequence is evident in Fig. 5.10b. The inner three loops (10, 25, and 50%) show an initial "settling-in" of the bearas expected for the very first test cycles of a bearing -
ing -
and then at 75% and 100% the loops
follow a well-defined, nonlinear envelope. The three tests at large strains, however, show a clear
change in stiffness, and do not follow the envelope pre-described by the smaller strain tests. This
stiffness reduction is a direct consequence of the substantial work performed on the bearing
(represented by tests 890320.21 -
890321.26, 18 tests, Table 4.6c) between the 100% and 125%
shear strain cycles. As described above, the stiffness returns to its original value after a recovery
period.
(b) Damping Behavior

The equivalent viscous damping ratio, !; (Eq. 5.3), was calculated for all of the cyclic shear tests
of the HD 1 and HB 1 bearings. The results are listed in Tables 5.1 and 5.2.
It is known that for highly nonlinear systems or for systems that do not behave according to
viscous theory the calculation represented by Eq. 5.3 is not a good measure of the damping behavior
of such systems. For this reason, the variation of damping with respect to axial load P and peak shear
strain was not investigated in terms of !; but rather in terms of the dissipated energy, determined from
the area of the hysteresis loops.
If a system has ideal viscous damping, then the damping it exhibits is independent of displace-
ment and is a function only of the rate of loading. Eq. 5.3 can be rewritten as
- 33 -
(5.5)
------~-- _w h_e~e__dl!lllK_i~t!J_e_~~i_!11u_ll1_iii1p()_se_d_~isJll_ac_r:ll1S.'lLii!'_d_f_m;a_i~Jll_ElCtti_ng_m~!l!ll.!!LfQL<:>'~-Thll_'h __W4.---~~ ~-
has a linear displacement dependence, since
s is, by definition, independent of displacement
Alterna-
tively, if !he system under consideration behaves according to ideal linear viscoelastic theory, then it
can be shown that
(5.6)
where
~
G"
loss modulus of the viscoelastic material
Yo
cyclic strain amplitude
volume of elastomer _
ln this case, W d has a strain-squared dependence.

To investigate the nature of the strain-dependence of the damping of !he LSF bearings the following relationship was studied. We assume that
wd
= constant
(5"7)
that is, that W d is a function of the strain raised to some power rJ.. We wish to find the value of a that
satisfies Eq. 5"7 for the experimental data. We note here that if: (1) a= 0, the system behaves according to viscous damping theory; (2) a
teretic), and (3)
a~
1, the damping is a linear function of displacement (hys-
2, then the damping behavior obeys viscoelastic theory. Then, from Eq. 5.7,
!n(Wd)
which is of the general form y
o. ln(y) +constant,
(5.8)
ax + b.
The experimental data were evaluated to find the form of Eq. 5.8, and specifically the value of
o.. For the range of axial loads used in the tests it was found that a varied over the range
1.4s o. s 2"0 (Table 55). It was found that a was larger for the low-damping than for the high-
damping bearings, and larger for the doweled than for the bolted bearings. These results indicate that
the behavior of !he filled and unfilled LSF bearings docs not agree fully with either viscous or
- 34 -
viscoelastic theory.
Fig. 5.12 is a plot of Wd against axial load (curves of constant strain) for the HB 1 bearing. Fig.
~-----5.Tns-preseiifeoio-il!ustrafe-ilie-'t'"=aepeiidence-onne-energy-arssipatron.1nng:-s:n,-w.J-rnvnreuoy---
{' is plotted against axial load for curves of constant strain amplitude (25-160%), where
a = 1.54 is
the mean value of a found for the HB 1 bearing. It can be seen that the unique curves for each strain
amplitude in Fig. 5.12 have collapsed to a single straight-line in Fig. 5.13. This line shows an almost
linear increase in the energy dissipation capability of the bearing with increasing axial load.
While values of l; have been calculated and tabulated in Tables 5.1 and 5.2, for the reasons discussed above the investigation of specific trends in l; -- the equivalent viscous damping ratio -
as a
function of axial load or strain have not been pursued.

In previous tests of doweled, clastomcric bearings performed at EERC it bas been observed that
the geometric distortions of the bearings at large strains have caused flexural bending of the bearing
end plates which contributed to the damping behavior of the bearings. This phenomenon did not occur
with the LSF bearings, primarily because of the low shape factor (and thus the low vertical stiffness).
Fig. 5.11 is a view of the LD bearing at approximately 250% shear strain and under 31.8 kips axial
load. The bearing has undergone considerable lateral distortion, but it is seen that the end plates have
rotated without any apparent flexural deformation. That they did not deform in flexure can be attributed to their (1 inch) thickness in relation to the soft vertical stiffness of the bearing, which allowed
the gross shape deformations of the bearing at large strains to be accommodated by compression and
shear of the rubber layers. From these observations it was concluded that end plate bending was a
negligible component of the damping behavior of the doweled LSF bearings at large strains.
5.2.4 Observations of Behavior: Low Damping Bearings

(a) Shear Stiffness
Hysteresis loops for the LD bearing tested at constant shear strain amplitudes (25-160%) and
overlaid for the four axial loads (15.9-63.6 kips) are presented in Fig. 5.14. A similar sequence of
plots for the LB bearing is given in Fig. 5.15. The influence of axial load on the behavior of the LD
bearing is illustrated in Figs. 5.14c and 5.14d, which arc for tests at 75 and 100% shear strain. The
bearing shows a consistent reduction in stiffness for each increment of axial load. It is also evident
- 35 that as the axial load increases, the size of the hysteresis loops also increases. The implications of this
on the damping of the bearing are discussed in the next section.
It can be seen that there is a general reduction in Kh ~ff with increasing P, and for a given P,
decreases with increasing shear strain amplitude. Similar curves are plotted for
K.
eff
against P in Fig.
5.17. It is interesting to observe that at very large strains and high axial loads (47.7 and 63.6 kips)
K.
tends to zero, and at 150% and 160% is actually negative for the 63.6 kip axial load. These results
suggest a very unusual state in the bearing, which can be explained if the behavior is considered to be
viscoelastic. The elastic component of the bearing shear resistance mechanism has become negative,
but the viscous component remains positive and is opposed to this negative stiffness and the applied
loading which, incidentally, docs not become negative.
Two differences between the sequences of constant strain tests at different axial loads for the LB
bearing (Fig. 5.15) and those for the LD bearing (Fig. 5.14) are apparent: (1) the decrease in stiffness
for increased axial load is not as substantial for the LB bearing as for the LD bearing, and (2) the
increase in area of the hysteresis loops at high strains is dearly not as marked for the LB bearing as
for the LD bearing (for example, compare Fig. 5.15f and 5.15g with Fig. 5.14f and 5.14g, respeclively). In fact, the LB bearing shows a significant Kh,,,-P independence. This can be seen in Fig,
5.18, which shows constant strain curves of Kh ~. against P for the LB bearing.
decreases as
strain increases (for constant P), but the constant strain relationships are quite linear (and independent
of P). The variation of K, with P is similar to that shown in Fig. 5.17 for the LD bearing, but does
not reach negative values for the extreme strain and high P loading conditions.
Figs. 5.19 and 5.20 present the overlaid hysteresis loops for tests of the LD and LB bearings
under conditions of constant axial load and increments of increasing shear strain. As was observed
for the high-damping bearings, these plots reveal that the behavior is dependent to an extent on the
loading history of the bearings. Fig. 5.19b shows the sequence of increasing strain tests of the LD
bearing at 31.8 kips axial load. Referring to Table 4.6b, it can be seen that (as for the high-damping
bearings) the 31.8 kip axial load tests up to 100% shear strain were performed at the outset of the
series, but that the 31.8 kip sequence was not concluded until the bearing had undergone many further
tests. This load history dependence is reflected in the figure, where the first five tests (up to 100%
- 36 shear strain, 3 inches displacement) follow essentially the same loading envelope, but the final tests at
125% and 150% show a clear deviation from the smaller strain loading envelope. A similar trend is
apparenrfonl'fe-rest-sequenceS<rt t5:9-mrcrrr:Titips-{Fig:5:1:'k-and--5-:f9e7btrr-;s-l:e8S"mllfked-aHhe63.6 kip axial load leveL The same sequence of tests of the LB bearing (Fig. 5.20) does not show
such an obvious load-history dependence. A small deviation from the hysteresis loop stiffness
envelope defined by the tests up to 100% is seen for the 125, 150, and 160% tests (the three largest
loops in Fig. 5.20), but it is not substantial.

The equivalent viscous damping ratio, !;, was calculated (using Eq. 5.3) for all of the cyclic
shear tests of the LD and LB bearings. The results are listed in Tables 5.3 and 5.4. For the reasons
already discussed in Section 5.2.3b, !; is not the best indicator of the damping behavior of tbe bearings.
A similar study to that outlined in Section 5.2.3b showed that the energy dissipation of the bearings followed a yadependence (1.4 "a s2.0). Values of a (in Eq. 5.7) determined from the experimental data for the LD and LB bearings are given in Table 5.5. These results showed that, as
observed for the HD 1 and HB 1 bearings, the actual damping behavior of the LD and LB bearings was
not truly viscous nor viscoelastic. For this reason, !; as expressed by Eq. 5.3 was not studied in detail.
Nonetheless, a number of general observations on the damping characteristics can still be made. The
hysteresis loops for the low-damping bearings showed that the damping was axial load dependent, and
this was particularly obvious for the LD bearing. Fig. 5.14f shows 150% shear tests of the LD bearing
at axial loads of 15.9, 31.8, 47.7, and 63.6 kips. The hysteresis loops for the 15.9 and 31.8 kip tests
are narrow and essentially linear, but the 47.7 and 63.6 kip test loops are much larger and highly nonlinear. This significant change in behavior at the higher loads is due to the proximity of the applied
load to the buckling load of the LD bearing. Fig. 5.14g shows the 160% strain tests at 47.7 and 63.6
kips. It can be seen that the hysteresis loops are very nonlinear and that K, is actually negative for
the 63.6 kip test.
Previous work [ 12] has shown that as the applied load tends to the bearing buckling load, the
damping of the bearing increases. The behavior of the LD bearings at high axial loads was evidence
- 37 of this phenomenon.
Tests to investigate the effects of load rate on the LSF bearings were performed for vertical and
horizontal loading conditions. The horizontal tests (load case 4) listed in Tables 4.6a-----d were at frequencies of O.Dl Hz (signal rkw3), 0.5 Hz (signal rkw4), and 1.0 Hz (signal rkw5). The vertical tests
(load case 3) listed in Tables 4.5a and 4.5b were conducted at frequencies of 0.01 Hz (signal rkwlO)
and 0.5 Hz (signal rkw6).
Results for the horizontal tests are presented in Tables 5.1-5.4. The horizontal tests revealed
small differences in the stiffness and damping characteristics with changing rate, but these were so
small that other bearing nonlinearitics masked any rate-related trends. The slight differences between
the slow- and the fast-rate rests were more noticeable for the vertical tests than for the horizontal tests.
The variable-rate, vertical tests were the very first tests to which the bearings were subjected. This fact
was significant, because initial tests of any bearing reflect a "settling-in", which stablizes after a
number of load cycles. 1bis settling-in appeared to be more significant than the effects related to the
rate of loading. The high-damping bearings (HD 1 and HB 1) did exhibit some creep tendency at 0.01
Hz, caused by the filler in the elastomer. However, creep was only evident for the first test and was
much reduced for subsequent tests.
5.3 Vertical Tests

5.3.1 Load Case 1 : Monotonic Verrical Load
Half-cycle excursions of monotonic compression loading to peak loads of 15.9, 31.8, 47.7, and
63.6 kips were applied to each of the four types of bearings. The axial load-displacement relationships for these 4-test sequences are shown in Figs" 5.21-5.24 for the HD 1, HB 1, LD, and LB bearings, respectively.
A comparison of the loading curves obtained for the HD 1 and HB 1 bearings shows that the two
bearings possess almost exactly the same vertical stiff.'less characteristics, and as expected, the endplate connection detail had no influence on the vertical stiffness. A similar comparison of the LD and
LB curves shows even closer agreement between the vertical stiffness of the two types of unfilled,
low-damping bearings. The results for the low-damping (LD and LB) and high-damping (HD 1 and
- 38 HB 1) bearings do, however, show some differences. The vertical stiffness of the high-damping bearings is clearly nonlinear with respect to vertical displacement, unlike the !ow-da.'Ilping bearings. This
-lS duelO!heracrmannred nmlrrarmbbers pussess greater ~-te!'ldenei:es~mmlle&-<iklstG
mers. The high-damping bearings also have a slightly higher vertical stiffness than the low-damping
bearings. This is because the filled rubber has a larger Young's modulus (Eo) than the unfilled
material. Figs. 5.21-5.24 all show an increase in bearing vertical stiffness with increasing vertical
load, with that for the high-damping bearings somewhat greater than that for the low-damping bearings.
5.3.2 Load Case 2 :
Cyclic vertical load about iuitial vertical load (no hori2ontal displacement permitted)
Following the monotonic loading tests, axial loading cycles of
10 kips about initial axial loads
of 15.9, 31.8, 47.7, and 63.6 kips were applied to each bearing.
The axial force-displacement plots for these four tests are shown superimposed on the 63.6 kip
monotonic load test in Figs. 5.25-5.28 for the HD 1, HB 1, LD, and LB bearings, respectively. The
high-damping bearings (Figs. 5.25 and 5 .26) show a marked difference in cyclic stiffness between the
monotonic and cyclic loading cases.
The curves also show that the cyclic vertical stiffness is
influenced by the initial vertical load on the bearing, since the stiffness increases with increasing initial
load. The vertical stiffness of the bearings during these loading cycles (Kv off) was calculated on the
basis of the peak-to-peak values of force and displacement of the hysteresis loop. The variation of
cyclic ]{,ff with pre-existing compressive strain (prestrain) is compared with the monotonic (tangent)
stiffness in terms of the stiffness ratio ]{, cydlt. I ]{,mono in Figs. 5.29 and 5 .30, for the high-damping and
low-damping bearings, respectively. The ratio shows a general increase over the entire range of prestrain for the high-damping bearings (Fig. 5 .29), and is greater than one in all cases. The stiffness
ratio for the low-damping bearings is much closer to one (Fig. 5.30), however, and does not show any
significant increase until the prestrain exceeds about 1{}-12% (which corresponds to an axial load of
about 40 kips).
- 39 -
Cyclic vertical load about initial vertical load with constant horizontal dis-
5.3.3 Load Case 3
placement offset
---~~~-~--~-~faa&=-
cornpr ise<Mtre-n:rajorpartimnJrtlreverti:cat-tmrding-rests;Wilh--,nmato!6<nesK___________ _
performed on the four different types of bearings. The tests performed are listed in Table 4.5. In general, these tests exhibited very stable behavior. A typical loop, for the HB 1 bearing cycled vertically
at a constant horizontal displacement offset of 0.75 inches, is shown in Fig. 5.31. Plots for all of the
other tests of this type were very similar in appearance to Fig. 5 .31. For this reason, and the fact that
a large number of tests were performed, vertical hysteresis plots are not presented for every test. The
force-displacement relationships were analyzed to obtain the vertical stiffness and damping properties
for each test. These properties were determined in the same way as for the horizontal, cyclic shear
tests using the relationships described in Section 5 .2. L
(a) Vertical Stiffness
The relationships between vertical stiffness Kv ,,, (evaluated from the peak-to-peak values of the
loop) and horizontal offset are shown in Fig. 5.32 for the four different bearing types. Three curves
are shown in each figure; these correspond to an initial vertical loading of 31.8 kips plus amplitudes
of 6.4, 12.8, and 25.6 kips applied to the bearings. These loading amplitudes are indicated on the
figures. Fig. 5.32 shows that !<,
"'
of the HD 1 and LD bearings is almost constant for all offset dis-
placements. There is a slight increase in the stiffness of the HB 1 and LB bearings at the largest offset
displacement (3 inches).
Unlike the evaluation of the damping behavior of the bearings under horizontal loading, the vertical damping behavior was evaluated in terms of the equivalent viscous damping ratio,
The vertical
hysteresis loops exhibited stable, linear stiffness behavior, and thus 1; is a reasonable indicator of the
vertical damping characteristics of the bearings.
Fig 5.33 shows
s plotted against horizontal offset for the four bearing types. These plots show
that damping in the vertical direction is essentially independent of the horizontal offset Unlike the
vertical stiffness behavior, damping in the vertical direction shows little dependence on the amplitude
- 40 -
of the cyclic vertical loading. An interesting result is that the "low"-damping bearings actually exhibited more damping in the vertical direction than did the high-damping bearings. This is in contrast
Witb~the
aampmg behaViofsllowney-tile-rwrr<:!ifferenti:re aring types-fur1om!mgnrrhe-fflrizer.taJ',..-----
direction, where the damping of the HD 1 and HB 1 bearings was typically about twice that of the LD
and LB bearings (Section 5.2.3). Typical values of damping ratio for vertical excitation were 16-18
%for the LD and LB bearings and 10--14% for the HD 1 and HB 1 bearings.
5.3.4 Perfonnance Observations and Comparisons

The following observations and comparisons are based on the results obtained from the vertical
tests of the LSF bearings:
(i)
Cyclic vertical stiffness is greater than the monotonic vertical stiffness at the same load level, and
this difference increases with compression prestrain (initial axial load).
(ii) Cyclic vertical stiffness is largely independent of any horizontal offset displacement imposed on
the bearing.
(iii) Damping in the vertical direction is essentially independent of vertical load amplitude and of any
horizontal offset displacement imposed on the bearing. The low-damping bearings exhibited
greater damping than did the high-damping bearings.
(iv) The low-damping bearings possessed vertical stiffness characteristics that were essentially linear,
compared with the more nonlinear vertical stiffness of the high-damping bearings. This attribute,
coupled with the fact that the so-called "low" -damping bearings showed greater damping than
the high-damping bearings suggests that from the point-of-view of vertical isolation, unfilled,
low-damping bearings possess more desirable performance properties.
(v) Connection type played no part in the nature of the vertical behavior of the four different types of
LSF bearings tested.
5.4 Combined Loading Tests
A series of tests were performed on the four types of LSF bearings to evaluate their behavior
under simultaneous vertical and horizontal loadings. These tests are listed in Table 4.8 and described
- 41 -
in Section 4.3.1.
A comparison between the behavior of the HB 1 bearing subjected to combined loading and to
~----------"Shear-feadfflg-ooly-iY~-i:ty--RgY.--5c34-and-5o:Y5o'fhe-figores
loops at axial loads of 31.8 kips constant load and 31.8
present lOO'!irstreru stt ain hysteresis

12.8 kips load, respectively. The
differences between the horizontal response for the two load cases is not significant, and this was
further indicated by analysis of the stiffness and damping parameters for the combined loading hysteresis loops. These results are presented in Table 5.9, and a comparison with the results obtained
from the shear-only tests (Tables 5.1-5.4) showed the the effect of simultaneous vertical and horizontal loading did not significant! y alter the response of the LSF bearings from that observed for
loading in one direction only.
5.5 Failure Mode Tests

5.5.1 Introduction
Tests were performed on four LSF bearings to investigate different modes of failure of elastomeric bearings. Shear tests on the LD, LB, and HB 2 bearings, and a tension test to failure on the
fiD 1 bearing were conducted. Results for these tests are presented in the following section.
5.5.2 Shear Failure Tests

(a) LB Bearing
A sequence of large strain tests (Table 4.9, tests 890322.56-890322.61) were performed on the
LB bearing. The objective of these tests was to impose lateral displacements on a bolted bearing
sufficient to cause failure and to investigate the nature of this failure.
Because of the large displacements required to induce failure strains in the LSF test bearings the
test machine was reconfigured for the series of failure tests to perrnit maximum displacements of
approximately 10 inches by offsetting the horizontal actuator with a spacer-block. !n this
configuration, it was possible to apply only half-cycles of loading to the bearing.
An initial loading cycle to 50% strain was performed to determine the stiffness of the bearing
prior to any degradation. Subsequent tests corresponding to peak shear strains of 200, 225, 225, 328,
- 42 and 344% were conducted. A photograph of the LB bearing at approximately 330% shear strain is
shown in Fig. 5.36. The force-displacement plots for the sequence of LB shear failure tests are shown
---,sup1llirnposeU-:iirflg:~5:37:-'fhe-fust-evidenee--crf+.rt!ttre-was-seen-dming~tl!e-~%--,~her~--at ---~
approximately 9.5 inches (320% strain) an obvious change in stiffness occurred. This coincided with
clearly visible rupture of the bottom layer of elastomer in the bearing. It is interesting to note that the
subsequent 344% strain test (the most extreme envelope in Fig. 5.37) revealed only a small loss of
stiffness beyond about 4 inches of
displacemen~
with the bearing still capable of carrying loads in
excess of that at which significant damage to the bearing had first occurred. The bearing continued to
accommodate lateral deformation to approximately 9 inches before total failure occurred. At this stage,
however, the bottom layer of elastomer was almost completely torn through.
An additional feature of these results warrants comment: namely, the appreciable increase in
bearing shear stiffness at high shear strains. Beyond shear strains of about 150% (4.5 inches displacement) the stiffness of the bearing began to increase noticeably, and at strains in excess of 200% (6
inches) this increase was substantial. This stiffening was caused by strain-induced crystallization
(described in Section 5.2.3a). This crystallization process is reversible and thus the nonlinear hysteresis path was followed for successive tests of increasing amplitude, until failure of the bearing
began. As previously noted, this crystallization is not accompanied by brittle behavior, but is primarily a stiffening and toughening phenomenon.
The elongation-at-break (EB) for the low-damping 247-55 compound is 662 %. The actual
strain in the rubber at failure (due to compression and shear) is calculated to be 480% under 31.8 kips
(500 psi) axial load.
(b) HB 2 Bearing
A sequence of large displacement shear tests similar to those performed on the LB bearing were
performed on the HB2 bearing up to failure. These tests (Table 4.9, tests 890323.08-890323.11) were
to peak strains of 198, 262, and 327%. The HB 2 bearing had not been subjected to any testing prior to
this sequence of failure tests, and thus the results reveal the shear failure characteristics of a virgin
bolted bearing.
- 43 The force-displacement plots for the sequence of failure tests are shown in Fig. 5.38. A discontinuity in the load path of the 262% peak strain test at approximately 250% strain (7.5 inches) indi-----~----~- cates__!ll_<;_i_J!itil)!io_!!_ of
fail urLyvJthi'!_tlLLJ>J';i"!ing ..ALYLg;;__ .!?_bl?~rvelLfllL!h~~LJiJ:u:aring,_ this fa i!ure_____________.______.
mode was one of tensile tearing of the elastomer. Fig. 5.39 is a photograph showing the appearance of
the bearing at the onset of the tearing failure. The final test showed that the already damaged bearing
continued to behave in a stable manner to a shear strain in excess of 300%, even though the bearing
had incurred significant physical damage during the previous test at approximately 250% strain. The
final high strain test caused enormous damage to the bearing. After these high strain tests a 100%
strain test was conducted to reveal the remaining strength of the bearing. This test showed that the
bearing still possessed appreciable stiffness, and not substantially different to the pre-failure stiffness.
The EB for the high-damping 243-62 compound is 562 %. That this is lower than the EB for
the low-da,cuping elastomer is due to the presence of the carbon black filler in the high-damping compound. The actual strain in the rubber at failure is calculated to be 435% under 31.8 kips axial load.
(c) LD Bearing
Seven tests (Table 4.9, tests 890323.13-890323.19) were performed on the LD bearing to
investigate the nature of shear failure of doweled bearings. The shear failure mechanism for doweled
bearings is a geometric instability condition that is commonly called "roll-out" (Fig. 5.40). Roll-out
generally does not cause physical damage to a bearing, and for this reason it was possible to conduct
several sequences of failure tests for different axial loads on the LD bearing.
The first set of tests was at an axial load of 31.8 kips, and corresponded to peak shear strains of
100, 200, 263, and 100%. Fig. 5.41 shows the force-displacement relationships for these tests. The
most extreme of these loops reaches a peak strain of approximately 263% (7.9 inches displacement),
but it is apparent from the shape of the loop that roll-out had occurred prior to this point. This can be
seen by the drop in shear force at about 7 inches displacement. The bearing stabilized after this point
and continued to carry load at increased displacement This continued load-carrying ability was due to
the fact that the bearing had begun to transfer axial load through its side-walls. This behavior is seen
in Fig. 5.42, which shows the bearing at a peak strain of 250% (7.5 inches). It can be seen that the
bearing has undergone such extreme lateral deformations that it has literally rolled onto its side.
- 44 -
The second set of tests was performed at an axial load of 15.9 kips and peak shear strains of
100, 198, and 263%. The force-displacement plots for these tests are shown in Fig. 5.43. Again it can
----~~-seen-that-fox.~JLinch..Aiispl acern ent . 1l:sl.in.stabilit}'.ll.C1!lal1.}C..o_g;~s~aL!!ILO.J!.lLi!!9~. .0L 230.'if;
shear strain. The bearing drops little shear load, however, before stabilizing and continue to carry load
and displace laterally. The 100% shear strain tests performed before and after the roll-out tests showed
that there was negligible loss of stiffness even after the bearing had been subjected to dramatic distorlions of shape (Fig. 5.42).
Experimental Results and Theory

A simplified calculation for the roll-out displacement
o, of the LD bearing was performed to pro-
vide a comparison with the experimentally observed roll-out displacements under different axial loads.
Assuming the forces shown in Fig. 5.40 acting on the bearing and that at roll-out the axial load P acts
at the comers of the bearing, the roll-out
disp!acemen~
o,
b
Eq. 5.9 gives
o?1.s =
6" can be expressed as
1
1+
(5.9)
GA --h
T, p
. ---
6.8 inches under 31.8 kips axial load and
o/59 =
5.1 inches under 15.9 kips
axial load. The roll-out displacement observed during experiment was approximately 7 inches for both
the 31.8 kip and the 15.9 kip axial loads. The calculated value,
experiment, but
o/ 5.9 =
o;Ls =
6.8 inches, agrees well with
5.1 inches is not a good estimate of the actual roll-out displacement.
Several factors contribute to the simplified analysis giving a lower-bound to the actual roll-out
displacement. As can be seen in Fig. 5.42, the LD bearing suffered significant distortion of its undeformed shape during the roll-out tests. Appreciable height reduction accompanied these large lateral
deformations. ln calculating the bearing roll-out displacement, the original bearing height was used
with no accounting for height reduction associated with lateral displacement; this leads to a !ower calculated br Another contributing factor is the method used to determine the bearing stiffness. The simple approach used in calculating liy does not take into account the strain-induced stiffening that occurs
in the elastomer at high strains; thus, the simple relation expressed by Eq. 2.1 will provide a lowerbound estimate of the high-strain stiffness of the bearing, and hence a lower-bound on 6"
- 45 -
The point of roll-out under the 31.8 kip axial load is clearly seen in Fig. 5.41, however, in Fig.
5.43 (15.9 kip axial load test) the exact point of roll-out is less well defined. The figure shows that the
________________s_~:'~!__st~fll~s_s_()!_t~~-~e_<l:':i!'g__t(01~~-to_:"~()__ Etj__a_sl_isj>l_a~_e_l]l~l}_tl~~Jb.Jm...Q.i!ll:.h~!l,.J>:hl.clLagr_<;_e,us;l!SQll,_________ ~~-ably with the calculated value of 5.1 inches.
5.5.3 Vertical Failure Tests

A total of thirteen axial load tests (Table 4.10, tests 890321.35--890321.47) were performed on
the HB 1 bearing to investigate the nature of tensile failure of bolted bearings.
The first eight of these tests comprised full cycles of tension-compression loading at increasing
amplitude. The axial load-vertical displacement relationships for these tests are shown overlaid in Fig.
5.44. The curves show a significant change in bearing vertical stiffness from the tension to the
compression portions of the loading cycle. The tensile stiffness of the bearing corresponds to the tensile stiffness of the elastomer. The compression stiffness, however, is additionally influenced by the
shape factor of the bearing rubber layers, and this changes from the tension to the compression stages
of the loading. The largest of the loading cycles in Fig. 5.44 shows a decrease in vertical height of the
bearing of about 0.7 inch, which represents an appreciable change in the thickness of the individual
rubber layers.
The remalning 5 tests (890321.43-890321.47) were half-cycles of tensile loading to failure
(with no excursion into the compression range). The tensile load-vertical displacement plots for the
last three of these tests are presented in Fig. 5.45. The uppermost of the three curves in Fig. 5.45
reaches a pea.lc tensile load of 31.4 kips ( 494 psi). Visible tearing of the top rubber layer of the bearing was observed during the later stages of this loading cycle, and the effect of this degradation
influenced the behavior of the bearing during the two final tests. The subsequent test reached a peak
tensile load of 22.0 kips (346 psi) and had a peak vertical displacement of 1.63 inches, compared with
a peak displacement of 1.45 inches in the previous test. These values indicate that the bearing
suffered a loss of strength during the 31.4 kip test, and this is further borne out by the final test which
caused a 2.3 inch vertical displacement and reached a peak tensile load of only 18.5 kips (291 psi).
The HB 1 bearing is shown in its unloaded state in Fig. 5.46. Fig. 5.47 shows the bearing at about 2
inches vertical deformation during the 18.5 kip test.
These figures illustrate the large vertical
- 46 -
deformations that the bearing accommodated, even after material tearing had begun to occur. The
maximum vertical displacement achieved prior to any apparent material damage was 1 AS inches, or a
-~t"'etmlsile-strnirr~al-:dooil~~rr-ying~cy_tu.TI%
tensile strain
Estinlation of the tensile stresses induced in the bearing during these tension loading tests is
complicated by several factors; namely, the large vertical deformations that occurred corresponded to
significant decreases in the cross-sectional dimension of the bearing (Fig. 5.47) making the accurate
calculation of the load-carrying area difficult; and once the material began to tear the load-carrying
area was further reduced -
an effect that is even more difficult to account for than the elastic Poisson
effect. By neglecting these effects and simply calculating the tensile stress based on the plan dinlension of the shinls, a lower bound on the tensile stress existing in the bearing at maximum load during
the tension tests was obtained. This approach implied a peak stress of 493 psi in the rubber during
the 31.4 kip test, before rupture of the elastomer had occurred.
5.6 Buckling Tests

Three tests (891102.02-891102.04) were performed on the HD 2 bearing to investigate the buckling behavior of the LSF bearings. Axial load was applied to the bearing with the test machine
configured to permit free horizontal displacement of the load beam. The vertical load and load beam
horizontal displacement were both monitored to provide an indication of the onset of buckling.
Fig. 5.48 is a plot of axial load versus load beam horizontal displacement for the 891102.04 test.
It can be observed that the vertical load rises steadily to a value of about 30 kips before any appreciable horizontal displacement occurs, beyond which point the vertical load increases to about 180 kips
with a corresponding horizontal displacement increase to about 0.11 inch. This plot indicates that the
buckling load (Pc,) for the HD 2 bearing is approximately 31 kips. A theoretical evaluation of Pcr using
Eq. A.l9 (or Eq. A.17) and the relationships for S, Pb Ps, etc., as expressed in Appendix A yields a
value of Per= 41 kips. This value is not in particularly good agreement with that obtained by experiment. However, the curve in Fig. 5.48, and in particular the high compression load sustained by the
bearing in the post-buckling state (= 180 kips) with a very small corresponding horizontal displacement suggests that the buckling load as such is not a significant factor affecting the performance of
LSF bearings. This fact is attested by the very stable post-buckling behavior (for vertical loads > 30
- 47 -
kips) shown in Fig. 5.48, where it is seen that although the bearing "buckles" at approximately 31
kips, the load-deformation relationship in the post-buckling range is very stable, at least up to 180
__ J<iE!i(i'lh_ic;h~
apl'_rgxi'!l'!!~!Y. 6J:'d_'Yi1ILI!Q sig!)_QL1lll.Y->lmruJ~llJly~un.ed.1alheJJear:ing.________
The results indicate that P cr is not a critical or limiting upper-bound for the allowable design
load on this type of bearing.
5.7 Vertical Test Results and Design Equations

ln this section the design equations for bearing compression modulus and compression stiffness
as presented in Sec. 2.3 are compared with the results from the vertical tests of the LD and HD 1 bearings.
The following assumptions are made in the calculations for the compression modulus and vertical stiffness: (1) the bearing area used in Eq. 2.2 is taken as the shim area, (2) the shape factor is calculated using an effective diameter equal to the shim diameter (9 inches) plus one layer thickness (1
inch), which in this case is equal to the overall diameter of the bearings, and (3) the shear moduli are
taken to correspond to the shear strain in the elastomer under the design load of 31.8 kips, which is
assumed to be v'2S<c as described in Sec. 5.2.3. On this basis, the shear modulus for the low-damping
elastomer is the value at y = 30%, and for the high-damping elastomer at y = 25%. These values are
G 10w
141 psi and
Ghigh =
156 psi. The theoretical stiffnesses are compared with the experimental
vertical stiffness obtained at the design vertical load of 31.8 kips.

The compression modulus is calculated using the four methods presented in Eqs. 2.3-2.6 and
the compression stiffness using these values of Ec and Eq. 2.2 The theoretical values are compared
with the vertical stiffness results (from Table 5.6) and tabulated in Table 5.10. The best agreement
between theory and observation is provided by Methods 2 and 3 (Eqs. 2.4 and 2.4) compared with the
experimental values of monotonic vertical stiffness.
These equations underestimate the vertical
stiffness by about 10--20%. Method 1 (Eq. 2.3) is in error by about 40--50% when compared with
the experimental monotonic stiffness. The principal reason for this is that the shear modulus used in
Eq. 2.3 is determined from design tables given in [11] and these values are significantly lower than
the actual moduli corresponding to the 31.8 kip axial load on the bearings. The calculations of Ec
using Eq. 2.3 use k = 0.64 and G = 109 psi for the LD bearing, and k 0.56 and G 128 psi for
- - -----------
- 48 -
the IID 1 bearing. The agreement between theory and the observed values of cyclic vertical stiffoess is
not as good; varying from about 15-60% low. The material property used in Method 4 is the elasto-----;>m~TeeJr'-fifi:ardness,~4:~GalculaiiG!l&-lhl~~aken.asi.~ci&d._riesi.g!Lbardness_(55
damping material and 62 for the high-damping material).
for the
!ow.:.._~
- 49 -
CHAPTER 6
AN ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR THE BEHAVIOR
6.1 Introduction
Damping plays a very important role in the dynamic behavior of elastomeric bearings. Viscoelastic models have been found to prov rde reasonable representations of the dynamic characteristics of
e!astomeric bearings, and in this chapter a simplified mechanical model based on viscoelastic theory is
developed. Of particular importance in the development of a suitable model is the accurate prediction
of the effects of axial load on bearing bchavioL
The development of viscoelastic theory and its application to the analysis of elastomeric bearings
is discussed by Koh and Kelly in [12]. The standard method of analysis is based on Haringx's theory
of viscoelasticity [46].
Tests of rubber bearings with a shear stiffness low in comparison to their
flexural stiffness have shown that this theory is appropriate for the analysis of multilayer elastomeric
bearings [10,47].
The need for better viscoelastic models arises from the importance of understanding the influence
of axial load on the dynamic shear stiffness of elastomeric bearings. In [12] two viscoelastic models
generalized to include the effects of damping are developed. The first is a consistent model based on
Haringx's theory (Appendix A), and the second is a two-spring physical model, which is subsequently
extended here for application to LSF bearings.
Any acceptable analytical model for the dynamic
behavior of seismic isolation bearings must be able to:

(a)
account for the influence of axial load on the dynamic shear stiffness of the bearing,
(b) account for the influence of axial load on the damping behavior of the bearing,
(c)
accurately predict the height reduction of a bearing subjected to simultaneous axial loading and
horizontal displacements. If this relationship is known with accuracy, then it may be exploited to
design a fail-safe system which would operate beyond some limiting height reduction,
corresponding to the maximum allowable bearing horizontal displacement.
- 50 One explanation of the effect of vertical load on the energy dissipation of a bearing has been
given by Derham and Thomas [10] but this has been found to be physically incorrect [12]. The
------deve!epm.mt-4-t!l<>-tWG-modmiP.-fl2!--wa!WnO!i1'ated.b:y_. .a.ilesire to proy.iJ:IJ:...aJ:a.tillru!l.J;_xpl<lllat!on_oL
this phenomenon in a consistent way within the framework of viscoelastic theory.
6.2 A Two-Spring Physical Model for Elastomeric Bearing Behavior

A two-spring mechanical model [12,30] developed to predict the behavior of elastomeric seismic
isolation bearings using a physical approach is shown in Fig. 6.1. It consists of a rigid column of
length I erected on a rigid plate which is resting on two frictionless rollers of negligible dimension.
The rollers sit on a second rigid plate and a horizontal spring restricts the relative displacement s
between the top and bottom plates. The bottom plate is supported at a pivot and the relative rotation 6
is constrained by a rotational spring. The stiffnesses of the rotational and horizontal springs are Kb
(moment per unit radian) and K, (force per unit length), respectively. A vertical compression load P,
a horizontal load F, and a moment M are applied at the top end of the rigid column. The equations
for the model are derived in detail in Appendix B. The final results are presented here. The horizontal
stiffness of the model is found to be
GA,
? .
1-ap-p-j'
1 + ap +a-.
-------------------~-
where A, = bearing shear area
shear modulus
l = height of bearing
112
a=
Ps
GA,
(6.1)
. 51 .
The static horizontal stiffness given by Eq. 6.1 is extended to the dynamic case by considering a
harmonic loading and replacing El and GA, by their complex counterparts EI' El (1 + itan 6 )
--J!!lc!...Q64 ...~...Q.A.,.J:Lv:.i!l.!!..QJ,.JJ<~Jl".c1il'ely,...w.hm..lLi.JheJoss..angk..oL1he..clastomeL..The..compley......._........_. ______ _
stiffness is found to be
Kh *
where
0'
1 - an - p '
1 + ;;;;- + a 2
K'
s
(6.2)
indicates a complex quantity.
The dynamic stiffness and loss factor are then

(6.3)
and
(6.4)
tan <jJ
where <jJ
loss angle for the bearing .
6.3 Nonlinear Two-Spring Model

The foregoing analysis for the simplified model can be extended to the nonlinear case where, for
example, the shear stress-shear strain relationship for elastic response might take the form
(6.5)
The relationship between 8 and s !I given by subtracting the two equations in (B.ll) is
8
p - Ps s
l
p
- ------------
(6.6)
and we assume that this holds for the nonlinear case. The second equation of (B.ll), when including
the nonlinear term, becomes
(6.7)
where the nonlinear coefficient Ps is derived from the nonlinear material constant G. The further
addition of the viscoelastic term
- 52 -
Ps
tan li- s
----
CD
for the nonlinear elastic-viscoelastic buckling problem. This equation is
to the final
s3
tan 6 s
s
Ps - + Ps --.... _, ___ - - + Ps
13
I
CD
l
-P
p -
Ps s
----
--
PE
(6.9)
To illustrate the predictions of this result we further note that the imposed displacement u,
which is given by s + I B (in terms of s II), is given by
u =
-- ---------- s
(6.10)
Since PE P or Ps, and P and P 5 are of comparable size, a reasonable approximation for Eq.
(6-10) is u s. Thus, the external load F in terms of u is given by
(6.11)
This can be written in dimensionless form (using the expressions for PE, P5 , a, and p in Section 6.2)
to get
F
GA,
o- u
(1-ap-rJy+
tan 6
CD
To show the effect of the destabilizing action of the axial load this has been evaluated for
sinusoidal motion for a range of u II up to 2, 0 s p s 1, tan ii - 05 and G = 4. These results are

shown in Fig. 6.2. It is clear that asp
1 (which is actually beyond the buckling load) the tangent
stiffness at u(l = 0 becomes negative even though the overall loop has positive stiffness_ This type of
behavior was observed during the tests of the LD bearing (Fig. 5,14g). The damping is substantial,
but the standard formula (Eq. 5.3) for estimating tan li for the bearing using the ratio of dissipated
energy to stored energy is not rational because of the negative stiffness (K,) in the region of zero
shear displacement. lt is unlikely that this phenomenon could be exploited in practice to provide a
highly damped system since the system would not be locally stable at zero displacement, but it would
be stable overall. It could be possible, however, to include a few such bearings in an isolation system
to enhance the overall damping of the system.
- 53 -
CHAPTER 7
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
7.1 Summary
The research reported here represents the results of an experimental and analytical study of low
shape factor (LSF), elastomeric seismic isolation bearings. The study involved the testing of LSF bearings made from filled, high-damping natura! rubber and ordinary unfilled, natural rubber with bolted
and doweled end-plate connection details. Six different types of nondestructive tests were performed
on a set of six test bearings, representing a total of almost 300 different tests. ln addition to these tests
a number of failure mode tests and buckling tests were also conducted.
The tests provided an opportunity
to
examine the relative merits of doweled and bolted connec-
tion details and the influence of the different details on the behavior of the bearings. The differences
between filled, high-damping rubber and ordinary natural rubber compounds for elastomeric isolation
bearings were evaluated by testing bearings made from both types of rubber. The fundamentals of an
analytical model to predict the response characteristics of LSF bearings as functions of the axial load
applied to the bearing was developed by extending the theory of an existing model.
The test series represents the first perfomJance evaluation study of elastomeric bearings designed
specifically to provide both horizontal and vertical seismic isolation.
7.2 Conclusions
The standard shear tests demonstrated that the bearings possessed stable stiffness and damping
properties. The filled rubber bearings showed a higher energy dissipating ability than the unfilled
rubber bearings, because of the presence of the carbon black filler in the elastomer. Analysis of the
shear strain dependence of the damping behavior revealed that damping did not vary according to a
relationship as would be the case for viscoelastic behavior. The energy-dissipating property varied
approximately linearly with axial load over the the range of loads studied. For highly nonlinear
behavior, the equivalent viscous damping ratio
the bearings.
s was not the best measure of the damping behavior of
- 54 -
The bearings showed a general reduction of stiffness with increasing axial load. The bearings
possessed a nonlinear stiffness-strain relationship, with the stiffness increasing significantly at large
- ------
-strailts-(ffi-~.uf-m-.-.W%_),
-Th.i&..wa&.d.ue...to.the. .str.ain.,stiffuning.J.;!mract.:.tisti.Q.Q.f.!he.e.!.~tQJ!l5!!,........... ________
This property is particularly desirable for isolation bearings, as it means that there is a reserve of shear
resistance available when the isolation system is subjected to very large excitations.
The shear stiffness K0 calculated according to Eq. 2.1 agreed reasonably with the test results.
This agreement must be regarded as approximate only, because of the substantial nonlinear behavior at
large strains and high axial loads, and the variation of stiffness from the small-strain to the large-strain
regions of loading under such conditions.
The results of the offset-shear and simultaneous loading tests indicate that the standard cyclic
shear test produces bearing behavior that is indicative of their response under more complicated loading conditions. Thus, for all but the most unusual loading cases, the standard test is suitable for
evaluating the performance of bearings.
Load-history had some effect on reducing the stiffness of the bearings, but the effect on damping
behavior was negligible. This stiffness loss was largely regained after a recovery period. The effect of
loading rate on the response of the bearings was not signifrcant. In fact, in most cases the rate effects
were of a level that was difficult to isolate from other aspects of bearing behavior.
Observations of the vertical tests showed that the bearing damping and stiffness characteristics
were very stable over a wide range of loading conditions. The vertical stiffness was found to be
largely independent of any horizontal displacement offset imposed on the bearing, with virtually no
change over the range of 0--100% shear strain offset. The compression stiffness of the bearings did,
however, show some variation between monotonic loading and cyclic loading conditions. These
differences were a function of the compression pre-strain in the bearing, and varied from increases of
1-2.5 times for the high-damping bearings and 1-2 times for the low-damping bearings. At pre-
strains in excess of 10--12% there was not good agreement between the monotonic and cyclic vertical
stiffnesses (K, mono and Kv cych<l
.\
Strains of this level do, however, correspond to axial loads larger than
the design load for the SAFR reduced-scale bearings. For the low-darnping bearings with pre-strains
less than 10%, there was reasonable agreement between Kv
mo~o
and Kveye1.lC The theoretical equations
yielded reasonable estimates of Kv c:ychc. for the low-damping bearings, but there was poor agreement for
- 55 the high-damping bearings. The fact that Kv c-y;:hc. is the primary characteristic needed to design bearings
for vertical isolation suggests that better equations are needed for the calculation of this quantity
mance characteristics of proposed LSF bearing designs should be verified directly by experiment.
Damping under vertical loading conditions was essentially constant over the entire range of tests
performed, and it is of interest that the unfilled (so-called "low" -damping) rubber bearings had better
damping characteristics than did the filled (high-damping) bearings. The type of bearing connection
detail did not have any influence on the vertical behavior of the bearings.
The shear failure tests of the bolted bearings showed that the bearings behaved in a stable
manner up to strains of 300--350%. The bearings exhibited stable stiffness characteristics even after
substantial damage had occurred to the bearing. Final failure of the bearing was by gross rupture of
the elastomer. Filled natural rubbers possess a lower tear-resistance than unfilled rubbers, and this is
the most likely explanation of the slightly higher ultimate displacement of the LB bearing compared
with the HB; bearing. The doweled bearing failure tests showed stable behavior to strains of about
250% before roll-out occurred. The tests demonstrated that bearings with bolted end plate connections
can be expected to achieve larger displacements than doweled bearings under ultimate loads, because
bolted connections provide better resistance to roll-out than do doweled connections.
The vertical failure tests demonstrated the large tensile resistance of the bearings. The HB 1 bearing resisted tensile pressures of approximately 500 psi (greater than the design compression load)
before failing. Failure was represented by material rupture, that is, the bearing failed due to tearing
through of the material and not by a break-down of bond between the layers of elastomer and the
shims or the end plates. This is a significant point, because tensile rupture of the elastomer is a failure
mode that is more easily predicted than a bond or delamination type of failure. The importance of
having good bond cannot be over-emphasized.
A previously developed analytical model for eiastomeric bearing behavior is known to give good
results for moderate loading conditions (and for bearings with high shape factors). The significant
stiffness nonlinearity of the LSF bearings, however, cannot be described as accurately using that
model. This is particularly the case for bearings loaded in the region of their buckling load, as was the
case for the LD bearing which showed very nonlinear behavior and a substantial increase in energy
- 56 -
dissipation for large shear strains coupled with high axial loading. The two-spring physical model was
extended and demonstrated qualitatively to capture these aspects of behavior. The test results also
----------'""'vealed .th.at ..the response. -oLthe. hearings ..did_.not..pr.aperl:,c.fuilol&'.. liru:.m: ..Yio.CQ!:l~!iQ.J!!.e.QIY~.iLfac.L ...............................
which compounds the difficulty of an accurate theoretical analysis of behavior.
It should be emphasized that the highly nonlinear characteristics in the mechanical behavior of
the high damping (HD and HB) bearings are due to the extremely low shape factor of these bearings.
Such nonlinear characteristics would not be expected to be present in bearings with moderate to high
shape factors (in the range of 8 to 20, for example). Tests have been carried out on high damping
bearings with shape factors in this range and the observed behavior has been significantly more linear
[49,57,58].
The results of the current test program indicate that LSF bearings can be used effectively to provide seismic isolation in both the vertical and horizontal directions. The tests indicate that the LB-type
bearing would be the most appropriate, combining as it does low stiffness nonlinearity in the vertical
and horizontal directions, adequate damping, and low creep tendencies. The dynamic response of a
structure supported on such bearings needs to be studied. It is recommended that earthquake simulator
tests of a large scale reactor model supported on LB bearings be undertaken as the next phase in the
study of low shape factor seismic isolation bearings.
- 57 -
REFERENCES
[1]
J. M. Kelly, "Progress and Prospects in Base Isolation," Proceedings of a Seminar and
-------------Wo'ks/u;p "" Base !seletien~ Ptissire Ene~gy Dissipatimt ATC-1'!, p. 29-37, Applied
Technology Council, San Francisco, California, Mar. 1986.

[2]
J. M. Kelly, R. !. Skinner, and A. J. Heine, "Mechanisms of Energy Absorption in Special
Devices for Use in Earthquake Resistant Structures," Bulletin of the New Zealand National
Society for Earthquake Engineering, 5(3): 63-88, 1972.

[3]
R. !. Skinner, J. M. Kelly, and A. J. Heine, "Hysteretic Dampers for Earthquake-Resistant

Structures," International Journal for Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 3(3):
287-296, 1975.
[4]
R. !. Skinner, R. G. Tyler, A J. Heine, and W. H. Robinson, "Hysteretic Dampers for the

Protection of Structures From Earthquakes," Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for
Earthquake Engineering, 13(1 ): 22-36, 1980.

[5]
P. R. Boardman, B. J. Wood, and A. J. Carr, "Union House- A Cross Braced Structure with
Energy Dissipaters," Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering,
16(2): 83-97, June 1983.
[6]
J. M. Kelly, "Aseismic Base !solation: Review and Bibliography," Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 5(3), 1985.
[7]
!. G. Buckle, "Development and Application of Base Isolation and Passive Energy Dissipation:
A World Overview," Proceedings of a Seminar and Workshop on Base Isolation and Passive
Energy Dissipation ATC-17, p. 153-174, Applied Technology Council, San Francisco, California,
1986.
[8]
J. M. Kelly, "Base Isolation in Japan, 1988," Report No. UCB/EERC-88!20, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Dec. 1988.

[9]
F. F. Tajirian and J. M. Kelly, "Seismic Isolation of Nuclear Plants: A World Overview,"
Proceedings Seventh ASCE Structures Congress, American Society of Civil Engineers, San
Francisco, May 1989.
- 58 [10] C. J. Derham and A. G. Thomas, "The Design of Seismic Isolation Bearings," in: Control of
Seismic Response of Piping Systems and Other Structures by Base Isolation, J. M. Kelly, ed., p.
=C.,"<-'
-""-"~"'
-' 'ni"ersiy
Dorhjo" Io.n l"o'
I.;, I:,,~, U
V
t
v~ "-'u't1~~=.., ~,...,_, ...~ .. ---------"---~-~--------- .. ~-----------~--"~~-
[11] Engineering Design With Natural Rubber, Malaysian Rubber Producers' Research Association,
Tun Abdul Razak Laboratory, Brickendonbury, Hertford, England, 1978.
[12] C. G. Koh and J. M. Kelly, "Effects of Axial Load on Elastomeric Isolation Bearings," Report
No. UCB/EERC-86!12, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,

Berkeley, Nov. 1987.
[13] Natural Rubber Science and Technology, A. D. Roberts, cd., Oxford University Press, 1988.
Malaysian Rubber Producers' Research Association, Brickendonbury, Hertford, England.
[14] W. H. Robinson and A. G. Tucker, "A Lead-Rubber Shear Damper," Bulletin of the New
Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 10(3): 151-153, 1977.

[15] S. M. Built, "uad Rubber Dissipaters for the Base Isolation of Bridge Structures," School of
Engineering Report No. 289, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Auckland,

Auckland, New Zealand, Aug. 1982.
[16] W. H. Robinson and A. G. Tucker, "Test Results for uad-Rubber Bearings for the W. M.
Clayton Building, Toe Toe Bridge, and Waiotukupuna Bridge," Bulletin of the New Zealand
National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 14(1): 21-33, 1983.

[17] l. G. Buckle, "Factors Affecting the Performance of Lead-Rubber Energy Dissipaters," in:
Proceedings of Bridge Design Seminar, Bulletin 73, Road Research Unit, National Roads Board,
New Zealand, 1984.
[18] C. Plichon and F. Jolivct, "Aseismic Foundation Systems for Nuclear Power Plants," 4th
International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, SMiRT-4, 1977.

Paper No. K9/2.
[19] J. Renault, M. Richli, and B. Pavot, "The First Application of Antiseismic Friction Bearings:
The Koeberg Nuclear Power Station," Annates de l'lnstitut Technique du Batiment et des
Travaux Publiques, p. 69-90, 1979.
- 59 [20] C. Plichon, R. Gueraud, M. H. Richli, and J. F. Casagrande, "Protection of Nuclear Power

Plants Against Seism," Nuclear Technology, 49: 295-306, 1980.
....................I21J..C~.L.J&rllllm,.L.M...Kcll)C...aruL'L..G...Thoma s. --~'Nonlinear N anra I R bbe~-i.ngs.~mi<l---------------.......

Isolation," Nuclear Engineering and Design, 84(3): 417-428, 1985.
[22] C. l Derham, "Non-Linear Natural Rubber Bearings for Seismic !solation," Proceedings of a
Seminar and Workshop on Base Isolation and Passive Energy Dissipation ATC-17, p. 315-322,
Applied Technology Council, San Francisco, California, 1986.
[23] J. M. Kelly, J. M. Eidinger, and C. J. Derham, "A Practical Soft Story Earthquake Isolation
System," Report No. UCB/EERC-77127, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley, 1977.
[24] J. M. Bidinger and J. M. Kelly, "Experimental Results of an Earthquake Isolation System Using
Natural Rubber Bearings," Report No. UCB/EERC-78!03, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley, 1978.
[25] J. M. Kelly, K. E. Beucke, and M. S. Skinner, "Experimental Testing of a Friction Damped
Aseismic Base Isolation System with Fail-Safe Characteristics," Report No. UCB/EERC-80/18,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 1980.
[26] J. M. Kelly, M. S. Skinner, and K. E. Beucke, "Experimental Testing an Energy-Absorbing
Base !solation System," Report No. UCB!EERC-80/35, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley, 1980.
(27] M. C. Griffith, J. M. Kelly, V. A. Coveney, and C. G. Koh, "Experimental Evaluation of
Seismic Isolation of Medium-Rise Structures Subject to Uplift," Report No. UCB/EERC-88/02,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Jan. 1988.
[28] M. C. Griffith, J. M. Kelly, and I. D. Aiken, "Experimental Evaluation of a Nine-Story Braced
Steel Frame Subject to Uplift," Report No. UCB/EERC-88/05, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley, May 1988.
[29] J. M. Kelly, I. G. Buckle, and H. C. Tsai, "Earthquake Simulator Testing of a Base-Isolated
Bridge Deck," Report No.
UCB/EERC-85/09, Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, Berkeley, Jan. 1986.
- 60 -
[30] C G. Koh and J. M. Kelly, "A Simple Mechanical Model for Elastomeric Bearings Used in
Base Isolation," International Journal of Mechanical Science, 30(12): 933-943, 1988.
Building," Report No. UCB/SESM-84!01, University of California, Berkeley, 1984.

[32] R. C. Berglund, F. E. Tippets, and L. N. Salerno, "PRISM, A Safe, Economic, and Testable
Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Plant," ANS Topical Meeting on Safety of Next Generation
Power Reactors, Seattle, Washington, May 1988.
[33] R. D. Oldenkamp, J. E. Brunings, E. Guenther, and R. Hren, "Update -
Sodium Fast Reactor
(SAFR) Concept," Proceedings American Power Conference, 50, 1988.

[34] F. F. Tajirian and J. M. Kelly, "Testing of Seismic Isolation Bearings for Advanced Liquid
Metal Reactors (PRISM)," Seismic Shock and Vibration Isolation, ASME PVP-147, American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1988.
(35] J. M. Kelly and F. F. Tajirian, "The Development and Testing of Seismic Isolation Systems for
Advanced Reactors," Proceedings International Symposium on Pressure Vessel Technology and
Nuclear Codes and Standards, Seoul, Korea, April 1989.
[36] H. Koshida el. al., "Vibration Tests and Earthquake Observation Results of Base Isolated
Building," Seismic Shock and Vibration Isolation, ASME PVP-157, 181, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, 1989.
[37] T. Takeda et. al., "Study on Base Isolation System for Earthquake Protection and Vibration
Isolating by Laminated High-Damping Rubber," Proceedings Ninth Word Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo and Kyoto, Japan, 1988.
[38] T. Fujita, "Seismic Isolation Rubber Bearings for Nuclear Facilities," lOth International
Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, SMiRT-10, Post-Conference
Seminar No 1: Seismic Base Isolation of Nuclear Power Facilities, San Francisco, Aug. 1989.
to appear in Nuclear Engineering Design.
[39] H. Shiojiri, "CRIEP! Test Program for Seismic Isolation of FBR," lOth lntematwnal
Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, SMiRT-10, Post-Conference
Seminar No 1: Seismic Base Isolation of Nuclear Power Facilities, San Francisco, Aug. 1989.
to appear in Nuclear Engineering Design.
- 61 -
[40] A N. Gent and P. B. Lindley, "The Compression of Bonded Rubber Blocks," Proceedings of
the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 173(3): 111-122, 1959 .
............~------l41.J-.-W...C..Keys,
Mechanfe<4-Engil'!et'>'fflg;59:3+5,Newmk;1:93-7:--~
[42] A N. Gent, "On the Relation Between Indentation Hardness and Young's Modulus," Trans.
Instn. Rubb. Ind., 34: 46-57, 1958.

[43] C. J. Derham, "The Design of Laminated Bearings, !!," in: Proceedings of the International
Conference on Natural Rubber for Earthquake Protection of Buildings and Vibration Isolation,
C. J. Derham, ed., p. 247-256, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Feb. 1982.
[44] Y. Rocard, "Note sur le calcul des proprictes clastiques des supports en caoutchouc adherent," J
Phys Radium, 8(5): 197-203, 1937.

[45] M. S. Chalhoub and J. M. Kelly, "Reduction of the Stiffness of Rubber Bearings due to
Compressibility," Report No.
UCB/SESM-86/06, Division of Structural Engineering and
Structural Mechanics, College of Engineering, April 1986.

[46] J. A
Haringx, "On Highly Compressive Helical Springs and Rubber Rods and their
Applications to Free Mountings- Parts!, fl and !II," Philips Research Reports, 1948-1949.
[47] A. N. Gent, "Elastic Stability of Rubber Compression Springs," Journal of Mechanical
Engineering Science, 6(4): 318-326, 1964.

[48] J. F. Stanton and C. W. Roeder, "Elastomcric Bearings Design, Construction, and Materials,"
National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 248, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C., Aug. 1982.
[49] J. M. Kelly, I. G. Buckle, and C. G. Koh, "Mechanical Characteristics of Base Isolation
Bearings for
a Bridge Deck Model Test," Report No.
UCB/EERC-86!11, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Nov. 1987.

[50] R. A
Becker and J. M. Chambers, S: An Interactive Environment for Data Analysis and
Graphics, Wadsworth, 1984.

[51] J. E. Cole, "The Effects of Frequency, Amplitude, and Load on the Dynamic Properties of
Elastomers," Shock and Vibration Bulletin, 49(2): 105-117, Sept. 1979.
- 62[52] R W. Clough and J. Penzien, Dynamics of Structures, McGraw-Hill, 1975.

[53] W. P. F1etcher and A N. Gent, "Measurement of the Dynamic Properties of Rubber," Trans.
[54] W. P. F1etcher and A N. Gent, "Non-linearity in the Dynamic Properties of Vulcanized Rubber
Compounds," Tran. lnstn. Rubb. Ind., 29: 266-, 1953.
[55] A R Payne, "The Dynamic Properties of Carbon Black-Loaded Natural Rubber Vulcanizates,
Part 1," JnL of Appl. Poly. Sci., 6: 57-, 1962.
[56] A R. Payne, "Strainwork Dependence of Filler-Loaded Vulcanizates," JnL of Appl. Poly. Sd,
8: 2661-, 1964.
[57] F. F. Tajirian, J. M. Kelly, and E. L Glucklcr, "Testing of Seismic Isolation Bearings for the
PRISM Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor Under Extreme Loads," 1Oth International Conference
on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology SMiRT-10, Los Angeles, 1989.
Paper No.
K9/2.
[58] L D. Aiken, J. M. Kelly, and F. F. Tajirian, "Mechanical Characteristics of High Shape Factor
Elastomeric Seismic !solation Bearings," Report No. UCBISESM-90/01, University of California,
Berkeley, 1990.
- 63 -
-~-------- -----~-~---~---
--
TABLE 3.1 Dimensions and Design Properties of the Prototype
~~-~-------- ~
---
-----~-
----- --- --
an<rReduced:scare~.csFneariniS-
=====+==
r--- ~~: :::::::~:~-~---=r=
------------------------~----------
Reduced
Scale
ro o ype
I
0/all height (in)
-----~------~---------~-~-----~----------~-----------------
16.25
5.25
42.1
10.0
38.1
9.0
..
----
=
:;;
=
"'
3
3
--------r-------------
------
i:S
--------
f---[
-End-plate ;hickness
(1;;)--r---
Shape factor
Carried mass (kips)
-~cc+=
I
~--~
Horiz. frequency (Hz)

Vert.
..
.....
0.105
..:::.
----
0.5
2.5
2.5
_
---+ ___ -~-s__
fre~uency (c~)-----~--
* calculated based on shim area
2
--~
--i. ----------
580
~ r=N~~a!~r~~~~,~~~~~=-~- ~-=~
~ ~
__
--
- -------.. ------------r------"--
Cover layer thickness (in)
0.125
1
r-------------
I ~ -
________
Shim thickness (in)
11=1
_
f
I
+-
r--
31.8
-~--s_oo____
---------+-
508 _
'
-~
~
. 64 -
TABLE 4.1 Channel List for LSF Bearing Tests
-----l~~
o
~;:," j "::.:,
horiz load
ps
~---- ----:~;;---
vload 2
----
---r
--------I -------------l-I
4
vdisp 1
vdisp 2
vpm shear
-------------
vpm axial
vpm moment
~~~ ~:::t::
1
-----+----------+-
3
c~ki.;~" --~-
kips
ki s
-Vert actuator
.
load
2
Vert. ac~~~--
I
,
- - - - - - - - - - -j
inches
I
----l
-~~1~:::::1
inches
kips
i
-+----
"
1I .
1
---- -- t-
. __________ ,________ ,_
kips
force transducer
kip-inches
moment load
mches
----------------------
top plate vert displ

NE (corner)
load beam
horiz displ
-----------
-----------"--
NB:
SE = South East
SW = South West
NE = North East
NW =North West
-------
inches
inches
_ _ _ _ _ ____j
- 65 -
TABLE 4.2 Notation Adopted for Test Bearings
Bearing
Notation
No.
HD 1
LD
HB 1
LB
= High damping,
= Low damping,
HB 2
Doweled
=High damping,
= Low
Doweled
Bolted
damping, Bolted
=High damping,
Bolted
(failure tests only)
HD2
=High damping, Doweled
(buckling tests only)
- 66 -
TABLE 4.3 Test List : Load Case 1

--~~----
~Bearing
HD,
Test
,--~~-r---
Sampling
Duration
Vertical
I
, (sec)
Rate (Hz)
Span
(kips)
89031~.01T--::~~+=oo c;3===r===;;=~ -;_;- - =~;-;
Signal
File
_;~:tf~ ~J : - .-~7.5~ t,-t

r,
890313.04
rkwl
---~=====!====== ~-+==
LD
23
890315~~-+-_:~~--L
23
890315.02
23
r~I
23
t
t
1
rkwl
23
'
- +-rkvll
fiB,
--
~-;~~;~~;
;kwl
f- ~J-~':"~.;- ~= .C"'
1
4 7
63:6
46~737.6 -~.
18
3 8
23
2<
477
t " f-:::;;::_J_~;;~= 1
rkvi1
__j__
ckwl
rkvd
23
l
. -r
23
23
23
47 7
_:_;,.
- 67 -
: --r::.T~~ :':: Iv===t==(ki=:=.)=~

890313 05
rkw2
23
7-5
105
15.910
105
47.710
105
31.810
105~ __
63 610
25
890313 08
==f,==89=0=315 05
LD
rkw~
r-- r~ -=t . . . ~~=c~--r -.
25
25
23
~,. t ,.,_I_~--+-1I
890315 07
rkw2
23
=r=: -
25
105
~ . [ ~=i: ~1 ::~~~:=I
~
890320 06
rkv.2
23
25
l~~3~152_
_ rkv.'2
89032153
LB
--
~0321 ~-1-~
890321.55
, __
rl0.v2
23
23
--1'
1 r~~-l
890323.03
'------
23
+--rkw2 -~
"~.t
25 ~
890323.12
---25
25
23
r
I
23
31.810
-105
_47.710
63.610
'
--
105
15.910
105
---
31.810
105
47.710
rkw2
rkw2
---
25
'"
25
I
I
--
'
~-+-~
890323.04
105
25
'
'
..
--=10
! ,,_,
'
..
63.610
!05
25
31810
105
~--
23
----
25
---
rk'Wz___j_
890323.0~~--*==~c:;~=T-=:o-
L~~32302
23
!05 --
25
------
47 710
~. . ::::
-:
J
--~r
'
15 910
105
105
63.610
31.810
- 68 -
TABLE 4.S(a) Test List : Load Case 3

HD and LD Bearings
L_
Note: all tests with P;ru"'' - 31.8 kips
- 69 -
TABLE 4.5(b) Test List: Load Case 3

LD and LB Bearings
HofTset
(Inches)
'
0.00
0.75
150
2.25
--
3.00
0.00
0.75
---
150
2.25
-
--
3.00
0.00
12.8
12.8
0.75
-~----
..
12.8
!50
25.6
0.00
25.6
0.75
-
25.6
1.50
-6.4
6.4
0.75
6.4
!50
2.25
--
3.00
60--+ - :
I - ::
-----~---------~
0.00
+----------j------+-----j-
LB
'
IKW6
----------
r-;:;_n:~f=-:
1
1
, .
L
1
rkw6
89032:~4
~=t
890322.35
rkw6
rkw6
8~322.36 -
_4
1,
ti
-_l
!_____ _____:__ _ _~-~

_ _ _4_
8%322.37
I
60
1.50
-- 4- ---t------+- - - - - + - - - - - + - - - - 2.25
890322 29
890322?3
0.75
rkw6
Note: all tests with P1ru 11, = 31.8 kips
-2--:-:--+---1-:-:---~------3.00
0.00
_60______-+l' _ _2_1_o_1
""
12.8
0.75
1.50
--+t--~-----~
1-----12_:_8-_-_
0.00
60
700
25.6
---60----l--7-00--[----25-.-6--[------1
0.75
60
700
25.6
150
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ji_ _ _ _ _L__ _ _ __j__ _ ___j
- 70-
TABLE 4.6(a) Test List : Load Case 4

Bearing HD1
Test
Durati
Signa!
File
(sec)
890313.09
rkw3
890313.10
890313.11
rkw4+_12
rkw3
5()3
890313.12
rkw4
12
890314.01
rkw3
5()3
890314.02
rkw4
890314.03
rkw5
890314.04
rkw3
890314.05
--890314.06
rkw4
890314.07
rkw4
890314.08
rkw5
..
--
890314.09
890314.10
503
12
--
5()3
. ------
--t-- ~~
rkw3
890314.11
890314.12
890314.13
890314.14
rkw4
:::-
+--~:-
------
~---~
rkw4
12
:::-=~:~
rkw4
890314.16
rkw4
~~-~
12
. ____j__ ______ --- " ..... _
----+-
890314.15
- ..
_,,,,,__
12
~--
12
------
-71-
.-:r:Test
File
Sign
890315.09 ~ rkw
r 890315.10
c-
i--
890315.11
rkw
890315.12
rkw
890315.!3
rkw
890315.!4
rkw
890315.15
.
rkw
s9o315.16
rkw
--
rkw
TABLE 4.6(b) Test List : Load Case 4

Bearing LD
-~-,----,------,------
Sampling
Rate (Hz)
(kips)
-72-
TABLE 4.6(c) Test List : Load Case 4

Bearing HB 1
- 73 -
TABLE 4.6(d) Test List : Load Case 4

Bearing LB
i---890_32_2_.48
_ _f-890322.49
890322.50
r~4
rkw4
rkw4
-t--_1_2____-L..
:
12
+-___1_25_ _ _-+__3_1_.s_-i
6o_-___f--_35_o_ _
60
420
1
!50
31.8
---r-----u----T----W--J-45-0--+------~-60---+,--3-1-.8--{
------~------~--
890322.51
rkw4
12
I
60
420
150
15.8
!-l--=-s90:-:-:-32cc2-.5:::2-__~~t~~"'rkw-4----+- ---12--r------w--.!--::-35"o---!------cctzs--=------t----:-1s,-.8::---i
1
890322.53
-rkw4 12
~--6o--i 45o
160
15.8
- 74-
-T-- ---
-~---,-~-
Bearing
Test
Signal
File
Duration
(sec)
Sampling
'
\ Rate (Hz)
Horiz
Strain
Offset
Span
Ampl ( %)
(inches)
::::~,~.:-j7:j~~ :
HI!,
=t~()322 --+--'-
LB
F=
Il
54
890322.55
+-c ~
~.
~ ~::: _::q~tl ~-~- ::_1::_;

------~'~032~~-L
ckws __ L
NB: axial load ; 31.8 kips for all tests
---------r-~--~--
6D
j,
'
I
I
t_::~
---~L _-~~-- _l_~-~
- 75 -
TABLE 4.8 Test List
-----
~------~,
'
-~--------~-~---
' ..
-~7. %) ~
,:,.,
~. !_~"''"__ 1-~~J j::.;-~--- --~
L~'"" I ,,., ; :~~: - .:--=r--,~:::,: ..
: : L;! .. -~- -F=~:=
~:~-t
,~,
r-- I
r' -
Load Case 6
'
1 :::
~---
rkw7
'
rkw8
rkw7
'
"~'"
-~~;128 =j
1~0---+~128
. spv_=_210__1 _ _ _
sph=280
~1 -- s p vh_~2_1410 _ ---+------~0
~-~t~ 8~~;~;7--~-J
890315 52
'
-~
r- ----t --
s::==l~O-
50
-~--
31 8;6.4 -
--~--i~
t "'' -' .'" " - -- -rr

f-~~~~:""" ~~ !-=:= ~ -~--l ::~:::.
I
I
~.
890321.18
,-
rkw8 -
-rl - ___ s_p_-.'...=. 96_
__
_ _
_so__ __ I
_ 31.8-6.4
,.m...
~- 890~2~8- ~- r- -~--- __
,
I,
Lll
890322.39
lj_'
rkwk
890322 4{)
~-----L
J--~~224_l
rkw7 _ ....
__
rkw7
spv=96
sph=280
----- +
t__'kw~-
Note:
Duration = 4 sec. for all tests

Sampling rate - 60 Hz for all tests
:::~~9:
spv~210
sph=2so
~ _sp~= 210
---~--~;~4
1.
50
I'
'
31.86.4
----r
~~----------3~812.8
100
31.812.8
--------~-
_j
- 76 -
TABLE 4.9 Shear Failure Tests
- 77 -
TABLE 4.10 HB 2 Bearing Vertical Failure Tests

~--r--
Test
- --- - -
'
Duration
,---
Sampling
Vertical
Signal
890321.36
--t--~rkw2-- --r ---- -~3-- --~~
--890321;--t-~--
L=~
l
i
~-:~~::~~-~
llr----8~3_2_1--47 -~
___
::
25-
25
60
12;----i
!20
_j
r ;~ : : =F:__;_=r ~-~
-l
-~~;;144
rkw2a
25
r -+
~--~~32~~--__L
f 8~321~2
890321.43
---~t----
ckw2 ______ [_'_
890321.38
----~--
ckw2a
ckw2a
23
13
ckw2(ten)
l3
ckw2(ten)
--r-
L
~-----
23
rkw2(ten)
ri_--- : : : :
__ , _
t --
60
60
300
--- -
~---~--
: --~~-=-=;---~ t----= -~
13
1------~--1-~---"l -~- j__ ~__j
- 78 -
TABLE 4.11 Characteristics of Test Signals
~1
--
I
i
Signal
Time
--~-
----1
Rate
-- I_, ____ _
rkwl
112
rkw!a
1/2
rkw2
23
40
20
20
23
I
I
25
60
25
I
,
25
monotonic P
const P, 1/2-cycle
1380
575
!
23
575
575
hdisp (failure)
cyclic P
cyclic r
(reversed rwk2)
rkw2(ten)
1/2
40
13
6{)
i80
1/2-cyde
vdisp (failure)
rkw3
100
rkw4
rkw5
rkw6
O.R
25
12575
60
720
60
420
60
240
503
const P, cydic hdisp
cyclic P with const

hdisp offset
HtV
rkw7
i
rkw8
HtV
rlnv9
rkwlO
1 (lD
4 (H)
5 (V)
0.8 (V)
1 (H)
4 (H)
5 (V)
0.8 (V)
'---------~-L __ _
240
cyclic P, cyclic hdi.<;p

(in-phase)
I
I
60
100
503
- 79-
TABLE 5.1 Shear Hysteresis Loop Parameters

HD 1 Bearing
I
I'
rue
II
b=f
i
890313 .09
890313.10
(kips)
I
I
31~
890313.12
3uo
31.23
31.11
890314.01
30.86
890313.11
~-~--~---
T-
Dmax
(%)
I
'
Khefr
K;,
(kips/in)
(kips/in)
(%)
0.33
r--6.73
3.16
13.7
0.31
7.79
6.12
14.0
I
I
4.79
2.59
12.8
5.41
4.46
12.9
3.47
2.17
13.7
(inches)
j
r ~ccc=cccccc.cc~-.
11.01
--------,-
10.22
24.29
0.73
24.14
0.72
50.90
!.53
890314.02
31.18
49.95
1.50
4.01
3.QJ
13.8
890314.03
30.84
48.98
1.47
3.86
2.97
13.7
890314.04
30.53
75.55
2.27
3.11
1.85
13.6
890314.05
30.43
74.90
2"25
3.27
2.22
14.0
890314.06
31.56
99.67
2.99
2.93
1.93
13.1
890314.07
31.20
99.41
2.98
3.04
1.82
14.1
890314.08
30.93
96.95
2.91
2.99
1.90
13.5
890314.09
15.53
25.46
0.76
4.07
3.50
14.5
890314.10
15.52
49.90
1.50
336
2.78
132
890314.ll
16.09
74.72
2.24
3.04
2.55
12.0
890314.12
15.63
99.16
2.98
2.98
2.28
10.8
890314.13
47.69
25.16
0.76
4.15
3.32
18.9
890314.14
48.05
49.93
1.50
3.17
2.21
19.6
890314.15
47.60
74.61
2.24
2.90
1.66
18.3
890314.16
47.67
99.02
2.97
2.92
1.31
16.7
890314.17
63.51
25.25
0.76
4.13
3.33
20.7
890314.18
63.56
49.93
1.50
3.04
1.88
22.7
890314.19
63.44
74.95
2.25
2.77
1.22
22.0
890314.20
63.68
99.08
2.97
2.79
0.80
20.6
890314.41
63.18
122.63
3.68
3.65
1.07
18.3
890314.42
63.65
146.89
4.41
3.89
0.75
18.3
890314.43
63.04
171.17
5.14
3.98
0.45
17.9
890314.44
63.24
195.29
5.86
3.92
0.23
20.3
0.99
24.4
0.79
19.6
890314.45
47.89
122.65
3.68
2.65
890314.46
47.46
146.92
4.41
2.87
I'
I
890314.47
47.23
170.98
5.13
3.32
0.59
16.6
890314.48
32.27
124.10
3.72
1.11
17.0
890314.49
32.06
148.58
4.47
2.38
2.53
0.95
14.8
31 59
173.21
5.21
13.2
16 53
157.43
4.72
0.81
2.73
1.71
11.3
1s 90
159.32
4.78
2.51
l890314.50
890314 51
s9o314 sz
-----
~-
----
2.75
--~-----
~60
10.6
. 80.
~
I
--=r
::~~~~.~~
890320.12

HB 1 Bearing
:-r-~--r
n3:~~ .I :~-:! ~
.
Dmu
~~~ ~=j+===~~!
,1,
~ ;~ l :: ~
o.n
5.67
50.54
1.52
4.18
3.33
14.0
49.17
1.48
4.24
3.43
13.5
31.34
24.10
890320.14
31.66
890320.15
31.40
4.76
14.8
890320.17
31.70
74.76
2.24
3.59
2.59
13.2
890320.19
31.46
100.01
3.00
3.36
2.30
12.7
890320.20
31.18
97.54
2.93
3.27
2.34
12.2
890320.21
16.05
25.04
0.75
4.36
3.96
14.4
890320.22
16.08
50.22
1.51
3.48
890320.22
15.75
75.52
2.27
3.13
2.74
11.7
890320.24
15.51
99.37
2.98
10.5
47.16
25.10
0.75
3.08
5.00
2.62
890320.25
4.29
890320.26
47.52
50.!6
1.51
3.88
3.09
890320.27
890320.28
47.38
47.13
75.27
99.27
2.26
2.98
3.54
3.50
2.59
2.20
12.8
16.8
!2.8
11.7
14.0
890320.29
62.87
25.05
0.75
5.40
4.78
17.5
890320.30
63.14
50.62
1.52
4.19
330
17.3
890320.31
62.98
75.57
2.27
3.86
2.81
16.3
890320.32
63.11
99.11
2.97
3.72
2.22
14.0
890321.21
63.28
124.09
3.72
4.09
2.08
14.6
890321.22
63.45
148.24
4.45
4.09
13.3
890321.23
62.96
159.20
4n
3.95
1.81
1.67
890321.24
47.44
122.93
3.72
2.97
1.79
II
14.5
890321.25
890321.26
47.28
47.24
148.98
158.86
4.47
4.77
3.24
1.68
'
12.3
3.40
1.64
11.2
890321.27
31.88
123.82
3.72
2.70
1.83
12.6
890321.28
31.69
148.36
4.45
2.92
1.70
10.7
158.73
4.76
3.04
1.67
::~~EE 1_ii~ ::~
4.45
9.2
3.72
10.0
890321.29
3152
12.9
9.9
4.77
8.6
~_l_
____ _
- 81 -

LD Bearing
--,----p--~--~--~--~m~--T----K-,-.w--~~File
(kips)
890315.09
31.37
890315.10
30.45
890315.11
30.02
(%)
L.~~:h~s~=l=!~~~(ki='p=s/=in=)==l===(=ki='p=s/=in=)==l=c
10.45
0.31
20.67
10.51
0.32
24.59
0.74
(%) _I
9.59
4.8
3.96
3.850
6.1
3.09
2.37
6.7
890315.12
29.85
24.24
0.73
3.30
3.08
6.1
890315.13
31.48
50.33
!.51
2.60
1.13
6.4
890315.14
31.37
49.86
!.50
2.75
2.38
5.9
890315.15
31.06
49.22
1.48
2.76
2.56
5.7
890315.16
31.33
74.80
2.24
2.42
2.05
6.3
890315.17
31.18
74.65
2.24
2.53
2.14
5.9
890315.18
31.30
99.25
2.98
2.30
1.91
6.1
890315.19
30.95
99.21
2.98
2.39
1.88
5.5
890315.20
30.36
96.97
2.91
2.41
1.95
5.2
890315.21
16.39
25.18
0.76
3.14
3.04
5.0
890315.22
15.95
50.DI
J.50
2.85
2.74
5.1
890315.23
15.95
74.58
2.24
2.68
2.57
4.4
890315.24
16.38
99.26
2.98
2.64
2.47
3.9
890315.25
47.08
25.83
0.78
2.42
2.22
10.1
890315.26
47.10
50.03
].50
2.07
1.76
9.5
890315.27
46.98
74.57
2.24
2.00
1.51
9.0
890315.28
46.97
99.15
2.98
2.03
1.30
8.4
890315.29
62.16
25.27
0.76
2.08
1.89
13.2
890315.30
62.33
49.78
1.49
1.72
1.34
13.9
890315.31
62.51
75.97
2.28
1.63
0.98
13.5
890315.32
62.13
99.16
2.98
1.65
0.75
13.3
890315.53
63.64
123.72
3.71
1.60
0.33
15.2
890315.54
63.41
148.28
4.45
1.54
-0.01
16.6
890315.55
62.92
158.72
890315.56
47.82
890315.57
47.55
:~~ ~~
890315.58
46.92
158.69
32 59
138.03
32 60
148.18
, 890315.5ui
L
I
-----;-~
K>,
890315 60
890315 61
4.76
1.47
0.19
18.2
3.71
1.48
0.66
13.5
4.60
1.60
0.46
12.7
4.76
1.66
0.38
12.2
:~:
::~
:~~
I ~:
I
~23_ _.____148:4___~
4.46
..L_ _z_.1_7_
__L.
__1_.9_6_
_.1,
~J
- 82 -

LB Bearing
r---~---T----
,::,,l ~~., l ..,:,-1 ,:.

c()~;;==t-
890321.56
30.88
31.56
890321.58
890322.01
.
'
10.63
24.48
I
I
24.46
50.31
49.92
~~~
~- 6.7~- r7-~~l
4;;=
~~~
;:~
I ::~ I
:;: I :::
:::
:: ,
1.47
2.26
3.33
2. 92
3.18
1.87
4.6
5.4
890322.02
31.69
30.50
890322.03
30.07
890322.04
30.01
890322.05
30.30
890322.06
30.19
890322.07
890322.08
30.06
30.01
890322.09
29.34
890322.10
15.96
890322.11
15.40
890322.12
15.35
74.67
2.24
890322.13
15.76
99.07
2.97
890322.14
47.09
25.19
0.76
3.41
3.35
890322.15
47.01
49.95
1.50
2.96
2.74
890322.16
47.18
75.02
2.25
2.83
2.57
890322.17
46.62
99.21
2.98
2.81
2.37
5.5
890322.18
63.28
25.01
0.75
3.44
3.25
8.0
890322.19
62.98
49.77
1.49
2.96
2.78
7.8
890322.20
63.00
74.52
2.24
2.80
2.46
7.2
890322.21
62.77
99.25
2.98
2.76
2.22
6.7
890322.42
63.11
123.86
3.72
2.78
2.03
6.7
890322.43
63.16
148.18
4.45
2.79
1.90
6.1
890322.44
63.23
158.68
4.76
2.77
1.80
5.8
890322.45
47.50
124.34
3.73
2.43
6.0
890322.46
47.41
1.98
148.25
4.45
2.56
1.97
5.1
890322.47
47.55
158.78
4.76
2.64
1.95
4.7
890322.48
890322.49
31.45
31.36
123.54
3.71
2.46
2.23
4.5
148.4 7
4.45
2.54
2.20
4.0
158.72
4.76
2.60
2.17
3.7
148.51
4.46
124.43
3.73
2.58
z.54
2.60
z. 10
3.2
3.4
159.08
4.77
890322.50
890322.51
890}22.52
L.
_s90_32_2_.s_3_ _
~:~:
31.35
15.62.
16.01
:575
1.
I
--~~
II
2.24
3.03
2.82
4.6
3.00
2.81
3.20
4.8
99.12
2.98
2.88
2.57
4.3
98.05
2.94
2.89
2.67
3.8
24.99
0.75
3.63
3.73
4.9
50.12
1.50
3.19
3.30
4.5
2.97
3.11
3.8
2.90
3.00
3.5
74.68
99.86
I
I
I
'
:~
:~~3 ___ _j ___ z.6~__L_22_
II,
- 83 -
TABLE 5.5 Wd- y" Dependence
- 84-
TABLE 5.6 Vertical Stiffness Results

Load Cases 1 and 2
Bearing
Note:
P ""' Pinitial
for cyclic loading
Ec ... compression strain due to P
- 85 -
TABLE 5.7 Load Case 3 Test Results
HD 1 and HB 1 Bearhigs
1--------,-------- - -,- -
I
1
' Bearing
Test
Offset
f~~r-,w:~"" ~--;;' i
I
I :::::-~-t~~~ T
r
I
890314.29
IHD,
I
!-
2.25
t_~:~LL ::
~ -~~31~32 + ~ ::
0.00
I
1
I
-t
0.75
--
- =--------"890321.06
-------- . -
890321 07
-r-
- T
HB 1
890321.10
0.00
1- :~::: lf
1.50
'
~-~~~~: :~ I
I~:::::~:~ -t
r-::::: :~- t--
2.25
3.00
0.00
0.75
1.50
0.00
0.75
1.50
--- -l
- 86 -
TABLE 5.8 Load Case 3 Test Results

LD and LB Bearings
K,.n
kips/in)
I
I
K,,
!;
(kips/in)
(%)
196.52
182.49
17.3
189.99
170.05
16.3
190.87
180.13
18.7
----- -193.80
194.D2
16.7
---206.59
208.03
18.6
___
- - - - -------168.25
147.64
16.4
...- .
- -.....
.. ----,,
~----
----~----
_._
____
- 87 -
TABLE 5.9 Hysteresis Loop Parameters

Load Case 6
--
~-------~--T---
~ ls-990-~;3-11~4~.33-St ~3~1~.88~-~~
l~i
64
6-. 4
Kh,n
1;
Kn,
~=-~5~- --~=9-i -~~-IJs.~]
I ::;
I "
~~~~I::::::
~:~~~;~J
rcc=~=cc==1_._=8-~9--03=1;_49="'
~
----~
___
31.8 12.8
: : : : : tf~-r-:::-r;~
_:~74_
31.8'
50.99
6'.4
~-89~=155~
f8~03!~51 j
LD
---------- ___ s_90

__31552_l ___ 31.8
-f
318 6.4
31.8 12.8
12.s
ffi-:_:;7J~~:~:
_89032=40
____ l__s9~32241
99.70 - f
2.98
9
_J_
31.8 12.8
3Ls m
3:_2
341
13.8
t . ;,~ f=- == ~!=+= :

I
-~
_2~40--+-~:7!
14
153
II
o.o
0 03
3
Dm'-'
: : : : l :~ , ::; J j:_ t:~j
fo nn,
-_ri_ - )5-
_236_
::::
Ir
:::
_-_-_-_-_r
:::
99.00
2.97
2.29
2 -~-5
-_ .-:~. ~- - - - ~-t - ~_: -_ _-
_-_ _ ..-.-_-__ ..
1.75
__ 1J!
6.8 1
"" L::~t ~=--~1:=f~

r 22 -~97~
1
_. ___
2 82
1_ z2__ 5866 ___--_ _~ ~- -
__
4 9 __-__ _.
48 _
1
- 88-
TABLE 5.10 Compression Stiffness: Theory and Experiment
~-~~--~~~1~h=- ~-~.,,clk ~--=--r-:--r

Bearing
Method
I '""
LD
II
~ I :~:- ~ '"'""
4.10
5.46
I "''
i
115.8
~ J 445l 9431
Experimental values at P = 31.8 kips (Table 5.6)

Area based on shim diameter
s - shape factor - 2.5
~~
l "'"'"'
,;:1
! ""
I : I :~ I ::;
l ____ j __
~-~mono
"
~~
~e;'_
~-- I_ """ ~
1
o.,
0.79
1o~o
I
0.48
:: I :;
" -~
0.65
- 89 -
,.
'
J.
r'll
~---=3}~
upper mat
"
seiBmic lsolatwn system
lower mat
Fig. 3.1
Cross-Section of SAFR Plant
- 90-
Period (seconds)
10.00
0.01
010
1.00
3.0
Unisolated
2.5
~
bO
=:
2.0
:;:;
...ol
""u
1.5
-<
Isolated
..,....
""
Range of Resonances
1.0
14
""
00
0.5
o.o0.1L--'--'-_l_-'----cL.LJ,.u-::---:~-'--'--'-;:--'-:::'-!::--;::2--'--4;-'-~6~8:'-:1
oo
2
4
6 8 1.0
2
4
6 8 10
Frequency (Hz)
Fig. 3.2
Horizontal Spectral Responses, Isolated and Unisolated Conditions
Period (seconds)
10.00
100
010
001
3.0...-----------------------,
2.5
~
bO
0::
:;:;
2.0
...
ol
-"'"'
u
<"
Unisolated
Isolated
' -,...._
1.5
..,"..,
"'
00
1.0
Range of Resonances
""
0.5
"'=I
..,1
Frequency (Hz)
Fig. 3.3
Vertical Spectral Responses, Isolated and Unisolated Conditions
- 91 -
r--'Df~~==~~~~~~
!
2"
~J~i
~~l ~~~~~~~
)
base plate
" '!\
embedded plate
~ ~~----------~ ~-----
"-- concrete pier
Total Weight Isolated
63,150 kips
Horizontal Frequency
0.50 Hz
Vertical Frequency
3.00 Hz
1.73 X 104 !b/in
Horizontal Stiffness
Vertical Stiffness
Safety Factor Against Buckling
S.74 X 105 lh/in

3.7 (DL only)
Safety Factor Against Buckling
L8 (DL +SSE)
Safety Factor Against Rollout
3.2 (SSE)
Fig. 3.4
Prototype SAFR Bearing Design
3 rub her layers

(each 4" thick)
and
2 steel shims
(each
" thick)
- 92 1 ..
UNC X -'!._ "threaded hole

4
10" dia.
ll'' dia. shim plate
__j
1.0" dia.
1.5" dia.
Detail B
r 1" X 9" dia. (A36) ~-... 1 "

~;p=j'j~~~~~~
:I
1" X 9" dia. (A36) _ )
1"
3 layers @ 1" thick natural rubber
Section A-A
Detail B
Fig. 3.5
Test Bearing Design: Doweled Connections
- 93 -
~.5" rubber cover
_j
~-
10"' dia.
9" dia. shim plate
18" dia_ end-plate
18"'
14" ----~
3 layers @ 1" thick

natural rubber
1'' X 18" dia.
(A36)
12 gauge shim, 9" dia.

Section A-A
Fig. 3.11
Test Bearing Design: Bolted Connec.tions
RA80
DISK
FUJITSU
DISK
t
PACIFIC
SIGNAL
CONDITIONERS
DEC
LSI-11
Mng Tnpc
Data Acquisition
Transfer
VAX 11/750
r-IMAGEN
~
IDM-AT
Signal Controller
TEST
BEARING
TEST
MACH!NE
'
r llYDitAUL!G
ANALOG
t
FUJITSU
DISK
CONTllOLLEll
Fig. 4.1
I
':[;.
SUN
WOH.KSTATTON
NETWORK
ll/A
CONVERTER
LASEH
PIUNTER
Schematic Diagram of Test Facility
horizontal actuator
load beam stiffener

load beam
elastomeric bearing
j:q
fI
I ,:
force transducer _____.,.-
~
I
I 011
load cell
braced pedestal
vertical actuator
base beam
concrete base block
reaction floor
Fig. 4.2
reaction frame
Single Bearing Test Machine
:5:
- 96 -
Fig. 4.3
Single Bearing Test Machine
horizontal actuator
(chsO,I)
force transducer
(chs 0,7,8)
---n---
1 1 - 1 ,:
1
-pedestal displ - - - - - - V
(ch l:l)
----vertical displ
(clr II) behind
(ch 12)
vertical displ
(ch 9) behind
10)
vertical actuator 2
vertlcai actuator 1
(chs 2,1)
( chs
Fig. 4.4
Test Machine Instrumentation
:s
Vmax =
Vmin =
Dmax;
Dmin =
Axial Load = 31.455 kips

Strain= 100.007 %
10.371 kips
-10.088 kips
2.934 inches
-3
inches
15
~fII
"...0
t)
""....
~
~
J
t----i -
'"t0
.c:"
en
:35
II
-5
r~~~-1
I
I
-10
!
1
-15
-3
-2
-1
Shear Displacement
File'
890320. 19
Signal: rkw4
Span:
sph=280
Fig. 5.1
Typical Shear Force vs. Displacement Loop, HB 1 Bearing
Vmax
Vmin ""'
Dmax =
Dmin =
6.762
-7. 5 9I
kips
kips
Axial Load= 30.946 kips

Strain = 99.206 %
2. 971 inches
--2.976
inches
10
I'
-t
I
f
]._'
'
:,
'
'
ii
'
iI
'
ri
.//j
..,/'/
"....
<.1
0
iJ,;
...
"'"
(f)
I
-----1-----t----J
-5
10
-3
-2
-1
Shear Displacement
File,
Signal
Span,
890315.19
rkw4
sph=280
Fig. 5.2 Typical Shear Force vs. Displacement Loop, LD Bearing
Vmax
Vmin
Dmax
Dmin
6.106
kips
kips
4.448 inches
-4.442 inches
Axial Load ~
Strain
-B.lBl
63.406 kips
148.279 %
10
ft---
"...'0"
""ro"'
.I
I~
"'
,.<:I
00
I
I
---i
-5
!
!
-10
L---4
-6
-2
Shear Displacement
File1
890315.54
Signa.l1
rkw4
Span 1
sph~4
20
Fig. 5.3 Example of Nonlinear Hysteresis Behavior, LD Bearing
Vmax
Vmin
Dmax
=
=:"
Dmin =

Strain= 159.199 %
17.908 kips
-20.931 kips
4. 776
-4.762
inches
inches
30
20 ,_
10 ,_
.,
"
0
...."
...
""
..<::
---------
00
-10
-20 ,_
-30
-4
-6
-2
Shear Displacement
File,
890321.23
Signal:
rkw4
Span,
sph=450
Fig. 5.4
Definitions of Kh off and Kt on Typical Hysteresis Loop, HB 1 Bearing
,_.
0
'-'
- 102250
200
Q,
a;
b.
p.
"'
150 f-
0.
;:l
~--
;:l
""'0
::;8
100
0 -
...
c:l
<1)
.<::
00
50
25
50
75
100
125
Shear Strain (%)

(a) Unfilled Natural Rubber (247-55)
400
J
350
300
'
250
200
150
100
-0---
-G
8- -------0-- 0--
50
25
50
75
100
125
15 0
175
Shear Strain (%)

(b) Filled Natural Rubber (243-62)
Fig. 5.5
Shear Modulus vs. Shear Strain, Unfilled and Filled Elastomers
- 103 6
4
~
.::,.,."'
..,"'
"'.,
-2
"'0
...ro
~
[f)
-4
-6
-L 0
-0.5
0.0
1.0
0.5
Shear Displacement (inches)

(a) Shear Strain
25%
10
-10
-3
-2
-1
(b) Shear Strain =50%

Fig. 5.6

and Variable Axial Load, HD 1 Bearing
- 104 10
"'0.
~
..:.:
.,
"....0
""...
'"
"'
...:::
[f1
-5
-10
-3
-1

(c) Shear Strain= 75%
15
10
~
"'
.9..:.:
""'...0
""...'"
-5
"'
...:::
[f1
-10
-15
-4
-2
(d) Shear Strain= 100%
Fig. 5.6 cont.
- 105 15
10
-10
-15
-6
-4
-2

(e) Shear Strain
125%
15
10
.,
.,.
....
""
""...
-5
.9-
<':!
<1!
..<::
--10
-15
-6
-4
-2
(f) Shear Strain
Fig. 5.6 cont.
150%
- 106-
30
20
"'
.9-
10
"...0"'
......
d
-10
"'
..<::
tfJ
-20
-30
-6
-4
-2
(g) Shear Strain= 175%
Fig. 5.6 cont.
. 107 -
4
~
.5
...__
00
.9<
""'
15.9
31. 8
47.7
Axial Load (kips)
Legend
0
1 ~ 25%
'-"
'1
'1 = 75%
1~
JOO%
<>
1~
125%
'1 = 150%
i8J
= .SOo/0
1 ~ 175%
Fig. 5.7
Kh.ff vs. Axial Load, HD 1 Bearing
- 108-
4
~
"'0.
:.;;;
...0""
""'...
''""
..<::
rn
-2
-4
-6
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0

(a) Shear Strain = 25%
10
5
~
"'0.
:.;;;
...u'0"
""'...
"''"
..<::
rn
-5
-10
-2
-1

(b) Shear Strain= 50%
Fig. 5.8

and Variable Axial Load, HB 1 Bearing
- 109-
10
..,."'0.
"
'"'0"'
""...
""'
,.c:
[f)
-5
-10
-3
-1
-2

15
10
~
"'0.
'".,"'
..."'0
"".,"...
-5
,.c:
rn
-10
-15
-4
-2
Fig. 5.8 cont.
- 110 -
20
10
~
"'0.
:-"!
.,
"...
.......
cO
..ci
"
00
-10
-20
-6
-4
-2

(e) Shear Strain = 125%
20
10
~
"'0.
:-"!
...u"'0
.......
cO
..c"
00
-10
-20
-6
-4
-2
(f) Shear Strain = 150%
Fig. 5.8 cont.
- 111 -
30
20
-30
-6
-4
-2
(g) Shear Strain
160%
Fig. 5.8 cont.
. 112.
20
10
"'
-"""'
-~
.,u
....
0
;;...
...
"''"
..0:
00
-10
-20
-6
-4
-2

(a) Axial Load = 15.9 kips
20
10
~
.e-"'
-"
"'...u
""".,...
"""
Ul
-10
-20
-6
-4
-2

(b) Axial Load= 31.8 kips
Fig. 5.9
Hysteresis Loops for Cyclic Shear Tests, Constant A.xial

Load and Variable Strain, HD 1 Bearing
- 113 -
20
-6
-4
-2
ShearnISplacernent (inches)
(c) Axial Load- 47.7 kips
20
10
-10
-20
-6
-4
-2
ShearnIS placement (inches)
(d) Axial Load- 63.6 kips
F.Ig. 5.9 cont.
- 114 -
30
20
"'
:.g""'
10
"'u
'"'
""'
k
c;
"'
lf1
-10
.<::
-20
-30
-6
-4
-2

(a) Axial Load = 15.9 kips
30
20
-20
-30
-6
-4
-2

Fig. 5.10
Hysteresis Loops for Cyclic Shear Tests, Constant Axial

Load and Variable Strain, HB 1 Bearing
- 115 -
30
20
~
"'
.9..:.;
10
"."
...ro
..::
"'
-10
r:n
-20
-30
-6
-4
-2

(c) Axial Load =47.7 kips
30
20
~
"'
.9..:.;
10
"...u
0
ro
"'
..::
-10
r:n
-20
-30
-6
-4
-2

(d) Axial Load= 63.6 kips
Fig. 5.10 cont.
- 116 -
Fig. 5.11 LD Bearing at Approximately 200% Shear Strain
- 117 .
80
15.9
31. 8
47.7
63.6
Axial Load (kips)

Fig. 5.12 Dissipated Area vs. Axial Load, HB 1 Bearing
60
.t::.
.s
'
""
""
40
20
0 ~-------~-------L------~--------L-------~
0
15.9
31.8
47.7
6 3. 6
Axial Load (kips)

Fig. 5.13 "Normalized" Wd vs. Axial Load, HB 1 Bearing
- 118-
2
~
<1l
p.
:.:;;
"...
0
<J
""..
.a
"'
-1
00.
-2
-3
-L 0
-o. 5
0.0
0.5
1.0

(a) Shear Strain
25%
4
~
,.,.p."'
~
."'
"".
<J
ro
"
00.
.a
-2
-4
-6
-2
-1

Fig. 5.14 Hysteresis Loops for Cyclic Shear Tests, Constant Strain
and Variable Axial Load, LD Bearing
- 119 -
5
~
.e.'"
~
"""'
"..."
..,
0
...
""'
..q
00
-5
-3
-1
-2

10
-10
-4
-2
(d) Shear Strain
100%
Fig. 5.14 cont.
- 120 -
10
-5
-10
-4
-2
Shear D.lSplacement
(e) Sh
mches)
ear St ram=
125%
10
-l
I'
i
I
~
00
0.
:1
".
....0
t)
...
"''"
_::::
lfJ
-5
-- __j
-10
-6
--4
Shearnlsp lacemen t (inches)
!f)
Sh. ear
'
=I
F.lg. 5.14 cont.
- 121 -
10
"""'
-~
..:.l
"...""0
"'...
l
"'
.<:
00
-5
-10
-6
-4
-2

(g) Shear Strain= 175%
Fig. 5.14 cont.
- 122 -
-2
-4
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0

(a) Shear Strain = 25%
4
~
"'
.9<
""'
"'u,..
&...
'"
C)
,.<:;
-2
rn
-4
-6
-2
~1

Fig. 5.15 Hysteresis Loops for Cyclic Shear Tests, Constant Strain
and Variable Axial Load, LB Bearing
. 123 .
10
..,..9-"'
~
...0"
""...,;
<.!
.a"'
00
-5
-10
-3
-1
-2

10
"'
.9-
""'.,
...0"
""...'"
.a"'
00
-5
-10
-4
-2

Fig. 5.15 cont.
- 124 -
--6
-4
-2

(e) Shear Strain = 125%
15
10
~
00
.&
""
"''"
'0"'
""...
ol
"'
-"
00
-5
-10
-15
-6
-4
-2
(f) Shear Strain = 150%
Fig. 5.15 cont.
- 125 -
15
10
~
,.,.0."'
~
"...<.>
f;t,
...cO
"'
00
--5
..<::
-10
-15
-6
-4
-2

(g) Shear Strain
= HlO%
Fig. 5.15 cont.
- 126 .
see legend on next page
5
..._
-~
"'
;:>..
-~
..>:
15,9
3L8
47,7
63,6
Axial Load (kips)

Fig. 5.16 Kh.H vs. Axial Load, LD Bearing
see legend on next page

5
3
~
.S
.._
.&"'
-""
:,::
-1
15,9
3L8
47 7
0
63,6
Axial Load (kips)

Fig. 5.17 K, vs. Axial Load, LD Bearing
- 127 -
15.9
31.8
47.7
63.6
Axial Load (kips)
Legend
0
1 = 25%
/'..
I=
+
X
7 = 75%
7 = 100%
7 = 125%
7 = 150%
18)
1 = 160%
50~0
Fig. 5.18 Kh
vs. Axial Load, LB Bearing
- 128 -
15
10
.,
0.
:.;;
""'0...
""...<II
A"'
00
-5
-10
-15
-6
-4
-2

(a) Axial Load
15.9 kips
15
10
~
"
0.
-~
-"
"'u....
0
""....
<ll
"'
A
00
-5
-10
-15
-6
-4
-2
Fig. 5.19 Hysteresis Loops for Cyclic Shear Tests, Constant Axial
Load and Variable Strain, LD Bearing
- 129 -
15
10
~
.&"
'""'
"
..,"...
0
...
'"
...c:"'
00
-5
-10
-15
-6
-4
-2

(c) Axial Load= 47.7 kips
15
10
~
"'
101.
'""'
"..."'
0
.,.
...c:'"
-5
...rn
00
-10
-15
-6
-4
-2

(d) Axial Load= 63.6 kips
Fig. 5.19 cont.
- 130-
15
10
~
"'
:;;""
"...
.,
r...
...~
.,
-5
[f)
-10
-15
-6
-4
-2

(a) Axial Load = 15.!1 kips
15
10
~
"""'
"...0
"'.,
-5
:;;
.,
r...
~
[f)
-10
-15
-6
-4
-2

(b) Axial Load= 3L8 kips
Fig. 5.20 Hysteresis Loops for Cyclic Shear Tests, Constant Axial
Load and Variable Strain, LB Bearing
- 131 15
10
~
..,.t:l."'
-~
...""'
'"
-5
......
0
"'
..=::
lf1
-10
-15
-6
-4
-2
(c) Axial Load= 47.7 kips
15
10
.&"'
""'
"'"...
0
".,
-5
......
..<::
lf1
-10
-15
-6
-4
-2

(d) Axial Load = 63.6 kips
Fig. 5.20 cont.
Pmax
Pmax
Pmax
Pmax
80
=
=
=
=
~---
00
'""'
"0
'0"
...:I
0.382
0.299
inches
inches
inches
inches
t'
/~
I
I
--~----1/:T/[-
.&
l------i
I
=
=
vdma.x = 0. 214
vdmax = 0.09
:r_
60
vdmax
vdmax
62.7 kips
46.955 kips
31.28 kips
kips
16. 3 41
l--.
40
//}1
.q_j_,_
-
I
,
;;
-~
<
20
/1/~7
.
1
].~<=~~
/'
------
//'
~~+'
!__..,.
......--__ _
I~
/ +'r--cl //~/1
/
. ! /<--"'"~--~
,#;;/ /
..?'
--
0.0
--r
./
II
~"
'
0.4
0.5
Signal:
----~--
,;__
- ------.-----------
0.1
0.2
0.3
890313.01
Vertical Displacement (inches)

FilBSi
------1
890313.02
890313.03
890313.04
rkwl
Fig. 5.21 Monotonic Vertical Loading, HD 1 Bearing
Pmax
Pmax
Pmax
Pmax
80
=
=
=
"'
40
=
=
=
-+
I
I
0.393
0.296
0.189
0, 078
inches
inches
inches
inches
J;~:>/
~A:.'/
//
0~
. i/
-y~
/1
,/./~
/~II
_.:___.
0.1
890320.01 ,
--i,
I
0.2
890320.02 ,
I
!
-i
II
---+
0.3
0.4
890320.03 ,
890320.04
rkwl
Fig. 5.22 Monotonic Vertical Loading, HB 1 Bearing
::;:;
-r-

Files
_J
0.0
Signal,
. I
::2/1
~7//:/
'
//
ii
i
~/II--/--1------+1---~1
-~
20
~~~
'
~I
I'
vdmax
vdmax
vdmax
vdmax
II
"0
1[-I
kips
kips
kips
kips
60
60.967
45.387
29.664
14.557
0.5
""'
Pmax
Pmax
kips
kips
kips
kips
62.979
47.255
31.588
16.205
Pmax
Pmax
0. 475
vdmax
vdmax
0. 374
vdmax
0.257
vdJ.nax =
0.13
80
inches
inches
inches
inches
,-
~---
II
ii
; --::77-~
60
"'
.&
....,
'0"
....:!
-'"
Y//~
.
~
///~/>/
/~
h/////1
'
<
,_
.
20
- - -
. Y::."
/1/
//.
/::?"
//
,...,
...
(.;.>
'
/ '/
-T-
"
'
/--(./ //" - -
- / -
+-'
/>'/'
- -. -
.
-
J'
ol~0.0
!I
7~+--
//
/ / /.-1"
.~,,q/
.)~/~//
1,.;:::;~ ~~//:_;:..~? /
. - .. '
~.,.;: >P-"
:t:;:>~~/
/;':
j/ / . /
/7'.
!///
1/
---i--7"'/ /
40
/:?/;/)// I /
.>I
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4

Files:
890315.01
Signal:
rkv.rl
1390315.02.
890315.03
B903.15. 04
5.23 Monotonic Vertical Loading, LD Bearing
0.5
Prnax =
Pmax =
Pmax =
Pmax =
62.876
4 7. 415
31. 8 02
16.563
vdmax =
kips
kips
kips
kips
vdmax
vdmax =
vdmax =
0.473
0. 372
0.254
0.121
inches
inches
inches
inches
80
60
~
"'P.
-~
..:<
'"0""
40
-"
.-1
I'
Ii
I
'
I
20
""'V>
11-I
I
0
lk
----------~------0.1
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.4

Files
Signal:
890321.48 ,
890321.49 ,
890321.50 ,
890321.51
rkwl
Fig. 5.24 Monotonic Vertical Loading, LB Bearing
0.5
80
t-
---:-
',
r-
c.
"'
n
_,.
-----+---
J//
20
H------- --~ ; / -
/!
Il t://~~
/--:/
y-/
v~======----------~
_/ .
'I
.,
-'
_......__....-ri
-----
0.0
/'
./~
(/I
...
I
///y
''_
11
/~1!
0.1
~--
~------------H
I
tjl//I
//
...,
"'
"'
I"
/ ,__ ---r-
'/
~/~
~j_J,---~ ---+------
If::/
I
I /}
I!
i
i
i
//I
40
L
~~
-----t------t-71h-/I .~--
"
....:1
"tl
I
I
60
,----
~~--,l
'
I
i
!I
0.2
0,3
__j
--~------ '
0.4
0.5

Files,
890313.04 ,
890313.05 ,
Signals;
rkw1
J:k\-J2
890313.06 ,
890313.07 ,
890313.08
Fig. 5.25 Gydic Vertical Loading about Initial Load, HD 1 Bearing
0.6
80
i
!
60
+'
,
u---- -'
"'"""'
~
"0
...:1
;v
t/1
''
"0
I
:
II!
II
,l
20
tf/"
";
1
r----
A~:J!
/~t
llrt/"7// .~ ---------~
'1.
15?
i
'j
O!~/~,
'
f; 7Y
v
I
0.1
--+--
I,
I ,
-/
w
__,
-----1---
, //
:
'
'
/'
-----i------
'
'
'
--~
'
0.0
1:
/1i/
!
/~--+'.;- -'/1-~
.'
L_
/,
"! 1i' /1;
~ ,
t-------
40
~~ I
'/)
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5

Files,
890320.04 ,
890320.05
Signals:
rkwl
rkw2
890320.06 '
890320.07
890320.08
Fig. 5.211 Cyclic Vertical Loading about Initial Load, HB 1 Bearing
0.6
80
it . .
i
'
I
-1-
I!
---=-~-==+=
'
_ C+'
. -
'
'
- -------===='~
~
I
I
'
'
'
'" "rr-----
--+-----
!I
.I
I'
__ __j
'
"'
~-----
A/
/~~--~-
.
j
"Q
40
[-!---------
-'"
~
20
ll--
~.~
//
//
v//
I
//..
//' .
/
//
,/.//.~.//.//l
o I!-,--------0.0
;//y/~
~/
//
/::/...;:
/.4'.
'
'
//
/ / '
-----r--r;~__j
I
0.
/./'
-<
'
'
'
-~I
-. ----
)I' / /
ii
!'
---t!
i ''
1
I'
II
.
0,5
0. 6
I'
-------1
///
I'
----r---
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4

Files,
890315.04
890315.05 ,
Signals:
rkwl
rkw2
Fig. 5.27
890315.06 ,
890315.07 ,
890315.08
Vertical Loading about Initial Load, LD Bearing
>-'
v.>
00
80
60
I
~
"
c.
....
~
"""'
40
~r--+I
...:I
"';;
~
20
I
I
I
I
i'
~'/ ~~/ 1
/ /
I!
0.0
/~
!'
"'
J/Y/
-~1~-j.,v~//
v:>~
.
.~
'
--
'"'
'
.
---t----
-t----'
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0,5

Files,
890321.51 ,
890321.52 ,
Signals:
rkwl r
rkw2
890321.53 ,
-r'--I
I
890321.54 ,
890321.55
Fig. 5.28 Cyclic Vertical Loading about Initial Load, LB Bearing
0.6
- 140 -
3.5
3.0
f-
2 .5
""
-;:;
>.
0
0
0
2 .0
o/
c
E
;,; ;,;
1.5
1.0
0.5
10
15
20
Axial Prestrain (%)

(a) HD 1 Bearing
3.5.--------------------------------------------,
3.0
2.5
2.0
0
1. 5 -
0
1.0
0. 5 -
0 L_--------~-----------L----.------~--------~
10
15
20
5
0
Axial Prestrain (%)

(b) HB 1 Bearing
Fig. 5.29 Cyclic/Monotonic Vertical Stiffness Ratio vs. Axial
Prestrain, High Damping Bearings
- 141 -
2.0
1.5
1.0
10
15
20
15
20
Axial Prestra.in (%)

(a) LD Bearing
.~
1.5
0
0
::.;"" ::.;
>.
1.0
10
Axial Prestrain (%)

(b) LB Bearing
Fig. 5.30 Cyclic/Monotonic Vertical Stiffness Ratio vs. Axial
Prestrain, Low Damping Bearings
Dmax
Dmin
0.028 inches
-0.035 inches
Prnax
Pmin
42.283
21.157
kips
kips
Horizonta.l Displacement Offset= 0.75 inches
___,__
50
_________ __
,_
45
40
~
"'
.9<
"'"
35
""j'"
~
,_.
..,.
N
30
25
20
15
1
1--- --------+--
-0.06
--0. 04
-0' 02
0.0
0.02
0.04

File:
890321.12
SignaJ:
rkw6
Fig. 5.31 Typical Cyclic Vertical Hysteresis Loop, HBl Bearing
0.06
- 143 -
700
600
500
CL.._
400
300
f.
200
100
0.75
1. 50
2.25
3.00
25%
50%
75%
100%
3. 75
Horizontal Offset (inches)

[Offset Shear Strain (%)]
(a) HD 1 Bearing
700 ,------------------------------------------------600
500
0-
300
100
0.75
1. 50
2.25
3.00
25%
50%
75%
100%

(b) HB 1 Bearing
Fig. 5.32 Kv
vs. Horizontal Displacement Offset
3.75
- 144 -
300 .-------------------------------------------------,
C----------- ---r_::;r
n_
A-
------A--
0
-8
g----
0 6.4k
12.Sk
0.75
1.50
2.25
3.00
25%
50%
75%
100%
3.75

(c) LD Bearing
300 . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
.s
-.....
.&"'
o--- --
200
~
-"'
-~__:;-
-D--
(7----- --
">
:.::
~
- __ J::r 12.8k
0
25.6k
100
oL'-----"----_j_----'----_____1---~----'
0
0.75
1. 50
2.25
3.00
25%
50%
75%
100%

(d) LB Bearing
Fig. 5.32 cont.
3.75
- 145 -
30.0r------------------------------------------------,
20.0
~
<v
10.0
0. 75
1. 50
2.25
3.00
25%
50%
75%
100%
3.75

(a) HD 1 Bearing
20.0
~
<v
10.0
0.75
1. 50
2.25
3.00
25%
50%
75%
100%

(b) HB 1 Bearing
Fig. 5.33
Evs.
Horizontal Displacement Offset
3. 75
- 146 -
30.0,------------------------------------------------.
" "I ~ --------8 -------~---- o__.__
___o._
10.0
0.75
1.50
2.25
3.00
2 5%
50%
7 5%
100%
3.75
Horizon tal Offset (inches)

(c) LD Bearing
20.0
.0
. 0 - ....
10.01-
0. 75
1.50
2.25
3.00
25%
50%
75%
100%

(d) LB Bearing
Fig. 5.33 cont.
3.75
Vmax :;:;
Vmin
Dmax
Dmin
10.371 kips
-10.088 kips
2.934 inches
-3 inches
Axial Load =
Strain
31.455 kips
100.007 %
15
10
r-- --,
11
:.;;;
",..
<J
.
.....
.,.
.._,
""'...
"'"
..c:
[J)
-5
-10
I
--------+_-___j
!J_ __
-15
-3
l__
-2
I
---+----------
-1

File
890320.19
Signal
rkw4
Span
sph=280
Fig. 5.34 Shear Hysteresis Loop for HBr Bearing, Standard Test With Shear
Strain Amplitude = 100% and Constant Axial Load = 31.5 kips
kips
kips
2.98
inches
Dmin = -2.991 inches
Vrnax
Vmin
Dmax
8.21
Initial Axial Load -32.036 kips

Peak Shear Strain 99.704 %
-8.547
==F
I.
15
-r--_J_
10
~+
<fJ
~~-J--~- /
11
I
0.
l/~-------------1~-~+'
~-~
~
-f
/ i . :::=:=t
///
---+-
I
...~
0
r:...
...
'"
..<::
<))
rn
jf-~//1
y/
I
-2
-1
.
I
i---
'
I
I
'
-3
-15
/r
'
I
-10
--+I

File,
890321. 20
Signal' rkw8
Spano
sph280,spv-210
Fig. 5.35 Shear Hysteresis Loop for HB 1 Bearing, Combined Loading Test With Shear
Strain Amplitude= 100% and Axial Load
31.8
12.8 kips
""'""'00
- 149 -
Fig. 5.36 LB Bearing at Approximately 330% Shear Strain

During Shear Failure Test
Files' 890322.56- 890322.61

40
30
.~
20
---+--------t----------------::1
+if
I
I
~---~
...""0
r-.
...
"'..a"
(/]
""'"' "' =""'''..""'i 7 ~~
f-------+-----j
,...._
.,."'0.
/1
'
'
I
I
10
'
I
,
>-'
v.
0
-10
-2
10
Fig. 5.37 Shear Force-Displacement Relationships for Incremental Strain

Tests to Failure, LB Bearing
12
Files
890323.08 890323.09 890323.10 890323.11

31.8 kips
Axial Load=
60
50
onset of material tearing

40
.e."'
..:.:
'--'
...""'0
""...ro
J
II I'
J
I-
--+-----.--hL-7-..f.-..L-..-
30
1'
20
I' .
:?/-r--
"'
.<:1
00
101--
~
I
.............
-+-
,_.
v.
>-'
I-
-10
-2

Tests to Failure, HB 2 Bearing
10
- 152 -
Fig. 5.3!1 lffi 2 Bearing at Approximately 260% Shear Strain

1-
Ll
--1~
~I
~p ~~"'%~/: : :;:/~ ~v
h
Fig. 5.40 Overturning (Roll-Out) Condition in a Doweled Bearing
Files
890323.13 890323.14 890323.15 890323.16
Axial Load~ 31.8
kips
20
roll-out
-
15
----, . - -
...
~
~---t--~~--/
/
I>;
...-/'\/
;
--"
.-Y
I
I
\_,
_/ / '
////f.l
_)____,
i // \
/./t ///' /--f
10
...::50
..c:
__
I --....________
--
_j__/'
i,
.....
v.
w
Cl2
~/
I
/;/
-~----?'
I
I,
II\
II=
I
//r--v
I
~--
- - -I - l - -
'
-5
-2

Tests to Failure, LD Bearing, Axial Load
31.8 kips
- 154 -
Fig. 5.42 LD Bearing at Approximately 250% Shear Strain

Files:
890323.17 890323.18 890323.19
15
I
!
i
'
10
-+--
----'
.i
r.
"'"
...0'"
i
'
'"'
(fJ
'I
__L'
/ //
//
,.
j///
'
~///
"
', "
"
~-~
/~~-----I'
~
-~-,
'"
!
~)/
"
.I
/i
_./
~77
///\
'
~//
/
~
'//;>1 /// / / : \,\ ~
:
"""''"
//~/ i
&
!//
'
""
,I
I
---r
i /.
y
i'
"'
.!:!<
roll-out
-:-------- - -
I'
II
/
//
./j
~/-r
//'
/ /
iI
'
',
- - -
ji
;I
I
_,.!.!_/
r'/
~----I
'
:
j
-5
-2

Tests to Failure, LD Bearing, Axial Load
15.9 kips
'--'
\J:
lh
NOTE ,
+ve axial load
tension
20
--+
'
'
-20
'
I
I
/#
"'0.
-"1
'"()
j"
....
-40
CA
-.::!
~
0'-
-60
-80
-100
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5

Fig. 5.44 Tension-Compression Axial Load Cycles, HB 1 Bearing
1.0
- 157 -
~--
~,
(
\
(
I
I
l \
('\
\\ \\.,
~~-.
.\
\ \\\\ \\\\ \\
\ \\ \ \\ \\\
\\ \\ \\ \
\
'
\\
\\
~~
,_
-~I
\~:\<~
0
0
I~
"
rl
(sdp1) p-eo'I <>TTSTI<>J,

"
rl
- 158 -
Fig. 5.46 HB 1 Bearing Undeformed Configuration
Fig. 5.47 HB 1 Bearing During Tensile Failure Test
Peak Axial Load

Max. Horiz. Displ.
200
i'
T
I
A 150
X
i
a
1
L
a 100
/~i /
1/"
1/
II
-~1 ,/~--
/1
I/'
-"'
Vt
k
i
p
182.137 kips
0.109 inches
50
30.9k
(
~
/~
/
I
.
..
I
..
0.0
-0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
Horizontal Displacement -
File
0.08
0.10
inches
891102.04
Fig. 5.48 Axial Load vs. Horizontal Displacement for HD Bearing Buckling Test
- 160 -
'
Dv
~--
u(x)
f\M
II>F
I 1J
K,
!--;
""
1/lr;;JJ
Fig. fl.l
A Two-Spring Physical Model for an Elastomeric Bearing
p =0
4
I
~---~
1---
'
I
i
.
-2
-4
/ ..r
__j
..--f
I'
~
/
.,.-----! - -
2 1--
----+1
<"
;/
____
./1
---+-----___...//
-1----~
I
:---------
-r-
--
-4
-1
-2
//
I
i
-+/ -=---------1-----r///
= 0.5
-2
-1
0>
l
p
F o
12!)
--
T.
:::===F
2[
,
1'
I
-4
-2
i,
'
"' / C
I- ' -~
'!
1,
11
Fig. 6.2
-2
-1
~/
. . .'1 - -
'
- - --~-~/?
L
~-----+---
i
---'
t---+.----------+
.1
r~:-~~k i- - -
I
---~~
I
I
-
I -
-~--~I
.
~-4
I--~
---.__.
-- _ , _ _
------.1 _______...//
---
't
-4
2
-2
-1
Force-Deformation Relationship of Non-linear Two-Spring Model
- 162 -
N(x)
M(x)
1
p
Fig. A.l
Equilibrium and Kinematics at an Arbitrary Section of

a Haringx Column
Fig. A.2
Haringx's Column for Modeling an Elastomeric Bearing

Subjected to End Loads
- 163 -
APPENDIX A
Haringx Theory of Bearing Stability
The Haringx theory for the buckiing of columns with low shear stiffness was developed in the
1940s in an extensive series of Phillips Research Reports [46]_ The purpose of the theory was to
describe the mechanical behavior of steel spring supports for eiectrkal equipment. 1t has proved to be
equally useful for rubber bearings and can be used to predict buckling loads, the interaction of vertical
load and horizontal shear stiffness and the influence of vertical load on the damping of a bearing. lt is
a linear theory and thus does not take into account the strain-softening effect apparent in highly filled
rubbers, but this can be accounted for in an approximate way and the theory is very valuable for giving insight into bearing behavior_
Consider an elastic column of length I subjected to a compression load P. The lower end of the
column is fixed against rotation and displacement The upper end is restrained against rotation but free
to move horizontally to simulate the boundary conditions appropriate to a bearing in an isolation system_ In some situations a horizontal force may be applied at the upper end or it may be free of horizontal load. There may also be a reactive moment at the upper end of the column-
The boundary conditions and the internal forces from which the equilibrium equations can be
obtained are shown in Figs. Al and A.2. Moment and shear equilibrium are given by
M(x)
V(x)
M0
=
Pu(x) +He><
P(x)- H 0
(Al)
(A2)
where u (x) is the displacement of the centerline of the column and (x) is the rotation of the column
cross-section, which is assumed to remain plane. The constitutive equations are
M ~<) Efeff '(x)
(A.3)
V(x) GAeff [ u'(x)- (x)]
(A.4)
where Eleff is the tilting stiffness of the bearing which can be estimated from elastic theory and is
approximately
- 164 -
(A.5)
where Ec is the compression modulus of the bearing. The effective shear stiffness is given by
GAeff ~ GA,
(A.6)
where G is the material shear modulus and A, is !he shear area of the bearing. Both of these
effective properties should include a factor to allow for the fact that the reinforcing shims do not
deform.
By combining Eqs. (A.3) and (A.4), <!> can be expressed in terms of u' as
1
p
1 + --
lru' + ~--j
GA,
(A.7)
GA,
from which we obtain
___!<;!.__ u" +Pu

1 + __}'_
GA,
Hox
+M 0
(A.8)
The corresponding equation in terms of <!> is

__El~ <!>" + P<j> Ha .
1+ p
GA,
(A.9)
The general solutions of Eqs. (A.S) and (A.9) are

Ho
Mo
u(x) Acosax + Bsinax + --x + - p

p
<j>(x)
where
p [ 1+ -pa"'=-
El
C cosax + D sin ax +
Ho
p
(A.lO)
(All)
GA, J
The constants A, B, C, and D are not independent of each other, but are related through Eq.
(A. 7) which implies that
C =
a~B
= -a~
- 165 -
where
ll -
---~--
1+
GA,
The two equations which represent the starting point for subsequent analyses are therefore
u (x)
= A cos=
<j>(x) -
Ho
Mo
+ B sin= + ---- x + -------
aflB cos=
- afl4 sin= +
(A12)
Ho
(A13)
(i) Bearing Buckling
To
u (0)
determine
0, <jl(O)
0, H 0
the
-
buckling
load
we
impose
the
boundary
conditions
0 and <j>(l) = ()_ It follows from the first three of these conditions (and Eqs-
(A 12) and (A13)) that <P(x)
-afl4 sin= and thus <f>(/) - 0_ This gives a! -
u (x) - u1 (1 - cos
JtX
T)
cj>(x) = aflv1 sin :n:x_ I
Jt
and
(A14)
(A15)
The buckling load is given by
(A16)
or
(A17)
where
For shape factors in the range of 5---10, typical of isolation bearings, and for circular bearings
with radius R and height !, the ratio of P 5 and PE is given by
(A18)
- 166 Most isolation bearings are quite squat, with I "' R. A reasonable approximation for Pa is thus
given by
(A.l9)
P
We note that Ps. -
PE
1
p.
- I:'
where A=
'1/2
rr.RSl
--
is generaily small. It is convenient to use j P 5 PE as
a normalizing factor and define
(A20)
in terms of which the equation for buckling load becomes
(A21)
(ii) Bearing Horizontal Stiffness
The influence of vertical load on the horizontal stiffness of a bearing can be treated using the
same approach. ln this case the horizontal force is specified as H 0
-F and the horizontal displace-
ment u1 sought under a subcritical load P. The horizontal stiffness Kh is then determined from
(A.22)
The boundary conditions are u(O)- 0, <j>(O)- 0 and <j>(l) = 0 from which we obtain
u1 =
F
--aflP
. 1 - cosal 2 .
.. __.L + smal
Il Jl..::sinal
If we put casal - 1 - 2sin2 ~~ and sinal
2sin'
cos~,
'
- all .
,
then this can be written as
(A.23)
The horizontal stiffness is
(A24)
which clearly tends to zero as al .-
11
and P tends to the critical load.
- 167 -
In the case where A ..c 1, as for squat high shape factor bearings, the value of fl can be approximated by _1_ and a/ by p n, and we have
A
(A25)
2 tan----al
---a!
2
with
tan _rrp_
2
a/ "' np_
2
2
(iii) Inlluence of Test Machine Tilt on Buckling Load
The buckling load for the isolation bearings was determined by vertical loading in the test rig
(described in Section 4.2J.) used for the horizontal and vertical loading tests. The test machine is
shown in Figs. 4.2 and 4.3. The horizontal actuator was disconnected from the load-beam for the
buckling tests to permit free translation of the top of the bearing when the instability condition was
reached. For a bearing in the test machine in this configuration, when buckling occurs the vertical
actuators displace laterally and can contribute to the observed buckling load resistance. This is analogous to the well-known example of the Euler column loaded as a cantilever with the applied load
always remaining vertical. In this case, the buckling load is rr 2E/ /41 2 , but if the column is loaded
such that the applied load is always directed toward the bottom of the column the buckling load is
1r
E! !1 2 , which is four times that obtained for !he inclined loading case.
To determine the effect in this case, consider the problem in Section (ii) above and replace F by
-P 6/h where h is the distance between the device pins at the ends of the vertical actuators, Eqs.
(A12) and (A13) thus become
u (x)
<j>(x)
The boundary conditions are u(O)
simultaneous equations for
b
Mo
A cosax + B sin ax + -- x + --h
p
li
at\8 cosco: - aflsinco: + -h
0, (0)
0, u(l)
~band
<j>(l)
(A.26)
(A27)
=
0. From these we obtain two
o and PC!_
M
Po
[1- - cosalj'
(A.28)
- 168 -
Mo
li [ 1- cosalJ = 0
afl--psinal
+ h
(A.29)
A non-trivial solution to Eqs. (A.28) and (A.29) will occur if
(1 - cosa/) 2 + o.flh sinal[l - j_ + _!__sina/1 - 0

h
aflh
J
(A.30)
or, after simplifying and replacing sino./ and cosal by half-angle equivalents,
h
I
~-
1 -
2
a(31
al
2
(A.31)
---tan-
This is most easily solved by inserting values for p and computing
1-. Expressed in terms of p, the
right-hand side of Eq. (A.31) becomes
h - 1 .. l
We
note
(1-p + p 2
that
if
~ 4, then h
(~ + p
->
----~----
lt
(1 + lp)(~ + p2)1/2
A
~ 1,
the
value
n
tan-2
of
(~
->
+ p 2 ) 112
oo
as
(A.32)
expected,
and
if
l. It is clear that if the applied load is directed to the base of the bearing,
then the buckling load (for high shape factors) tends to two times the buckling load for a vertical
loading.
- 169-
APPENDIX B
A Two-Spring Model for Elastomeric Bearings
This appendix presents the theoretical development for a two-spring physical model for elastomeric bearing behavior originally presented by Koh and Kelly [12].
Consider a rigid column of length I erected on a rigid plate on two frictionless rollers of negligible dimension (Fig. 6.1). The rollers sit on another rigid plate and a horizontal spring restricts the relative displacement (s) between the top and bottom plates. The bottom plate is supported at a pivot and
the relative rotation (6) is constrained by a rotational spring. The stiffnesses of the rotational and horizontal springs are Kb (moment per unit radian) and K, (force per unit length), respectively. A vertical compression load P, a horizontal force F and a moment M are applied at the top end of the
column. The horizontal displacement of the top of the column is u and the height reduction of the
model as a result of the deformations s and 6 is 1\,.. The kinematics of the simplified model (using
small displacement theory) give
u - 18 + s
(B.l)
82
b, = s6 +I -2
(B2)
M = Pu + Fl
(B.3)
H =PO+ F .
(BA)
W c observe that
Recognizing that H
K,s and M = Kbe, and using Eqs. (B.lHBA) it follows that

(B5)
(B.6)
K,s=PO+F
Eqs. (B.5) and (B.6) can be expressed in matrix form
~Ff
IFf
(B.7)
- 170from which the solutions for 8 and s can be obtained:

(B.8)
(Kb - PI) F + PFl
(B.9)
The buckling load is given by the denominator vanishing, that is

Kb K, - K, Pl - P 2 = 0
(B.lO)
Consider the two extreme cases
( i) K s
oc then P
~
Kb
l
--+ - - -
To match these results with the simplified model, let
where
With these terms, Eq. (B.7) becomes
(B.11)
lt follows that
(B.12)
and
s =
Fl
(B.13)
- 171 -
Finally, Eq. (B.l) becomes

(B.14)
Similarly, Eq. (B.2) becomes

(B.15)
if a 2 and higher order terms arc neglected, and where
(B.16)
and
(B.17)
Using Eqs. (B.14), (B.16) and (B.17) the bearing stiffness is
(B.l8)
(i) Extension to the Viscoela;;tic Model
By replacing E and G in Eq. (B.18) by their complex counterparts, the horizontal impedance is
obtained:
(B.19)
The height reduction corresponding to F(t) = F 0 cos(iwt) is evaluated from

(B.20)
where
8 and
e'
s'
and s are the equivalent complex forms of

arc in phase only when 6 " 0.
e and
s in Eqs. (B.l2) and (B.13). Note that
172 -
(ii) Damping Amplification of Rubber Bea:riugs
To understand the nature of the damping behavior of elastomeric bearings under the influence of
compression load, we compare the following special cases:
(1) For PE > P5 > P, that is, considering only the shear deformation, the loss factor of the bearing
(tan) is not influenced by the compression load and is simply equal to the loss factor of the
material (tan&):
tan~
tanl\.
(B.21)
There is no damping amplification in this special case.
(2) For Ps PE > P, that is, considering only the flcxnral deformation, the real (storage) part of
Kh' decreases linearly with the compression load but the imaginary (loss) part remains
unchanged. In other words, the energy loss per cycle is not affected by the compression load.
The loss factor, defined as the ratio of the loss part to the storage part of Kh , increases linearly
with increasing compression load:

tan &
1- ap
-"~----""----
(B.22)
The energy dissipation per cycle being unchanged, the damping amplification is caused solely by
the reduction of stiffness resulting from the P-t. effect.
(3) For typical clastomcric bearings P > P 5 , but P may be significantly larger than P5 , so
p2
= ___[>
P Ps
cannot be neglected. In this case, the effect of the compression load is twofold: the
loss part of Kh increases quadratically while the storage part decreases quadratically with the
compression load. The loss factor can be shown to be approximately
tan
tan
1 + tan 2 6 +p_---2
1 + tan 2 1\ - p 2
- - -....---------
(B.23)
Unlike the previous case, the compression load not only reduces the stiffness, it also increases the
energy dissipation. Such an increase in the energy dissipation cannot come from the potential
energy of the compression load, which certainly has to be conserved in a complete cycle. Rather,
- 173 the compression load increases the phase difference between the applied force F and the
corresponding displacement, thereby increasing the energy dissipation per cycle. From the above
equation, the dynamic critical load appears to be greater than P,,
P,, Vl + tan 2
b.
and is given by
This however, should not be over-emphasized, because the design load in prac-
tice would normally not go beyond P,,. For tan2 li "" 1 and P not too close toP,, Eq. (B.23)
can be simplified to
tan
.p
tan 6 r
1~
1- p2
l.J
(B.24)
- 175 EARTHQUAKE ENGI:'-IEERJNG RESEARCH CENTER REPORT SERIES

EERC rcpons are :;-.-:u!Jble from the National fnformat;on Service for Earthq1wkc Engineering(NISEEi and from the National Technic:;_! InfOmJarion
Service( NTIS). Numbers m parentheses are Accesswn Numbers assigned by the N:nional Technical Informanon Sef':ice; these are followed by a pnce code.
Con.t::lct NTIS. 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield V1rginia. 22J6i for more information. Repom without Accession Numbers were not aYaibbk from NTIS
at the time of primm g. Fo; a current complete list of EERC repon:s (from EERC 67 -1) and availablity informauon, p!e:1se contact Uniwrsity of Califom!a.
EERC NISEL !301 South ..!6th Street: Richmond. California 94804.
J.~L
January l98L (PB8l 200
UCB:EERCS!.10t
'Control of Seism1c Response of Pipmg Systems and Other Structures by Base fsolation. by Kelly,
135):\05.
UCBtEERC-.Sl/02
"OPTNSR- .--\n Interactive Software Sys!Cm for Optimal Des1gn of Statically and Dynamic;:d!y Loaded Stmctures with Nonlinear
Response.' by Bha1t1. l\i.A .. CiampL V. and Pister. K.S., Janu;J:ry 1981. (PB81 2!8 851).4.09.
UCB/EERC-8!/03
'Analysis of Local Vari<Jtions m Free Field Seismic Ground .\1otions. by Chen, J.-C.. Lysmer, J. and S<eed. H.B .. January 198!. (_-\DA099508)A 13.
UCB/EERC8li04
rneiastic Structural ~.1ode1ing of Braced Offshore Platforms for Seism11:: Loading, by Zayas. \!.A., Shing, P.-S.B .. Mahin. S.A and
Popov. E.P., Janu:1ry 1981. lNEL4. (PB82 138 177lA07.
UCB/EERC-81/05
"Dynamic Respome of Light Equipment in Structures, by Der Kiureghian. A., S<Jckman. J.L and Nour-Omid. B.. April !98!_ (PBS!
:?.18 497)A04.
UCBtEERC -81/06
.. Preliminary ExpErimemal fnve-sugation of a Broad B:::tse Liqu1d Storage Tank. by Bollwkamp. J .G .. Ko!Jegger. J.P. and Stephen. R.M ..
1'-.by ! 98!. (PB82 140 385)A03.
UCB/EERC-Sl/07
Th<: Seismic Resistant Design of Reinforced Concrete Coupled Srructura1 Walls: by :\klan. A.E. and Bertero. V.V .. June J9Sl, (PBS:?.
! l3 358)A.I !.
UCB/EERC-8 I tQ!:l
unassigned ... by Unassigned. l9B!.
UCB/EERC-81/0<:;
"Expenmen!al Behavior of a Spa1id Piping System with Steel Energy Absorbers Subjected to a Simulared Differenti;:ll Scism1c !npuL by
Stiemcr. S.f., Godden. W.G. and Kelly. J.M .. July 198!. (PBS:?. 201 898)A04
UCB/EERC-8!/10
'Evaluation of S<':!smic Design Provisions for Masonry in the United States: by Sveinsson, B.L. Mayes, R.L 2.nd McN1ven. H.D ..
August 198!. (PB82 166 075JA08
UCB/EERC-81/l!
"Two-Dm1ensionaJ Hybrid Modelling of Soil-Structure interaction, .. by Tzong, T.-1 .. Gupta. S. and Penzien_ J., August !981. (PBS:?. 142
li8H04.
LFCB/EERC-81:'12
studies on Etfects of [nfllls m SeismiC Resistant RJC Construction." by Brokken. S. and Benero. V.V .. October !981. (PB82 166
J90)A09.
UCB;EERC-8!113
"Linear Models to Predict the Nonlinear SeismiC Behavior of a One-Story Steel Frame: by Valdimarsson. H .. Shah, A.H. and
McNiven, H.D.. September 198 L (PB82 138 793)A07.
UCBIEERC-81/14
'TLUSH: A Computer Program for the ThreeDlmtnsional Dynamic Analysis of Earth Dams," by Kagawa. T., l'v1ejia. LH., Seed. H.B.
and Lysmer. J., September 1981, (PB82 139 940)A06.
UCB/EERC-81/15
"Three Dimensional Dyn<1mic Response Anaiysis of Earth Dams." by Mqia. LH. :tnd Seed. H.B .. September 1981, (PB82 137 274)Al2.
UCB/EERC-8!!16
Exptrimcnta! Study of Lead and Elastomcric Dampers for Base Isolauon Systems. by Kelly. J.M. and Hodder. S.B .. October 1981.
tPB82 166 l82)A05
UCB!EERC-8!i'~
"The Influence of Base !solation on the Setsmic Response of Lighi Secondary Equipment." by Kelly, J.M .. April !98L (PB82 255
266)A04
UCB/EERC-3 l !18
Studles on Ev3luation of Shaking Table Response A.nalysis Procedures ... by Blondet. J. M .. November 198 L {PB82 197 278-)A 10_
UCB.IEERC-81,10
"DEUGHT.STRUCT: A. Compu!er-.-"..ided Design Environmem lOr Structural Engineering." by Ba!lmg. R.L Pister. K.S. and Poiak. E..
December 1981. iPB8:?. 218 496).4.07.
UCBIEERC-81/20
Op!Jmal Design of ScismJc-Resislant Planar Steel Frames. by Ball mg. R.J .. Ciampi. V. and Pister. KS, December !98!. (PBS:?. 220
179).--\.07.
UCB/EERC-82!0 1
Dynamic Behavior of Ground for Setsmic A.nalys1s of Lifeline Systems. by Sa to. T. and Der Kiureghian, .--\., January 1982. (PB82 218
926)A05.
UCBiEERC-82/02
'Shaking Table Tests of a Tubular Steei Frame ModeL" by Ghana;lt, Y. and Clough, R_ W .. January J 982. (PB82 220 ! 61 )A07.
UCE/EERC-82/03
Behavior of a Pipmg System under Seismic Excitation: Experimen1a! lnvestig::nions of a Spatial Pipmg System supported by
cai Shock _.:l,rrestors." by Schneider, S .. Lee, H.-M. and Godden, W. G .. May !982. (PB83 !72 544)A09.
UCBiEERC-82104
Mechan1~
New A.ppro<rches for the Dynamic Analysis of Large Structural Systems." by Wilson. E.L June !982. (PB83 148 080).--\05.
UCB!EERC-82105
'Model Study of Effects of Damage on the Vibration Properties o( Steel Offshore Platfom1s.-- b-y Shahrivar. F. and Bouwbmp. J.G ..
June 1982. (PB33 148 742)Al0.
UCB/EERC-82/06
'Stares of the An and Prattce in the Optimum SeismJc Desrgn and /'.na!yucal Response Predicuon of R/C Frame Wall Structures: by
Aktan, A.E. and Bmero. V.V .. July 1982, (PB83 !47 736)A05.
UCB/EERC-82-'07
"Funher Srudy of the Earthquake Response of a Broad Cylindrical Liquid-Storage Tank Model." by Manos. G. C. and Clough: R.W ..
July !98:?.. (PB83 !.t7 744)-All
1JCBIEERC-S2/08
'An Evaiuation of the Design and Analytical Seismic Response of a Seven Swry Reinforced Concrete Frame.- by Charney. f.A. and
Benero. V.V July 1982. (PB83 !57 628).4.09
UCB/EERC-82/09
UCB/EERC-82/!0
F!uJd-Structure lnteract!ons: Added Mnss Compmations for lncompressJble Fluid. by Kuo. J.S.-H., August 1982. !PB83 156 281).4.07
"Joint-Opemng Nonllnear Mechanism: Interface Smeared Crack Model." by Kuo, J.S.-H .. August 1982. (PB83 !49 i95)A05.
- 176 UCB!EERC-82/ll
'Dy11am1c Response Analysis ofTechi Dam ... by Clough, R.V..., Stephen, R.M. and Kuo. J.S.-H.. -\ugust 1')82. (PB83 !-:!7 496)A06.
UCBIEERC-82/12
"Prediction of the Seismic Response o! R/C Frame-Coupled Wall Structures ... by Ak1an. A.E., Bertero. V.V. and Piazzo. M"' :..ugust
1982. (PB83 i-1-9 203)A09.
UCB/EERC-82/13
"Preliminary Report on the Smart l Strong Motion Array in Taiwan: by Bolt. B.A .. Loh. C.H .. Penzien. J. and Tsai, Y.B .. August
1982. (PB83 !59 400)A10.
UCB/EERC-82114
"Seismic Behavior of an Eccemrically X-Braced Steel Siructure, by Yang.
UCB/EERC82/!5
'The Performance ofStainvays in Earthquakes. by Roha, C. Axley, J.\V. and Bertero, V.V. September 1982. !PB83 !57 6931A.07.
UCB/EERC-82/ 16
"The Behavior of Submerged Multiple Bodies in Earthquakes.- by Liao.
UCB/EERC-82/17
Effects of Concrete Types and Loading Conditions on Local Borrd-Slip Relationships. by Coweil. A.D .. Popov. E.P and Bertero. V.V ..
September 1982. (PB83 153 577)A04.
UCB/EERC-82118
'Mechamcal Behavior of Shear Wail Vertical Boundary Members: An Ex penmen tal InvestigatiOn. by \Vagner. M.T. :wd Benero. v_ V ..
October 1982, (PBSJ 159 764~A05.
UCB/EERC-82119
-Experimental Studies of Muhi-suppon Seismic Loading on Piping Systems." by Kelly, J.M. and CowelL A.D .. November 1982. (PB90
262 684)A07.
UCB/EERC-821.:::0
'Generalized Plastic Hinge Concepts for 30 Beam-Column Elements ... by Chen. P. F.-S. and PowdL G.H"' November 1982. (PB83 247
98i)Al3.
UCB/EERC-82/21
"ANSR-tl: Genera! Computer Program for Nonlinear Structural Analysts.-- by Oughourlian. C.V. and Powell, G.H .. November !982.
(PB83 251 330)Al2.
UCB/EERC-82/22
"Solution Strateg1es for Statically Loaded Nonlinear Structures: by Simons. J.W. and Powell. G.H-. November !982, iPB83 !97
970)A06.
UCB/EERC-82/23
\na1ytical Model of Deformed Bar Anchorages under Generalized Excitations ... by Ciampi. V .. Eligeh::msen. R .. Bertero. V.V. and
Popov. E.P .. November 1982. (PBS3 169 532)A06.
UCB/EERC-82/24
'A Mathematical Mode! for the Response of Masonry Walls to Dynamic Excit:J.rions." by Sucuoglu. H .. Mengi, y_ and McNlven, H. D ..
November 1982. (PB83 169 01 i)A07.
~LS"
w ..G ..
Seplember !982. (P883 260 778)A12.
Seprember 1982. (PB83 158 709)A07.
UCB/EERC-82/25
"E:mhquake Response Considerations of Broad Liquid Storage Tanks. by Cambra, F.L November 1982, (PB83 251 .::: t 5)A09
UCB/EERC-8::/26
computational Models tOr Cyclic Plasticity, Rate Dependence :J.nd Creep: by Mosaddad, B. and PowelL G.H .. November i982. (PB83
245 829)A08.
UCB/EERt -82/27
'lnelastJC Analysis of Pipmg and Tubular Structures.' by l'vbhasuYerachai. M. and PowelL GJL November 1982. (PB83 249 987)A07.
UCB/EERC-83/0l
'The Economic Feasibility of Seismic Rehabilitation ofBuik!ings by Base IsolatiOn ... by Kelly. J.M .. January 1983, (PB83 197 988)A05.
UCBIEERC 83102
"'Seismic Moment Connections tOr }..fomem-Resisting Steel Frames., by Popov. E-P .. hnuary 1983. tPB83 195 4 i 2)A04.
UCB/EERC 83!03
Destgn of Links and Bum-to-Column Connections for Eccentrically Braced Steel Frames. by PopoY, E.P. and Malley. J.O.. Januar;.-
l983,(PB83!9481l)A04.
LiCB/EER( -SJ/04
"Numencai Techniques for the Evnluation of Soil-Structure Interaction Effects in the Time Domain ... by Bayo. E. and Wilson. E.L,
February ! 983. (PB83 245 605)A09.
lJCB/EERC-83/05
"A Transducer for Measuring the Internal Forces in the Columns of a Frame-Wall ReinfOrced Concrete Structure." by Sause, R. and
Benero. V.V.. May 1983, (PB84 119 494)A06.
lJ("B/EERC-83/06
"Dynamic Interactions Bet\veen Floating lee and Offshore Structures ... b)' Croteau. P., h-1ay 1983. (PB84 119 486)A I 6.
UCB/EERC-::\3/07
Dynamic Analysis of Multiply Tuned and :\rbitrardy Sllpponed Secondary Systems." by Igusa. T_ and Der Kiuregh!im, A .. July 1983.
(PB84!18 272).-\li.
tTBiEERC-83!08
.!J., Laboratory Study of Submerged
UCB/EERC-83109
'Effects ofT ransient Foundation Uplift on Earthquake Response of Structures. by Yim. C.-S. and Chopra. A.K .. June l 983. (PB83 261
396).-\07_
~1ulti-body
Systems in Ean:hquakes. by An san. G.R .. June !983. (PBSJ 261 S42)A! 7
UCBiEERC-83/iO
"Optimal Design of fnction-Braced Frames under Seismic Loading... by Austin. \-L-\. and Pister. K.S., June 1983. (PB84 ll9188)A06.
C:CB/EERC-83/ll
'Shaking Table Study of Single-Stor_,: Masonry Houses: Dynamic Performance under Three Component Se1srnic Input and Recommendations .. by Manos. G-C. Clough, R.W. and Mayes, R.L July 1983. (UCB/EERC-83!ll)A08.
UCB/EERC-83/ 12
'E:<penmental Error Propag:nion m Pseudodynamic Testing: by Shiing, P.B. and Mahin. S.A .. June 1983. (?8{)4 119
UCB/EERC-83113
Experimentai and Anaiyrical Predictions of the Mechanical Characteristil-"'5 of a l/5-scale Model of J_ ?-slOry RIC Frame-\Vall Building
Structure ... by Aktan. A.E .. Bertero, V_V., Chowdhury, A.A. and Nagashima, T., June !983. (PB84 119 2l3)A07.
l!CB/EERC-83/14
'Shaking Table Tests of Large-Panel Precast Concrete Building Sysrem Assemblages.- by Oliva. M.G. and Clough. R.W., June 1983.
(PBS6 110 2!0/AS)Al 1.
UCB/EERC-83/i 5
seismic Behavior of Active Beam Links

676)A09.
lD
~70/A09.
Eccentncally Braced Frames.' by Hjelmstad. K_D. and Popov. E.P .. July i 983. (PB84 I! 9
UCB/EERC-83/!6
'System ldentificatiorr of Structures wnh Joint Rotation ... by Dimsdale. J.S., July 1983. (PB84 192 2lO)A06.
UCB/EERC-83/l i
"ConstruCiion of lneiastic Response Spectra for Single-Degree-of-Freedom Systems ... by Mahin. S. and Lin. J., June !983, (PBS-+ 208
834)A05
UCB/EERC-83/ !8
'Interactive Computer Analysis Methods for Predic1.mg the Inelastic Cycbc Behaviour of Structural Sections. by Kaba, S. and Mahin,
S_, July !9&3. (PB84 192 Ol2)A06.
UCB/EERC.83/l9
Effects of Bond Deterioration on Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Joints." by Filippou. FC, Popov. E. P. and Bertero, V.V ..
-\ugust 1983, (PB84 !92 020)Ai0.
- 177 UCB/EERC-SJ/20
'"Cvrreiatton of Analytical :md Experimental Responseg oi Large-Pand Prec2st Building Syskms, by Oliva. M.G.. Clough. R.W., \'elkov. M. :lnd Gavrilovic, P .. May ! 988. (PB90 ::::62 692JA06
UCB/EERC8312 1
Mechamcal CharactcristKs of t>i:ltcria!s U~ed irr a I /5 Selle t,todel of a 7-Story Reinforced Concrete Test Strucmre." by Berrero. V.V.
Aktan. A.L Hams. H.Ci-. and Chovvdhury. A.A. October 1983. (PB84 !93 697)A05.
LlCB/EERC-83;2:2
'Hybnd ModeJlmg of
UCB/EERC-83/23
"Loud Bond Stress-Slip Relationships of Deformed Bars under Gcnerdized

V.V, October !983. (PB84 19::; S48JA09.
liCB/EERC-83i2-~
Sod~Structun:
Interaction
\D
Layered Media. by Tzong. T.-J. and Penzien. J .. October ! 983. !PBS4 ! 92 !78)A08
b~
'Destgu Considcratwns for Shear Links in Eccentrically Braced Frames ...
Excit:~t;ons.
by E!igehausen. R .. Popov. E.P. and Bertero.
1\tdley ..LO. and Popov. E.P .. November !983. (PB84 192
!86)A.()7_
UCBiEERC~6.l-ilH
heudodynamtc Tes1 Merhod for Seismic PerforrnaTice Evalu:ltlon; Theory and impkrnent:ltion. by Shing. P.-S.B. and Mahin. S.A ..
January !984. (PB84 !90 64.1-lAC!S
LTCB/EERC-84/02
Dynamic RC'sponse Behavior of Kiang Hong Dian Dam," by Clough, R.W .. Chang, K.-T .. ChC'n, H.-Q. and Stephen. R.M .. April !984.
(PB84 209 ..J.02lA08.
UCBiEERC-84.:03
Rdined Modell!ng of Remforced Concrete Columns for Seismic Analysis." by Kaba, S.A. and Mahin. S.A .. Apnl 198..i. rPB84 234
384)..-\06.
L'CBIEERC-8-i/04
'A New Floor Response Spectrum lvfethod for Seismic A.na!ysl.s of 1\-ful!Jp!y Supported Secondary SJ'S1ems," by Asfura. A. and Dcr
Kiureghian, A .. June i 984. (PB84 239 417)A06.
UCB/EERC-84/05
'Earthquake Simulation Tests and .Associated Studies of a t/5th-sca!e Model of a 7-Story RIC Frame-Wall Test S[ructure." by Benero,
V.V .. Aktan. A.L Ch:J.rney, F ..-\. and Sause, R .. June 1984. (PB84 :::39 409)A09
LSCB/EERC-84/06
RIC Structural Walls: Seismic Design for Shear," by Akt:m. A.E. and Bencro, V.V .. 1984.
UCBiEERC-84/07
"BehavlOr of lntenor and Extcnor f1at-P!atc Connections subjected to Inelastic Load Reversals ... by Zee. H_L. and Moehle, J.P., August
J98J., (PB86 1 !7 o29iAS)A07
UCBiEERC-8-1-iOS
"Experimental Study of the Seismic Behavior of a Two-Swry Rat-Plate Stn1c1.ure, by Moehle. J.P. and D1ebold, J.W., August 198.1,
(PBS6 122 553/AS)A.l2.
LTCB/EERC-S.::1;09
'Phenomenological Modeling ofSted Bmces under Cyclic loading." by Ikeda, K., Mahin. S.A. and Dennitzakis. S.N .. !\1ay 19S..t. (PBS6
132 1981AS)A08
UCB/EERC-84!!0
'Earthquake
902/AS)A!l.
UCB/EERC-8_j,f 11
'EAG D-84: A Computer Progr;1m for Earthquake Analysis of Concrete Gravity O:J.ms. by Fenves, G. and Chopra. A.K .. .-\ugust 1984_
(PBBS 193 6! 3/AS)AOS
UCB/EERC-8.::11!2
OA Rcfmed Physical Thwry Model for Pred;cting the SeismlC Behavior of Braced
!98-L (PB8S !91 4501AS)A09.
l.JCB/EERC-8--1-/i}
"Earthquake Engineenng Research at Berkeley- 198--i.
UCB/EERC>8:.1/! 4
"!\foduli Jnd Dampmg Factors for DynamiC Analyses of Cohesioniess Solis, by Seed, H_B., Wong, R.T.. Idriss, I.M_ and T okimatsu. K ..
September 198-+. (PBS5 i 9! -Hi3/AS)A04
UCB/EERC-84/! 5
"The Influence of SPT Procedures in Soi! Lique-L1ction Resist;:mce Evalu::nions ... by Seed, H.B .. Tokimatsu. K., Harder. LF and Chung.
R.l\1.. October 1984, (PB85 I 9! I 321AS)A.04
LC"B/EERC-84/!6
simph1ied Procedures for the Evaluation of Stitlcments 1n Sands Due w Earthquake Shakmg. by Tobm.:nsu. K_ and Seed. l:LB.,
October !984. (PB85 197 887/AS)A03
liCB/EERC -84/17
"Evaluation of Energy A.bsorption Charactensucs of Highway Bndges Under Seismic Conditions- \'oltlme I (PB90 262 627}A!6 and
Volume fi (AppendKes) (PB9!) 262 635)A i 3." by Imbsen. R_ ~,. and Penzien. J .. Seprember 1986
UCBIEERC-84: l8
structure-Foundauon Interactwns under Dynamic Loads.' by Liu, W.D. and Penzien. J __ Novemher 1984. (PB8 7 124 8S9/ASl.-\ II
UCB;EERC-84/ 19
'Se!smic 1\,lodd!ing of Deep Foundations. by Chen, C.-H. and Penzien. J .. November i 9S4-, (PB87 ! 24 798/AS)A07.
UCB/EERC-8~/20
.-~nalysis
and Response of Concrete Gravity Dams,' by Femes, G. ;Jnd Chopra. A.K .. August 1984. (PB85 !93
August 198-t
(PB~S
SH~e!
Frames, by fkeda. K. and 1\-b.hin. S.A., Ju!y
!97 341-'AS)AIO.
Dynarmc Response Behavior of Quan Shui Dam.- by Cloug_h, R.W,, Chang, K.-T.. Che-n. H.-Q .. Stephen. R.M .. Gh:maat. Y and Qt.
J.-H., :---Jov,mber 1084. {PB86 l !5l77!AS)A07

UCB!EERC-85/01
"Simplifa~d
Methods of Analys1s for Earthquake Resmant Design of Bui!ding.s. by Cruz. E. F. and Chopra, A.K .. February !985. (?886
I 12299/ASl-\ I.?..
UCB!EERC-85.!0:2
Est1mJtion of StiSm!C \-V;n-'e Coherency and Rupture Vdocity using 1he SMART
N.A., March !985. (PB86 21--1 3-l-3)A07
UCBiEERC 85:{)3
'Dynrrmic PropertieS of a Thiny S;ory Condominium Tower Building, by Stephen, R.M., Wilson. E.L and Stander. N. ..April !985.
(PB86 1 !8965/AS).-;06
UCB/EERC 85/04
"Devdopmem of Substructunng Techniques for On-Line CompUler Controlled SeJsmie Pen:Ormance Testing... by Dermitzakis. S. and
Mahin, S.. February i 985. (PB86 132941/AS)AOS
!\iodc~l
Strong-Mouon Array Rccordings.o by Abrahamson,
for Rc;nforcmg Bar Anchorages under Cychc bcit:lt!Or!S, .. by Filippou. F. C .. :V1arch 1985, (PB86 1!2 9J9IASlA05
U(B/EERC -85/05
_.,_ Simple
UCB!EERC~85/06
'Radong Behavwr
UCB!EERC-85/07
ofWood~framed
Gypsum Panels under Dynam1c Load ... by Oliva. l\-l.G .. June !985. (PB90 262 643)/1.04
Earthquake An:J!ysis and Responst of' Concrete Arch Darns,' by Fok, K.L and Chopra. A.K .. June 1985. (PB86 139672/AS'L-\ !0.
UCBiEERC 85.108
'Effen of Ir1e!astic Bd;av1or on the Ana!ys1s and Des1gn ot Ean:hquakc Resistant StnJcturcs: by Lm. J.P. and lv1ahw. S.A .. June !985.
(PB86 13534(Jt' ..i,S)A08.
UCB!EERC~85!09
'Eanhquake Simu!alor Testtng of a Base-Isolated Bridge Deck. by Kelly.

152iAS).j..06.
J.~L
Buckle. LG. and Tsai, H.-C., Januar;, 1986. iPB87 124
- 178 UCBrEERC~85/JO
'Simplified Analysts for Earthquake Res1stam Design of Concrete Gravity Dams: by Fenves, G. J.nd Chopra. A.K., June !986, (PB87
!24 160/AS)AOS.
UCB/EERC-85/l\
'Dynamic lnteractwn Effects in Arch Dams. by Clough.. R.\V .. Chang, K.-T., Chen. H.-Q. and Ghanaat. Y .. October 1985, (PB86
!35027/AS)AOS.
UCB/EERC-85!i2
"Dynamic Response of Long Valley Dam in the Mammoth Lake Earthquake Scries of May 25-27. !980. by Lai, S. and Seed. H. B..
November 1985. {PBS6 1-12304/AS)AOS.
UCB/EERC-85/!3
'A \1cthodology for Computcr-.A.ided Design of Earthquake-Resistant Steel Structures. by Austin. M.A., Fister, K.S. and Mahin. S..-L
December 1985. (PB86 159480/AS)A\0.
UCB/EF.RC-85(14
'Response of Tension-Leg Platforms to Venical Seismic Excitations. by Liou. G.-S .. Penzien. J. and Yeung. R.W .. December !985.
(PB87 124 87l/.c\S)A08.
UCB/EERC-85/JS
"Cyclic Loading Tests of Masonry Single Piers: Volume 4- Additional Tests with He1ght to \Vidth Ratio of 1. by Sveinsson. B..
McNiven. H.D. and Sucuoglu, H .. December 1985.
UCB/EERC-851\6
An Experimental Program for Studying the Dynamic Response of a Steel Frame w1th a Variety of lnfill Partitions. by Yanev. B. and
McNiven, H.D .. December 1985, (PB90 262 676)A05.
lJCB!EERC-86/01
..;_Study of Seismically Resistant Eccentrically Braced Steel Frame Systems, by Kasai. K. and Popov. E.P., January 1986. (PB87 124
l78i.AS)Al4.
UCB/EERC-86/0.?
'"Design Problems in Soil Liquefaction,'" by Seed. H.B., February 1986. (PB87 124 l86/AS)A03.
UCB/EERC-86103
"Implications of Recent Eanhquakes and Research on E:lrthquake-Resistan! Design and Construction of Buildings, .. by Bertero. V.V ..
March 1986. {PB87 124 194/AS)AOS.
UCBiEERC-86/04
"The Use of Load Dependent Vectors for Dynamic and Earthquake Analyses.
1986. (PB87 12-t 202/AS)Al2.
UCREERC-86105
"Two Beam-To-Column \Veb Connecrions ... by Tsai, K.-C. and Popov. E.P .. Apnl 1986. IPB87 124 301/AS)A04.
UCB/EERC-86106
"Determination of Penetration Resistance for Coarse-Gramed Soils usmg the Becker Hammer Drill,'" by Harder, L.F. and Seed. H. B .
May 1986, (PB87 124 2!01AS)A07.
CCB/EERC-86:"07
'"A !Vlathematical Model for Predicting the Nonlinear Response of UnreinfOrced Masonry Walls wIn-Plane Earthqurrke Excitations,' by
!viengi. Y. and McNiven. H.D .. May 1986. (PB87 124 780/AS)A06.
by Leger. P .. Wilson. E.L and Clough, R.W., March
UCB/EERC-86!08
'"The !9 September !985 Mexico Earthquake: Building Behavior: by Bertero. V.V._ July l986.
UCB/EERC-86/09
'"EACD-3D: A Computer Program for Three-Oimenslona! Eanhquake Analysis of Concrete Dams, .. by Fok. K.-L. HaiL J.F. and
Chopra. A.K., July !986. {PB87 124 228/AS)AOS.
UCB/EERC-86/10
Eanhquake Simulation Tests and Associated Studies of a 0.3-Scale Model of a Six-Story Concentrically Braced Steel StJUcture: by
Uang. C.-M. and Bertero, V,V .. December 1986, (PBS7 !63 564/AS)A\7.
l.'CB/EERC-861!!
'\1echanica1 Characteristics of Base Isolation Bearings fOr a Bridge Deck Mode! Test: by Kelly, J.M .. Buckle, l.G. and Koh. C.-G ..
November 1987, (PB90 262 668).-\04.
UCB/EERC<S6/l.2
"Effects of .-\xi a! Load on Elastomeric !solation Bearings,'" by Koh. C. G. and Kelly, J.M .. November 1987.
UCBiEER( :)7JOi
The FPS Eanhquak.o Rcsistmg System: Experimental Report, .. by Zayas, V.A .. Low. S.S. and Mahm, S.A. .. June 19S7.
UCB/EERC S/i02
Earthquake Simulator Tests and Associated Studies of a 0.3-Sc:lle !\1odel of a Six-Story Eccxmrically Braced Sted Structure.' by Whittaker. A., Uang, C.-M. and Benero. V.V .. July l9B7.
UCB/EERC-S7;QJ
'A Displacement Control and Uplift Restrainr DeYice for Base-Isolated Stmctures... by Kelly. HvL Griiflth. M.C. Z!nd Aiken. !.D .. April
1987.
UCB/EERC-87/0...\
"'Earthquake Sinwlmor Testmg of a Combined Sliding Beanng and Rubber Bearing lsolatlon Sysrem." by Kelly. J.l\!. and Chalhoub.
1487.
~1.S ..
UCB/EERC-S7/05
L'CBiEERC-87106
"Three-Dimensional Inelastic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frame-Wall Structures.- by
~foazzami,
S. and Benero. V.V. May 1937.
Expenmems on Eccentrically Braced Frames with Composite Floors. by Rides, J. and Popov. E., June l987.
UCB/EERC-87,07
"Dynamic Analysis of Se!smically ResistZ!Ul Eccentrically Braced Frames.- by Rides, J. and Popov, E, June !987.
CCB/EERC-87108
"Undrained Cyclic Triaxial Testing of Gravels-The Effect of Membrane Compliance, by Evans. M.D and Seed. H. B.. July 1987.
UCB!EERC-37/09
UCB.:'EERC-8"7/!0
Hybnd Solution Techniques for Generalized Pseudo-Dyn::lm!C Tesung."" by Thewait, C. and Mahin, S.A .. July !987
"Ultimate Behavior of Butt Welded Splices in Heavy Rolled Steel Sections ... by Bruneau, M., Mahm. SA. and Popov. E.P., September
l9i:i7.
UCB/EERC-87/ll
"Residual Strength of Sand from Darn Failures in the Chilean Earthquake of March .3. !985.- by De /'dba. P .. Seed., H.B., Retam:J.L E.
and Seed, R.B.. September 1987.
UCB/EER<>87/l2
"Inelastic Seismic Response of Structures with /I.-lass or Stiffness Eccemricities in Plan," by Bruneau.
1987, (PB90 262 650/AI.:.I.
UCB/EERC-87/!3
"CSTRUCT: An Interactive Computer Env1ronmem for the Design and AnZllysis of Earthquake Resistant Steel Stmctures ... by Austin,
:'v1.A._ Mahin, S.A. and Pister. K.S., September \987.
UCBIEERC-871!4
"Experimental Study of Reinforced Concrete Columns Subjected to Multi-Axial Loading. by Low. S.S. and !vloehle. J.P., September
1987.
UCB/EERC-87il5
"Relationshrps between Soil Conditions and Earthquake Ground Motions ia Mex1t0 City m the Earthquake of Sept. 19. 1985. by Set."d.
H.B .. Romo, M.P., Sun. L Jaime. A. and Lysmer. L October !987.
UCBiEERC-87f!6
"Ex.p.cnmental Study of Seismtc Response of R. C. Setback Buddings. by Shahrooz. B.l>-1. and Moehle. J.P .. October 1987.
~1.
ar;d \hhin. S.A .. September
- 179 UCB/EERC-87.:'1""
The Efrcct of Sbbs on the !-lex ural Behavior ,,.r Bemns,- by Pantazopou!ou, S.J. and 1\0ochle. J.P .. October 1987. (PB90 262 700)A07.
UCBiEERC-87/18
''Deslgn Procedure for R-FBI Bearmgs. by YiostagheC ;-1. and Kelly. J.\L November H87. (PB90 262 7l8)A04.
UCB!EERC-87!l9
'Analytical Models for PrediC!ing the L.1tcral Response of R C Shear \Valls: Evaluaikn of their Reliabilit:l,- by Vu\cano. A. and Bertero, V.V. November 1937.
UCB/EERC-87/20
UCB!EERC-87121
Eanhqu;lke
Respon~e
ofTorswnally-Coupkd Buildings.- by HejaL R. and Chopra. A.L, December 1987.
"Dynamic Reservoir fntemctJon with Monticello Dam_ by Clough. R.\V .. Ghanaat Y..md Qw. X-F., December !987.
UCBIEERC87!22
'Strength Evaluatioll ofCozm;e-Graincd Suds. by Siddiqi. F.H .. Seed. R.B., Chan. C.K.. Seed, H.B. and Pyke, R.M .. December t987.
UCB/EERC-88/0J
"Seismic Behavwr of Concentn(aliy Braced Sted Frames." b)' Khaob. L Mahin, S.A. and Pister. KS .. January 1988.
UCBIEERC.88/02
Txpenment2i Evaluation of Seism;c !solation of \1edillm-Rlse Structures Sub_1ect to Uplift." by Griffith. M.C., Kelly. J.h-L Coveney.
v __.i. and Koh. C.G .. January 1988
"UCB:EERC-88/03
'Cyclic Behavwr of Sr.cei Doubk Angie Connecnons by _-\st:meh-A.sl. A. and Nader. M.N.. January ! 988
UCB,EERC.88rO+
ORe-evaluation ofrhe Slide in the Lower San Fernando Dam in rhe Earthquake o{Feb. 9. l97L" by Seed. H.B"' Sed. KB.. Harder.
LF. and Jong, H.-L. _A.pril ! 988.
UCB/EERCSS/05
"Experimema! Evaluatwn of Seismic Isobtion of a Nine-Story 3r3.ced Sted Frame Sub,Tect to Uplift, by Griffith. i\-LC, Kelly,
Aiken. LD .. May 1988.
l'CBIEERC-88106
"DR.A1N-2DX User Gutde .. - by _,5-.Jlahabadi. R_ and Powell. G. H .. March 1988.
UCB/EERC-88/07
"Theoretical nnd Expaimenta! Studies of Cylindrical Water Tanks in Base-Isoiated Strucwres," by Chaihoub, .\i.S. and Kdly_ J.M ..
April 1988.
UCB/EERC-88/08
'.A.nalysis of Near-Source Waves: Separation of Wave Types using Strong Motion Arny Recordings: by Darragh, R.B., June 1988.
UCB/EERC-8Si09
"Alternatives 10 Standard Mode Superposition fOr Analysis of Non-Classic;1.!]y Damped Systems." by Kusainov, A.A. and Clough. R.\V
June !988.
UCB/EERC-.88/iO
"The Landslide at the Port of Nice on October 16. 1979.' by Seed. H.B., Seed, R.B .. Schlosser, F., Blondeau, F. and Juran. L. June
!988.
j_)\.i.
and
UCB/EERC-88/ll
"Liquefaction Potential of Sand Deposits Under Low Levels of Excit3.t!On." by Carter, D.P. and Seed. H.B., August 1988.
UCBJEERC-881!2
";<-jonhnear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frames Under Cyclic Load Reversals. by Filippou, F.C. and !ssa. ,,.;._,September !988.
UCB/EERC-88/l3
"Implications of Recorded Earthquake Ground Motions on SeJSm!C Design of Building Structures.' by Uang, C. M. and Benero. V.V.,
November 1988.
UCBJEERC-88/ i ~
An Ex peri. menta! Study of the B<:h;:tvior of Dual Steel Systems,- by Whittaker. A.S. , Gang, C.-M. and Bcrtero. V. V., September 1988.
UCB/EERC-88/!5
"Dynamic Moduli and Dampmg Ratios for Cohesive Sods.'' by Sun. J.l., Golesorkhi. R. and Seed. H.B .. August !988.
UCB/EERC-88/16
Reinforced Concrete Flat Plates Under Lateral Load: An Experimental Study fnduding Biaxial Effects,' by Pan, A. and Moehk, J ..
October !988.
UCB/EERC~S8il7
'Earthquake Engineering Re-search al Berkeley- !988. by EERC, November !988
UCBIEERC-88118
UCB!EERC-88/19
Use of Energy as
Design Critenon
ill
Eanhquake-Resisram Design," by Uang, C M. and Bertero. V.V., November !988.
steel Beam-Column Joints m Seismic Moment Resisting Frames: by Tqi, K.-C. and Popov, E.P .. November 1988.
UCB/EERC-88/:::0
"Base solation in Japan. 1988.' by Kelly, J.:vf .. December 1988_
tJCB/EERC+39/0 t
"Beh3.vior of Long Links in Eccemncally Braced Frames." by Engelhardc M.D. and Popov, E.P .. Januar; 1989
UCB/EERC-89/02
Earthquakc7 SimuLnor T<:stmg of Steel Plate Atlde.d D'<'.mping and Stlffness Elements. by Whittaker. A .. Bertero. V.\ .. Alonso, J. and
Thompson, C .. hnuary [989
lTCB!EERC-89/03
"1mplic:mons of Site EDens m the Mexico City Earthquake of Sept. 19, J 985 for Ean:hquake-Resiscant Design Criteria in the San Francisco Bay Area ofC.alifornia," by Seed. H. B. and Sun. J.L March 1989.
UCB/EERC-89/0-+
"Eanhquake AnalysJs and Response ofintake-Out!et Towers, .. by Goyal. A. and Chopra. A.K.. July 1989.
UCB/EERC~89/05
"The 1985 Chile Earthquake: An Evalua!JOn of Strucmral Requirements for Bearlng Wall Buildings." by Wa!lace. J.W. and Moehle,
J.P., July 1989.
UCB/EERC-89/06
"Effects ofSpariai V'"nation of Ground Motions on Large Multiply-Supported StructurC"s_- by Hao. H .. July 1989.
UCBtEERC.S9/07
E.A.D,\P- Enhanced Arch Dam Analysis Program: Userss ManuaL- by Ghanaat, Y. and Clough. R.W .. August !989.
UCB/EERC-89/08
Seism!C Performnnce- of Steel :'v1oment Frames PlasticaHy Designed by Least Squarts Stress Fields." by Ohi, K. and Mahin. S.A ..
A.ugUS! !989
UCB/EERC-89,-09
'Feasibdity and Performance StudJes on Improving the Eanhquake Resistu;ce of l\'ew and Existing Buildings Using the
lum System: by Zaye1s. V.. Low. S.. !\-1ahin, S.A. and Bozzo. L July 1989.
UCBiEERC-89110
Measurement and Ehmin;Hi<}n of \iembrane CompliancE Effects in Undr:::nnd Triaxial Testing." by Nicholson, P.G .. Seed. R.B. and
.-'\nwar. H.. September l989
UCB/EERC-89!! l
static Tilt Behavior of Unanchored Cylindrica.i Tanks. by Llu. D.T. and Clough. R.W .. September !989.
UCB/EfRC-89/i.::'
'ADAP-88: A Computer Program for Nonlinear Earthquake Analysis of Concrete Arch Dams." by Fenves. G.L.. Mojtahedi. S. and Reimer. R.B .. Septembn !989
UCB!EERC-391l3
'Mechanics of Low Shape Factor Eb.stomeric Seismic fso!aoon Bearings.' by Aiken. I.D .. Kelly, J.M. and Tajirian. F.F., November
!989
Fr~ction
Pendu-

1989, Aiken, Kelly, Tajirian, EERC-89-13

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

1989, Aiken, Kelly, Tajirian, EERC-89-13

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

REPORT NO.

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER

Report to the Rockwell International Corporation

MECHANICS OF LOW SHAPE FACTOR ELASTOMERIC

Report to Sponsor: Rockwell International Corporation

Report No. UCB/EERC-89/13

LIST OF FIGURES .H.

1.1 Base !solation Overview

1.2 Interest in Low Shape Factor Bearings

... H.H ...... .

.H.H .......................................... H....................................

1.4 Literature Review .............................................................................................................. .

1.5 Summary ..........................................................

2. BEARING DESIGN PARAMETERS .

2.2 Shear Stiffness ....

2.3 Compression Stiffness

3. DESIGN OF LSF BEARINGS

3.2 Description of SAFR Plant ............................................................................................ ..

3.3 Dynamic Analysis .............................................................................................................. .

3.4 SAFR Bearing Design

3.5 Test Bearing Designs

3.6 Comments on Design

4. TESTS OF LSF BEARINGS

4.2 Description of Test Facility ...

4.3 Description of Tests

4.4 Rate Effects ................................................................ ..

5. TEST RESULTS .............. ..

5.3 Vertical Tests .................................................................... .

5.4 Combined Loading Tests ...................... .

5.5 Failure Mode Tests ............................... .

5.6 Buckling Tests

5.7 Vertical Test Results and Design Equations

6. A.N ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR THE BEHAVIOR OF

6.1 Introduction .............. ..

6.2 A Two-Spring Physical Model for Elastomcric

6.3 Nonlinear Two-Spring Model

7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

7.1 Summary ............................ .

7.2 Conclusions ...... .

APPENDIX A: Haringx Theory of Bearing Stability ....

APPENDIX B: Two-Spring Model for Elastomeric Bearings ....................................... .

Dimensions and Design Properties of the Prototype and

Channel List for LSF Bearing Tests

Test List: Load Case 6

4010 HB 2 Vertical Failure Tests ooO

Shear Hysteresis Loop Parameters, HD 1 Bearing

Shear Hystcoresis Loop Parameters, LB Bearing

52 Shear Hysteresis Loop Parameters, HB 1 Bearing

Vertical Stiffness Results: Load Cases 1 and 2

Load Case 3 Test Results: HD 1 and HB 1 Bearings

Hysteresis Loop Parameters: Load Case 6 0000

Horizontal Spectral Responses, Isolated and Unisolated Conditions

Vertical Spectral Responses, Isolated and Unisolatcd Conditions

Prototype SAFR Bearing Design ......................................... .

Test Bearing Design: Doweled Connections ..

Test Bearing Design: Bolted Connections

Schematic Diagram of Test Facility ........ ..

Cross-Section of SAFR Plant

Single Bearing Test Machine .................. .

Single Bearing Test Machine ....... .

Test Machine Instrumentation ...

Typical Shear Force vs. Displacement Loop, HB 1 Bearing .................................................................. .

Typical Shear Force vs. Displacement Loop, LD Bearing ..................................................................... ..