Spherical Sliding Isolation Bearings With Adaptive Behavior PDF

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:163–183

Published online 20 August 2007 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.751
Spherical sliding isolation bearings with adaptive behavior: Theory
Daniel M. Fenz∗, †, ‡ and Michael C. Constantinou§

Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, University at Buffalo, The State University
of New York, 212 Ketter Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260, U.S.A.
SUMMARY
The principles of operation and force–displacement relationships of three novel spherical sliding isolation
bearings are developed in this paper. These bearings are completely passive devices, yet exhibit adaptive
stiffness and adaptive damping. That is, the stiffness and damping change to predictable values at calculable
and controllable displacement amplitudes. The primary benefit of adaptive behavior is that a given isolation
system can be separately optimized for multiple performance objectives and/or multiple levels of ground
shaking. With the devices presented here, this is accomplished using technology that is inherently no more
complex than what is currently used by the civil engineering profession. The internal construction consists
of various concave surfaces and behavior is dictated by the different combinations of surfaces upon which
sliding can occur over the course of motion. As the surfaces upon which sliding occurs change, the stiffness
and effective friction change accordingly. A methodology is presented for determining which surfaces are
active at any given time based on the effective radius of curvature, coefficient of friction and displacement
capacity of each sliding surface. The force–displacement relationships and relevant parameters of interest
are subsequently derived based on the first principles. Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 16 March 2007; Revised 27 June 2007; Accepted 2 July 2007
KEY WORDS: adaptive seismic isolation system; triple Friction Pendulum bearing; seismic isolation
1. INTRODUCTION
An adaptive (or smart) seismic isolation system is capable of changing stiffness and damping prop-
erties during its course of motion. To date, such systems have consisted primarily of conventional
isolation bearings used in conjunction with active or semi-active devices having variable stiffness
∗ Correspondence to: Daniel M. Fenz, Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, University at
Buffalo, The State University of New York, 212 Ketter Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260, U.S.A.
†
E-mail: dmfenz@buffalo.edu
‡
Ph.D. Candidate.
§ Professor.
Contract/grant sponsor: Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

164 D. M. FENZ AND M. C. CONSTANTINOU
or damping properties. Systems reported in the literature include various permutations of sliding
and elastomeric bearings combined with variable stiffness devices, variable friction devices, vari-
able orifice fluid dampers, electrorheological dampers and magnetorheological dampers [1–10, for
example]. Generally, these studies conclude that properly designed active and semi-active hybrid
systems can offer improved performance over passive systems in a wider range of earthquakes, but
obstacles related to implementation and questions regarding reliability still persist. A composite
isolator consisting of two elastomeric bearings of different stiffness stacked one on top of the
other was proposed in 1993 by A. G. Tarics and is presented in Imbimbo and Kelly [11]. To the
knowledge of the authors, this has been the only passive isolation system proposed in the literature
to date that employs displacement-dependent behavior as a means of structural control rather than
as just a failsafe.
Three different multi-spherical sliding bearings that expand the definition of an adaptive seismic
isolation system are introduced in this paper. These bearings are fully passive devices that exhibit
adaptive stiffness and adaptive damping in and of themselves. By adaptive behavior, it is meant
that the stiffness and effective friction change to predictable values at calculable and controllable
displacement amplitudes. This behavior naturally results from the internal construction of the
bearings, not an externally applied active force. Moreover, each variation of bearing is a derivative
of the conventional Friction Pendulum (FP) bearing, a mature and established seismic protective
technology. As such, these devices are based on well-known engineering principles of pendulum
motion and are constructed of materials with demonstrated longevity [12, 13]. This makes practical
implementation more feasible.
Adaptive behavior can be used by designers to achieve benefits in performance that are not
possible with other isolation systems. Current practice is to design the structural system to resist
the base shear transmitted in the design basis earthquake (DBE) and to design the isolation system to
have sufficient displacement capacity to meet the demands of the maximum considered earthquake
(MCE). This is a ‘Catch-22’ situation for designers; the desire to reduce displacement demand in
the MCE with increased stiffness and damping results in less than optimum performance in the
DBE and vice versa. This situation is exacerbated due to the substantial differences in the DBE and
MCE demands (the DBE spectrum prescribed by code is 23 of the MCE spectrum [14]). Moreover,
the performance of the isolation system in more frequent events of smaller magnitude is typically
not considered in the design process. Although low-level shaking is not a design issue in terms of
strength or displacement capacity, it can be a performance issue. Isolation systems designed with
sufficient damping and flexibility for larger earthquakes may not activate in more minor events,
which can adversely affect secondary system response. Even if the isolation system does activate,
re-centering can be an issue.
The bearings presented in this paper help to overcome these challenges, since adaptive behavior
permits the isolation system to be separately optimized for low intensity, design level and maximum
earthquake shaking. The work in Kelly [15] and Hall [16] indicates that to control displacements
in large earthquakes while still maintaining good performance in low-to-moderate earthquakes
requires designing an isolation system that is (a) very stiff with low damping at low-level shaking,
(b) softens with increasing damping in the DBE, (c) further softens and increases damping in the
MCE and (d) stiffens beyond the MCE. This desirable behavior can be achieved with properly
designed multi-spherical sliding bearings.
Three variations of adaptive spherical sliding bearing are shown in Figure 1. The focus of this
paper is the formulation of the force–displacement relationships for these devices, with emphasis
placed on the triple FP bearing shown in Figure 1(a). Two additional variations that exhibit
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:163–183
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
SPHERICAL SLIDING ISOLATION BEARINGS WITH ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR 165
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 1. Variations of multi-spherical sliding bearings with adaptive behavior: (a) triple FP; (b) modified
single FP; and (c) double FP with sliding surfaces of different displacement capacities.
adaptive behavior are the modified single FP bearing shown in Figure 1(b) and the double FP
bearing with concave surfaces of different displacement capacities, shown in Figure 1(c). These
variations, together with the more familiar single and double FP bearings, offer a range of
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
adaptive behaviors from none in the single FP bearing to the most versatile in the triple FP
bearing. It may be recognized that increases in adaptability are accompanied by increased com-
plexity and, therefore, each of these variations may be of interest to a designer. A companion
paper [17] describes a program of characterization testing used to validate the theoretical work
presented here.
2. PRINCIPLES OF OPERATION OF THE TRIPLE FP BEARING
The triple FP bearing consists of two facing concave stainless steel surfaces separated by an
internal nested slider assembly. Referring to Figure 1(a), the outer concave plates have effective
radii Reff1 = R1 − h 1 and Reff4 = R4 − h 4 , where Ri is the radius of curvature of the ith spherical
surface and h i is the radial distance between the ith spherical surface and the pivot point of the
articulated slider. The articulated slider assembly consists of two concave slide plates separated
by a rigid slider. The surface of the slide plates where they mate with the outer concave plates is
coated with a non-metallic sliding material. The coefficients of friction of these interfaces are 1
and 4 . The inner surfaces of the two slide plates have spherical concave recesses with effective
radii Reff2 = R2 − h 2 and Reff3 = R3 − h 3 . Both outer surfaces of the rigid slider are also coated
with a non-metallic sliding material characterized by coefficients of friction 2 and 3 . This permits
sliding on the inner stainless steel surfaces of the slide plates.
The nominal displacement capacities of the sliders on surfaces 1–4 are denoted as d1 –d4 (due
to the effects of slider height and slider rotation, the actual displacement capacities are slightly
different than as drawn). The unique behavior of the triple FP and the other adaptive bearings
relies in part on the various sliders achieving the full horizontal displacement capacity of their
respective sliding surfaces during the course of motion. Therefore, the displacement capacities
d1 –d4 are design parameters that significantly influence the global behavior, not just limits of
overall capacity.
The adaptive behavior of the triple FP bearing results from the different combinations of sliding
that can occur on its multiple concave surfaces. The motion is organized into several sliding
regimes, each corresponding to a distinct combination of surfaces upon which sliding occurs. The
stiffness of the bearing is inversely proportional to the sum of the radii of curvature of the surfaces
on which sliding occurs. The effective coefficient of friction is also related to the coefficients of
friction of the surfaces on which sliding is occurring.
Sequencing of the sliding regimes is determined by each surface’s coefficient of friction and its
ratio of displacement capacity to radius of curvature. Starting from rest, sliding initiates on the
ith surface when the horizontal force transmitted through the bearing, F, exceeds that surface’s
friction force, Ffi = i W , where W is the vertical load on the bearing. Sliding is stopped by the
displacement restrainer on the ith surface when the relative displacement of the slider on this
surface, u i , becomes equal to the displacement capacity, di . The lateral force at the instant the
slider starts to bear upon this surface’s displacement restrainer is
W
Fdri = di + Ffi (1)
Reffi
The sequence of activation and deactivation of sliding on various surfaces is determined by
comparing the relative values of Ffi and Fdri .
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
The standard configuration of triple FP bearing is large and equal effective radii for the outer con-
cave plates and small and equal effective radii for the inner slide plates, Reff1 = Reff4 Reff2 = Reff3 .
The coefficients of friction are selected so that the bearing exhibits high stiffness and low fric-
tion initially and subsequently decreases in stiffness and increases in effective friction as the
amplitude of displacement increases. This is accomplished by using friction materials that give
2 = 3 <1 <4 . The displacement capacities of each surface are selected so that there is gradual
stiffening at large displacement. The slider should contact the displacement restrainer on surfaces
1 and 4 prior to surfaces 2 and 3. Provided that motion initiates on surfaces 2 and 3 prior to
surfaces 1 and 4, this is guaranteed as long as Ff1 <Fdr2 and Ff4 <Fdr3 . In terms of displacements,
this condition is d2 >(1 − 2 )Reff2 and d3 >(4 − 3 )Reff3 . Furthermore, sliding should initiate
on the surface of highest friction prior to the onset of any stiffening, that is Ff4 <Fdr1 . This is to
avoid a situation in which the bearing stiffens, then softens, then stiffens again, which would occur
if Fdr1 <Ff4 . The bearing would stiffen upon contacting the displacement restrainer of surface 1,
soften when sliding started on surface 4, and then stiffen again upon contacting the displacement
restrainer of surface 4.
3. FORCE–DISPLACEMENT RELATIONSHIP OF THE TRIPLE FP BEARING
This section demonstrates how the force–displacement relationship is derived for a triple FP bearing
of standard configuration. It is assumed that (a) Reff2 = Reff3 Reff1 = Reff4 , (b) 2 = 3 <1 <4 ,
(c) d2 >(1 − 2 )Reff2 and d3 >(4 − 3 )Reff3 so that Ff1 <Fdr2 and Ff4 <Fdr3 and (d) Ff4 <Fdr1 .
3.1. Sliding regime I

Sliding regime I consists of sliding on surfaces 2 and 3 and no sliding on surfaces 1 and 4. Starting
from rest, motion will initiate when the horizontal force, F, exceeds the friction force on the
surface(s) of least friction. Therefore, sliding begins on surfaces 2 and 3 when F = Ff2 = Ff3 . The
displaced shape and free body diagrams of the components of the bearing during this regime are
shown in Figure 2. In the free body diagrams, Ffi is the resultant friction force acting along the
ith sliding interface and Si is the resultant force of normal pressure acting along the ith sliding
interface.
Based on FBD III of Figure 2(b), the following relationships are obtained by considering
equilibrium in the vertical and horizontal directions, respectively:
S1 + Ff2 sin 2 − S2 cos 2 = 0 (2a)

Ff2 cos 2 + S2 sin 2 − Ff1 = 0 (2b)
Also, from FBD IV of Figure 2(b),
F = Ff1 (3a)
W = S1 (3b)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
(a)
(b)
Figure 2. Displaced shape (a) and free body diagrams (b) of the triple FP bearing during sliding regime I.
Sliding occurs on surfaces 2 and 3 only; motion has not yet been initiated on surfaces 1 and 4.
From geometry, the relative displacement of the slider on surface 2, u 2 , is

u 2 = Reff2 sin 2 (4)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Combining Equations (2)–(4) and assuming that the relative displacement u 2 is sufficiently small
compared with the effective radius Reff2 so that cos 2 ≈ 1:
W
F= u 2 + Ff2 (5)
Reff2
Equations (2)–(5) are the equations of equilibrium for the conventional single FP bearing [12].
Similar analysis of equilibrium of FBD I and FBD II gives the following equation for surface 3:
W
F= u 3 + Ff3 (6)
Reff3
The force–total displacement relationship for the bearing during sliding regime I is determined by
combining Equations (5) and (6) based on the fact that the total displacement u is the sum of the
displacements u 2 and u 3 , as u 1 = u 4 = 0, resulting in
W Ff2 Reff2 + Ff3 Reff3
F= u+ (7)
Reff2 + Reff3 Reff2 + Reff3
Upon reversal of motion, the bearing unloads by 2Ff2 (= 2Ff3 ) and sliding initiates again on
surfaces 2 and 3. As shown in Figure 3, the hysteretic behavior is rigid linear with post-elastic
stiffness equal to the sum of the effective radii of surfaces 2 and 3 and strength equal to the average
coefficient of friction on these two surfaces. The behavior is identical to a double FP bearing with
concave surfaces of equal radii and equal friction [18–20].
3.2. Sliding regime II

When F = Ff1 , motion begins on surface 1, marking the start of sliding regime II. The transition
occurs at displacement u ∗ given by
u ∗ = (1 − 2 )Reff2 + (1 − 3 )Reff3 (8)
Sliding Regime I:
umax < u* W
Reff 2 + Reff 3
2Ff 2 ( =2Ff 3 )
Ff 2 (= Ff 3 )
Horizontal Force
Total Displacement, u
Figure 3. Force–displacement relationship of the triple FP bearing during sliding regime I.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Equation (8) is obtained by solving Equation (7) for the displacement when F = Ff1 . The displaced
shape and free body diagrams for sliding regime II are shown in Figure 4. The rotation of the
lower slide plate with respect to the lower concave plate is 1 and the rotation of the rigid slider
with respect to the lower slide plate is 2 . When the angles are defined in this way, the relative
displacements u 1 and u 2 are
u 1 = Reff1 sin 1 (9a)

u 2 = Reff2 sin 2 (9b)
From FBD IV of Figure 4(b), the equilibrium equations for the conventional FP bearing are
obtained, leading to the following relationship governing motion on surface 1:
W
F= u 1 + Ff1 (10)
Reff1
Although small in magnitude, rotation of the lower slide plate when sliding is occurring on surface
1 has a significant impact on behavior. The angle that the rigid slider makes with respect to the
vertical direction is now the sum of angles 1 and 2 , as reflected in the equations of equilibrium
from FBD III of Figure 4(b):
S1 cos 1 + Ff2 sin(1 + 2 ) − S2 cos(1 + 2 ) − Ff1 sin 1 = 0 (11a)

S2 sin(1 + 2 ) + Ff2 cos(1 + 2 ) − S1 sin 1 − Ff1 cos 1 = 0 (11b)
Using Equations (9)–(11) and the assumptions that the individual angles 1 and 2 are small so
that cos 1 ≈ cos 2 ≈ 1 and sin 1 × sin 2 ≈ 0, for surface 2 it is found that

u1 u2
F =W + + Ff2 (12)
Reff1 Reff2
Substituting Equation (10) into Equation (12):
u 2 = (1 − 2 )Reff2 (13)
Equation (13) reveals that the displacement on surface 2 is constant with magnitude equal to the
value of u 2 when motion transitions from sliding regime I to sliding regime II (solve Equation (5)
for u 2 with F = Ff1 ). This means that the instant motion starts on surface 1, it stops on surface 2.
Inspection of FBD I and FBD II of Figure 4(b) shows that there is no change from FBD I and
FBD II of Figure 2(b), other than that the angle 3 is larger due to the increase of displacement u 3 .
Therefore, there is no sliding on surface 4 and motion on surface 3 is still governed by Equation (6).
The force–total displacement relationship for sliding regime II determined based on Equations (6),
(10) and (12) is
W Ff1 (Reff1 − Reff2 ) + Ff2 Reff2 + Ff3 Reff3
F= u+ (14)
This relationship is shown in Figure 5. Upon reversal of motion, the bearing unloads by
2Ff2 (= 2Ff3 ) and motion resumes on surfaces 2 and 3. Motion continues on surfaces 2 and 3
for a distance of 2u ∗ until the bearing has unloaded by 2Ff1 , at which point sliding starts again
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
(a)
(b)
Figure 4. Displaced shape (a) and free body diagrams (b) of the triple FP bearing during sliding
regime II. Sliding occurs on surfaces 1 and 3, motion has not yet been initiated on surface 4, and there is
constant displacement on surface 2.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Sliding Regime II:

u* < umax < u** W
Reff 1 + Reff 3
2Ff 2
Ff 1
2Ff 1
Horizontal Force
W
Reff 2 + Reff 3
u*
2u*
W
Reff 1 + Reff 3
Sliding Regime II
Sliding Regime I
Figure 5. Force–displacement relationship of the triple FP bearing during sliding regime II shown
in relation to sliding regime I.
on surface 1 and stops on surface 2. Sliding then continues on surfaces 1 and 3. In comparison to
sliding regime I, transition to sliding regime II is accompanied by a reduction in stiffness and an
increase in effective friction.
3.3. Sliding regime III

Sliding initiates on surface 4 when F = Ff4 , which occurs at displacement u ∗∗ given by
u ∗∗ = u ∗ + (4 − 1 )(Reff1 + Reff3 ) (15)
Equation (15) is obtained by solving Equation (14) for the displacement when F = Ff4 . Displace-
ments u 1 and u 2 and angles 1 and 2 are defined as before; the rotation of the upper slide plate
with respect to the upper concave plate is 4 and the rotation of the upper slide plate with respect
to the rigid slider is 3 . When the angles are defined in this way, the relative displacements u 3 and
u 4 are
u 3 = Reff3 sin 3 (16a)

u 4 = Reff4 sin 4 (16b)
Motion on surface 1 is still governed by Equation (10) and motion on surface 2 is still governed
by Equation (12). From similar analysis of equilibrium as was carried out for FBD III and FBD
IV of Figure 4(b), it follows that for surface 4,
W
F= + Ff4 (17)
Reff4
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Sliding Regime III:

u** < umax < udr1 W
Reff 1 + Reff 4
2Ff 2
Ff 4 W 2Ff 1
Reff 2+ Reff 3
Horizontal Force
W 2Ff 4
u** Reff 1 + Reff 3
2u**
W
Reff 1 + Reff 4
Sliding Regime III

Sliding Regimes I - II
Figure 6. Force–displacement relationship of the triple FP bearing during sliding regime III shown in
relation to sliding regimes I–II.
and for surface 3,

u3 u4
F =W + + Ff3 (18)
Reff3 Reff4
u 3 = (4 − 3 )Reff3 (19)
Equation (19) demonstrates that as soon as sliding starts on surface 4, it stops on surface 3. This can
be proven by solving Equation (6) for u 3 with F = Ff4 . The force–total displacement relationship
for sliding regime III, determined by combining Equations (10), (12), (17) and (18), is
W Ff1 (Reff1 − Reff2 ) + Ff2 Reff2 + Ff3 Reff3 + Ff4 (Reff4 − Reff3 )
F= u+ (20)
This relationship is shown in Figure 6. Compared with regimes I and II, transition to sliding
regime III is accompanied by a reduction in stiffness and an increase in effective friction. When
motion reverses, the bearing unloads by 2Ff2 (= 2Ff3 ) and sliding resumes on surfaces 2 and 3.
Motion continues on surfaces 2 and 3 for a distance of 2u ∗ until the bearing has unloaded by
2Ff1 , at which point sliding starts on surface 1 and stops on surface 2. From this point, motion
continues on surfaces 1 and 3 for a distance of 2u ∗∗ − 2u ∗ until the bearing has unloaded by 2Ff4 .
At this point, motion resumes on surface 4 (and stops on surface 3) and sliding on surfaces 1 and
4 occurs.
3.4. Sliding regime IV

Stiffening behavior of the triple FP bearing at large displacements is achieved by stopping motion
on surfaces with large effective radius and forcing it to occur on surfaces with small effective
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
radius. Sliding regime IV begins when contact is made with the displacement restrainer on surface
1 and sliding changes from surfaces 1 and 4 to surfaces 2 and 4. The displacement on surface 1
is u 1 = d1 and the horizontal force, Fdr1 is
W
Fdr1 = d1 + Ff1 (21)
Reff1
The transition between sliding regimes occurs at a total displacement of u dr1 , given by

∗∗ Reff4
u dr1 = u + d1 1 + − (4 − 1 )(Reff1 + Reff4 ) (22)
Reff1
Equation (22) is obtained by solving Equation (20) for u with F = Fdr1 . The displaced shape and
free body diagrams for motion during regime IV are given in Figure 7. In FBD III and FBD IV of
Figure 7, it is shown that the effect of the displacement restrainer contacting the slider on surface 1
is to introduce an additional force on the slider, Fr1 . It is assumed that the displacement restrainer
is rigid, and therefore from FBD IV of Figure 7, the force–displacement relationship governing
motion on surface 1 is
W
F= d1 + Ff1 + Fr1 (23)
Reff1
The force Fr1 accounts for the fact that the horizontal force F increases with no increase in
displacement on surface 1. In Figure 8, the horizontal force is plotted against the displacement
on surface i, illustrating the meaning of the force Fri . The behavior shown in Figure 8 was
demonstrated in the original experimental study of the FP bearing at UC Berkeley (see Figure 11
of [12]).
Using FBD III and FBD IV of Figure 7(b), the force–displacement relationship governing motion
on surface 2 is

d1 u2
F =W + + Ff2 (24)
Reff1 Reff2
This demonstrates that sliding resumes on surface 2 when the displacement restrainer is contacted
on surface 1. Equation (24) is simply Equation (12) with u 1 = d1 . Nothing has changed on the upper
surfaces so motion on surfaces 3 and 4 is still governed by Equations (18) and (17), respectively.
Therefore, the force–total displacement relationship is
W W
F= (u − u dr1 ) + d1 + Ff1 (25)
Reff2 + Reff4 Reff1
This relationship is shown in Figure 9. Upon reversal of motion, the bearing unloads by
2Ff2 (= 2Ff3 ) and motion resumes on surfaces 2 and 3. As shown in Figure 8, after the slider
contacts the displacement restrainer on surface 1, motion will not start on this surface until the
bearing has unloaded by Fr1 + 2Ff1 to Fdr1 − 2Ff1 . Sliding resumes on surface 4 when the bear-
ing has unloaded by 2Ff4 . The order in which sliding resumes is determined by comparing the
quantities Fr1 + 2Ff1 and 2Ff4 . It can be shown that for sliding regime IV, if the magnitude of the
maximum total displacement, u max , satisfies the following relation:
u max >u dr1 + 2(4 − 1 )(Reff2 + Reff4 ) (26)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
(a)
(b)
Figure 7. Displaced shape (a) and free body diagrams (b) of the triple FP bearing during sliding regime
IV. The slider is bearing on the displacement restrainer on surface 1, sliding occurs on surfaces 2 and 4,
and the displacement on surface 3 remains constant.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Fmax
Fri
Fdri
W 2Ffi
Reffi
Horizontal Force
Ffi
di
Displacement on Surface i,ui
Figure 8. Force–displacement relationship for a single concave surface when the slider
contacts the displacement restrainer.
Sliding Regime IV:

W
udr1 < umax < udr4
Reff 2 + Reff 4 2Ff 2
Fdr1
W
Reff 2 + Reff 3 2Ff 4
Fdr1 - 2Ff 1
Horizontal Force
W udr1
Reff 1 + Reff 3
W
Reff1 + Reff4
Sliding Regime IV
Sliding Regimes I - III
Figure 9. Force–displacement relationship of the triple FP bearing during sliding regime IV shown in
relation to sliding regimes I–III.
then upon unloading, motion will initiate on surface 4 prior to surface 1 (2Ff4 <Fr1 + 2Ff1 ). If
Equation (26) is not satisfied, then motion will initiate on surface 1 prior to surface 4 (Fr1 +
2Ff1 <2Ff4 ). This demonstrates that it is possible to have different types of unloading behavior
depending on the maximum displacement achieved. However, based on Equation (28) that follows,
one can show that for the typical configuration with d1 = d4 and Reff1 = Reff4 , Equation (26) cannot
be satisfied prior to the start of sliding regime V. Therefore, motion will resume on surface 1 prior
to surface 4 for the typical configuration of triple FP bearing.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
3.5. Sliding regime V

Sliding regime V begins when contact is made with the displacement restrainer on surface 4. Motion
changes from sliding on surfaces 2 and 4 to sliding on surfaces 2 and 3, which is accompanied
by further stiffening. At the transition point, the relative displacement on surface 4 is u 4 = d4 and
the horizontal force, Fdr4 , is
W
Fdr4 = d4 + Ff4 (27)
Reff4
The transition between sliding regimes occurs at a total displacement of u dr4 , given by

d4 d1
u dr4 = u dr1 + + 4 − + 1 (Reff2 + Reff4 ) (28)
Reff4 Reff1
From similar analysis of equilibrium as was done for FBD III and FBD IV of Figure 7(b), it
follows that for surface 4,
W
F= d4 + Ff4 + Fr4 (29)
Reff4
and for surface 3,

d4 u3
F =W + + Ff3 (30)
Reff4 Reff3
Motion continues on surface 2 with the slider bearing on the displacement restrainer of surface 1.
Combining the force–displacement relationships for surfaces 1–4 gives
W W
F= (u − u dr4 ) + d4 + Ff4 (31)
Reff2 + Reff3 Reff4
This is shown in Figure 10. When the motion reverses, the bearing will unload by 2Ff2 (= 2Ff3 )
and sliding will occur initially on surfaces 2 and 3. Motion resumes on surface 1 when the bearing
unloads to Fdr1 − 2Ff1 and motion resumes on surface 4 when the bearing unloads to Fdr4 − 2Ff4 .
Since the former is larger than the latter (assuming the standard configuration), sliding will initiate
on surface 1 prior to surface 4 when unloading from u max >u dr4 .
3.6. Additional comments

(a) For the standard configuration of triple FP bearing that has been described in this section,
forces Fdr2 and Fdr3 calculated using Equation (1) are not actually the forces at which the slider
contacts the displacement restrainer on surfaces 2 and 3. This is because motion on these surfaces
is interrupted when sliding initiates on surfaces 1 and 4, respectively. Based on Equation (24), the
actual force at which the slider contacts the displacement restrainer of surface 2 is

d1 d2
F =W + + Ff2 (32)
Reff1 Reff2
A similar expression can be derived based on Equation (30) for surface 3. The forces Fdr2 and
Fdr3 are the forces at which the slider would contact the displacement restrainer if sliding did
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Sliding RegimeV:
umax > udr4 W 2Ff2
Reff 2 +Reff 3
Fdr4
Horizontal Force Fdr1 - 2Ff1

W
Fdr4 - 2Ff4 Reff 1 + Reff 3
W udr4
Reff 1 +Reff 4
Sliding Regime V
Sliding Regimes I - IV
Figure 10. Force–displacement relationship of the triple FP bearing during sliding regime V shown in
relation to sliding regimes I–IV.
not yet initiate on surfaces 1 and 4. Although not physically meaningful, they are used to check
sequencing of regimes.
(b) Although the coefficient of friction, i , appears as a single-valued parameter in the expressions
throughout this paper, in reality it varies as a function of several factors including sliding velocity
and pressure [21]. The single-valued coefficient of friction is a simplification, not a limitation of
the theory. When modeling of velocity dependence is required, the equations are used in their same
form with i (u̇ i ), a friction coefficient that is updated at each time step based on the instantaneous
sliding velocity of surface i.
(c) The pivot point is the point about which the articulated slider rotates. In single and double
FP bearings, there is only one articulation in the slider. Rotation is physically constrained to occur
about the center of the sphere defined by the ball and socket articulation. In the triple FP bearing,
there is no such mechanical restraint defining the location of the pivot point. Instead, the pivot
point corresponds to the instantaneous center of zero rotational velocity of the slider assembly,
which is not a fixed point. In most cases, there is little error introduced by assuming the center of
zero rotational velocity is fixed at the mid-height of the articulated slider assembly.
(d) In previous work on the double FP bearing, it was observed that the slider becomes offset
within the bearing during displacement-controlled harmonic tests when friction is different on the
upper and lower surfaces [20]. At zero total displacement, the individual displacements on each
surface are equal and opposite rather than both zero. The same phenomenon occurs in the triple FP
bearing. The offset occurs because the effective coefficient of friction (the normalized horizontal
force at zero total displacement) is different from the coefficients of friction on the individual
surfaces (the normalized horizontal force at zero relative displacement). Explicit expressions for
the individual offsets are not included here; however, they can be determined by tracking the
hysteresis loops. The offsets are related to displacement-controlled testing and are different from
the phenomenon of permanent total displacements at the end of earthquake excitation.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
4. BEHAVIOR OF THE MODIFIED SINGLE FP BEARING
The modified single FP bearing is similar in construction to the conventional FP bearing but with an
intermediate slide plate. Accordingly, its behavior follows directly from simplification of that of the
triple FP bearing and is only presented briefly herein. In the standard configuration of Reff1 Reff2
and 1 >2 , the force–displacement relationship is composed of three sliding regimes: (i) initial
sliding only on surface 2 with high stiffness and low friction; (ii) sliding only on surface 1 with
a decrease in stiffness and an increase in friction; and (iii) stiffening as the slide plate contacts
the displacement restrainer on surface 1 and sliding on surface 2 resumes. This configuration will
readily activate and re-center well in minor events, provide sufficient flexibility and damping for
more severe shaking and then stiffen substantially before the maximum displacement capacity
of the bearing is achieved. However, since most of the sliding occurs on one surface, the plan
dimensions of modified single FP bearings will need to be much larger than those of the double
or triple FP bearings.
Upon application of horizontal force, motion will initiate on surface 2 when F = Ff2 . Sliding
then occurs on surface 2 only with the force–displacement relationship:
W
F= u + Ff2 (33)
Reff2
If the direction of motion reverses prior to the initiation of motion on surface 1, the bearing will
unload by 2Ff2 and sliding will continue only on surface 2. As shown in Figure 11(a), the hysteretic
behavior is identical to that of the conventional FP bearing.
The friction force on surface 1 is overcome at displacement u ∗ , which is given by
u ∗ = (1 − 2 )Reff2 (34)
At this point, motion starts on surface 1 and stops on surface 2. When sliding occurs on surface 1,
the displacement on surface 2 remains u ∗ . The force–displacement relationship is
W
F= (u − u ∗ ) + Ff1 (35)
Reff1
Upon reversal of motion, the bearing will unload by 2Ff2 and motion will initiate on surface 2.
Motion continues on surface 2 over a distance 2u ∗ until the bearing has unloaded by 2Ff1 , at which
point motion will resume on surface 1 and stop on surface 2. The force–displacement behavior
for this sliding regime is shown in Figure 11(b).
Sliding occurs on surface 1 only until the slide plate starts to bear on the displacement restrainer,
which occurs at total displacement u dr1 , given by
u dr1 = d1 + u ∗ (36)
For u>u dr1 , the force–displacement relationship is
W W
F= (u − u dr1 ) + d1 + Ff1 (37)
Reff2 Reff1
Upon reversal of motion, the bearing unloads by 2Ff2 and sliding occurs on surface 2. Sliding
resumes on surface 1 and stops on surface 2 when the bearing unloads to Fdr1 − 2Ff1 . This is
shown in Figure 11(c).
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Sliding Regime I: Sliding Regime II:

umax < u* W u* < umax < udr1 W
Reff2 Ref f1 2Ff2
2Ff2
Horizontal Force
Ff1 2Ff1
Horizontal Force
Ff2
u* W
Ref f2
W 2u*
Reff2 W
Ref f1
Sliding Regime II
Sliding Regime I
(a) Total Dispalcement, u (b) Total Dispalcement, u
Sliding Regime III:

u* < umax < udr1 W 2Ff2
Ref f2
Fdr1
W
Ref f2
Horizontal Force
Fdr1 - 2Ff1
udr1
Sliding Regime III

Sliding Regimes I - II
(c) Total Displacement, u
Figure 11. Force–displacement relationship of the modified single FP bearing: (a) for sliding regime I;
(b) for sliding regime II; and (c) for sliding regime III.
5. BEHAVIOR OF THE DOUBLE FP BEARING WITH DIFFERENT

DISPLACEMENT CAPACITIES
Adaptive behavior can also be achieved using the double FP bearing with sliding surfaces of
different displacement capacities. For example, in a configuration with 1 <2 , Reff1 Reff2 and
d1 d2 , the bearing will exhibit high stiffness and low friction initially, then decrease in stiffness
and increase in friction with increasing displacement and finally stiffen with even greater friction
prior to achieving the bearing’s total displacement capacity (provided that the slider impacts
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
the displacement restrainer on surface 1 prior to surface 2). Unlike the configurations presented
previously, prior to achieving the total displacement capacity of the bearing, it is possible to have
both an increase in the stiffness and an increase in the effective friction.
Assume a configuration of double FP bearing to give the adaptive behavior just described, that
is 1 <2 , Reff1 Reff2 and d1 d2 . The behavior of the double FP with 1 = 2 prior to contacting
the displacement restrainer has been described in [20]. Sliding will start on surface 1 when the
applied lateral force exceeds Ff1 . Motion continues on surface 1 only for a distance of u ∗ , at which
point motion starts on surface 2. With increasing displacement, sliding continues on both surface 1
and surface 2 until the slider begins to bear on one of the displacement restrainers. To ensure that
the slider contacts the displacement restrainer of surface 1 prior to surface 2, it is necessary that
Fdr1 <Fdr2 .
At the instant the slider makes contact with the displacement restrainer on surface 1, u 1 = d1
and the total displacement is

Reff2
u dr1 = d1 1 + − (2 − 1 )Reff2 (38)
Reff1
When the total displacement exceeds u dr1 , sliding occurs only on surface 2 and the force–
displacement relationship is given by
W
F= (u − d1 ) + Ff2 (39)
Reff2
After the slider makes contact with the displacement restrainer on surface 1, upon reversal of
motion different orders of unloading are possible. Sliding resumes on surface 1 when the bearing
has unloaded to Fdr1 − 2Ff1 and sliding resumes on surface 2 when the bearing has unloaded by
2Ff2 . Therefore, if
u max >u dr1 + 2Reff2 (2 − 1 ) (40)
sliding resumes on surface 2 prior to surface 1. These different types of possible unloading behavior
are denoted as regimes III(a) and III(b) in Figure 12.
Sliding Regime III(a): Sliding Regime III(b): W

u <u + 2R ( - ) W u >u + 2R ( - ) R
R 2F
F F
2F
F - 2F F - 2F W
W
Horizontal Force
Horizontal Force
R
R
W W
R +R u R +R u
Sliding Regime III(a) Sliding Regime III(b)

Sliding Regimes I - II Sliding Regimes I - III(a)
(a) Total Displacement, u (b) Total Displacement, u
Figure 12. Force–displacement relationship of the double FP bearing: (a) for sliding regime III(a); and
(b) for sliding regime III(b).
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
6. CONCLUSION
The force–displacement relationships of three novel variations of multi-spherical sliding bearing

have been presented in this paper. Furthermore, general principles of operation have been explained
so that alternate configurations can be analyzed. It has been shown that when properly configured,
these bearings provide stiffness and damping that change desirably with increasing displacement.
These changes in stiffness and damping result from the various combinations of surfaces upon
which sliding can occur. The appeal and potential of the bearings presented in this paper are not
only the performance and economic benefits that result from the adaptive behavior they exhibit, but
also the fact that they are simple passive devices. They are based on technologies and principles
that are universally accepted in practice, just applied in an innovative manner. The interested reader
is referred to the companion paper [17] for experimental verification of the theory that has been
presented in this paper.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Financial support for this project was provided by the Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research (Thrust Area 2) and Earthquake Protection Systems Inc. This support is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. Feng MQ, Shinozuka M, Fujii S. Friction-controllable sliding isolation system. Journal of Engineering Mechanics
(ASCE) 1993; 119(9):1845–1864.
2. Makris N. Rigidity–plasticity–viscosity: Can electrorheological dampers protect base isolated structures from
near-source ground motions? Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1997; 26(5):571–591.
3. Riley MA, Reinhorn AM, Nagarajaiah S. Implementation issues and testing of a hybrid sliding isolation system.
Engineering Structures 1998; 20(3):144–154.
4. Ramallo JC, Johnson EA, Spencer Jr BF. ‘Smart’ base isolation systems. Journal of Engineering Mechanics
(ASCE) 2002; 128(10):1088–1100. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733–9399(2002)128:10(1088).
5. Lin PY, Roschke PN, Loh CH, Cheng CP. Semi-active controlled base-isolation system with magnetorheological
damper and pendulum system. Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver,
BC, Canada, 2004; Paper 691.
6. Wongprasert N, Symans MD. Experimental evaluation of adaptive elastomeric base-isolated structures using
variable-orifice fluid dampers. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 2005; 131(6):867–877. DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)0733–9445(2005)131:6(867).
7. Nagarajaiah S, Sahasrabudhe S. Seismic response control of smart sliding isolated buildings using variable
stiffness systems: An experimental and numerical study. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2006;
35(2):177–197. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.514.
8. Li H, Ou J. A design approach for semi-active and smart base-isolated buildings. Structural Control and Health
Monitoring 2006; 13(2–3):660–681. DOI: 10.1002/stc.104.
9. Chaudhari MD, Goyal A. Hybrid isolation system for bridges using variable friction sliders. Proceedings of the
8th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, CA, U.S.A., 2006; Paper 622.
10. Phocas MC, Pocanschi A. Dynamic adaptable bearings: Development and analysis. Proceedings of the 8th US
National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, CA, U.S.A., 2006; Paper 1765.
11. Imbimbo M, Kelly JM. Stability aspects of elastomeric isolators. Earthquake Spectra 1997; 13(3):431–449.
12. Zayas V, Low SS, Mahin SA. A simple pendulum technique for achieving seismic isolation. Earthquake Spectra
1990; 6(2):317–333.
13. Constantinou MC, Whittaker AS, Kalpakidis Y, Fenz DM, Warn GP. Performance of seismic isolation hardware
under service and seismic loading. Technical Report MCEER-07-0012, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 2007.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
14. ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-05. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. American Society
of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, U.S.A., 2006.
15. Kelly JM. The role of damping in seismic isolation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1999;
28(1):3–20.
16. Hall JF. Discussion of ‘The role of damping in seismic isolation’. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 1999; 28(12):1717–1720.
17. Fenz DM, Constantinou MC. Spherical sliding isolation bearings with adaptive behavior: Experimental verification.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007; DOI: 10.1002/eqe.750.
18. Tsai CS, Chiang TC, Chen BJ. Experimental evaluation piecewise exact solution for predicting seismic responses
of spherical sliding type isolated structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2005; 34(9):
1027–1046. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.430.
19. Tsai CS, Chen WS, Chiang TC, Chen BJ. Component and shaking table tests for full-scale multiple
Friction Pendulum system. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2006; 35(11):1653–1675. DOI:
10.1002/eqe.598.
20. Fenz DM, Constantinou MC. Behavior of the double concave Friction Pendulum bearing. Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 2006; 35(11):1403–1424. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.589.
21. Mokha A, Constantinou MC, Reinhorn AM. Teflon bearings in base isolation. I: Testing. Journal of Structural
Engineering (ASCE) 1990; 116(2):438–454.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe

Spherical Sliding Isolation Bearings With Adaptive Behavior PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spherical Sliding Isolation Bearings With Adaptive Behavior PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:163–183

Spherical sliding isolation bearings with adaptive behavior: Theory

Daniel M. Fenz∗, †, ‡ and Michael C. Constantinou§

Received 16 March 2007; Revised 27 June 2007; Accepted 2 July 2007

Contract/grant sponsor: Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research

Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2. PRINCIPLES OF OPERATION OF THE TRIPLE FP BEARING

3. FORCE–DISPLACEMENT RELATIONSHIP OF THE TRIPLE FP BEARING

3.1. Sliding regime I

S1 + Ff2 sin 2 − S2 cos 2 = 0 (2a)

Also, from FBD IV of Figure 2(b),

From geometry, the relative displacement of the slider on surface 2, u 2 , is

3.2. Sliding regime II

Figure 3. Force–displacement relationship of the triple FP bearing during sliding regime I.

u 1 = Reff1 sin 1 (9a)

S1 cos 1 + Ff2 sin(1 + 2 ) − S2 cos(1 + 2 ) − Ff1 sin 1 = 0 (11a)

Sliding Regime II:

3.3. Sliding regime III

u ∗∗ = u ∗ + (4 − 1 )(Reff1 + Reff3 ) (15)

u 3 = Reff3 sin 3 (16a)

Sliding Regime III:

Sliding Regime III

and for surface 3,

3.4. Sliding regime IV

u max >u dr1 + 2(4 − 1 )(Reff2 + Reff4 ) (26)

Displacement on Surface i,ui

Sliding Regime IV:

3.5. Sliding regime V

3.6. Additional comments

Horizontal Force Fdr1 - 2Ff1

4. BEHAVIOR OF THE MODIFIED SINGLE FP BEARING

Sliding Regime I: Sliding Regime II:

(a) Total Dispalcement, u (b) Total Dispalcement, u

Sliding Regime III:

Sliding Regime III

(c) Total Displacement, u

5. BEHAVIOR OF THE DOUBLE FP BEARING WITH DIFFERENT

Sliding Regime III(a): Sliding Regime III(b): W

Sliding Regime III(a) Sliding Regime III(b)

(a) Total Displacement, u (b) Total Displacement, u

The force–displacement relationships of three novel variations of multi-spherical sliding bearing

You might also like