Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Fenz Constantinou - Artículo 2 (2007) PDF
Fenz Constantinou - Artículo 2 (2007) PDF
SUMMARY
This paper describes an experimental program to examine the force–displacement behavior of a class
of multi-spherical sliding bearings. The primary goal of the experiments is to test the validity of the
theory developed in a companion paper that describes the behavior of these devices. Experimental work
consisted of testing the three primary variations of these bearings in several configurations of different
friction and displacement capacities. Most tests were carried out at slow speeds; however, some testing
was also conducted at high speed (up to approximately 400 mm/s) to examine the behavior under dynamic
conditions. The results of experimental testing were generally found to be in very good agreement with
the analytical results. It is shown that the forces and displacements at which transitions in stiffness occur
are predictable and therefore controllable in design. Furthermore, the underlying principles of operation
were confirmed by the fact that starting and stopping of sliding on the different surfaces occurred as
expected from theory. Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS: adaptive seismic isolation system; Friction Pendulum bearing; bearing testing
1. INTRODUCTION
In a companion paper [1], the behavior of three variations of multi-spherical sliding bearings is
described. These devices are (a) the triple Friction Pendulum (FP) bearing, (b) the modified single
FP bearing and (c) the double FP bearing with concave surfaces of different displacement capacities.
The internal construction of these bearings permits sliding on different combinations of surfaces
∗ 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
‡
Professor.
throughout the course of motion, resulting in changes in stiffness and damping. The behavior is
termed adaptive because the stiffness and damping change to predictable values at displacement
amplitudes that are calculable and controllable. This allows the design of the isolation system
to be separately optimized for multiple performance objectives and multiple levels of input. For
example, there can be high stiffness and low damping in minor events to reduce secondary system
response and improve re-centering, softening and intermediate damping for reduction of base shear
in the design earthquake and stiffening or further increase in damping to limit the isolation system
displacements in the maximum earthquake and beyond. It is shown in the companion paper that
this type of desirable behavior is theoretically possible for the three variations of bearing presented,
when properly configured.
This paper describes an experimental program of characterization testing that was performed to
assess the validity of the theory developed in [1]. The three variations of adaptive multi-spherical
sliding bearing were tested in many configurations. The primary objective of the experimental
program was to measure the force–displacement behavior for slow speed displacement-controlled
tests of various amplitudes in order to verify the analytical model and principles of operation. Slow
speed tests were favored since hysteresis loops obtained under nearly quasi-static test conditions
exhibited clear transitions in stiffness and permitted more accurate comparison to the analytical
model. A limited number of tests were also carried out at high speed to explore the behavior under
dynamic conditions and evaluate any effects of impact when the slider contacts the displacement
restrainer.
The experimental results generally are in good agreement with the analytical models from both a
quantitative and more importantly a qualitative standpoint. The latter means that the sequencing of
sliding regimes and the starting/stopping of sliding on the various surfaces are consistent with the
behavior that is predicted based on first principles. Demonstrating the predictability of the behavior
contributes toward showing that these devices combine the performance benefits of hybrid isolation
systems with the reliability of currently used technologies.
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:185–205
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
SPHERICAL SLIDING ISOLATION BEARINGS WITH ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR 187
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 1. Dimensions of the (a) triple FP; (b) modified single FP; and (c) double FP specimens tested.
capacity, configurations with different displacement capacities were tested to evaluate the validity
of the analytical model in more general cases.
Two different non-metallic sliding materials denoted Materials A and B were used on the sliding
interfaces. Each surface of the rigid slider was coated with Material A that had been lubricated,
the upper slide plate was coated with dry Material A and the lower slide plate with dry Material
B. When dry, the coefficient of friction of Material A is less than that of Material B. Lubrication
combined with the increased pressure due to the smaller contact area ensured that the coefficients
of friction of the rigid slider would be lower than those of the slide plates. At each sliding interface,
the radius of curvature of the slider was manufactured larger than the mating stainless steel surface.
As a result, there was bearing over an annular area on the perimeter of each slider which created
a pocket containing the lubricant.
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:185–205
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
188 D. M. FENZ AND M. C. CONSTANTINOU
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 2. Overview of the various configurations of (a) triple FP; (b) modified single FP; and (c) double
FP bearing with different displacement capacities that were tested.
The modified single FP specimen was assembled using the outer concave plate and slide plate
coated with Material A from the triple FP specimen. The post-plate and articulated slider from a
small-scale single FP bearing were used for the other half. The articulated slider was coated with
a lubricated non-metallic material denoted Material C that had coefficient of friction less than that
of dry Material A.
The double FP specimen was assembled using the same outer concave plates as the triple FP
specimen but with a different slider. The urethane insert was used to achieve concave surfaces
with different displacement capacities so the nominal displacement capacity for each configuration
tested was 127 mm. The articulated slider was coated with a different non-metallic sliding material
denoted Material D. Testing was performed with both surfaces of the slider dry to achieve nearly
equal coefficients of friction as well as with one surface lubricated to achieve substantially different
coefficients of friction.
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:185–205
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
SPHERICAL SLIDING ISOLATION BEARINGS WITH ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR 189
d2 = d3 = 19 mm Reff2 = Reff3 = 53 mm
Triple 1 2 = 3 <1 <4 d1 = 64 mm Reff1 = Reff4 = 435 mm
d4 = 64 mm
d2 = d3 = 19 mm Reff2 = Reff3 = 53 mm
Triple 2 2 = 3 <1 <4 d1 = 39 mm Reff1 = Reff4 = 435 mm
d4 = 64 mm
d2 = d3 = 19 mm Reff2 = Reff3 = 53 mm
Triple 3 2 = 3 <1 <4 d1 = 64 mm Reff1 = Reff4 = 435 mm
d4 = 39 mm
d1 = 51 mm Reff1 = 441 mm
Double 1 1 ≈ 2
d2 = 76 mm Reff2 = 437 mm
d1 = 76 mm Reff1 = 441 mm
Double 2 1 <2
d2 = 51 mm Reff2 = 437 mm
d1 = 51 mm Reff1 = 441 mm
Double 3 1 <2
d2 = 76 mm Reff2 = 437 mm
design and capabilities of the testing machine is given in Reference [2]. Essentially, it consists of
two vertical actuators and one horizontal actuator that transmit loads to the bearing via a large
loading beam. The vertical actuators are force-controlled to accommodate changes in the bearing’s
height while still maintaining a predefined (constant or otherwise) vertical force. The horizontal
actuator is displacement-controlled and imposes a predefined displacement history.
Horizontal and vertical force data are collected by a five-channel load cell that is mounted
directly beneath the bearing. Horizontal displacement is measured by an LVDT that is internal to
the horizontal actuator. However, this is only the total displacement of the top part of the bearing
with respect to the bottom, u. Individual displacements of the various sliders were measured using
string potentiometers that were mounted on a stationary reference. Two potentiometers were used
for recording the horizontal displacements of the internal components of the triple FP bearing, one
attached to each slide plate. In addition to the total displacement, in this arrangement it was possible
to measure the displacement of the top slide plate with respect to the top concave surface, u 1 , the
displacement of the two slide plates with respect to each other, u 2 + u 3 , and the displacement of
the lower slide plate with respect to the bottom concave surface, u 4 . One potentiometer was used
to decompose the displacements for the modified single FP specimen and the double FP specimen.
The string was attached to the slide plate of the modified single FP bearing and at mid-height of
the articulated slider in the double FP bearing.
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:185–205
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
190 D. M. FENZ AND M. C. CONSTANTINOU
0.16 1 1.0
Modified
28 0.040 25 6.3
single 1
0.014 70 6.3
0.013 75 6.3
Double 1 94
0.0088 115 6.3
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:185–205
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
SPHERICAL SLIDING ISOLATION BEARINGS WITH ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR 191
Figure 3. Illustration of the range in the coefficient of friction for low-speed and high-speed testing.
Most tests were performed at very low velocity as this gave hysteresis loops with clearly defined
transition points. As shown in Table II which describes the tests reported, the peak total sliding
velocity was typically only 6.3 mm/s. Hysteresis loops from a limited number of tests conducted
at high velocity were more rounded due to velocity dependence of the coefficient of friction
[4], which tended to mask the transitions in stiffness. At low velocity, the coefficient of friction
is highly dependent on velocity as they are related by a negative exponential relationship. The
relative differences are substantial, but there is still small absolute difference in the range of values
compared with high speed. This is illustrated in Figure 3.
Although high-speed tests are more representative of seismic conditions, accurate extraction
of the experimental values of force and displacement at which the various sliding regimes start
and stop was necessary to verify the fundamental mechanical behavior of the bearings. After the
basic principles of operation of these devices are verified, velocity dependence of the coefficient
of friction can be incorporated into the formulation of more sophisticated dynamic models.
Prior to every test, the loading beam was raised and the various sliders were centered within
the bearing. This was to ensure that the displacement capacity of each surface was the same for
both positive and negative displacements. The stiffening behavior of adaptive bearings is highly
dependent on the displacement capacity of each surface. Therefore, if the slider starts off center
there will be asymmetry in the force–displacement loops. In addition, to limit the effects of
contamination on the coefficient of friction the stainless steel interfaces were cleaned periodically
during testing with isopropyl alcohol and a soft cloth.
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:185–205
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
192 D. M. FENZ AND M. C. CONSTANTINOU
for experimentally determining the coefficient of sliding friction [3]. The coefficient of friction of
surfaces 2 and 3 were determined from the decomposed force–displacement loops as half of the
drop in normalized force that occurs upon reversal of motion. This procedure had to be employed
for surfaces 2 and 3 since their force–displacement behavior is atypical.
Appendix Table AI lists the experimentally measured values of the coefficient of friction of each
surface that were used to construct the analytical loops. The variability in the friction coefficients,
most noticeably in 1 for configuration 1, is attributed chiefly to velocity dependence. For example,
the sliding velocities on surface 1 at zero relative displacement were 5.7, 6.0, 3.4 and 3.4 mm/s
in sliding regimes II, III, IV and V, respectively.
0.4
Experimental
0.3
0.2
Horizontal Force
0.1
Vertical Force
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
0.4
Analytical
0.3
0.2
Horizontal Force
0.1
Ver tical Force
0.0
-0.1
Figure 4. Comparison of analytical and experimental results for force–displacement relationship of triple
FP specimen in configuration 1. All five sliding regimes are shown.
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:185–205
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
SPHERICAL SLIDING ISOLATION BEARINGS WITH ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR 193
In addition, the actual displacement capacities of each surface are used to construct the analytical
loops. The nominal displacement capacity is determined using only the diameters of the articulated
slider and concave plate. The actual displacement capacity is defined as the relative displacement
of the pivot point when the slider contacts the displacement restrainer. It is the nominal value
reduced by an amount proportional to the slider height and inversely proportional to the surface’s
radius of curvature. The difference between nominal and actual values is small in the typical
case where the slider height is small compared with the radius of curvature. The values of the
experimental displacement capacity reported in Appendix Table AI were determined from the
decomposed force–displacement loops as the displacement where substantial stiffening occurred.
Lastly, where sliding velocities are reported, they have been determined numerically from the
displacement data by fitting a cubic polynomial through a moving five-point window. The derivative
of the polynomial is evaluated at the mid-point of the window and the resulting data are smoothed.
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:185–205
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
194
Copyright q
Table III. Comparison of analytical and experimental results for triple FP bearing.
Regime II Regime III Regime IV Regime V
Configuration 1
u ∗ (mm)†,‡ 2.9 2 2.5 3 1.3 2 0.1 2
u ∗∗ (mm)‡ — — 45.5 51 48.6 41 38.4 42
u dr1 (mm)§ — — — — 86.2 85 92.1 90
u dr4 (mm)§ — — — — — — 130.4 130
Fdr1 § — — — — 0.162W 0.172W 0.161W 0.173W
Configuration 2
u ∗ (mm)‡ — — — — 1.6 2.8 0.9 1.9
u ∗∗ (mm)‡ — — — — 29.0 29.3 18.4 27.6
u dr1 (mm)§ — — — — 54.2 52.6 63.3 60.9
u dr4 (mm)§ — — — — — — 106.5 108.0
Fdr1 § — — — — 0.113W 0.111W 0.113W 0.111W
Fdr4 § — — — — — — 0.201W 0.213W
Configuration 3
u ∗ (mm)‡ — — — — 1.1 1.8 1.3 2.6
D. M. FENZ AND M. C. CONSTANTINOU
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:185–205
SPHERICAL SLIDING ISOLATION BEARINGS WITH ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR 195
0.4 0.4
Experimental Analytical
0.3 0.3
Horizontal Force 0.2 0.2
Vertical Force
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
-0.1 -0.1 1 = 0.025 - 0.028
-0.2 -0.2 2 = 3 = 0.013 - 0.017
Figure 5. Comparison of analytical and experimental results for force–displacement relationship of triple
FP specimen in configuration 2. Sliding regimes IV and V are shown.
0.3 0.3
Experimental Analytical
0.2 0.2
Horizontal Force
Vertical Force
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
Figure 6. Comparison of analytical and experimental results for force–displacement relationship of triple
FP specimen in configuration 3. Sliding regimes IV and V are shown.
of W/(106 mm) and the experimental values determined by linear regression range between
W/(116 mm) and W/(125 mm). The difference is due to the assumption of a rigid displace-
ment restrainer in the analytical model. This assumption is reasonable when the slider is bearing
on the steel displacement restrainer that is typically used. In the test specimen, however, the ure-
thane insert is quite stiff but not completely rigid (Durometer 62D is approximately the hardness
of a golf ball).
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:185–205
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
196 D. M. FENZ AND M. C. CONSTANTINOU
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:185–205
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
SPHERICAL SLIDING ISOLATION BEARINGS WITH ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR 197
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:185–205
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
198 D. M. FENZ AND M. C. CONSTANTINOU
Total
Surface 1
Surfaces 2 & 3
Surface 4
150
100
Displacement (mm)
50
-50
-100
-150
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Time (sec)
8
6
4
Velocity (mm/s)
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Time (sec)
Figure 8. Experimental histories of displacement and velocity for triple FP bearing in configuration 1
during cyclic testing of 140 mm amplitude.
and the combined velocity of surfaces 2 and 3 overlays exactly the total velocity. The hysteresis
loops of surfaces 2 and 3 demonstrate rigid linear behavior after the displacement restrainer is
contacted on surface 4.
Lastly, the phenomenon of slider offset can be seen in the histories of displacement and velocity
of Figure 8. When the total displacement is zero, the individual displacements on each of the
sliding surfaces are all nonzero (though they must sum to zero). For the 140 mm amplitude test,
the experimental values of the offsets are −13.4 mm for surface 1, −6.4 mm for surfaces 2 and 3
combined and 19.8 mm for surface 4 (three cycle average values). These are in good agreement
with the values obtained by tracking the analytical force–displacement loops: −14.9, −4.3 and
19.2 mm, respectively. The offset results from the displacement controlled nature of the testing
and is different from the permanent total displacements after earthquake excitation.
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:185–205
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
SPHERICAL SLIDING ISOLATION BEARINGS WITH ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR 199
0.3 0.3
0.01 Hz Frequency 0.10 Hz Frequency
Horizontal Force 0.2 Peak Velocity = 7.2 mm/s 0.2 Peak Velocity = 72 mm/s
0.1 0.1
Vertical Force
0.0 0.0
-0.1 -0.1
-0.2 -0.2
-0.3 -0.3
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
0.3 0.3
0.30 Hz Frequency 0.50 Hz Frequency
0.2 Peak Velocity = 216 mm/s 0.2 Peak Velocity = 359 mm/s
Horizontal Force
Vertical Force
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
-0.1 -0.1
-0.2 -0.2
-0.3 -0.3
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Total Displacement, u (mm)
0.3
0.60 Hz Frequency
0.2 Peak Velocity = 431 mm/s
Horizontal Force
Vertical Force
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Total Displacement, u (mm)
Figure 9. Force–displacement loops for triple FP specimen in configuration 1 during testing at 115 mm
amplitude and increasing frequency of sinusoidal motion. Peak velocities are experimentally measured
values and differ slightly from the nominal or target values.
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:185–205
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
200 D. M. FENZ AND M. C. CONSTANTINOU
Data analysis and construction of analytical loops for the modified single FP bearing were carried
out in the same manner as for the triple FP bearing. Experimental and analytical loops are pre-
sented in Figure 10. The figures show that the experimental force–displacement data are in very
good agreement with the analytical results. Moreover, the experimental histories of displacement
and velocity for the 70 mm amplitude test demonstrate behavior consistent with theory. Figure 11
0.4 0.4
Experimental Analytical
0.2 0.2
Horizontal Force
Vertical Force
0.0 0.0
Figure 10. Comparison of analytical and experimental results for force–displacement relationship of
modified single FP bearing in configuration 1. All three sliding regimes are shown.
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:185–205
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
SPHERICAL SLIDING ISOLATION BEARINGS WITH ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR 201
Total
Surface 1
Surface 2
75
50
Displacement (mm)
25
-25
-50
-75
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (sec)
8
6
4
Velocity (mm/s)
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (sec)
Figure 11. Experimental histories of displacement and velocity of modified single FP bearing in
configuration 1 for the 70 mm amplitude test.
shows that there is no simultaneous sliding on both surfaces (except for very brief instances due
to the inertia of the moving parts). Due to their similarities in construction, this helps to confirm
that simultaneous sliding on surfaces 1 and 2 (or 3 and 4) for the triple FP bearing does not occur.
Experimental and analytical force–displacement data are shown in Figures 12–15 for the three
configurations of double FP tested. The experimental data agree well with the theoretical results
and demonstrate that desirable changes in stiffness and damping occur with increasing amplitude
of displacement. It should be noted that in configuration 3, the double FP bearing exhibits increases
in both stiffness and damping at large displacements.
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:185–205
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
202 D. M. FENZ AND M. C. CONSTANTINOU
0.2 0.2
Experimental Analytical
0.1 0.1
Horizontal Force
Vertical Force
0.0 0.0
Figure 12. Comparison of analytical and experimental results for force–displacement relationship of double
FP bearing in configuration 1. Both sliding regimes are shown.
0.2 0.2
Experimental Analytical
0.1 0.1
Horizontal Force
Vertical Force
0.0 0.0
Figure 13. Comparison of analytical and experimental results for force–displacement relationship of double
FP bearing in configuration 2. All three sliding regimes are shown.
Figure 15 shows the velocity histories of the bearing in configuration 3 for the 95 mm ampli-
tude test (sliding regime III(a)) and for the 115 mm amplitude test (sliding regime III(b)). For
both tests, the loading behavior is identical and consistent with theory. Upon reversal of motion,
the two plots demonstrate the different sequences in which sliding can resume. In the 95 mm
amplitude test, Equation (40) of [1] is not satisfied (u max = 95 mm<98.2 mm) and motion re-
sumes on surface 1 prior to surface 2. In the 115 mm amplitude test, the equation is satisfied
(u max = 115 mm>102.4 mm) and motion resumes on surface 2 prior to surface 1. It should also be
noted that in configuration 2, the condition expressed by Equation (40) of [1] was always satisfied
since 1 <2 . This phenomenon admittedly may have a small impact on global structure response;
however, the fact that the analytical model captures such nuanced behavior gives added confidence
in its overall validity.
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:185–205
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
SPHERICAL SLIDING ISOLATION BEARINGS WITH ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR 203
0.2 0.2
Experimental Analytical
0.0 0.0
Figure 14. Comparison of analytical and experimental results for force–displacement relationship of double
FP bearing in configuration 3. All three sliding regimes are shown.
Total
Surface 1
Surface 2
8
Regime III
6 95 mm Amplitude
4
Velocity (mm/s)
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
(a) Time (sec)
8
Regime III
6 115 mm Amplitude
4
Velocity (mm/s)
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
(b) Time (sec)
Figure 15. Histories of velocity for the double FP bearing in configuration 3 during the 95 and 115 mm
amplitude tests demonstrating the different possible orders of unloading.
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:185–205
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
204 D. M. FENZ AND M. C. CONSTANTINOU
6. CONCLUSION
This and the companion paper have described and experimentally verified the principles of opera-
tion and force–displacement relationships of a class of multi-spherical sliding bearings that exhibit
adaptive behavior. These bearings are very appealing due to the desirable changes and stiffness
and damping that they exhibit with increasing input. Furthermore, they are simple passive devices
derived from currently used technologies and constructed from basic materials of proven reliabil-
ity. The theory that has been developed follows directly from consideration of equilibrium and
geometry. The devices have been tested in a variety of configurations with different displacement
capacities and coefficients of friction and in each case the analytical model closely matches the
experimental results. There is good agreement both in a numerical sense and in the prediction of
initiation and stoppage of sliding on the various concave surfaces. This work confirms that the
basic theory presented in Reference [1] is valid.
APPENDIX
Appendix Table AI lists the experimentally measured values of the coefficient of friction and actual
displacement capacity of each surface that were used to construct the analytical loops.
Table AI. Coefficients of friction and displacement capacities measured during experiments used to
construct analytical force–displacement loops.
Peak Coefficients Displacement
Configuration displacement (mm) Regime of friction capacities
1.2 I 1 = −, 2 = 3 = 0.022, 4 = −
25 II 1 = 0.038, 2 = 3 = 0.010, 4 = −
d1 = 61 mm
Triple 1 75 III 1 = 0.041, 2 = 3 = 0.025, 4 = 0.129
d4 = 61 mm
115 IV 1 = 0.022, 2 = 3 = 0.010, 4 = 0.119
140 V 1 = 0.021, 2 = 3 = 0.019, 4 = 0.099
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:185–205
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
SPHERICAL SLIDING ISOLATION BEARINGS WITH ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR 205
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Financial support for this project was provided by the Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research (Thrust Area 2). Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. provided the specimens that were tested.
This support is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. Fenz DM, Constantinou MC. Spherical sliding isolation bearings with adaptive behavior: Theory. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007; DOI: 10.1002/eqe.751.
2. Kasalanati A, Constantinou MC. Experimental study of bridge elastomeric and other isolation and energy dissipation
systems with emphasis on uplift prevention and high velocity near source seismic excitation. Technical Report
MCEER-99-0004, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York
at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 1999.
3. Constantinou MC, Whittaker AS, Fenz DM, Apostolakis G. Seismic isolation of bridges: Version 2. Report to
Sponsor, California Department of Transportation, June 2007.
4. Mokha A, Constantinou MC, Reinhorn AM. Teflon bearings in base isolation. I: Testing. Journal of Structural
Engineering (ASCE) 1990; 116(2):438–454.
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:185–205
DOI: 10.1002/eqe