Tenth U.S.

National Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
10NCEE Anchorage, Alaska

ADVANCES IN LOW-COST SEISMIC

ISOLATION WITH RUBBER
D. Konstantinidis1 and J. M. Kelly2

ABSTRACT

This paper presents an overview of the latest advances in seismic isolation using rubber for
applications where conventional isolation technology is cost-prohibitive. The discussion focuses
on two types of multi-layer elastomeric isolation bearings where the reinforcing elements,
normally thick and inflexible steel plates, are replaced by thin flexible reinforcement. In the first
type, the reinforcement is provided by carbon fiber; while in the second type, it is provided by
thin flexible steel shims. The use of flexible reinforcement together with the elimination of the
thick end plates that are used in conventional isolators to connect the bearing to the supports
dramatically reduces the cost associated with the manufacture and installation of these bearings.
Theoretical analyses of these bearings suggests, and test results confirm, that it is possible to
produce in these ways a strip isolator that matches the behavior of a conventional steel-
reinforced isolator. The tested unbonded bearings with flexible reinforcement survived very large
shear strains, comparable to those expected of conventional seismic isolators under seismic
loading. However the cost of the former is in the hundreds of dollars, as compared to the cost of
the latter in the thousands.

1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
2
Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, USA

Konstantinidis D, Kelly JM. Advances in Low-Cost Seismic Isolation with Rubber. Proceedings of the 10th National
Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
 Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
10NCEE Anchorage, Alaska

Advances in Low-Cost Seismic Isolation with Rubber

D. Konstantinidis1 and J. M. Kelly2

ABSTRACT

This paper presents an overview of the latest advances in seismic isolation using rubber for
applications where conventional isolation technology is cost-prohibitive. The discussion focuses
on two types of multi-layer elastomeric isolation bearings where the reinforcing elements,
normally thick and inflexible steel plates, are replaced by thin flexible reinforcement. In the first
type, the reinforcement is provided by carbon fiber; while in the second type, it is provided by thin
flexible steel shims. The use of flexible reinforcement together with the elimination of the thick
end plates that are used in conventional isolators to connect the bearing to the supports
dramatically reduces the cost associated with the manufacture and installation of these bearings.
Theoretical analyses of these bearings suggests, and test results confirm, that it is possible to
produce in these ways a strip isolator that matches the behavior of a conventional steel-reinforced
isolator. The tested unbonded bearings with flexible reinforcement survived very large shear
strains, comparable to those expected of conventional seismic isolators under seismic loading.
However the cost of the former is in the hundreds of dollars, as compared to the cost of the latter
in the thousands.

Introduction

Many large urban centers are extremely vulnerable to the damaging effects of large earthquakes.
For example, large cities such as Istanbul and Tehran have many thousands of buildings that
were built prior to the enforcement of stringent building codes. Buildings in the range of two to
six stories have been constructed using only vertical load designs and no provision for horizontal
resistance. Widely used as residences, offices and shops, these buildings make up a significant
fraction of the building stock in these urban areas, and they cannot realistically be demolished
and replaced. Furthermore, retrofitting them by conventional methods would be too expensive
and highly disruptive to the occupants.

Recent research in seismic isolation has demonstrated that inexpensive seismic isolation
systems can be adopted to improve the seismic resistance of apartment buildings and other
buildings, such as schools and hospitals. In at least one retrofit project in Armenia, a large multi-
family housing block was retrofitted using rubber isolators with no need for the families to leave
while the work was done [1].

Development of low-cost seismic isolators that can be mass-produced by a relatively

simplified manufacturing process would stimulate world-wide implementation of seismic

1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
2
Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, USA

Konstantinidis D, Kelly JM. Advances in Low-Cost Seismic Isolation with Rubber. Proceedings of the 10th National
Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
isolation technology to the retrofit of existing structures with deficiencies and to new
construction applications where conventional isolation systems are cost-prohibitive.

Two Low-Cost Seismic Isolation Systems

Fiber-Reinforced Elastomeric Isolators (FREIs)

The first type of low-cost isolator is achieved by replacing the steel reinforcing plates in
elastomeric bearings with fiber reinforcement. Significant weight reduction is achieved as fiber
materials are available with an elastic stiffness that is of the same order as steel. Thus the
reinforcement needed to provide the vertical stiffness may be obtained by using a similar volume
of much lighter material. The cost savings are also possible since the use of fiber allows a
simpler, less labor-intensive manufacturing process. Another benefit of using fiber reinforcement
is that it would be possible to manufacture large pads and cut individual isolators from the pads
to the desired size. All isolators are currently manufactured as either circular or square.
Rectangular isolators in the form of long strips would have distinct advantages over square or
circular isolators when applied to buildings where the lateral resisting system is walls. When
isolation is applied to buildings with structural walls, additional wall beams are needed to carry
the wall from isolator to isolator. A strip isolator would have a distinct advantage for retrofitting
masonry structures and for isolating residential housing constructed from concrete or masonry
blocks (as shown in Fig. 1).

Figure 1. One of the proposed installations of strip bearings.

The seismic effectiveness of Fiber-Reinforced Elastomeric Isolators (FREIs) was

demonstrated by an analytical model [2,3] that estimated the vertical stiffness of the fiber-
reinforced bearing and showed that the vertical stiffness of the bearing can be close to that of a
conventional steel-reinforced bearing. In addition, the results of an experimental research
program conducted at the University of California, Berkeley [4], confirmed that the main
properties of seismic isolators are preserved. Namely, the vertical stiffness is significantly greater
than the horizontal one, providing the capacity to carry large vertical loads and provide isolation
of the building from ground shaking in the horizontal direction. Further component testing to
confirm the viability of FREIs was undertaken by Moon et al. [5,6], Toopchi-Nezhad et al. [7,8],
and Russo et al. [9]. Shake table tests by Toopchi-Nezhad et al. [10] on a model structure
supported on FREIs confirmed that these bearings can provide an effective seismic isolation
system.
 The positioning of FREIs between the upper and lower supports can be in a bonded or
unbonded application. In a bonded application, the isolator is bonded to two steel end plates that
are mechanically fastened to the supports. In an unbonded application, the thick steel end plates
are eliminated and the isolator is placed between the upper and lower supports with no
mechanical restraints. During horizontal displacement, the corners of unbonded FREIs roll off
the supports due to the unbonded application and the lack of flexural rigidity of the fiber
reinforcement (Fig. 2, left). Unbonded FREIs with a sufficiently high width-to-height ratio
exhibit stable rollover (i.e., non-negative tangent stiffness in their force–displacement response).
In addition to stable rollover, this type of isolator has been shown [11], through finite element
analysis, to have desirable advantages over identical bonded FREIs, such as lower tensile stress
demand on the elastomeric layers and on the fiber reinforcement when displaced horizontally.

Figure 2. Bearings rollover under horizontal displacement. Left: FREI (from [12]). Right:
SREB (from [13]).

Steel-Reinforced Elastomeric Bearings (SREBs)

Another low-cost seismic isolation system can be achieved through the use of Steel-Reinforced
Elastomeric Bearings (SREBs) as isolators. These bearings are widely used in bridge
applications to accommodate deck translation and rotation due to non-seismic actions. The
effectiveness of SREBs as isolators has been demonstrated by a theoretical analysis covering
their mechanical characteristics where the reinforcing elements, normally thick and inflexible
steel plates, are replaced by thin flexible reinforcement [13]. The thin steel shims in that
theoretical analysis, in contrast to the thick steel shims in conventional isolators (which are
assumed rigid both in extension and flexure), are assumed to be completely without flexural
stiffness. This is of course not completely accurate, but it allows the determination of a lower
bound to the ultimate lateral displacement of the bearing [14]. The most important aspects of
SREBs are the same as those of FREIs: (a) they do not have thick end plates, which again
reduces the weight, and (b) they are not bonded to the upper and lower support surfaces. This at
first sight might seem to be a deficiency of this design, but it has the advantage that it eliminates
the presence of tensile stresses in the bearings. It is these tensile stresses and the bonding
requirements that arise from them that lead to the high costs of conventional isolators [15].

The in-service demands on SREBs are much lower than conventional isolators, but
extensive full-scale testing [13] has shown that even if displacements of seismic-demand
magnitude are applied to them, they can deform without damage. The primary reason for this is
the fact that the top and bottom surfaces roll off the support surfaces (Fig. 2, right), as is the case
for FREIs (Fig. 2, left), and no tensile stresses are produced. SREBs were tested at the University
of California, San Diego [13], and were shown to be able to survive very large shear strains,
comparable to those expected of conventional seismic isolators under seismic loading. However,
the cost of SREBs is in the hundreds of dollars, as compared to the cost of conventional seismic
isolators, which is in the thousands of dollars.
 Behavior under Pure Compression

The compressive behavior of elastomeric bearings with flexible reinforcement has been
investigated by various researchers. Most studies have been based on the pressure solution (PS),
which assumes that the normal stresses are dominated by the pressure [15]. Tsai and Kelly [16]
investigated the compressive behavior of infinite-strip, rectangular and circular rubber layers
bonded to flexible plates. Kelly [17] derived the compression stiffness of infinite-strip rubber
layers bonded to flexible plates, taking into account the bulk compressibility of the rubber. Kelly
and Calabrese [18] derived the compression stiffness of incompressible rectangular and
compressible circular pads bonded to flexible plates. Tsai [19,20] used the pressure approach,
i.e. a method similar to the PS but which does not lean on the assumption that the normal stresses
are dominated by the pressure, to derive the vertical stiffness of infinite-strip [19] and circular
bearings [20] with flexible reinforcement, considering the bulk compressibility of the elastomer.
Pinarbasi et al. [21,22] developed an analytical solution based on the modified Galerkin method
for the analysis of elastic layers bonded to flexible plates.

The behavior of FREIs under compression has also been investigated through finite
element analysis (FEA). Toopchi-Nezhad et al. [23] carried out a 2D FEA to investigate the
stress distribution and vertical stiffness of a strip FREI. Toopchi-Nezhad et al. [24] extended the
2D FEA and investigated the influence of individual elastomer layers on the vertical and
horizontal response of unbonded strip FREIs. Kelly and Calabrese [18] performed 2D and 3D
FEA to investigate the vertical and horizontal response characteristics of strip, circular and
square FREIs. Osgooei et al. [25] presented the results of a 3D parametric FEA of circular FREIs
under pure compression. More recently, Van Engelen et al. [26,27] have investigated the
compressive behavior of rectangular FREIs that have been modified through the introduction of
holes on the loaded surface.

To illustrate the effect of the flexibility of the reinforcement on the compressive behavior
of a strip FREI, a theoretical analysis [3] is reviewed. Assuming linear elastic behavior with
incompressibility, Kelly and Takhirov [3] showed that the extensional flexibility of the fiber
reinforcement can be incorporated, and that predictions of the resulting effective compression
modulus be made. The vertical stiffness of the bearing, KV, is defined as

Ec A
KV  (1)
tr

where Ec is the compression modulus of an individual layer, A is the loaded area, and tr is the
total thickness of the elastomer. For a strip isolator with rigid reinforcement, the effective
compression modulus can be estimated from Ecs  4GS 2 [15], where G is the shear modulus of
the elastomer, and S is the shape factor, defined as the ratio of loaded area to the area that is free
to bulge. For a strip bearing with width 2b and layer thickness t, S  b / t .

The experimental study by Kelly and Takhirov [4] and finite element analyses by
Osgooei et al. [25] showed that the thickness variation of the shims in steel-reinforced bearings
does not cause significant variation of the bearing’s vertical stiffness. This fact supports the idea
of possibly replacing the steel reinforcement with a fiber reinforcement that can stretch during
vertical loading of the bearing. In the FREI, the effective compression modulus, Ecf , can be
estimated from the following expression [3]

Ecf 3  tanh  
 2 1  (2)
Ec  
s
 

where   12 S 2 (G / E f )(t / t f ) , E f is the tension elastic modulus of the fiber, and t f is the
thickness of the fiber reinforcement. The dimensionless ratio Ecf / Ecs for various values of
parameter α is presented in Fig. 3.

0.8

0.6
Ecf /Ecs

0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
α

Figure 3. Dimensionless ratio of fiber-reinforced and steel reinforced compression moduli

as a function of parameter α.

The behavior of SREBs under pure compression can be analyzed using the same
solutions as described for FREIs. If the reinforcement is assumed to be rigid in extension,
simpler solutions are available in the literature for various bearing shapes [e.g. 15, and references
reported therein].

Since SREBs, like FREIs, are often installed in an unbonded application, there is the
possibility of slip along the supports, both under lateral and under pure compressive loading.
Kelly and Konstantinidis [28] investigated the effect of slip on the compressive properties of
unbonded elastomeric bearings and found that it can result in a significant reduction of the
compressive stiffness, particularly for bearings with a small number of layers. Rastgoo
Moghadam and Konstantinidis [29] used FEA to examine the effect of slip on rubber pads taking
into account bulk compressibility of the rubber.

Behavior under Lateral Load

The lateral response of unbonded rubber bearings with flexible reinforcement is complex and
few closed-form solutions [9,13–15,30,31] are available in the literature. FEA has been used by
researchers [11,14,18,32–36] to model and analyze their lateral response. This area of research is
very active, and more recently advanced designs of FREIs have been proposed. For example, in
an effort to develop a FREI that inherits the advantages of both bonded and unbonded isolators,
the concept of partially bonded FREIs (PB-FREIs) was introduced and investigated by Van
Engelen et al. [37] through experimental testing and FEA. Furthermore, Van Engelen et al.
[38,39] examined how modifications in the support geometry of FREIs can enhance the load–
displacement characteristics of the isolator.

The highly favorable response of an isolator which is not bonded to the top or bottom
plates is due to the elimination of tension in the elastomer. In a bonded bearing under the
simultaneous action of shear and compression, the presence of an unbalanced moment at both
top and bottom surfaces produces a distribution of tensile stresses in the triangular region outside
the overlap between top and bottom. The compression load is carried through the overlap area,
and the triangular regions created by the shear displacement provide the tensile stresses to
balance the moment. These tensile stresses must be sustained by the elastomer and also by the
bonding between the elastomer and the steel reinforcement plates. These bonding requirements
are the main reason for the high cost of current designs of isolator bearings for buildings. With
the elimination of these tension stresses, the bonding requirements between rubber and
reinforcement in unbonded FREIs and SREBs are reduced.

The aforementioned tests have shown that the rollover response is limited by the fact that
the free edge of the bearing rotates from the vertical towards the horizontal with increasing shear
displacement, and the limit of this process is reached when the originally vertical surfaces at each
side come in contact with the horizontal surfaces at both top and bottom, referred to as full
rollover. In SREBs, further horizontal displacement beyond this point is achieved by slip, while
FREIs can deform beyond full rollover. The friction factor between the elastomer and other
surfaces often can take very large values, possibly as high as 1.0, and slip can produce damage to
SREBs through tearing of the surface, distortion of the reinforcing steel, and heat generated by
sliding, as witnessed by Konstantinidis et al. [13]. Tests conducted by Toopchi-Nezhad et al. [40]
on FREI bearings also noted damage at large displacements past the full rollover point. Thus, the
maximum design displacement for a bearing of this type can be specified as that corresponding
to full rollover. In the normal situation, where the bearing thickness is small in comparison to the
plan dimension in the direction of loading, this can be estimated by studying only the
deformation of one side and neglecting the interaction between the deformations at each end.

A theoretical development has been presented for predicting full rollover in [13–15] and is
reviewed herein in brevity. The basic assumptions used are (i) the material is incompressible, (ii)
the reinforcement is completely flexible, and (iii) the free surface of the roll-off portion is stress
free. The first two are reasonable for the elastomer and reinforcement of these bearings, and the
third means that the displacement when the vertical surface touches the horizontal support is the
length of the curved arc of the free surface.

The geometry assumed in the derivation is shown in Fig. 4. The thickness of the bearing is
1.0. We assume that the curved free surface is a parabolic arc; then in the coordinate system x, y
shown in the figure, the curved surface is given by

Figure 4. Schematic of the deformed bearing.

 x2
y ; xa y (3)
a2

The area of the region enclosed by the curved arc of length Δ is A  2a / 3 . The requirement of
compressibility means that the volume before deformation and after is preserved, thus

1 2 3
  a or a  S (4)
2 3 4

The curved arc length Δ is given by d   dx 2  dy 2 , where dy  (2 x / a 2 )dx . So

a 2
 2x  a2  2 4 2
 1   2  dx   1  2  sinh 1  (5)
0 a  4 a a a

The incompressibility condition requires that   4a / 3 , leading to an equation for a in the form

2 16 2 4
sinh 1   1 2 (6)
a 3a a a

Replacing 2 / a by t and inverting the equation leads to a transcendental equation for t in the form

 8  
t  sinh   1  t 2  t  (7)
 3  

which after solving for t gives a and in turn Δ. The solution to a high degree of accuracy is
t  1.60 , a  1.25 and   1.67 . This is the overall shear strain. Since the reinforcement will not
deform in shear, the shear in the elastomer is increased by the ratio of the total thickness
(reinforcement plus elastomer) to elastomer thickness. For typical SREBs, the elastomer and
steel thicknesses are 12 mm and 1.9 mm respectively. Thus the limiting shear strain based on the
thickness of elastomer is 1.92.

The conclusion is that in broad terms these bearings with small thickness compared to
their plan dimension can experience a displacement of twice the thickness of elastomer before
they run the risk of damage by sliding. This is quite comparable to the shear maxima usually
imposed on building bearings in current practice in North America although it is somewhat less
than that permitted in Japan. It is also worth noting that this is a lower bound to the full rollover
displacement since in reality the reinforcement is not completely flexible, and the small but finite
bending stiffness will allow the bearing to displace further.

Stability

The basic premise for the analysis of these bearings is that the regions of the bearing that have
rolled off the rigid supports are free of all stress and that the volume under the contact area has
constant shear stress. Under this assumption, the active area that produces the force of resistance
due to displacement  , is 2b   , and thus the force F (per unit width of the bearing) is
F  G  2b    . Since    / tr ,

G
F  2b     (8)
tr

and consequently the force displacement curve has zero slope when dF / d  0 , or

b (9)

where, recall, b is half the width of the bearing. The implication of this result is that the bearing
remains stable in the sense of positive tangential stiffness so long as the displacement is less than
half the width in the direction of the displacement. For a bearing with a low profile, the full
rollover limit computed in the previous section will be reached before   b . On the other hand,
for a bearing with a slender profile, instability will arise before   b .

This simplified calculation neglects the contribution of the rollover potions. A refined
model that takes into account the contribution of the rollover portions has been presented in Van
Engelen et al. [31]. The stability of elastomeric bearings with flexible reinforcement has been
further investigated by Kelly and Marsico [33] and de Raaf et al. [41].

Simplified Design Criteria for a Bearing with Flexible Reinforcement

As a result of the two limiting displacement criteria outlined in the previous two sections, it is
possible to determine a simple design criterion for this type of bearing. We need only to
determine a maximum required design displacement which normally would depend on the site,
the anticipated isolation period and damping. If we denote this by  then the requirement for
positive incremental horizontal stiffness requires that the width 2b of the bearing in the direction
of the displacement be at least twice the displacement, i.e. 2b  2 and the requirement that the
vertical faces should not contact the horizontal support surfaces means that the total elastomer
thickness tr should be not less than half of the displacement, i.e. tr   / 2 .

Conclusions

This paper has described two potential approaches to the provision of low-cost, light-weight
elastomeric isolation systems. Both types have been extensively tested in laboratory test
programs and have also been verified by finite element studies. The most important aspects of
both types of these bearings are that they do not have thick end plates, they are not bonded to the
top and bottom support surfaces, and their reinforcement is very flexible. They both have much
less severe bonding requirements than conventional isolators and have the potential of lending
themselves to mass-production manufacturing, which will be required for any type of retrofit of
vulnerable buildings in the urban environment.

Acknowledgments

The financial support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
(NSERC) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) are greatly appreciated.
 References

1. Melkumyan MG. Seismic isolation experience accumulated in Armenia. Proc. 14th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 2008.
2. Kelly JM. Analysis of fiber-reinforced elastomeric isolators. Journal of Seismology and Earthquake
Engineering 1999; 2 (1): 19–34.
3. Kelly JM, Takhirov SM. Analytical and experimental study of fiber-reinforced strip isolators. Report No. PEER
2001/11. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 1999.
4. Kelly JM, Takhirov SM. Experimental study of steel reinforced rubber bearings with various shim thicknesses.
Proc. SEM X International Congress and Exposition on Experimental and Applied Mechanics, Costa Mesa, CA,
2004.
5. Moon BY, Kang GJ, Kang BS, Kelly JM. Design and manufacturing of fiber reinforced elastomeric isolator for
seismic isolation. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 2002; 130–131: 145–150.
6. Moon BY, Kang GJ, Kang BS, Kelly JM. Mechanical properties of seismic isolation system with fiber-
reinforced bearing of strip type. International Applied Mechanics 2003; 39 (10): 1231–1239.
7. Toopchi-Nezhad H, Tait MJ, Drysdale RG. Testing and modeling of square carbon fiber-reinforced elastomeric
seismic isolators. Structural Control and Health Monitoring 2008; 15 (6): 876–900.
8. Toopchi-Nezhad H, Tait MJ, Drysdale RG. Lateral response evaluation of fiber-reinforced Neoprene seismic
isolators utilized in an unbonded application. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 2008; 134 (10): 1627–
1637.
9. Russo G, Pauletta M, Cortesia A. A study on experimental shear behaviour of fiber-reinforced elastomeric
isolators with various fiber layouts, elastomers and aging conditions. Engineering Structures 2013; 52: 422–
433.
10. Toopchi-Nezhad H, Tait MJ, Drysdale RG. Shake table study on an ordinary low-rise building seismically
isolated with SU-FREIs (stable unbonded-fiber reinforced elastomeric isolators). Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 2009; 38 (11): 1335–1357.
11. Toopchi-Nezhad H, Tait MJ, Drysdale RG. Bonded versus unbonded strip fiber reinforced elastomeric isolators:
finite element analysis. Composite Structures 2011; 93 (2): 850–859.
12. Van Engelen NC, Tait MJ, Konstantinidis D. Horizontal behaviour of stable unbonded fiber reinforced
elastomeric isolators (SU-FREIs) with holes. Proc. 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon,
Portugal, 2012.
13. Konstantinidis D, Kelly JM, Makris N. Experimental investigation on the seismic response of bridge bearings.
Report No. EERC 2008/02, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 2008.
14. Kelly JM, Konstantinidis D. Low-cost seismic isolators for housing in highly-seismic developing countries.
Proc. ASSISi 10th World Conference on Seismic Isolation, Energy Dissipation and Active Vibrations Control of
Structures, Istanbul, Turkey, 2007.
15. Kelly JM, Konstantinidis D. Mechanics of Rubber Bearings for Seismic and Vibration Isolation. Wiley:
Chichester, UK, 2011.
16. Tsai HC, Kelly JM. Stiffness analysis of fiber-reinforced rectangular isolators. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics (ASCE) 2002; 128 (4): 462–470.
17. Kelly JM. Seismic isolation systems for developing countries. Earthquake Spectra 2002; 18 (3): 385–406.
18. Kelly JM, Calabrese A. Mechanics of fiber reinforced bearings. Report No. PEER 2012/101. Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 2012.
19. Tsai HC. Compression stiffness of infinite-strip bearings of laminated elastic material interleaving with flexible
reinforcements. International Journal of Solids and Structures 2004; 41 (24): 6647–6660.
20. Tsai HC. Compression stiffness of circular bearings of laminated elastic material interleaving with flexible
reinforcements. International Journal of Solids and Structures 2006; 46 (11): 3484–3497.
21. Pinarbasi S, Mengi Y. Elastic layers bonded to flexible reinforcements. International Journal of Solids and
Structures 2008; 45 (3): 794–820.
22. Pinarbasi S, Okay F. Compression of hollow-circular fiber-reinforced rubber bearings. Structural Engineering
and Mechanics 2011; 38 (3): 361–384.
23. Toopchi-Nezhad H, Tait MJ, Drysdale RG. Stiffness analysis of fiber-reinforced rubber isolators under
compressive loads: a finite element approach. Proc. 9th US National and 10th Canadian Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Toronto, Canada, 2010.
24. Toopchi-Nezhad H, Tait MJ, Drysdale RG. Influence of thickness of individual elastomer layers (first shape
factor) on the response of unbonded fiber-reinforced elastomeric bearings. Journal of Composite Materials
2013, 47 (27): 3433–3450.
25. Osgooei PM, Tait MJ, Konstantinidis D. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of circular fiber-reinforced
elastomeric bearings under compression. Composite Structures 2014; 108: 191–204.
26. Van Engelen NC, Tait MJ, Konstantinidis D. Vertical response behaviour of stable unbonded fiber reinforced
elastomeric isolators (SU-FREIs) with holes in the loaded surface. Proc. Canadian Society for Civil
Engineering Annual General Conference, Edmonton, Canada, 2012.
27. Van Engelen NC, Osgooei PM, Tait MJ, Konstantinidis D. Experimental and finite element study on the
compression properties of modified rectangular fiber reinforced elastomeric isolators (MR-FREIs). Engineering
Structures (in review).
28. Kelly JM, Konstantinidis D. Effect of friction on unbonded elastomeric bearings. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics (ASCE) 2009; 135 (9): 953–960.
29. Rastgoo Moghadam S, Konstantinidis D. The effect of slip on the compressive behavior of unbonded rubber
pads: a finite element approach. Proc. 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
30. Peng TB, Zhang H, Li JZ, Li WX. Pilot study on the horizontal shear behavior of FRP rubber isolators. Journal
of Vibration and Shock 2009; 28: 127–130. (in Chinese)
31. Van Engelen NC, Tait MJ, Konstantinidis D. Simplified model of the shear behaviour of unbonded fiber
reinforced elastomeric isolators (FREIs). Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) (in review)
32. Mordini A, Strauss A. An innovative earthquake isolation system using fibre reinforced rubber bearings.
Engineering Structures 2008; 30 (10): 2739–2751.
33. Kelly JM, Marsico MR. Stability and post-buckling behavior in nonbolted elastomeric isolators. Seismic
Isolation and Protection Systems 2010; 1 (1): 41–54.
34. Gerhaher U, Strauss A, Bergmeister K. Numerical modeling of elastomeric bearings in structural engineering.
Advances in Materials Sciences 2011; 11 (3): 51–63.
35. Osgooei PM, Tait MJ, Konstantinidis D. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of square fiber-reinforced
elastomeric isolators (FREIs) under lateral loads. Proc. Canadian Society for Civil Engineering Annual General
Conference, Edmonton, Canada, 2012.
36. Osgooei PM, Tait MJ, Konstantinidis D. Finite element analysis of unbonded square fiber-reinforced
elastomeric isolators (FREIs) under lateral loading in different directions. Composite Structures 2014 (in press).
37. Van Engelen NC, Osgooei PM, Tait MJ, Konstantinidis D. Partially bonded fiber reinforced elastomeric
isolators (PB-FREIs). Structural Control and Health Monitoring (in review).
38. Van Engelen NC, Konstantinidis D, Tait M. Investigation of the shear behaviour of unbonded fiber reinforced
elastomeric isolators (FREIs) with modified support geometry. Proc. 3rd Specialty Conference on Disaster
Prevention and Mitigation, Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Montreal, Canada, 2013.
39. Van Engelen NC, Tait MJ, Konstantinidis D. Experimental investigation of unbonded fiber reinforced
elastomeric isolators with modified support geometry. Proc. 10th National Conference in Earthquake
Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
40. Toopchi-Nezhad H, Drysdale RG, Tait MJ. Parametric study on the response of stable unbonded-fiber
reinforced elastomeric isolators (SU-FREIs). Journal of Composite Materials 2009; 43 (15): 1569–1587.
41. de Raaf MG, Tait MJ, Toopchi-Nezhad H. Stability of fiber-reinforced elastomeric bearings in an unbonded
application. Journal of Composite Materials 2011; 45 (18): 1873–1884.