A STUDY ON THE LIMIT STATE PERFORMANCE OF ELASTOMERIC

ISOLATORS
Amarnath KASALANATI, Director of Engineering, Dynamic Isolation Systems, Inc., 3470 Mount Diablo Blvd,
A200, Lafayette, CA 94549, USA.
Email: akasalanati@dis-inc.com
David DICKSON, Vice President of Sales and Marketing, Dynamic Isolation Systems, Inc., 3470 Mount Diablo
Blvd, A200, Lafayette, CA 94549, USA.
Email: ddickson@dis-inc.com

Keywords: Isolation, Elastomeric, Large-Strain, Experimental

Introduction
Seismic isolation bearings are designed to withstand loads and displacements resulting from a
maximum predicted earthquake ground motion. This ground motion is probabilistically
determined and depends on several variables. Over the past decade, some strong earthquakes
(Kobe, Chi-Chi and Izmit) have provided more insight into previously not well understood
concepts such as near field effects, directivity, depth of fault, etc. In addition, some uncertainty
remains in the assumed design variables. As a result, isolators may be subjected to larger
displacements during seismic events than expected in the design. The performance of
elastomeric isolators beyond the normal design limits is of interest to the designer to determine
the margin of safety beyond the design displacements.

Large shear strain testing data for small to medium-scale isolators (500 to 800 mm diameter) are
available in the literature. In the past six years, much larger isolators (1500 mm diameter) have
found application in several projects. Scaling of ultimate strain test results over such a large
range is complicated due to an order of magnitude increase in volume of rubber and associated
difference in thermal characteristics between the large and reduced-scale isolators. Thus, the
need to understand the ultimate behavior of large isolators has arisen over the past few years.

This paper examines the limit state performance of large isolators. The largest isolator tested as a
part of this study is a 1300mm diameter isolator tested to an ultimate shear strain of 446%. In
addition, isolators of 500 mm and 800 mm diameters were tested in excess of 400% shear strain
as part of this study. Elastomeric isolators (RBs) and Lead Rubber Isolators (LRBs) were
examined for their performance as a part of a larger general study. However, only the
elastomeric isolators are presented in this study to provide a uniform comparison. The
experiments on the 1300 mm isolator were carried out at the testing facility of University of
California at San Diego. This paper discusses the behavior of the isolators at these high strains.
The test facilities, specimens, procedures and results are presented in the subsequent sections.

Test Specimens
Three isolators were tested as part of this study: isolators with bonded diameters of 497 mm, 813
mm and 1300 mm. (These isolators are referred by their nominal sizes: 500, 800 and 1300 mm.)
These isolators had the layer shape factor (S = Db/4ti) in the range of 34 to 36 and the secondary
shape factor (S2 = Db/Σti) in the range of 5.2 to 5.4, where Db is the bonded diameter and ti is the
layer thickness. Rubber with shear modulus (G) of 0.39 N/mm2 (G4) was used in all three
isolators. Small modifications were made to account for variation of G value over this wide
range of diameters. Thus, these isolators are similar with respect to shape factors and rubber
modulus with the main difference being the change in the diameter. Therefore, this study
provided a uniform basis to examine the ultimate strain capacity of large isolators.

Test Facilities
Large isolators of 1300 mm were tested at the Caltrans SRMD (Seismic Response Modification
Device) Testing Facility at University of California San Diego (Benzoni and Sieble, 19981).
SRMD test rig is a single-isolator-testing-facility with 4 m x 4 m x 1.5 m space for
accommodating a test isolator. Figures 1 and 2 show the views of the isolator in the SRMD test
rig. The test isolator was installed on the SRMD shaking table/platen and was connected to the
overhead reaction frame. The vertical load on the isolator is applied with the compression
between the table and reaction frame and is maintained through the test by a force control
algorithm. The horizontal motion is applied with the combination of four horizontal MTS servo-
controlled actuators. Forces are obtained from the four load cells mounted on each horizontal
actuator of the SRMD rig and from pressure transducers. A data correction procedure was
applied in order to remove force components due to inertia and machine friction. The test rig is
capable of applying a compressive force of 53,000 kN in and a shear force of 8,900 kN. The
displacement capacity is 1.22 m.

Figure 1: Schematic of SRMD Test Machine Figure 2: Installed DIS Bearing in the Test Machine

Isolators with 500 mm and 800 mm were tested at the DIS testing facility in Sparks, NV. This
test machine tests isolators in pairs and can accommodate up to 1500 mm diameter isolators for
routine testing and 800 mm isolators for ultimate strain testing. Figures 3 and 4 show the isolator
views of isolators in the test rig. Isolators are loaded by two axial load hydraulic rams and the
shear displacement is applied with the third hydraulic ram. A load cell mounted between the
isolators and the ram measures the isolator force. Since two isolators are tested together, no
machine friction adjustments are needed. The force measured is divided by two to obtain the
average isolator force. The displacement is measured by a wire potentiometer. The test rig can be
operated in force control or displacement control modes. The test rig is capable of applying a
compressive load of 22,000 kN and shear force of 3000 kN per isolator. The displacement
capacity is 760 mm.

Figure 3: Schematic of DIS Test Machine Figure 4: Front View of Installed Isolators

Test Procedures
Isolators were tested to a combination of compressive stresses (9.8 N/mm2, 19.6 N/mm2 etc.) and
moderate shear strains (100%, 200%, etc.) to obtain the basic performance characteristics.
Subsequently, the shear strain was increased progressively until the bearings failed in shear. This
resulted in 12 to 16 tests prior to the failure test. All tests were performed at 25 mm/sec velocity.
Compressive stress was calculated using the undeformed bonded area of rubber.

Discussion of Test Results

500 mm Isolators: Two isolators were tested together in double-isolator-configuration. Linear
Force-Displacement loops were observed until shear strains of 250%. Beyond the shear strain of
250%, stiffening of rubber was clearly observed. The isolators exhibited satisfactory behavior up
to 550% strain under a compressive stress of 19.6 N/mm2 (Figure 5). During the next test with
9.8 N/mm2 and 600%, the isolators successfully completed 600% strain in one direction and then
one isolator failed at 574% in the other direction. The other isolator had a failure strain in excess
of 600%, but the result of the first broken isolator (574%) was noted as the ultimate strain.
Isolators exhibited positive incremental force up to the failure point. The shear stress on the
bonded rubber area at the time of failure was 7.3 N/mm2. It is of interest to note that there was no
overlap area between top and bottom surfaces beyond 540% strain. However, the isolators
carried a vertical load of 1900 kN (compressive stress of 9.8 N/mm2) throughout this test and the
Force-Displacement loop showed positive incremental stiffness. Isolators were tested for 15
different tests having a total of 38 fully reversed cycles prior to failure.

800 mm Isolators: Two isolators were tested together in double-isolator-configuration. These

isolators exhibited linear Force-Displacement relationship until 250% shear strain. The stiffness
in the range of 300 to 400% was three to four times compared to stiffness under 200% strain
(Figure 6). Isolators exhibited positive incremental stiffness until the failure test. The failure was
at 450% with a compressive stress of 9.8 N/mm2. The shear stress at the time of failure was 3.7
N/mm2. The second isolator did not fail during the test. The isolators underwent 12 different tests
having a total of 35 fully reversed cycles prior to failure.
 Figure 5: 500 mm; Strain: 400%, Stress: 9.8 & 19.6 N/mm 2
800

600

9.8 N/mm 2 19.6 N/mm 2

400

200
Force (kN)

0
-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500

-200

-400

-600

-800
Displacement (mm)

Figure 6: 800 mm; Strain: 400%, Stress: 9.8 & 19.6 N/mm 2
2000

1500

9.8 N/mm 2 19.6 N/mm 2

1000

500
Force (kN)

0
-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

-500

-1000

-1500

-2000
Displacement (mm)
1300 mm Isolator: One isolator was tested in the single-isolator-testing-configuration at the
SRMD test facility at UCSD. The test regimen for this isolator consisted of larger compressive
stresses than the previously discussed isolators. Again, linear behavior was observed until 250%
shear strain with the subsequent stiffening that was about 6 times the stiffness under 200%. The
isolator satisfactorily carried a compressive stress of 29.4 N/mm2 at 400% (Figure 7). In the
following test with compressive stress of 14.7 N/mm2, the isolator failed at 446%. Shear stress at
the time of failure was 3.6 N/mm2. Prior to the failure test, the isolator went through 16 tests
consisting of 42 fully reversed cycles. The 1300mm diameter isolator tested to 446% shear strain
represents the most severe test performed on such a large isolator anywhere in the world to date.

Table 1 summarizes the physical characteristics and details of ultimate strain tests. Figure 8
compares the ultimate strain tests of these three types of isolators on a stress-strain plane.

Table 1: Dimensions and Ultimate Strain Test Results

Isolator 500mm 800mm 1300mm
Bonded Diameter mm 497 813 1300
Mandrel Hole Diameter mm 30 50 70
Layer Thickness mm 3.7 6 9
Number of Layers 25 25 28
Cover Thickness mm 12 19 19
2
Shear Modulus of Rubber N/mm 0.39 0.39 0.39
S1 33.6 33.9 36.1
S2 5.4 5.4 5.2
2
Stress at Failure N/mm 9.8 9.8 14.7
Strain at Failure % 574 450 446

AASHTO Based Capacity Calculations

American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) provides
formulations for calculating shear strains imposed in laminated rubber bearings under
compression, shear and rotation (AASHTO Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design,
19992). Further, AASHTO provides design limits on strain combinations under different load
conditions. The theoretical load capacity of the isolator is determined by these formulations.
Herein, a brief discussion of these formulations is presented.
3P(1 + 8Gk S 2 / K )
Shear strain due to compression (for S1 > 15, Section 14.2.1) : γc =
4Gk SAr
Shear strain due to seismic lateral displacement (14.2.3): γ s ,eq = d t / Tr
B 2θ
Shear strain due to rotation (14.2.4): γr =
2ti Tr
where P is the vertical load on the isolator, G is the shear modulus, k is a material constant in
the range of 0.7 to 0.9 (depending on the rubber modulus), S is the layer or first shape factor, K is
the bulk modulus of rubber (approximately 2000 MPa), Ar is the overlap area between the top
and bottom bonded areas of the displaced bearing, dt is the seismic displacement, Tr is the total
rubber thickness and θ is the rotation imposed on the isolator.
 Figure 7: 1300 mm; Strain: 400%, Stress: 14.7 & 29.4 N/mm 2
5000

4000
14.7 N/mm 2 29.4 N/mm 2
3000

2000

1000
Force (kN)

0
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
-1000

-2000

-3000

-4000

-5000
Displacement (mm)

Figure 8: Shear Stress vs. Shear Strain Behavior at Failure

8

500 mm 800 mm 1300 mm

6
Shear Stress (N/mm2)

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Shear Strain (%)
Section 14.3 of AASHTO provides the limit on strain combination due to load, rotation and
displacement under seismic conditions as: γ c + γ s ,eq + 0.5γ r ≤ 5.5 . The strain combinations on
tested isolators far exceeded this limit well before the ultimate tests. Table 2 examines the strain
combinations on isolators during the 400% shear strain tests. (400% is the highest shear strain
common to all three types of isolators with a fully reversed test cycle.) Ratios of excess capacity
based on strain, load and displacement are calculated in this table. The strain combination
( γ c + γ s ,eq + 0.5γ r ) under a test condition is calculated and compared to the AASHTO limit of
5.5 to obtain the “Strain based ratio of excess capacity.” The load that results in a strain
combination of 5.5 at a shear strain of 400% (i.e., γ c + 4.0 + 0.5γ r = 5.5 ) is calculated by
rearranging the AASHTO equation 14.2.1. This load is compared to test load to obtain the “Load
based ratio of excess capacity.” Finally, the displacement that results in a strain combination of
5.5 under load used in the test is calculated by trial and error. This displacement is compared to
the test displacement to obtain the “displacement based ratio of excess capacity.”

Table 2: Ratios of Excess Capacity for Isolator at 400% Shear Strain

Isolator 500 mm 800 mm 1300 mm

2
Compressive Stress N/mm 19.6 19.6 29.4
Shear Strain % 400 400 400
AASHTO γ c - 21.8 20.7 39.5
AASHTO γ s,eq - 4 4 4
AASHTO γ r - 0 0 0
AASHTO based allowable strain - 5.5 5.5 5.5
Tested γ s + γ s,eq + 0.5 γ r - 25.8 24.7 43.5
Ratio of Excess Capacity (Strain based) - 4.7 4.5 7.9
AASHTO based allowable load* kN 260 730 1480
Tested Load kN 3780 10130 38900
Ratio of Excess Capacity (Load based) - 14.5 13.9 26.3
AASHTO based allowable Displacement** mm 105 170 68
Tested Displacement mm 371 600 1008
Ratio of Excess Capacity (Displacement based) - 3.5 3.5 14.8
* Load at which the AASHTO combination ( γ c + γ s ,eq + 0.5γ r ) becomes 5.5 at a shear strain of 400%
** Displacement at which AASHTO combination ( γ c + γ s ,eq + 0.5γ r ) becomes 5.5 for a stress shown in top row

Table 3 presents the strain combination of the isolators at the point of failure. The shear strain
due to compression, γc, could not be calculated for 500 mm isolator during the failure test, since
the shear displacement exceeds the diameter of the isolator and thus there was no overlap area.
The combinations are presented for the other two isolators along with the factors of safety
against failure.
 Table 3: Factor of Safety for Isolators at the Failure Condition

Isolator 500 mm 800 mm 1300 mm

2
Compressive Stress N/mm 9.8 9.8 14.7
Shear Strain % 575 450 400
AASHTO γ c - ∞ 19.5 41.4
AASHTO γ s,eq - 5.75 4.5 4.46
AASHTO γ r - 0 0 0
AASHTO based allowable strain - 5.5 5.5 5.5
Tested γ s + γ s,eq + 0.5 γ r - ∞ 24 45.9
Factor of Safety (Strain based) - - 4.4 8.3
AASHTO based allowable load* kN - 260 490
Tested Load kN 1900 5065 19450
Factor of Safety (Load based) - - 19.5 39.7
AASHTO based allowable Displacement** mm 206 334 393
Tested Displacement mm 533 674 1123
Factor of Safety (Displacement based) - 2.6 2.0 2.9
* Load at which the AASHTO combination ( γ c + γ s ,eq + 0.5γ r ) becomes 5.5 at failure shear strain
** Displacement at which AASHTO combination ( γ c + γ s ,eq + 0.5γ r ) becomes 5.5 for a stress shown in top row

Conclusions
This study demonstrates that the elastomeric isolators can undergo very large shear strains and
still exhibit good hysteretic behavior. The 1300mm diameter isolator tested to 446% shear strain
represents the most severe test performed on such a large isolator anywhere in the world to date.
Tested isolators accommodated strain combinations that are two to four times the values allowed
by commonly used procedures and exhibited satisfactory behavior. While this study does not
endorse using isolators to such high strains, it highlights the reserve capacity available in well-
made Elastomeric Isolators.

References

1. Benzoni, G, Seible, F., “Design of the Caltrans Seismic Response Modification Device
(SRMD) Test Facility,” Proceedings, U.S.-Italy Workshop on Seismic protective Systems for
Bridges, Report MCEER-98-0015, 1998, MCEER, Buffalo, NY, USA.

2. American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), “Guide

Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design,” 1999, Washington, DC, USA.