Effects of Large Cumulative Travel on the Behavior

of Lead-Rubber Seismic Isolation Bearings

Ioannis V. Kalpakidis1; Michael C. Constantinou2; and Andrew S. Whittaker3

Abstract: Lead-rubber bearings are seismic isolators that have been used extensively to protect buildings, bridges, and mission-critical
infrastructure from the damaging effects of earthquake shaking. In bridges, lead-rubber bearings are subjected to continuous movement
due to service 共traffic兲 and temperature effects. This paper presents data on the effects of cumulative travel on the mechanical properties
of lead-rubber bearings based on an experimental investigation of both medium- and small-sized bearings. A theoretical interpretation of
the test results is presented.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲ST.1943-541X.0000141
CE Database subject headings: Lead; Rubber; Service loads; Thermal factors; Strain hardening; Isolation; Seismic effects;
Earthquakes.
Author keywords: Lead-rubber bearing; Cumulative travel; Service load, Thermal load; Strain hardening; Characteristic strength;
Recrystallization.

Introduction Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design 共AASHTO 1999兲 that

Lead-rubber bearings are constructed of alternating layers of rub-
ber and steel shim plates bonded together and fitted at the center
with a core of lead 共Skinner et al. 1993; Naeim and Kelly 1999;
Constantinou et al. 2007兲. Lead-rubber bearings are characterized
by two important properties: 共1兲 postelastic stiffness that is pri-
marily dependent on the mechanical properties of rubber and 共2兲
characteristic strength 共or force intercept at zero displacement兲
that is dependent on the mechanical properties of lead and the
degree of its confinement. These properties are affected by the
environment in which the bearing operates 共e.g., temperature and
duration of exposure to that temperature兲, aging and the history of
loading. The latter effects are complex and may be classified as
共1兲 short-term caused in large amplitude seismic motions due to
heating of the lead core and 共2兲 long-term caused by small am-
plitude slow cumulative motion caused by service 共traffic兲 and
thermal loadings. The reader is referred to Constantinou et al.
共2007兲 for a detailed discussion of these effects.
This paper concentrates on the effects of prior large cumula-
tive travel 共a long-term effect兲 on the mechanical properties of
lead-rubber bearings. Despite requirements for conducting “wear
and fatigue testing” of isolators in the 1999 AASHTO Guide
1
Postdoctoral Associate, Dept. of Civil, Structural, and Environmental
Engineering, 224 Ketter Hall, State Univ. of New York at Buffalo, Buf-
falo, NY 14260-4300 共corresponding author兲. E-mail: ik8@buffalo.edu
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering,
132 Ketter Hall, State Univ. of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260-
4300. E-mail: constan1@buffalo.edu
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering,
230 Ketter Hall, State Univ. of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260-
4300. E-mail: awhittak@buffalo.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 29, 2008; approved on
November 2, 2009; published online on November 4, 2009. Discussion
period open until October 1, 2010; separate discussions must be submit-
ted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 5, May 1, 2010. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/
2010/5-491–501/$25.00.
include a requirement for testing isolators at cumulative move-
ment of at least 1.6 km, there are no published data on the behav-
ior of lead-rubber bearings prior to and after such tests. Some data
on the effect of prior cumulative travel on the frictional properties
of sliding isolators may be found in Constantinou et al. 共1999兲.
The first data on these effects on lead-rubber bearings were pre-
sented by the writers in Constantinou et al. 共2007兲. These data are
further described in this paper and are critically analyzed. It is
concluded that prior cumulative travel has important effects on
the characteristic strength of lead-rubber bearings provided that
the amplitude of cyclic motion is large enough to activate strain-
hardening. Such effects can only be caused by thermal loading
whereas traffic loading effects typically result in sufficiently small
motion so that these effects are not observed.
An understanding of the effects of travel on the behavior of
seismic isolation bearings is important and such effects must be
considered in design of isolation systems 共AASHTO 1999兲. At
this time, property modification factors are computed for the pur-
pose of analysis and design and are used to modify the best esti-
mate values of the mechanical properties of isolation bearings to
establish likely upper and lower bounds on the properties of the
bearings over their design life, which is generally more than 50
years. Factors are computed for in-service effects including travel,
aging, contamination and temperature. Here, we focus on the ef-
fects of travel and provide recommendations for appropriate prop-
erty modification factors for lead-rubber bearings.
The work presented in this paper started in 2003 when the
writers tested two bearings to investigate effects of travel on the
characteristic strength of lead-rubber bearings. This was done as
part of the prototype testing of bearings for a major bridge project
because of concerns that the strength of lead-rubber bearings may
experience significant changes that should be addressed in the
design process. Experiments for evaluating the effects of travel
were conducted at high and low velocities on a pair of lead-rubber
bearings prior to and following a slow cumulative travel test with
total travel of 1.6 km. At the time that the 2003 tests were con-
ducted, it was neither known nor anticipated that amplitude of

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2010 / 491

Downloaded 27 Apr 2010 to 128.205.20.6. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org

Fig. 1. Medium-sized lead-rubber bearing tested for 1.6 km of cu-
mulative travel
motion in cumulative travel tests might have an important effect
and testing was conducted at an amplitude that yielded the lead
core. The tests showed that travel resulted in a significant increase
in the strength of the bearings at low speeds, a condition of im-
portance in design for service load conditions. The same bearings
were tested again in 2007 to investigate and evaluate any possible
effects of confinement 共Constantinou et al. 2007兲. Repetition of
the high- and low-velocity tests showed that the strength increase
was permanent and was not due to confinement but rather was
due to a permanent change in the lead composing the core of the
bearing. Further testing was then conducted on another pair of
bearings using the same process, namely, subjecting each bearing
to a high- and a low-velocity test before and after a travel test and
comparing the results prior to and after the travel test. However in
these tests, the amplitude of motion during the travel tests was
different between the two bearings to separate the effects of ther-
mal loading 共large amplitude motion causing substantial yielding兲
and traffic loading 共small amplitude motion causing insignificant
yielding兲.
BEARING No. 1, BEFORE 1.6km CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST
(5 cycles, peak velocity 250mm/sec)
400
200
Lateral Force (kN)
0 0
-200
-400
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 2. Force-displacement loops of medium-sized lead-rubber Bearing No. 1 under seismic and service load conditions prior to the cumulative
travel test
492 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2010
Downloaded 27 Apr 2010 to 128.205.20.6. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
2003 Experimental Program
The experimental program described in this paper was conducted
on two medium-sized bearings 共diameter of 508 mm兲 and two
small-sized bearings 共diameter of 184 mm兲 at the University at
Buffalo between years 2003 and 2007. This section describes the
testing of the two medium-sized lead-rubber bearings that was
conducted in 2003 as part of the prototype bearing testing pro-
gram for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.
Testing was conducted at low speeds that are representative of
service loading 共thermal expansion and contraction兲 and high
speeds representative of seismic loading prior to and following a
low speed, small amplitude test with cumulative travel of 1.6 km
共1 mile兲 共Constantinou et al. 2007兲. Fig. 1 presents drawings of
the bearings.
The bearings were tested individually to obtain their mechani-
cal properties under thermal and dynamic loads and as a pair in
the low speed, 1.6 km cumulative movement test 共Constantinou et
al. 2007兲. Specifically, the bearings were tested in the following
sequence:
1. Each bearing was tested under vertical load of 1,800 to 1,863
kN and three cycles of constant velocity motion of 0.15 mm/
sec and amplitude of 75 mm;
2. Each bearing was tested under vertical load of 1,363 to 1,425
kN and five cycles of sinusoidal velocity motion of peak
value of 250 mm/sec and amplitude of 114 mm. Note that the
load on the bearings under dynamic conditions is less than
under the service load conditions based on the assumption of
a smaller live load effect during seismic conditions. Figs. 2
and 3 present the recorded lateral force-displacement loops
for lead-rubber Bearings No. 1 and No. 2, respectively. One
should note the significant increase 共factor of 2.5兲 in the
characteristic strength of bearings in the dynamic test in
these figures. This effect is due to the strain rate dependency
of the effective yield stress of lead 共Skinner et al. 1993;
Constantinou et al. 2007兲;
3. Both bearings 共tested as a pair兲 were subjected to vertical
load of 1,825 kN and constant velocity motion of 3.4 mm/
sec, amplitude of 25 mm and a total of 15,840 cycles, result-
ing in a travel of 1,584 m. The total movement was intended
to represent the lifetime effect of traffic loading for which the
BEARING No. 1, BEFORE 1.6km CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST
(3 cycles, constant velocity 0.15mm/sec)
400
200
Lateral Force (kN)
-200
-400
150 -100 -50 0 50 100
Displacement (mm)
 BEARING No. 2, BEFORE 1.6km CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST BEARING No. 2, BEFORE 1.6km CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST
(5 cycles, peak velocity 250mm/sec) (3 cycles, constant velocity 0.15mm/sec)
400 400

200 200
Lateral Force (kN)

Lateral Force (kN)

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -100 -50 0 50 100

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 3. Force-displacement loops of medium-sized lead-rubber Bearing No. 2 under seismic and service load conditions prior to the cumulative
travel test

velocity should have been about 1 mm/sec, the amplitude
should have been about 1 mm and applied intermittently so
that the bearing temperature remained constant 共Constanti-
nou et al. 2007兲. However, time constraints required the use
of a higher speed and continuous motion. Note that lifetime
travel in bridge bearings includes both traffic and thermal
loading effects, of which the latter are of much larger ampli-
tude but accumulate to a small portion of the total travel. The
testing was conducted over a period of 19 days with 8–10 h
of testing per day. The bearings were cooled during testing
with large fans that maintained a temperature of the testing
arrangement at 29° C after stabilization 共at the start of test
the temperature was 23° C兲. The internal temperature in the
lead core was not recorded. Fig. 4 presents the recorded
loops 共the force is from two specimens tested as a pair兲 in the
first five cycles 共1 to 5兲 and cycles 15,823 to 15,828. There is
little difference in the force-displacement loops of the bear-
ings between the start and the end of testing. There is a small
change in the hysteresis loop in the first five cycles due to
small increases in the temperature of the lead core. Once the
temperature of the lead core stabilized, the loop shape did not
change. The loops demonstrate that the imposed amplitude of
motion caused significant yielding of the lead core;
4. Each bearing was tested under vertical load of 1,802 to 1,980
kN and three cycles of constant velocity motion of 0.15 mm/
sec and amplitude of 75 mm;
5. Each bearing was tested under vertical load of 1,806 to 1,848
kN and five cycles of sinusoidal velocity motion of peak
value of 250 mm/sec and amplitude of 114 mm. Note that the
load on the bearings should have been about 1,400 kN but
the bearings were loaded to a higher load due to error in the
testing arrangement. Figs. 5 and 6 present the recorded lat-
eral force-displacement loops for lead-rubber Bearings No. 1
and No. 2, respectively, for the dynamic sinusoidal test and
the thermal loading test, which were conducted after the 1.6
km cumulative travel test. A comparison of the results in
Figs. 2 and 3 共prior to the cumulative travel test兲 with those
in Figs. 5 and 6 共after the cumulative travel test兲 reveals a
minor increase in the characteristic strength in the dynamic
test and a major increase in the characteristic strength in the
service load test. The increase in the characteristic strength is
by a factor of approximately 1.75. Such change is substantial

CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST

CYCLES 1 to 5 CYCLES 15823 to 15828
400 400

200 200
Lateral Force (kN)

Lateral Force (kN)

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400
-30 -15 0 15 30 -30 -15 0 15 30

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 4. Force-displacement loops of the pair of medium-sized lead-rubber bearings in the cumulative travel test

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2010 / 493

Downloaded 27 Apr 2010 to 128.205.20.6. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 BEARING No. 1, AFTER 1.6km CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST BEARING No. 1, AFTER 1.6km CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST
(5 cycles, peak velocity 250mm/sec) (3 cycles, constant velocity 0.15mm/sec)
400 400

200 200
Lateral Force (kN)

Lateral Force (kN)

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -100 -50 0 50 100

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 5. Force-displacement loops of medium-sized lead-rubber Bearing No. 1 under seismic and service load conditions following the cumulative
travel test

and warrants consideration in analysis and design; and
6. Bearing No. 2 was also subjected to two slower tests after the
cumulative travel test. The bearing was subjected to axial
loads of 1,806 and 1,930 kN, respectively, in the two tests,
and one cycle of lateral movement at a constant velocity of
0.05 mm/sec and 0.00353 mm/sec, respectively. Fig. 7 pre-
sents the recorded force-displacement loops. There is an in-
significant change in characteristic strength as the velocity
reduces from 0.15 mm/sec 共Fig. 6兲 to 0.05 mm/sec and then
to 0.00353 mm/sec 共Fig. 7兲. The duration of one-cycle mo-
tion was 0.6, 1.8, and 24 h, respectively, which are represen-
tative of thermal loading.
On the basis of the results obtained in the 2003 tests, two
possible mechanisms that contributed to the observed increase in
strength of the lead-rubber bearings were identified
a. Increased confinement of lead, possibly due to the elevated
temperature in the cumulative travel testing. Presumably, the
accelerated testing, in terms of both speed and continuity,
共1兲 increased the temperature of the lead core; 共2兲 increased
the pressure on the lead core; and 共3兲 promoted wedging of
lead between the shim plates, all likely leading to increases
in effective strength of the bearing. Note that lead confine-
ment is entirely of a mechanical nature and is unrelated to
changes in physical properties 共e.g., crystalline structure兲 of
lead. These effects, if they develop, are expected to reduce
in magnitude when the bearing relaxes over time when un-
loaded; and
b. Strain hardening of the lead induced by repeated and accu-
mulated plastic deformation. In this case the elevated tem-
perature of the test would have accelerated the process of
recrystallization and subsequent grain growth that would
have reduced the strain hardening effect 共Skinner et al.
1993; Van Vlack 1980兲. That is, had the cumulative travel
test been conducted at speeds that do not cause heating of
lead, the increase in strength should have been larger. Con-
versely, the imposed 25 mm amplitude of deformation,
which is much larger than that expected in service of about
1 mm, could have magnified the strain hardening effect.

BEARING No. 2, AFTER 1.6km CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST BEARING No. 2, AFTER 1.6km CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST
(5 cycles, peak velocity 250mm/sec) (3 cycles, constant velocity 0.15mm/sec)
400 400

200 200
Lateral Force (kN)

Lateral Force (kN)

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -100 -50 0 50 100

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 6. Force-displacement loops of medium-sized lead-rubber Bearing No. 2 under seismic and service load conditions following the cumulative
travel test

494 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2010

Downloaded 27 Apr 2010 to 128.205.20.6. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 BEARING No. 2, AFTER 1.6km CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST BEARING No. 2, AFTER 1.6km CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST
(1 cycle, constant velocity 0.05mm/sec) (1 cycle, constant velocity 0.00353mm/sec)
400 400

200 200
Lateral Force (kN)

Lateral Force (kN)

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400
-100 -50 0 50 100 -100 -50 0 50 100

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 7. Force-displacement loops of medium-sized lead-rubber Bearing No. 2 under thermal load conditions and extremely slow thermal load
conditions following the cumulative travel test

Investigation of Confinement Effects 2007 Experiments and the Effect of Plastic

To investigate the origin of the observed increase in strength, the
two bearings were kept unloaded 共so that any confinement effects
relax兲 for a period of nearly 3.5 years and retested in April 2007
at high speed and low speed: conditions identical to those in the
tests conducted prior to the cumulative travel test. Results from
these tests are shown in Figs. 8 and 9. The average normal load
on Bearings No. 1 and No. 2 in the dynamic test was 1,345 and
1,441 kN, respectively, and in the low speed test it was 1,902 and
1,903 kN, respectively. Comparison of the results in Figs. 5 and 6
with those in Figs. 8 and 9 demonstrate no change in the strength
of the bearings. Increased confinement could not have occurred.
Rather, the most likely explanation for the observed increase in
strength is strain hardening due to plastic deformation with a
likely reduction of the effects due to accelerated recrystallization
of lead resulting from the increased temperature.
Deformation
To further investigate the effects of travel on the strength of lead-
rubber bearings, testing was performed on two small-sized bear-
ings of the geometry shown in Fig. 10. The two bearings were
subjected to the same cumulative travel of 500 m but at different
amplitudes of motion to investigate the effect of plastic deforma-
tion on the characteristic strength. One bearing was tested at small
amplitude that was representative of traffic load effects and which
did not cause noticeable yielding of the lead core. The second
bearing was tested at large amplitude that represented the condi-
tions imposed in the medium-sized bearings tests and which re-
sulted in significant yielding of the lead core.
The testing conditions for the small-sized bearings were se-
lected by consideration of the similarity principles presented in
Kalpakidis and Constantinou 共2008兲 and consideration of the ac-

BEARING No. 1, 3.5 YEARS AFTER 1.6km CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST BEARING No. 1, 3.5 YEARS AFTER 1.6km CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST
(5 cycles, peak velocity 250mm/sec) (3 cycles, constant velocity 0.15mm/sec)
400 400

200 200
Lateral Force (kN)

Lateral Force (kN)

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -100 -50 0 50 100

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 8. Force-displacement loops of medium-sized lead-rubber Bearing No. 1 under seismic and service load conditions 3.5 years after the
cumulative travel test

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2010 / 495

Downloaded 27 Apr 2010 to 128.205.20.6. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 BEARING No. 2, 3.5 YEARS AFTER 1.6km CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST
(5 cycles, peak velocity 250mm/sec)
400
200
Lateral Force (kN)
0 0
-200
-400
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 9. Force-displacement loops of medium-sized lead-rubber Bearing No. 2 under seismic and service load conditions 3.5 years after the
cumulative travel test
tual conditions of operation of the bearings. In general under ser-
vice load conditions, bearings are subjected to motions of
amplitude and speed of the order of 1 mm and 1 mm/sec, respec-
tively 共Constantinou et al. 2007兲. The motion may accumulate to
a large travel but is intermittent so that heating effects in the lead
core are insignificant. In all tests presented in this section, the
vertical load on the bearing was 89 kN.
The two small-sized bearings were designated to have a length
scale factor of 2.5 as the bearing dimensions, other than the lead
core diameter, were approximately 2.5 times smaller than those of
the medium-sized bearing of Fig. 1. Bearing A was subjected to
125,000 cycles of 1 mm amplitude and 2.5 mm/sec constant ve-
locity motion for a total travel of 500 m. Based on the principles
of similarity established in Kalpakidis and Constantinou 共2008兲,
this corresponds to prototype motion of 2.5 mm amplitude, 1
mm/s velocity, and travel of 1,250 m. These are representative
conditions of motion under service conditions of medium-sized
bearings. Bearing B was subjected to 12,500 cycles of 10 mm
amplitude and 2.5 mm/s constant velocity motion for a total travel
of 500 m. These conditions correspond to prototype motion of 25
mm amplitude, 1 mm/s velocity, and travel of 1,250 m.
The main difference in the testing of the two bearings was the
amplitude of motion, which was expected to cause minimal in-
elastic action in the lead core of Bearing A and substantial inelas-
tic action in the lead core of Bearing B. Moreover, as a result of
differences in inelastic action in the two bearings, the temperature
of the lead core of Bearing B was expected to further increase
than that of Bearing A. Actual conditions in the field would not
result in any significant temperature increase as service load ef-
fects are intermittent. Such conditions cannot be generated in the
Fig. 10. Small-sized lead-rubber bearing
496 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2010
Downloaded 27 Apr 2010 to 128.205.20.6. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
BEARING No. 2, 3.5 YEARS AFTER 1.6km CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST
(3 cycles, constant velocity 0.15mm/sec)
400
200
Lateral Force (kN)
-200
-400
150 -100 -50 0 50 100
Displacement (mm)
laboratory because of the limited time available to conduct the
testing. Herein, the testing was conducted continuously over pe-
riods of about 7 h each day, followed by a pause and restart on the
next day. Each bearing required 10 days of testing. During testing,
the temperature on the free boundary of the bearings was moni-
tored and found to have increased only on Bearing B 共subjected to
the 10 mm amplitude兲 by about 5 ° C at the conclusion of testing
each day. The temperature of the lead core in the two bearings
should have been different by at least 5 ° C. While this difference
in temperature is small, it is sufficient to expedite recrystallization
in the lead core of Bearing B by comparison to that of Bearing A
共Skinner et al. 1993; Van Vlack 1980兲. Therefore, any differences
in the characteristic strength of the two bearings following the
cumulative travel test would be due to strain hardening effects
共because of the significant yielding in Bearing B兲 but somehow
mitigated by beneficial recrystallization in Bearing B.
The cumulative travel test of each bearing was preceded and
followed by a fast and a slow large amplitude test in order to
investigate the effect of travel on the characteristic strength for
conditions of high and low strain rates. The high speed tests were
conducted at amplitude of 114 mm and at a peak velocity of 358
mm/sec. The low speed tests were conducted at a constant speed
of 0.05 mm/sec and amplitude of 50 mm.
Figs. 11–13 present force-displacement loops for Bearing A
before the cumulative travel test, during the travel test and after
the travel test, respectively. Figs. 14–17 present force-
displacement loops for Bearing B before the travel test, during the
travel test, and twice after the travel test, respectively. The loops
in Fig. 12 of Bearing A lack clear hysteretic characteristics that
would indicate yielding of the lead core. However, the measure-
ment of the effective damping gave values of about 0.15, which
are extremely unlikely to be due entirely to energy dissipation in
the rubber. We concluded that the lead core in Bearing A yielded
but not substantially. By comparison, Fig. 15 for Bearing B shows
clear hysteretic characteristics due to significant yielding of the
lead core.
It may be noted in Figs. 12 and 15 that the hysteresis loops at
the start and at the end of the cumulative travel tests of both
bearings are stable without any changes from cycle to cycle 共note
that the first few cycles of Bearing A have amplitude of 0.8 mm
instead of 1 mm—this was later corrected as control of the testing
machine was established兲. The stability of the loops indicates
 BEARING A, BEFORE 500m CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST BEARING A, BEFORE 500m CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST
(10 cycles, peak velocity 358mm/sec) (1 cycle, constant velocity 0.05mm/sec)
40 40

20 20
Lateral Force (kN)

Lateral Force (kN)

0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 11. Force-displacement loops of small-sized lead-rubber Bearing A before cumulative travel test recorded at high and low speeds

BEARING A, LOOPS 1-50 OF 500m CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST BEARING A, LOOPS 125301-125376 OF 500m CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST
(constant velocity 2.5mm/sec) (constant velocity 2.5mm/sec)
4 4

2 2
Lateral Force (kN)

Lateral Force (kN)

0 0

-2 -2

-4 -4
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 12. Force-displacement loops of small-sized lead-rubber Bearing A recorded during cumulative travel test

BEARING A, AFTER 500m CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST BEARING A, AFTER 500m CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST
(10 cycles, peak velocity 358mm/sec) (1 cycle, constant velocity 0.05mm/sec)
40 40

20 20
Lateral Force (kN)

Lateral Force (kN)

0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 13. Force-displacement loops of small-sized lead-rubber Bearing A following cumulative travel test recorded at high and low speeds

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2010 / 497

Downloaded 27 Apr 2010 to 128.205.20.6. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 BEARING B, BEFORE 500m CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST BEARING B, BEFORE 500m CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST
(10 cycles, peak velocity 358mm/sec) (1 cycle, constant velocity 0.05mm/sec)
40 40

20 20
Lateral Force (kN)

Lateral Force (kN)

0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 14. Force-displacement loops of small-sized lead-rubber Bearing B before cumulative travel test recorded at high and low speeds

stable 共constant兲 temperature of the lead core. As noted earlier,
the temperature on the free boundary of Bearing A was equal to
the ambient during the entire test, leading to the conclusion that
the increase in lead core temperature was very small. Bearing B
had a measured temperature of about 5 ° C above ambient on its
free boundary during the test. In this test, the buildup of tempera-
ture in the lead core was expected to be slow due to the low rate
of heat generation. The temperature was then expected to stabilize
due to heat conduction. As seen in Fig. 15, the strength of the
bearing in the last few cycles is constant but slightly lower than

BEARING B, LOOPS 1-7 OF 500m CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST BEARING B, LOOPS 12491-12498 OF 500m CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST
(constant velocity 2.5mm/sec) (constant velocity 2.5mm/sec)
10 10

5 5
Lateral Force (kN)

Lateral Force (kN)

0 0

-5 -5

-10 -10
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 15. Force-displacement loops of small-sized lead-rubber Bearing B recorded during cumulative travel test

BEARING B, 1 DAY AFTER 500m CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST BEARING B, 4 DAYS AFTER 500m CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST
(1 cycle, constant velocity 0.05mm/sec) (1 cycle, constant velocity 0.05mm/sec)
40 40

20 20
Lateral Force (kN)

Lateral Force (kN)

0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 16. Force-displacement loops of small-size lead-rubber Bearing B one day and four days after cumulative travel test recorded at low speed

498 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2010

Downloaded 27 Apr 2010 to 128.205.20.6. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 BEARING B, 43 DAYS AFTER 500m CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST BEARING B, 43 DAYS AFTER 500m CUMULATIVE TRAVEL TEST
(10 cycles, peak velocity 358mm/sec) (1 cycle, constant velocity 0.05mm/sec)
40 40

20 20
Lateral Force (kN)

Lateral Force (kN)

0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 17. Force-displacement loops of small-sized lead-rubber Bearing B 43 days after cumulative travel test recorded at high and low speeds

the strength in the first few cycles. This demonstrates that the following the conclusion of the cumulative travel test. A high
temperature is slightly higher but near constant in the last few speed test and a low speed test were conducted—the results are
cycles. presented in Fig. 17. Evidently, there is no further relaxation ef-
Comparing the results in Figs. 11 and 13 of the tests conducted fect on the characteristic strength at low speeds. Furthermore,
prior to and following the cumulative travel test on Bearing A, we comparing the results of the high speed test prior to 共Fig. 14兲 and
observe insignificant differences. It may be concluded that cumu- following 共Fig. 17兲 the cumulative travel test we observe very
lative travel does not have any important effect on the character- small and practically negligible differences.
istic strength of lead-rubber bearings when the amplitude of Figs. 18–20 present comparisons of force-displacement hyster-
deformation is small and consistent with the typical effects of esis loops obtained in high- and low-speed testing of both small-
traffic load 共amplitude of the order of 1 mm兲. sized bearings and one of the medium-sized bearings before and
However, comparing the results of Figs. 14 and 16 of the tests after conduction of respective cumulative travel tests. They allow
conducted prior to and following the cumulative travel test on for direct observation of strength changes resulting from cumula-
Bearing B 共subjected to large amplitude motion兲, we observe a tive travel.
large, as much as 45%, increase in the characteristic strength fol-
lowing the cumulative travel test at conditions of very low speed
of motion.
It should be noted that the low speed test was conducted twice: Conclusions
共1兲 24 h after the conclusion of the cumulative travel test and 共b兲
four days following the conclusion of the cumulative travel test. On the basis of the experimental results presented here, the fol-
As seen in the results of Fig. 16, there is a distinct difference in lowing may be concluded:
the characteristic strength measured in the two tests, with the 1. The characteristic strength of lead-rubber bearings under
strength decreasing as the bearing is allowed to relax for longer seismic loading conditions is practically unaffected by prior
time. cumulative travel. The conclusion is valid for 共1兲 travel of
To further investigate the observation of reduced strength with small amplitude of cyclic motion 共order of 1 mm and barely
increasing relaxation time, the bearing was tested again 43 days causing yielding of the lead core兲 or 共2兲 travel of large am-

400 40
Before Before
After After
200 20
Lateral Force (kN)

Lateral Force (kN)

0 0

-200 -20

-400 -40
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

a. Medium-size bearing 1 b. Small-size bearing B

Fig. 18. Comparison of hysteresis loops of lead-rubber bearings under seismic load conditions before and after cumulative travel test of large
amplitude motion

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2010 / 499

Downloaded 27 Apr 2010 to 128.205.20.6. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 40 20
Before Before
After After
20 10

Lateral Force (kN)

Lateral Force (kN)

0 0

-20 -10

-40 -20
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

a. Small-size bearing A – seismic b. Small-size bearing A – thermal

conditions conditions
Fig. 19. Comparison of hysteresis loops of small-sized lead-rubber Bearing A under seismic and thermal load conditions before and after
cumulative travel test of small amplitude motion

plitude of cyclic motion 共order of 10 mm and clearly causing
yielding of the lead core兲. Accordingly, an appropriate value
for the property modification factor for travel 共AASHTO
1999兲, for lead-rubber bearings constructed with a low damp-
ing natural rubber, should be 1.0. This conclusion is based on
the results obtained following cumulative travel testing at
large amplitude of two medium-sized bearings 关Fig. 18共a兲兴
and one small-sized bearing 关Fig. 18共b兲兴, and cumulative
travel testing at small amplitude of one small-sized bearing
关Fig. 19共a兲兴;
2. The characteristic strength of lead-rubber bearings under
thermal loading conditions is unaffected by the prior cumu-
lative travel if the amplitude of cyclic motion during travel is
small 共order of 1 mm and barely causing yielding of the lead
core兲. This conclusion is based on the results obtained fol-
lowing cumulative travel testing at small amplitude of one
small-sized bearing 关Fig. 19共b兲兴;
3. The characteristic strength of lead-rubber bearings at thermal
loading conditions is affected markedly by the prior cumula-
tive travel if the amplitude of cyclic motion during travel is
large 共order of 10 mm and clearly causing yielding of the
lead core兲. This effect is likely the result of strain hardening
of lead; relaxation will likely limit the extent of the strength
increase. This conclusion is based on the results obtained
following cumulative travel testing at large amplitude of two
medium-sized bearings 关Fig. 20共a兲兴 and one small-sized
bearing 关Fig. 20共b兲兴. The increase in strength in these bear-
ings varied between about 30 and 75% depending on size of
the bearing tested, the conditions of testing, the cumulative
travel imposed, and the relaxation time allowed prior to the
posttravel testing;
4. It is appropriate that specifications for testing of lead-rubber
bearings for cumulative travel distinguish between small am-
plitude traffic load effects and large amplitude thermal load
effects; and
5. If accepted that only large amplitude motion has effect on the
characteristic strength, cumulative travel test specifications
for lead-rubber bearings may only include components
caused by temperature changes and not traffic loading ef-
fects. Cumulative travel caused by thermal loading is typi-
cally much smaller than that caused by traffic loading so that
such a specification will substantially reduce the time needed
for testing.

400 20
Before Before
After After
200 10
Lateral Force (kN)

Lateral Force (kN)

0 0

-200 -10

-400 -20
-100 -50 0 50 100 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

a. Medium-size bearing 1 b. Small-size bearing B

Fig. 20. Comparison of hysteresis loops of lead-rubber bearings under thermal load conditions before and after cumulative travel test of large
amplitude motion

500 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2010

Downloaded 27 Apr 2010 to 128.205.20.6. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Acknowledgments
Financial support for this work was provided by the State of
California Department of Transportation 共Project 65A0174兲 and
the Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Re-
search 共Highway Project TEA-21, EXT-3C, and SAFETEA LU,
Task 3.2兲. This support is gratefully acknowledged. The medium-
sized bearings were manufactured by Dynamic Isolation Systems,
Inc., of Sparks, Nevada. The small-sized bearings were manufac-
tured by Scougal Rubber, of Seattle, Washington.
References
AASHTO. 共1999兲. Guide specifications for seismic isolation design,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, D.C.
Constantinou, M. C., Tsopelas, P., Kasalanati, A., and Wolff, E. D.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2010 / 501
Downloaded 27 Apr 2010 to 128.205.20.6. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
共1999兲. “Property modification factors for seismic isolation bearings.”
Technical Rep. No. MCEER-99-0012, Multidisciplinary Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, N.Y.
Constantinou, M. C., Whittaker, A. S., Kalpakidis, Y., Fenz, D. M., and
Warn, G. P. 共2007兲. “Performance of seismic isolation hardware under
service and seismic loading.” Technical Rep. No. MCEER-07-0012,
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buf-
falo, N.Y.
Kalpakidis, I. V., and Constantinou, M. C. 共2008兲. “Effects of heating and
load history on the behavior of lead-rubber bearings.” Technical Rep.
No. MCEER-08-0027, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engi-
neering Research, Buffalo, N.Y.
Naeim, F., and Kelly, J. M. 共1999兲. Design of seismic isolated structures:
From theory to practice, Wiley, New York.
Skinner, R. I., Robinson, W. H., and McVerry, G. H. 共1993兲. An intro-
duction to seismic isolation, Wiley, Chichester, England.
Van Vlack, L. H. 共1980兲. Elements of materials science and engineering,
4th Ed., Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.