Constantinou Presentation

LRFD-based Unified Analysis and
LRFD-
Design
g Guidelines for Bridge
g
Bearings and Seismic Isolators for
Use in Service and Seismic
Applications
Michael C. Constantinou
Professor
Department of Civil, Structural, and Environmental
Engineering
U i
University
it att Buffalo,
B ff l State
St t University
U i it off New
N York
Y k
Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo
SCOPE OF PRESENTATION
 Present a general description of project.
 Present details of the approach followed in the

development off LRFD-based analysis and design
procedures for elastomeric isolators and
elastomeric bearings.
g
 Present a summary of approach followed in the

design of sliding bearings.
bearings

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work has been supported by
 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER)

through a contract with the California Department of
T
Transportation.
t ti
 MCEER, University at Buffalo

MCEER Buffalo, State University of New
York through a contract with the Federal Highway
Administration, Project 020, Title V.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES
 Develop analysis and design specifications for
bridge bearings and seismic isolators
 Based on LRFD framework.
 B d on the
Based th same fundamental
f d t l principles,
i i l which
hi h
include the latest developments and understanding of
behavior.
 Applied by the same procedures regardless of whether
the application is for seismic-isolated or conventional
bridges.
bridges
 Considering service, design earthquake and maximum
q
earthquake effects.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
 “Bridge Bearings”, Caltrans Memo to Designers, 1994 and recent
related Caltrans documents.
 “Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design”,
Design” AASHTO
AASHTO, 1999
and recent 2010 revision.
 “LRFD Bridge Design Specifications”, AASHTO, 4th Edition, 2007 and
recent 2010 revision.
revision
 “Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Highway
Bridges”, TRC/Imbsen and Associates, 2006.
 “R
“Rotation
i Limits
Li i for
f Elastomeric
El i Bearings”,
B i ” R Report 12
12-68,
68 UUniversity
i i off
Washington, 2006 (published as report NCHRP 596, 2008).
 “Performance of Seismic Isolation Hardware under Service and Seismic
L di ” R
Loading”, Reportt MCEER-07-0012,
MCEER 07 0012 2007
2007.
 “Seismic Isolation of Bridges”, report of Univ. at Buffalo prepared for
Caltrans, 2007.
 “Experimental Investigation on the Seismic Response of Bridge
Bearings”, Univ. of California, Berkeley, EERC-2008-02, 2008.
SUMMARY OF WORK
 Concentration on sliding and elastomeric bearings.
 Sliding bearings are either flat or spherically shaped. Key

characteristic is that they have spherical rotational part
(flat or Friction Pendulum).
Pendulum) Pot bearings and disc bearings
are not considered.
 Elastomeric bearings are rectangular, square, circular,

hollow circular (central hole) and circular with one central
core of lead.
lead Shape factors are in the range of 5 to 30.
30
Bearings are bolted or kept by keeper plates. Regular
bridge bearings may be kept by friction. Only steel
reinforced bearings are considered.
LOADINGS FOR ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
OF SEISMICALLY ISOLATED BRIDGES
 Service loadings per AASHTO LRFD Specifications, 2010.
 Design
D i earthquake
th k (DE) per AASHTO LRFD Specifications,
S ifi ti 2010 ((probabilistic
b bili ti response
spectrum having 7% probability of being exceeded in 75 years-return period 1000years)
 Design earthquake in California based on Caltrans ARS Website. Defined as the
largest of (a) probabilistic response spectrum having 5% probability of being
exceeded in 50 years-return period 1000years, and (b) deterministic median
spectrum calculated based on the NGA project of PEER.
 Maximum earthquake not explicitly defined.

defined
 For isolators, the effects of maximum earthquake defined as those of the DE
multiplied by a factor. For California the factor on isolator displacement is 1.5. The
factor for force to be determined by analysis-range of 1.0 to 1.5.
 F elastomeric
For l t i bridge
b id b bearings,
i th effects
the ff t off maximum
i earthquake
th k are nott
considered. Bearings may overturn but sufficient bearing seat width is provided
(1.5 times the DE displacement).
 For spherical sliding bridge bearings, the maximum earthquake effects are defined
as those of the DE multiplied by factor 1.5.

SLIDING BEARINGS
 Review of knowledge on spherical bearings.
 Derivation of expression for resistance to lateral load
H   R 2 PTFE sin 2    min    sin  min
H
 min 1
 ttan  
 PD 

SLIDING BEARINGS
• Resistance to rotation
M   PR CENTROID PIVOT POINT FOR BEARING

SLIDING BEARINGS
• Transfer of force and P- moment

SLIDING BEARINGS
 Design of End Plates of Sliding Bearings
b1  b
r
2
 b1 1  3 1   b 
4
b 
2
 (1   ) ln        
2 4  b1   b1  
M u ,e  f bb1 
b 4
  r2  b1  r 
2
 b
2
 M u ,s   f b  f b   1   factor
8(1   )  8(1  )   b  3

  1
b 

 2
SLIDING BEARINGS
 Design of end plates using plastic analysis.
FACTORED LOAD
Yield
Lines
 b  b1  b  1 b b
Wi  2M p 1     M p b   2M p 1
 b1  b  b1  b1  b b1  b
2
INTERNAL WORK ALONG RADIAL LINES INTERNAL WORK ON PERIMETER
b1
EXTERNAL WORK
1
 b12   b1  2  b  1  b  
3
We  f b        
 4   b  b  3  b  3  b   b
   1   1   1  
b1  b
Mp
fb  VALUE OF PRESSURE

2  1   1  b   1  b 
3
 TO CAUSE COLLAPSE
OF THE END PLATE fb
b1           
 12   8  b1   24  b1  

SLIDING BEARINGS
 Prediction of ultimate moment by plastic and elastic solutions.
 Elastic solution is conservative and preferred.

SLIDING BEARINGS
 Design example using centrally loaded area approach.
 Case where concrete to steel plate cannot be circular.
APPROACH IN WHICH THE

AXIAL LOAD IS ASSUMED
CONCENTRICALLY
TRANSFERRED AT THE
LOCATION OF THE SLIDER-
MOMENT IS NEGLECTED

SLIDING BEARINGS
 Design example using load-moment approach.
 Case where concrete to steel contact pressure is linear.

SLIDING BEARINGS
 Design example using load-moment approach.
 Case where concrete to steel contact pressure is nonlinear-larger
axial load.

SLIDING BEARINGS
 Detailed design example of multidirectional sliding spherical
bearing. Presentation of detailed procedure for design, including
design of shear lugs, bolts, etc.

ELASTOMERIC BEARINGS
• Developed and verified simplified expressions for strains in rubber due to compression and rotation

B≥L
LOCATION OF LARGE SHEAR

STRAIN DUE TO ROTATION
LOCATION OF MAXIMUM SHEAR

STRAIN DUE TO COMPRESSION
ADDITIONAL LOCATION OF MAXIMUM

SHEAR STRAIN DUE TO COMPRESSION
IN SQUARE BEARING

 Compression of Elastomeric Bearings
 Rectangular bearings. Complex solutions (infinite series).
 Prefer to present results in graphical or tabular form.
SQUARE
STRIP
RECTANGULAR factor f1
K/G = RECTANGULAR BEARINGS, K/G = 4000
ASPECT RATIO L/B (B≥L)
4000 1.9
S = 30
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.8 FEA
S
1.7 S = 25
5 1.52 1.43 1.39 1.33 1.26 1.21
7.5 1.53 1.44 1.40 1.34 1.27 1.22 1.6
S = 20
10 1.54 1.45 1.41 1.35 1.29 1.24 1.5
FEA
12.5 1.56 1.47 1.42 1.37 1.31 1.27 1.4 S = 15
15 1 58
1.58 1 48
1.48 1 44
1.44 1 39
1.39 1 34
1.34 1 30
1.30
1.3
17.5 1.60 1.50 1.46 1.41 1.37 1.33
1.2 S = 10
20 1.63 1.53 1.48 1.44 1.40 1.37
22.5 1.66 1.56 1.51 1.48 1.44 1.41 1.1
S = 5
25 1.69 1.59 1.55 1.51 1.48 1.46 1.0 FEA
27.5 1.72 1.63 1.58 1.55 1.52 1.50 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
30 1.76 1.67 1.62 1.59 1.57 1.55 ASPECT RATIO L/B

 Compression of Circular Elastomeric Bearings
 Example of results of Finite Element Analysis.
Shear strain distribution ‐ CIRCULAR
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0 Theory
0.8
FEA;
0.6 K/G=4000;
0.4 S=30
0.2
0.0
00
0.0 02
0.2 04
0.4 06
0.6 08
0.8 10
1.0 12
1.2
2r/D
Shear strain distribution ‐ CIRCULAR
1.2
1.0
0.8
Theory
0.6
FEA;
0.4 K/G=4000; S=5
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
2r/D

 Rotation of Elastomeric Bearings
 Rectangular bearings. Complex solutions (infinite series).
 Prefer to present results in graphical or tabular form.
STRIP SQUARE
RECTANGULAR factor _ f 2
RECTANGULAR BEARINGS, K/G = 4000
K/G = 4000 NORMALIZED SHEAR STRAIN VALUES
0.6
S = 30
L/B 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
FEA
S 0.5
S = 25
5 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.46
0.4
7.5 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.47 0.45
S = 20
10 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.47 0.46 0.44
0.3 FEA
12.5 0.48 0.48 0.47 0.46 0.45 0.43
S = 15
15 0.48 0.47 0.46 0.45 0.43 0.41 0.2
17.5 0.47 0.46 0.45 0.43 0.42 0.40 S = 10
20 0.46 0.45 0.43 0.42 0.40 0.38 0.1
22.5 0.45 0.44 0.42 0.40 0.38 0.36 S = 5
25 0.45 0.43 0.41 0.39 0.37 0.35 0.0 FEA
27 5
27.5 0 44
0.44 0 42
0.42 0 39
0.39 0 37
0.37 0 35
0.35 0 33
0.33 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
30 0.43 0.40 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.31 ASPECT RATIO L/B

LRFD FORMULATION FOR
ELASTOMERIC ISOLATORS
 SERVICE LOAD CHECKING
SHEAR STRAIN DUE TO COMPRESSION Pu

 Cs
u
 f1
ArGS
SHEAR STRAIN DUE TO ROTATION L2 ( Sst  1.75 Scy )

 rs 
u
f 2
L=dimension L for rectangular bearings (B>L) tTr
L=D for circular ; L=Do for hollow circular bearings  Sst  1.75 Scy
SHEAR STRAIN DUE TO LATERAL DISPLACEMENT SS  u
 AASHTO 2010 HAS LIMITS OF
3.0 AND 5.0,
Tr RESPECTIVELLY.
DIFFERENCE JUSTIFIED ON
CRITERIA  D PD   L PLst BASIS OF HIGHER QUALITY OF
ArGS
 f1  3.5  Cu   Su   ru  7
s s s
CONSTRUCTION AND
PROTOTYPE AND PRODUCTION
TESTING

 SERVICE LOAD CHECKING CRITERIA CONTINUED
Pcr' s Ars
BUCKLING  2.0 Pcr' s  Pcr for bolted bearings
 D PD   L ( PLst  PLcy ) A
Ars reduced bonded area for displacement  Sst

S t   SScy
t
SHIMS ts   1.9
1 9 mm =1.65 holes == 3 otherwise
=1 65 for shims without holes,
A
1.08Fy rs  2
Pu

END PLATES PROCEDURE UTILIZES MINIMUM MATERIAL

STRENGTHS AND APPROPRIATE φ FACTORS
REDUCED AREA PROCEDURE

(End plate treated as column base plate subjected to concentric load
from above over equivalent reduced area)

END PLATES PROCEDURE OF UTILIZES MINIMUM MATERIAL
WITHOUT BOLT TENSION
LOAD-MOMENT
LOAD MOMENT AREA PROCEDURE WITH BOLT TENSION
(End plate treated as column base plate subjected
to load and moment from above)
 DESIGN EARTHQUAKE CHECKING (5% in 50 years or 1000 year return period)
AASHTO GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR

SEISMIC ISOLATION DESIGN (1999)
HAVE LIMIT OF 5.5 FOR UNFACTORED LOADS
AND WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF
NON-SEISMIC DISPLACEMENTS.
CONVERSION TO FACTORED LOADS,
THE LIMIT SHOULD BE ABOUT 7.7.
THE 10% INCREASE OF LIMIT TO 8.5 IS
JUSTIFIED ON THE BASIS OF ADDING
NON-SEISMIC EFFECTS AND FOR
ACNOWLEDGING THE EXPECTED INCREASE
IN DISPLACEMENTS DUE TO THE CHANGE
IN DEFINITION OF SEISMIC HAZARD
Pu
SHEAR STRAIN DUE TO COMPRESSION  Cu  f1
DE
ArGS
SHEAR STRAIN DUE TO ROTATION L2 ( Sst  1.75 Scy )
 
u
rs f 2
tTr
 S   E
SHEAR STRAIN DUE TO LATERAL DISPLACEMENT  Su  DE
  0.5
DE
Tr
CRITERIA
 Cu   Su  0.5 ru  8.5
DE DE s

 DESIGN EARTHQUAKE CHECKING CRITERIA CONTINUED
BUCKLING no stability criteria in DE
SHIMS
1.65t
1.65t ArDE reduced bonded area for displacement
ts   1.9 mm
ArDE
1.08Fy 2 D   S   E
Pu DE
Fy  minimum yield strength
END PLATES SAME PROCEDURE AS FOR SERVICE LOADS AND USING MINIMUM MATERIAL

 MAXIMUM CONSIDERED EARTHQUAKE (MCE) CHECKING
 EMCE  factorD  EDE PEMCE  factorP PEDE factorD  1.5 factorP  1.0  1.5
FACTOR OF 1.5 APPLIES FOR CALIFORNIA

(SAME FACTOR IN AASHTO GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
FOR SEISMIC ISOLATION DESIGN). FACTOR
EXPECTED LARGER THAN 1.5 FOR
EASTERN US

 MAXIMUM CONSIDERED EARTHQUAKE CHECKING
Pu
SHEAR STRAIN DUE TO COMPRESSION  Cu  f1
(factor accounts for shape and location
MCE
ArGS
of strain)
L2 ( Sst  1.75
1 75 Scy )
SHEAR STRAIN DUE TO ROTATION  
u
rs f 2
(factor accounts for location of strain) tTr
0.5 S   EMCE
SHEAR STRAIN DUE TO LATERAL DISPLACEMENT  Su 
MCE
Tr
 Cu   SuMCE  0.25 rus  11.0

LIMIT OF 11 IS A 30% INCREASE
CRITERIA MCE
OVER THE DE LIMIT FOR STRAIN TO
ACCOUNT FOR THE INCREASED SEISMIC
LOADS AND
DISPLACEMENT BY FACTOR 1.5
Pcr' DE ArMCE
BUCKLING  1.1 Pcr'  Pcr for bolted bearings
Pu MCE
A
CONSISTENT WITH 1999 AASHTO

ArMCE reduced bonded area for displacement
GUIDE SPECS WHERE BEARING
NEEDS TO BE STABLE AT 1.5 TIMES D  0.5 S   E MCE
THE DE DISPLACEMENT AND
1.2 TIMES THE DEAD PLUS
LIVE LOAD PLUS SEISMIC DE LOAD
 MAXIMUM CONSIDERED EARTHQUAKE CHECKING CRITERIA CONTINUED
Dcru
OVERTURNING  1.1
0.5 S   EMCE
Dcru CALCULATED USING

0.9
0 9 TIMES DEAD LOAD
AND LOWER BOUND
ISOLATOR PROPERTIES
1.65t
SHIMS ts   1.9
1 9 mm Fye  expected yield strength
ArMCE
1.08 Fye 2
Pu
END PLATES SAME PROCEDURE AS FOR SERVICE LOADS AND USING EXPECTED
MATERIAL STRENGTHS AND φ FACTORS EQUAL TO UNITY

SEISMIC ISOLATION ANALYSIS
AND DESIGN EXAMPLES
 Two examples presented in detail. One with Triple FP and one with
Lead-rubber isolators
DE spectrum

TRIPLE FP ANALYSIS AND
DESIGN EXAMPLE

LEAD--RUBBER ANALYSIS AND
LEAD
DESIGN EXAMPLE

ELASTOMERIC BRIDGE BEARINGS
 SERVICE LOAD CHECKING
RECTANGULAR
BEARINGS (BL)
SHEAR STRAIN DUE TO COMPRESSION Pu

 Cs
u
 f1
ArGS
SHEAR STRAIN DUE TO ROTATION L ( Sst  1.75 Scy )

2
 rus  f 2
L=small dimension for rectangular bearings (B>L) tTr
SHEAR STRAIN DUE TO LATERAL DISPLACEMENT  Sst  1.75 Scy
u
S  S
Tr
CRITERIA AASHTO 2010 LRFD HAS LIMITS OF
 S  Sst   Scy  D PD   L PLst 0.5,, 3.0 AND 5.0,,

  0.5  f1  3.0  Cu   Su   ru  5.0 RESPECTIVELLY.
Tr Tr ArGS s s s

 SERVICE LOAD CHECKING (continued)
BUCKLING CRITERIA
For rectangular bearings

GBL2 ( L   S ) in deformed
P  0.680
'
configuration-based on
(1  L / B )tTr
crs
Kelly (1993) RECTANGULAR
BEARINGS (BL)
Pcr' s
 2.0 EQUATION FOR BUCKLING DIFFERENT THAN THOSE
 D PD   L ( PLst  PLcy ) IN AASHTO 2010 LRFD BRIDGE SPECIFICATIONS.
EQUATIONS MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN THOSE OF
AASHTO. SEVERAL EXAMPLES PROVIDED
WHERE AASHTO EQUATIONS ARE USED TO
SHOW CONSERVATISM OF EQUATION.
REASONS FOR USE:

(a) They have a rational theoretical basis (Kelly, 1993)
(b) They have been experimentally validated (see MCEER 07-0012 for description)
(c) They account for the effect of lateral deformation, whereas those of AASHTO do not
(d) Are LRFD –based, whereas those of AASHTO are not
(e) The margin of safety provided is clearly evident (factor 2.0) so that adjustments to the adequacy
assessment equations may be readily done if such a need is justified

 SERVICE LOAD CHECKING (continued)
SLIIPPAGE CRITERIA
1. The minimum service load bearing pressure including

live load effects (0.9 times dead load plus minimum live
load if negative or zero live load otherwise, divided by
rubber area) should to be larger than or equal to 200psi. RECTANGULAR
BEARINGS (BL)
2. The lateral bearing force at displacement should be less
than 0.2 times the dead load on the bearing PD. The
lateral bearing force may be predicted by
GAr GB( L   S )
FS  S   S   PD  0.2
0 2 PD
Tr Tr
VALID FOR RECTANGULAR BEARINGS.

G IS THE UPPER BOUND VALUE OF SHEAR MODULUS.
MODULUS
0.2 IS A CONSERVATIVE VALUE FOR THE
COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION.
A VALUE OF 0.5 SHOULD BE USED TO
CACULATE FORCE TRANSMITTED
TO SUBSTRUCTURE

 DESIGN EARTHQUAKE CHECKING
RECTANGULAR
BEARINGS (BL)
BASED ON OBSERVATIONS IN THE

UCB TESTING
CRITERIA
0.5 S   EDE
S   1.5
DE
Tr EQUATION USED TO PREVENT
ROLL-OVER.
THEORETICAL LIMIT IS 0.5L
0.5 S   EDE  0.4 L BUT USED 0.4L TO PROVIDE FOR
SOME MARGIN OF SAFETY
REQUIRED BEARING SEAT WIDTH

The bearings shall be provided with adequate surface (seat width) to accommodate a displacement equal to
0.25 S  1.5 EDE in all directions. Bearings expected to roll-over is MCE.

RECTANGULAR
BEARINGS (BL)

QUESTIONS
 Describe in general terms the adequacy assessment procedure for an
elastomeric bearing under service and seismic load effects based on
the 2010 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
 Describe in general terms the philosophy for design of bridge
elastomeric bearings (not seismic isolators) of the California
Department of Transportation.
Transportation
 Why are the limits for strain in rubber of elastomeric bridge seismic
isolators larger than the corresponding limits for strain in elastomeric
bearings not detailed as seismic isolators?
 How do we account for maximum considered earthquake (MCE)
effects in the design of elastomeric and sliding bridge bearings (not
seismic isolators)? Why is there a difference in this philosophy
between elastomeric and sliding g bearings?
g
 How do we account for maximum considered earthquake (MCE)
effects in the design of seismic isolators?
 What are the major differences in the procedures for adequacy
assessment of elastomeric isolators in the 2010 AASHTO Guide
Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design and this document?

Constantinou Presentation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constantinou Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LRFD-based Unified Analysis and

 Present a general description of project.

 Present details of the approach followed in the

 Present a summary of approach followed in the

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

This work has been supported by

 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER)

 MCEER, University at Buffalo

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

 Sliding bearings are either flat or spherically shaped. Key

 Elastomeric bearings are rectangular, square, circular,

 Maximum earthquake not explicitly defined.

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

H   R 2 PTFE sin 2    min    sin  min

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

APPROACH IN WHICH THE

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

LOCATION OF LARGE SHEAR

LOCATION OF MAXIMUM SHEAR

ADDITIONAL LOCATION OF MAXIMUM

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

30 0.43 0.40 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.31 ASPECT RATIO L/B

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

SHEAR STRAIN DUE TO COMPRESSION Pu

SHEAR STRAIN DUE TO ROTATION L2 ( Sst  1.75 Scy )

CRITERIA  D PD   L PLst BASIS OF HIGHER QUALITY OF

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

Ars reduced bonded area for displacement  Sst

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

END PLATES PROCEDURE UTILIZES MINIMUM MATERIAL

REDUCED AREA PROCEDURE

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

WITHOUT BOLT TENSION

AASHTO GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

BUCKLING no stability criteria in DE

Fy  minimum yield strength

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

FACTOR OF 1.5 APPLIES FOR CALIFORNIA

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

 Cu   SuMCE  0.25 rus  11.0

CONSISTENT WITH 1999 AASHTO

Dcru CALCULATED USING

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

SHEAR STRAIN DUE TO COMPRESSION Pu

SHEAR STRAIN DUE TO ROTATION L ( Sst  1.75 Scy )

 S  Sst   Scy  D PD   L PLst 0.5,, 3.0 AND 5.0,,

Civil, Structural & Environmental Eng. , University at Buffalo

For rectangular bearings