Structures 32 (2021) 604–616

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Experimental investigation of unbonded ordinary steel reinforced

elastomeric bearings as an isolation system in bridges
Ali Maghsoudi-Barmi a, 1, Alireza Khaloo a, *, 2, Milad Ehteshami Moeini b, 3
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
b
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Science & Culture, Tehran, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Reduction of large tensile stresses and cost-efficiency has made unbonded isolators an attractive option as an
Elastomeric bearing isolation system. Following this idea and the results obtained by various researchers, it is shown that unbonded
Unbonded steel-reinforced elastomeric bearings (SREBs), which are used and designed for non-seismic actions, have
Bridge seismic isolation
inherently acceptable characteristics in tolerating large shear deformations for a cost-effective isolation system
Frictional behavior
and can provide improved structural performance. However, this capacity is neglected in the design process. The
current article presents an experimental program to analyze the mechanical properties of steel-reinforced natural
rubber bearings without the upper and lower endplates when subjected to large shear displacements and to
assess how they can be used and what are the limitations. The overall behavior of the bearing is explained and
the affecting variables including the level of axial load, rate of loading, and contact conditions are discussed. A
full-scale test setup using a pair of bearings sandwiched between three concrete platens is utilized which con­
siders the interaction of compressive and cyclic shear loading. Even though it is costly and difficult, this setup
provides a realistic approach for testing bearings while they are in contact with concrete on both sides. The test
results reveal that under different vertical loading levels, all bearings exhibited stable hysteretic response. In
presence of adequate axial load, the specimens were capable of tolerating shear strains more than 125% without
slippage of the bearings. It was shown that albeit demonstrating low damping characteristics, these bearings
provide adequate flexibility and shear displacement capacity which indicates they can be a proper choice for
substitution as costly isolators in low to moderate seismic zones or for low-risk short span bridges in developing
countries.

1. Introduction an obstacle to the widespread usage of this system, especially in coun­

Seismic isolation is an effective means of earthquake damage miti­
gation in bridge engineering. In general, seismic isolation is not a new
idea, since the first patents were obtained about 130 years ago. How­
ever, until the past three decades, few structures were built using this
idea [1]. Further Studies then were carried out, both theoretically and
experimentally, to develop different seismic isolation techniques, cor­
responding design methods, and other relevant aspects [2–8]. Among
different types of materials used for an isolation system, rubber isolators
are one of the most widely used. However, higher expenses of base
isolation devices against conventional engineering methods have been
tries with weaker economies.
Steel reinforced elastomeric bearings (SREB) have been designed
based on the assumption that they are subjected to axial and shear
loadings, including dead and the horizontal loads, i.e. wind and service
level seismic loads, acting on the structure, and were used widely in
bridges all over the world. Recently, much attention has been paid to the
use of this type of bearing as a seismic isolator, and various studies were
conducted to investigate the inherent capacities of these bearings in this
regard, especially in unbonded form. It has been shown that a cost-
effective and easily accessible isolation design that relies on laminated
elastomeric bearings to dissipate energy and therefore reduces force

* Corresponding author at: Civil Engineering Department, Sharif University of Technology, P.O. Box 11365-9313, Tehran, Iran.
E-mail addresses: ali.maghsoudi@student.sharif.edu (A. Maghsoudi-Barmi), khaloo@sharif.edu (A. Khaloo), m.ehteshami.m@gmail.com (M. Ehteshami Moeini).
1
Ali Maghsoudi-Barmi: 0000-0002-9593-6244
2
Alireza Khaloo: 0000-0003-4450-0202
3
Milad Ehteshami Moeini: 0000-0003-4532-0211

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.02.055
Received 5 December 2020; Received in revised form 7 February 2021; Accepted 21 February 2021
Available online 25 March 2021
2352-0124/© 2021 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Maghsoudi-Barmi et al.
demands could be used, as long as the increased displacements, which
are due to low stiffness especially after sliding, could be tolerated by the
structure. Although, the low damping characteristics of these bearings is
a serious weak point in their behavior, and might limit their usage in low
to moderate seismic zones or for low risk short span bridges, especially
in developing countries. Moreover, along with the newly designed
bridges, this idea will effectively help in rehabilitation and retrofitting
projects, in which it can provide an additional capacity for the existing
bridge. Although these bearings are capable of tolerating large dis­
placements, further investigations on influencing parameters such as
sufficiency of damping, frictional behavior (friction coefficient for
different surfaces), compressive stress on the bearing, and the rate of
loading are still needed.
Considering the above concerns, an experimental research study was
carried out to investigate the behavior of SREBs subjected to seismic
demands. A test setup, designed based on AASHTO M251-06 [9] and
NCHRP report 449 [10] recommendations consisting of a pair of full-size
bearings sandwiched between three platens was utilized. Bearings are
made of natural rubber and the contact surfaces were both made of
concrete, representative of concrete deck and pier/abutment, which is
seldom studied but frequently used in practice. The overall behavior of
the bearing is explained and the affecting variables including the level of
axial load, rate of loading, and contact conditions are discussed.
2. Background
Despite the long history of using seismic isolation system and the
high efficiency in reducing seismic losses, but the high costs of this
structural system has always been a serious obstacle facing their wide­
spread usage in the world. Therefore, the idea of proposing low-cost
isolation systems led various researchers to consider this issue through
investigation of implementation techniques or the materials used for
manufacturing. Regarding the former, i.e. the implementation type,
using the isolators in the unbonded form, as a new technique, has
attracted many researchers in recent years. In the unbonded type iso­
lators, which is also the main topic of this research, thick endplates are
removed which will reduce the weight. These plates are mainly aimed to
provide a secure connection between the bearing and the sub/super-
structure, and reliably transferring forces between the bridge ele­
ments. Moreover, these plates will positively help the bearing in uplift. If
uplift occurs, some parts of the bridge superstructure might be mis­
aligned when contact is regained, causing damage. Therefore, it might
seem to be a shortcoming for the isolator at first sight, but it has the
advantage of reducing the tensile stresses in the bearings as they start to
roll over (See Fig. 1). Although, this reduction is a function of the inner
steel shims’ thickness, and the thinner the thickness, the greater the
reduction in tensile stresses will be. Albeit different, but Kalfas et al. [11]
investigated the effect of the steel reinforcement characteristics on the
behavior of bonded rubber bearings under combined axial load, shear
displacement, and rotation, and showed that yielding of the steel shims
is possible for thin steel shims, although causes permanent deflections
and local damage that alter the properties of the isolators. It is shown by
Mitoulis [12] that, when bearings are bonded, they might experience
tensile stress and deformations in uplift which would require more
attention in modeling. It should be noted, it is these tensile stresses and
the bonding requirements that arise from them that lead to the high
Fig. 1. Typical unbonded bearing in (a) un-deformed, and (b) deformed shape.
605
Structures 32 (2021) 604–616
costs of conventional isolators [13]. The connection between the rubber
and steel plates, called vulcanization, needs an advanced and expensive
technique. Using this type of connection, this process will be removed at
both ends of the bearing, although, the inner steel shims are still con­
nected using the vulcanization technique. Moreover, ease of installation
is another privilege regarding this type of isolator.
Along with the connection type, various materials were also
employed to get to a more cost-effective isolation system. Unbonded
fiber reinforced elastomeric bearings (UFREB) are one of those which
are widely investigated by various researchers. Among those, Toopchi-
Nezhad et al. [14–18] have performed a complete study, both experi­
mentally and numerically, to investigate the performance of unbonded
fiber reinforced elastomeric bearings. They also conducted shake table
tests on a low-rise building equipped with this type of isolator. De Raaf
et al. [19] investigated the stability of UFREBs through an extensive
experimental program. In another experimental study, Russo et al. [20]
investigated the sliding instability of fiber-reinforced elastomeric iso­
lators in unbonded applications. They also proposed a simplified geo­
metric model to describe the unbonded fiber-reinforced isolator’s
deformed configuration under compression and shear, based on the
observation of its experimental behavior. In another related study,
Toopchi-Nazhad [21] presents two simplified analytical models for
horizontal stiffness evaluation of UFREBs. Pauletta et al. [22] proposed a
model for the prediction of roll-out instability of UFREBs based on the
equilibrium of the applied forces while assuming a triangular distribu­
tion for the compressive stresses of the isolator. In the study performed
by Van Engelen et al. [23], the full rollover displacement of UFREBs is
altered by using modified support geometry, a geometric modification of
the upper and lower supports applied to tailor the hysteresis loops of the
isolator. Ruano et al. [24] also analyzed relevant mechanical properties
for seismic isolation such as vertical and horizontal stiffness as well as
damping capacity in UFREBs, focusing on the effect of shape geometry
and material of the fiber reinforcement layers. Habieb et al. [25],
studied the performance of UFREBs in decreasing the seismic vulnera­
bility of masonry buildings from a numerical standpoint. Losanno et al.
[26] focused on the experimental assessment and analytical modeling of
low-cost seismic isolators for low-rise buildings. They employed two
types of unbonded isolators with a high damping rubber matrix and
different reinforcement fibers of carbon and polyester. In another
experimental study, Losanno et al. [27] used bidirectional shaking-table
tests to investigate unbonded Polyester Fiber-reinforced Elastomeric
Isolators and to evaluate their experimental performance compared to
Carbon Fiber-reinforced Elastomeric Isolators.
Moreover, further studies were also performed on using recycled
materials to have a more cost-effective isolation system in the form of
UFREB. In a related study, Spizzuoco et al. [28] conducted an experi­
mental study on unbonded square carbon Recycled Rubber–Fiber
Reinforced Bearings (RR-FRB) to investigate their lateral and vertical
behavior under seismic loading. Calabrese et al. [29], discussed the
dynamic performance of recycled rubber-fiber reinforced bearings (RR-
FRBs). They described the manufacture of real RR-FRBs prototypes and
their testing, and the bearings’ behavior was analyzed in compression
and shear, while different reinforcements, rubber types, and geometries
were considered. They underlined the possibility of using RR-FRBs for
seismic risk mitigation of low-cost housing in seismic prone regions.
Later, Calabrese et al. [30] discussed the results of Response History
A. Maghsoudi-Barmi et al.
Analyses (RHAs) of a RR-FRB base isolated residential building, together
with the design, Finite Element Analyses (FEA), manufacturing, and
testing full-scale prototype bearings for the building under investigation.
In addition, the seismic performance of the RR-FRBs base isolated
structure was compared to the response of the same building when
isolated at the base with conventional devices, namely Laminated
Rubber Bearings (LRBs) and Friction Pendulum Systems (FPS). In
another experimental study, Losanno et al. [31] performed bidirectional
shaking-table tests on the novel, low-cost, and eco-friendly recycled-
rubber fiber-reinforced bearings in the unbonded configuration. Pau­
letta [32] proposed a method to design unbonded fiber-reinforced
elastomeric isolators (U-FREI). This method allows the designer to
determine the isolator geometrical dimensions and stiffness character­
istics, on the basis of the building mass, loads, and target isolation
period. A case study was also presented, both utilizing the proposed U-
FREIs and equivalent SREIs to discuss the differences in the performance
of the building, obtained with the two devices.
Besides the UFREB isolators, using existing low damping steel-
reinforced elastomeric bearings (SREB) in unbonded configuration,
which are currently designed and used for service limit state in bridges
abundantly, have shown to have appropriate characteristics required for
an isolation technique, and consequently have been of interest for re­
searchers recently. Herein, service limit sate means the situation which
bridge experience in its regular operating conditions, and movements
due to thermal, shrinkage, creep, brake, and also the wind and service
level earthquake loading can be included. These bearings are econom­
ical and need little maintenance; two valuable characteristics that
attracted designers and researchers. In contrast to the thick steel shims
in conventional rubber isolators like high damping rubber or lead rubber
bearings, steel reinforcement used in SREBs contains thin steel shims
[13]. Depending on the size of the bearing, the steel shim thickness
usually varies from 3 to 5 mm. The flexibility of the reinforcement used
in the unbonded isolators allows them to roll over and hence the slipping
is decreased [13,33]. Based on the literature reviewed above regarding
UFREBs and RR-FRBs, they were both shown to be capable to act as an
appropriate isolator. However, manufacturing these bearings and the
required technologies seems to need more effort. Therefore, this might
be a positive point for SREBs, since they are easily accessible, and do not
need any special manufacturing process.
SREBs have been studied widely for shear strains up to service level
which is in the range of 50 to 75% [34–35], however, fewer studies have
considered large displacement behavior. Schrage [36] made a review on
the slip resistance values given for the interaction between several
materials commonly used in bearings, with an emphasis on the friction
between rubber and concrete. Mori et al. [37] performed experiments on
the shear response of laminated rubber bearings, which were not bonded
to the top or bottom steel plates, to approximately 200% shear strain,
with and without stops to restrict slip. The bearing surfaces in both the
top and bottom of the bearing were made of steel. In another study done
by Konstantinidis et al. [38], it was shown that these bearings inherently
possess properties appropriate for an isolation system, in which they can
sustain shear strains much larger than the service-level conditions they
have been designed for. They tested bearings made of neoprene without
top and bottom steel plates, while in contact with a steel surface on one
side representing steel deck and concrete on the other side representing
the pier, and concluded that the ultimate displacement capacity was
approximately 150 to 225% shear strain, limited by the rollover of the
bearing to the point where the originally vertical face of the bearing
becomes horizontal against the supports. In another recent study,
Steelman et al. [39] investigated shear and friction response of non-
seismic laminated elastomeric bridge bearings subjected to seismic de­
mands. The bearings tested in this study were vulcanized to a steel plate
at the top and were in free contact with concrete at the bottom. Their
results showed an approximately linear elastic response before sliding,
with an initial friction coefficient in the range of 0.25 to 0.5. Maghsoudi-
Barmi and Khaloo [40], conducted a series of experiments to investigate
606
Structures 32 (2021) 604–616
the life-time performance of unbonded SREB, in three phases; (1) effects
of long-term service, namely the long term presence of vertical loading
at service limit state, on the mechanical properties of the bearings, (2)
effects of consecutive shear loading at different amplitude in presence of
permanent loading, and (3) post-earthquake behaviour of the bearing
against service load conditions. Based on their results, the life-time
performance of the SREBs as an isolation system in bridges was evalu­
ated as satisfactory and a durable performance was observed for this
type of bearings.
3. Experimental program
To investigate and evaluate the mechanical behavior of the SREBs, a
set of experiments was designed, in which a combination of vertical
loads and shear deformations are applied. These experiments will pro­
vide information about the characteristics of SREBs as an isolation sys­
tem in bridge-type structures.
3.1. Steel reinforced elastomeric bearings
Five pairs of SREBs of the same size are investigated in this study.
They are all made of natural rubber and are from the same batch, and it
is assumed to have the same properties. The bearings consist of a series
of elastomer and reinforcement steel layers as shown in Fig. 2. Each
bearing is 300 × 400 mm in plan and with a total height of 107 mm.
There are 9 inner layers of rubber with 8 mm thickness, 10 steel shims
with 3 mm thickness and 2.5 mm cover layers at top and bottom as it is
presented in Table 1. Along with the facility limitations, attempts were
made to have test specimens close to the actual size of SREBs used in
bridges.
According to the information provided by the manufacturer, bear­
ings are produced under European Standard EN 1337–3 [41]. A Shore A
hardness of 65 and a shear modulus of 9 × 10–4 kN/mm2 is reported by
the manufacturer. As these bearings are currently aimed to permit the
longitudinal movement of the superstructure due to service loads (like
thermal expansion and contraction), an acceptable design shear strain of
50% is conventional and no damping ratio is reported. However, a larger
shear strain of 100% was used to investigate the capability of the
bearings in tolerating large shear deformations. Besides, EN 1998–2
[42] states that low-damping elastomeric bearings are those with an
equivalent viscous damping ratio ξ less than 0,06.
3.2. Test setup
The tests described in this study were performed in the Structural
Dynamics Strong Floor laboratory at the Sharif University of Technol­
ogy. Combined vertical and shear loading tests were conducted using the
setup shown in Fig. 3, which is designed based on AASHTO M251-06 [9]
and NCHRP report 449 [10] recommendations. This setup is aimed to
simulate realistic conditions of the bridge bearings in the field.
The Setup consists of a pair of full-size bearings sandwiched between
three concrete platens. Concrete pads were cast to simulate bridge su­
perstructure and substructure. In this research, both superstructure and
Fig. 2. Bearing Scheme.
A. Maghsoudi-Barmi et al.
Table 1
Dimensions of the SREB Specimens.
Plan dimensions (mm) 400×300
Total thickness (mm) 107
Total elastomer thickness (mm) 77
Number of 8 mm elastomeric layers 9
Number of 3 mm steel-shims 10
Cover layers thickness (mm) 2.5
Shape factor 10.7
substructure are assumed to be made of concrete. Side concrete pads are
attached to the setup frame, which is bolted to a rigid seating frame;
while the middle pad is attached to the actuator and can move to
generate shear deformations in the SREB specimens. A very stiff framing
is used for side pads, to have negligible deformations in the test setup
and to withstand a high load level of pre-stressing which simulates
vertical load. A rigid connection provided at the bottom of the side slabs
and the bracing type element provided at the top between side slabs,
along with the total symmetry existing in the test setup, helps the con­
crete slabs to remain level during experiments. The vertical load was
applied on the bearings by 8 strands of 0.5-inch diameter with grade 270
(fpu = 270 ksi). These cables are arranged symmetrically in the plan as is
shown in Fig. 3 (b). The strands are pre-stressed after initial assembly of
the setup and before bolting it to the floor frame, to allow required
movements between the side platens, and consequently compression
force can be applied to the bearings. It is also anticipated that using this
method can result in some degree of variability in the axial load.
However, this effect is not considered in the present study and further
research is necessary.
As it was mentioned before, the main objective of this study was to
investigate the structural behavior of SREBs when used as an isolation
system and are subjected to large seismic shear deformations. Bearings
investigated in this paper, have no end steel plate and then there is no
upper or lower connection between the bearing and superstructure/
substructure. Hence, it should be noted herein that lateral deformations
expected in the bearings could be a combination of shear, roll-over, and
sliding. Consequently, the common definition of shear strain cannot be
applied here. So, the term “shear strain” in this article refers to equiv­
alent shear strain equal to average shear displacement over the height of
the rubber. Following this definition, the test setup is designed in a
manner that could provide shear strains of up to 200%.
A 250 mm stroke, 1000 kN capacity actuator was used to provide the
(a)
Fig. 3. Test setup, (a) Front view, (b) Side view.
607
Structures 32 (2021) 604–616
required lateral displacement in the bearings. This actuator can provide
a maximum displacement of 250 mm in a monotonic loading and a
maximum displacement of ± 125 mm in cyclic loading. As it is shown in
Fig. 3, the whole setup is implemented while rotated by 90 degrees to get
into the actuator’s direction.
3.3. Test procedure
All tests performed in this study are aimed to simulate the lateral
motion of a bridge. As described before, the lateral load was induced in
the middle concrete pad by the actuator. The bearings were tested so
that their shorter sides were parallel to the shear loading direction.
Loading was a pseudo-dynamic one consisting of fully reversed cycles of
different amplitudes. Table 2 shows the details of the testing protocol
used in the experiment. Since the connection between the bearing and
the top and bottom surfaces is just made by friction, the level of vertical
load on the bearing could have a significant effect on the bearing’s
behavior. Therefore, three different levels of vertical load were consid­
ered. One is about 700 kN (equal to average stress of 5.8 MPa), the other
is about 500 kN (equal to average stress of 4.1 MPa) and the third is
about 300 kN (equal to average stress of 2.5 MPa). High axial load means
the presence of gravity loads. AASHTO Guide Specifications for Seismic
Isolation Design [43] places no limits on compressive stress in the iso­
lators, however, a value of 1.0 ksi (equal to 6.9 MPa) is proposed in the
design examples. Moreover, LRFD Bridge Design Specification [44] re­
quirements in both methods A and B of steel reinforced elastomeric
bearing design (Articles 14.7.5.3.4 and 14.7.6.3.2), limits the vertical
load on the bearing based on its geometry. Although, considering the
geometry of the bearing specimens used in this experimental program,
higher values are attained in comparison to what is recommended by
AASHTO Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design [43]. The
high level of axial load used in this research was selected based on this
Table 2
Testing protocol.
Test No. Test name Average axial stress (MPa) Ave. rate of loading (mm/s)
1 SL-Pilot 5.8 13
2 SL-V1 2.5 13
3 SL-V2 4.1 13
4 SL-V3 5.8 13
5 SL-V3-RL 5.8 6.5
(b)
A. Maghsoudi-Barmi et al.
recommendation, the laboratory limitations, and due to safety reasons.
On the other hand, the low level of axial load is due to the presence of an
upward vertical component of the earthquake which reduces the load on
the bearing. The third case is aimed to investigate a critical situation in
which the structure loses the majority of its weight on the bearing by the
vertical component of the ground motion. There are different viewpoints
about minimum allowable pressure on elastomeric bearings, and
different values of about 1.5 to 3 MPa are proposed in the literature, and
also the manufacturers’ catalogs to prohibit slippage in the bearings.
Bridge manual for New York State Department of Transportation [45],
in section twelve for bridge bearings, implies that elastomeric bearings
used with steel superstructures have a minimum pressure requirement
due to dead load plus superimposed dead load of 1.38 MPa to ensure the
rubber element does not walk out of position. Vaidya in his book titled
“Bridge Bearings” [46] adds the point that elastomeric bearings have a
tendency to slip if the minimum normal pressure is less than 2 MPa.
Manufacturers of the elastomeric bearings, also propose a minimum
pressure of 3 MPa for the elastomeric bearings without any anchorage to
the super/substructure. Considering these recommendations, a value of
2.5 MPa was chosen as a minimum vertical load on the bearings
investigated in this paper.
As described before, the lateral loading is exerted on the middle
concrete slab by the 1000 kN capacity actuator. Loading was applied by
using the displacement control condition. A pseudo-dynamic cyclic
loading with different amplitudes from shear strains of 25% to 125%
was used (Fig. 4). The values of the displacements and the corresponding
levels of strain are also listed in Table 3. The loading protocol, including
the loading amplitude, sequences, and the number of cycles was adopted
from AASHTO Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design [43]
with some modifications. In this study, total Design Displacement (TDD)
of SREBs was assumed as the shear strain of 100% (i.e., equal to rubber
height) since rollover and sliding are possible likely reasons for the
instability of the bearing beyond this deformation. This was investigated
by testing a pilot specimen (SL-Pilot) at the beginning of the experi­
mental program, in which specimens were loaded till 150% shear strain.
Fig. 5 shows the results obtained for this experiment. As was expected,
the bearing specimen suddenly jumped out of its position at shear
displacement almost equal to 150% of the rubber height. Hence, TDD
was assumed as equal to the total rubber height of the specimen. In
unbonded bearings, rollover of the bearings can be expected at high
strain amplitudes due to the lack of flexural rigidity. More accurately,
rollover in the unbonded bearings is mainly dependent on inner steel
shims’ thickness. As the reinforcement steel becomes stiffer, a more
restricted rollover is attained, and full rollover will not occur or will be
delayed [47]. Therefore, when SREBs are concerned, it is relatively
limited compared to that of fiber reinforced elastomeric bearings
(FREBs). Due to high flexibility in FREBs, the rubber material exhibits
larger deformations at strain amplitudes above 100%. This also causes
an increase in energy dissipation and higher values of equivalent viscous
damping. There are different experimental results and also theoretical
models regarding the point where full rollover occurs, and different
Fig. 4. Cyclic loading protocol.
608
Structures 32 (2021) 604–616
Table 3
Shear displacements in the bearings and the corresponding equivalent shear
strains.
Shear displacement in the bearing Equivalent shear strain Loading period
(mm) (%) (S)
19 25 6
39 50 12
58 75 18
77 100 24
96 125 30
Fig. 5. Hysteresis loops for sample experiment, SL-Pilot.
values of 165 to 250% are reported for different circumstances
[27,47–48].
The rate of loading was set equal to 13 mm/s or 17% shear-strain per
second. Malaysian Rubber Producers’ Research Association (MRPRA)
[49] has investigated the dependency of the shear modulus of natural
rubber on strain rate, showing that the shear modulus is more signifi­
cantly affected by peak shear strain rather than by strain rate. The same
result was approved by Konstantinidis et al. [38], in which the obser­
vations from their experiments showed that the horizontal stiffness is
generally independent of the loading rate but is influenced by peak shear
strain. Besides, their experiments showed that the energy dissipated per
cycle is nearly independent of velocity. However, to further investigate
the frequency effects, another test (SL-V3-RL) was added to the testing
protocol with a frequency equal to half of the initial frequency.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Cyclic response
Fig. 6 presents hysteresis loops formed for bearing specimens SL-V1,
SL-V2, and SL-V3, and Fig. 7 shows step by step creation of these loops.
As shown in Fig. 6, all bearings exhibited stable hysteretic response up to
shear strains of 125% and under different levels of vertical load. The
occurrence of slip is visible in Fig. 6 (a) for test SL-V1 which is carried
out under low vertical load. Bearing specimens with relatively high
vertical load experienced negligible slippage, as shown in Fig. 6 (b) and
(c), which also provided high shear force capacity. Deformations in the
bearing at different amplitudes of shear strains are presented in Fig. 7.
Specimens started to roll over at a shear strain of 50% and rollover
increased without causing instability in the bearings up to the shear
strain of 125% (Fig. 7). It is also clear that specimens have exhibited very
little rollover, which is likely due to steel shim thickness and also the
bearing dimensions. Therefore, bearings are behaving somewhere be­
tween a bonded and unbonded bearing, and as it is shown in Fig. 6
hysteresis loops appear to be near linear and the decrease in the
A. Maghsoudi-Barmi et al. Structures 32 (2021) 604–616

Fig. 6. Hysteresis loops for each experiment, (a) SL-V1, (b) SL-V2, and (c) SL-V3.

horizontal stiffness is relatively small. Specimens with slippage also When compression force is concerned, a decreasing trend has been
started to roll over at a shear strain of 50% but rollover did not increase shown for lateral stiffness with increasing the compression force [53].
considerably. Now, comparing the stiffness values reported for SL-V2 and SL-V3 at
each level of shear strain in Fig. 8 to evaluate the effects of vertical load
4.2. Effects of vertical load level on the shear response of the bearing, indicates that the increased
compressive load on the bearing causes an increase in horizontal stiff­
For the connections which are made just through the contact surfaces ness of the bearing in all shear strains. This observation is counter to
by friction, vertical load on the connection is always an important issue. what is expected in the theory discussed above. This is probably due to
This is the case of unbonded SREB in which upper and lower steel plates experimental error or minor variations between specimens. Differences
are omitted, where, the vertical load on the bearing would play an of 4 to 7% can be found between the results of the two specimens.
important role. Therefore, here the effects of vertical load on the char­ Comparing the effective stiffness values at the shear strain of 100%,
acteristics of unbonded SREBs are investigated. as representative of TDD, shows little difference between not slid spec­
imens (about 4%). However, slippage occurrence in the specimen causes
4.2.1. Horizontal stiffness a considerable decrease of about 55% in horizontal stiffness. This shows
Considering SREBs as isolators (and not ordinary bearings), and that the sliding of the bearing has a great effect on horizontal stiffness in
based on article 13.3 of AASHTO Guide Specifications for Seismic which results in smaller force transmission to the substructure and the
Isolation Design [43], the effective stiffness of specimens are determined occurrence of larger displacement in the superstructure.
as follows and listed in Table 4: The occurrence of sliding and hence the noticeable reduction in the
( )/( ) effective stiffness of the bearing represents the importance of the level of
keff = Fp − Fn Δp − Δn (1) vertical force. The stiffness of the bearing is the most important feature
in estimating demand forces and displacements in the structure. Any
where Δp and Δn are maximum positive and negative test displace­
underestimation or overestimation of stiffness could end up in consid­
ments respectively, while Fp and Fn are their corresponding forces.
erable damage to the structure. Albeit it should be noted herein that
As it is shown in Fig. 6, except experiment SL-V1 in which sliding
controlling the sliding response of the unbonded SREBs is a challenging
occurred, the overall behavior of the specimens is almost linear and very
issue since various parameters are effective. Therefore, uncontrolled
thin loops are formed. Based on the stiffness values listed in Table 4 and
sliding in these bearings is undesirable and should be avoided. Since it
the comparison made in Fig. 8, by increasing the shear displacement
could have severe consequences, e.g. residual displacement and
amplitude, the effective horizontal stiffness of the bearing decreases.
pounding.
This deduction in the horizontal stiffness is evaluated in the range of 17
to 18% from the shear strain of 25% to the shear strain of 125%, for SL-
4.2.2. Damping ratio
V2 and SL-V3 specimens in which sliding did not occur. Losanno et al.
As one of the basic elements of a seismic isolation system, the energy
[26] have shown the same decreasing trend for fiber-reinforced rubber
dissipation characteristics of the bearing play an important role in
isolators. The decrease in the horizontal stiffness by increasing the shear
reducing the relative displacements level. For the bearings under
deformation is evaluated to be mainly due to rollover in the bearings.
investigation, this is an important issue since the SREBs usually possess
When the bearing rolls over, it detaches from the supporting surface, and
small shear stiffness and then a high degree of flexibility, which results
the effective area of the bearing decreases, which leads to degradation of
in large displacements in the structure. Therefore, the damping coeffi­
horizontal stiffness. Although, some researchers [26] have also named
cient of the bearings must be investigated as an effective factor.
Mullins effects, in which the stress–strain curve depends on the
Generally, there are three different types of damping, i.e. viscous
maximum loading previously encountered [50–51], as one of the
damping, friction damping, and hysteretic damping. In the case of
effective factors in reduction of the stiffness.
SREBs, the energy dissipation is a hysteretic one, in which it is related to
The theoretical popular value used for the calculation of shear
the area enclosed within the cyclic loading curve. However, the damping
stiffness of the elastomeric bearings, GA/tr, is also depicted in Fig. 8. As
ratio in these bearings does not possess high values. EN 1998–2 [42]
it is shown in this figure, effective shear stiffness of the bearing at low
considers the equivalent viscous damping ratio (ξ) in SREBs less than
levels of shear deformation diverges from the theoretical value, while
0.06 and can be approximated equal to 0.05. It is also observed in Fig. 6,
they converge at higher shear strains, i.e. 100% and above.
except in the slid specimen (SL-V1), that the hysteretic loops are narrow
Based on the theory of Tsai and Kelly [52] and further investigations
ones indicating a very low damping level.
regarding the effect of the flexibility of the steel reinforcing plates pre­
Equation 13.3 (2) of AASHTO Guide Specifications for Seismic
sented by Tsai and Kelly [53], the dimensionless lateral stiffness of
Isolation Design [43] is used to calculate the equivalent viscous damping
isolators KHh/(GA) is shown to be a function of the normalized
ratio in the form below:
compression force P/(GA), the modulus ratio of the elastomer to the
reinforcement, the shape factor of the elastomer, the width-thickness
ratio of the reinforcement and the width-height ratio of the isolator.

609
A. Maghsoudi-Barmi et al. Structures 32 (2021) 604–616

Fig. 7. Shear deformation of specimens, (a) none- slid specimen, (b) slid specimen.

610
A. Maghsoudi-Barmi et al. Structures 32 (2021) 604–616

Table 4
Effective stiffness of specimens.
Max. Shear strain (%) Effective Stiffness (kN/mm)
SL-V1 SL-V2 SL-V3

25 1.68 1.63 1.73

50 1.49 1.47 1.57
75 0.94 1.43 1.50
100 0.65 1.40 1.46
125 0.58 1.34 1.40

Fig. 9. Equivalent viscous damping ratio for various shear strains.

Looking at the low values of reported damping coefficients, we can

conclude herein that these types of bearings are with some limitations
regarding the low damping characteristics and also the vulnerable
behavior in uplift conditions. Moreover, it is possible to have bearings in
lightly loaded conditions, which may have issues even before uplift
occurs. Along with the advantages mentioned before, this type of
isolator might be an acceptable isolation option in low to moderate
seismic zones or for low risk short span bridges. Besides, some com­
Fig. 8. Effective horizontal stiffness for various shear strains. plementary damping devices might be also efficient. Losanno et al. [54],
investigated the influence of added damping to elastomeric bearings as
an isolation system. Their study showed that increasing the damping is
total energy dissipated per cycle
ξ= ( ) (2) overall an improving factor, however, not to just any extent. Hence, an
2π keff di2
optimal design procedure is necessary by performing iterative analysis
where keff is as defined in relation (1) and di is the total design to determine the bridge response according to the code provided seismic
displacement (TDD). The results are listed in Table 5 and also depicted action. Moreover, in another study by Losanno et al. [55], the seismic
in Fig. 9. Ignoring the specimen SL-V1, it is observed that the energy response of a benchmark bridge equipped with elastomeric bearings and
dissipation in SREBs is not considerable and is ranged between 4.5% and supplemental damping devices was investigated through an optimal
7.75%. At shear strain of 100% as TDD, the value of 4.93% and 6.48% design procedure. The interesting point about their result is that they
are obtained for SL-V2 and SL-V3, respectively. These values are showed that an isolated bridge with low damping elastomeric bearings
compatible with existing reports, like EN 1998–2 [42]. and supplemental damping devices can perform better than high
As it is shown in Fig. 9, a comparison between the damping co­ damping rubber bearings (HDRBs) or lead core rubber bearings (LRBs)
efficients for specimens SL-V2 and SL-V3 indicates that the energy while maintaining competitive cost.
dissipated per cycle (i.e., damping coefficient) increases by increasing
the level of vertical load. Moreover, a declining trend is visible for the
4.3. Slip response
damping ratio of the bearings against the level of shear strain until the
shear strain of 100%, and then it reverses. The above comparisons are
The bearings investigated in this paper have no endplates and the
true just for the bearings that do not slide. As the bearing slides, the
connection of the bearing to the super/substructure is made just by
hysteretic loops get wider, and hence the equivalent viscous damping
friction. Therefore, to evaluate the sliding critical modes of the bearings’
increases dramatically up to 42%. Although this is a case that seldom
response, the frictional characteristics of the connection between the
occurs, but should be carefully considered in the design process.
bearing and the upper and lower surfaces are investigated herein.
As it is shown in Fig. 10 when rubber bearings are concerned, there
Table 5 are primarily three types of forces that provide frictional resistance,
Equivalent viscous damping ratio of specimens. namely adhesive friction, deformation friction, and traction forces
test Max. Shear Loop area Equivalent viscous [56–57]. Adhesive friction, which is a temporary molecular bonding
strain (%) (kN.mm) damping ratio (%) between the rubber and the concrete, while deformation friction is due
SL-V1 25 248 6.33 to differential pressures across surface irregularities that penetrate the
50 1125 8.09 rubber, and traction forces are produced where high local stresses cause
75 5504 28.01 energy-absorbing tearing and wear of the rubber [57]. Considering these
100 10,275 42.45
125 14,133 41.86
three forces, the schematic force–displacement curve of the rubber
SL-V2 25 257 6.87 bearings, i.e. the frictional response, can be shown as Fig. 11.
50 744 5.78 Russo and Pauletta [57] considered rubber typology and concrete
75 1390 4.99 roughness to evaluate the impression of adhesion and deformation
100 2410 4.93
forces in the frictional behavior of the bearings. They concluded that it
125 5085 6.54
SL-V3 25 313 7.75 might be surmised that the rougher concrete surface allows the force to
50 923 6.31 increase again at displacements beyond the initial peak force and hence,
75 1810 5.75 on the whole, improves friction performance. However, when
100 3527 6.48 comparing the influence of rubber type and concrete roughness on the
125 5984 7.35
reduction of isolator sliding, the former is predominant over the latter, i.

611
A. Maghsoudi-Barmi et al. Structures 32 (2021) 604–616

bearings over different surfaces to provide the designers with a simple

unified approach. Some of these relations presented in the previous re­
searches and also in the design codes and guidelines are presented in
Table 6.
Specimens investigated in this research, are full-scale steel reinforced
natural rubber bearings in contact with concrete at both upper and
lower surfaces (Fig. 3). This case is common in bridges but rarely
investigated in past experiments due to the complications and experi­
mental difficulties. Besides, two different levels of roughness are pro­
vided for upper and lower surfaces to investigate the roughness effects.
On one side, namely the middle slab side, a smooth surface is created by
the contact with a metal mold, and on the other side at the side slabs,
there exists a rough surface due to manual troweling. The finished sur­
faces of both slabs are shown in Fig. 12.
In the experiments conducted, slipping occurred in two cases,
namely, test SL-V1 with a vertical force of 300 kN (σv = 2.5 MPa) which
slipped at a shear load equal to 74 kN (due to low vertical load level),
Fig. 10. Components of rubber friction: (a) adhesion, (b) deformation and (c) and SL-Pilot with the compressive force of 700 kN (σv = 5.8 MPa) which
traction forces. slipped at a shear load equal to 169 kN (with high vertical load level, but
at high shear deformation of 150%). It is observed that a higher level of
compressive load resulted in higher shear resistance for the bearing. As
it was discussed earlier, the main mechanism of the isolation system
investigated in this paper is to tolerate large seismic shear displacements
mainly by rollover and not sliding (See Fig. 1). Based on the result ob­
tained, in presence of enough axial load, the specimens are capable of
tolerating shear strains more than 125% just by rollover and without
slippage of the bearings, which seems to be acceptable performance.
However, for critical situations, in which earthquakes stronger than
what is considered in the design process occur, sliding of the bearing is
possible and will provide an excessive capacity for the isolator. More­
over, in the case of uplift, in which the axial load on the bearing

Fig. 11. Force–displacement curve for the rubber isolator without anchorages.

e. the adhesion is predominant over the displacement forces. Moreover,

by considering different values of compressive force on the bearings they
concluded that the isolator resisting shear force will increase with the
applied compressive stress.
As discussed above, the frictional behavior of the rubber materials
does not follow Coulomb’s law. However, there are some relations
available in the literature which give the equivalent friction coefficient
of the elastomer under different assumptions for the total setup of the
test, contact surface characteristics, elastomer dimensions (namely,
shape factor), temperature, level of vertical load, and shear loading
rates. Therefore, these relations could result in different values of the
Fig. 12. Finished surfaces of concrete slabs, (a) middle slab surface (smooth),
friction coefficient. Besides the experimental programs, different codes
(b) Side slabs’ surface (rough).
and design guidelines have defined the friction coefficient of elastomeric

Table 6
Different relations for friction coefficient by different researchers.
Reference Relation Notes

1 Schrage [36] 0.4 • 27 plain neoprene pads were tested

μ = 0.05 + (3)
σv • Three levels of vertical stress (σv) equal to 0.5, 5 and 20 N/mm2
• Based on a shear loading rate of 0.5 mm/s and the temperature equal to 20
degreesC
2 Magliulo et al. [58] 0.055 • Shear force was applied at a speed of 0.02 mm/s
μ = 0.49 if σv ⩽0.14N/mm2 (4)μ =0.1+ if 0.14⩽σv ⩽5 N/mm2 (5)
∑ σv
3 Steelman et al. [39] 0.37 δuslip • Laboratory testing of full-scale steel-reinforced laminated elastomeric bridge
μ = 0.18 + − (6)
σv 100 bearings
4 AASHTO [44] 0.2 • For non-seismic analysis
5 EN 1337–3 [41] 0.9 • For non-seismic analysis
μe = 0.1 + (7)
σv
6 CALTRANS [59] 0.2 • For non-seismic analysis

612
A. Maghsoudi-Barmi et al.
dramatically decreases, slippage is a possible failure mode. Albeit, these
two extreme cases can be easily controlled by providing enough clear
distance on the substructure or by providing shear keys for displace­
ments beyond the design displacements.
Slipping in both experiments was accompanied by rubber burning as
shown in Fig. 13. Tracing the slipping moment in the experiment
showed that the slipping occurred at the rough surface (Fig. 13). This
observation is consistent with results obtained by Russo and Pauletta
[57] and implies that the friction between the rubber and concrete does
not exactly follow Coulomb’s law, but some degree of adhesion exists
between two surfaces which is controlling the frictional behavior of the
bearing.
The equivalent friction coefficient obtained in this experiment is
compared with the relations presented in other studies and the design
codes (Table 6) in Fig. 14. The friction coefficient increases by the in­
crease in loading rate and decreases with the vertical load level on the
bearing. Both values obtained in the experimental program fall in the
range reported by the other studies and are close to the limit state pre­
sented by the American codes at static condition. However, friction
coefficient corresponding to higher vertical load fits better especially to
EN 1337–3 [41] and Steelman et al. [39] results.
4.4. Effects of loading rate
In research done by the Malaysian Rubber Producers’ Research As­
sociation (MRPRA) [49], it was shown that the shear modulus of natural
rubbers is not noticeably affected by the strain rate, while it is basically
related to the maximum shear strain. They indicated that the maximum
difference of shear modulus between static and dynamic tests was 2–3%
at shear strains equal to 50% and 100% which could be neglected. In
another experimental study, Konstantinidis et al. [38] showed that the
energy dissipated per cycle of loading and unloading is almost inde­
pendent of the rate of loading. The specimens tested in their experiment
were made of neoprene. Experimental results obtained by Madera et al.
[60] which considered high damping natural rubber isolators, also
confirm that the isolator properties do not depend on the loading period,
as the results were similar for the cases where different loading rates
were used. Two different loading rates with a ratio of almost equal to 2
were used in their experiments. Similarly, Russo and Pauletta [57]
investigated the effects of loading rate on fiber-reinforced elastomeric
bearings and compared a low quasi-static loading rate of 0.4 mm/s with
dynamic loading rates of 70 and 100 mm/s. They observed that the
stiffness and the maximum force of the isolators under higher loading
rates are always greater than those obtained from tests with lower
loading rates, however, the differences decrease at higher loading rates,
i.e. 70 and 100 mm/s.
Based on the aforementioned literature, it can be concluded that both
Fig. 13. Sliding at the bearings.
613
Structures 32 (2021) 604–616
Fig. 14. Comparison of concrete-rubber friction coefficient in different models.
stiffness and damping characteristics of rubber bearings might be in­
dependent of the loading rate. However, to further investigate the effects
of loading rate on unbonded natural rubber bearings, an additional test
was carried out herein (specimen SL-V3-RL in Table 2). In this experi­
ment, the specimens under the same vertical load were tested using two
different frequencies with a ratio of 2, namely 6.5 mm/s (Frequency-1,
SL-V3-RL) and 13 mm/s (Frequency-2, SL-V3). The loading protocol
used is the same as defined in Fig. 4.
The overall behavior and the loops formed for the two loading rates
are shown in Fig. 15. For the same shear strain, the loops of different
loading rates match and little difference exists. Shear stiffness and
equivalent viscous damping ratio for different amplitudes are calculated
and listed in Table 7 and Table 8. Consistent with similar studies
mentioned above, the difference between shear stiffness of the two
frequencies is between 2 and 5%, which is a negligible value. Similar to
the results obtained by Russo and Pauletta [57] it is observed that the
stiffness and the maximum force of the bearing under a higher loading
rate are greater than those obtained from tests with lower loading rate in
different shear strains of 50 to 125%. It is worth noting that since the
maximum loading rates applied to the isolator under seismic actions are
often greater than those used in laboratory tests, the real stiffness and
strength of the isolator under seismic actions should be higher than
those obtained from laboratory tests [57]. This difference can be con­
servative while computing displacement demands, although it is un-
conservative in the calculation of force demands for the design of
substructure.
Besides, the damping coefficient under different frequencies of
loading varies up to 12.9 percent. While for the shear strain of 100% as
TDD of the bearing, loading rate effects decrease to the value of 9.2%.
However, considering the low damping ratios of these types of bearing,
this difference would not significantly influence the energy dissipation
characteristics. The findings indicate why damping in rubber is of hys­
teretic type and not a viscous one.
5. Summary and conclusions
Unbonded SREBs subjected to seismic demands, as a cost-effective
option for seismic isolation of bridges especially in developing coun­
tries, are studied in this paper. An experimental program was conducted
to analyze the mechanical properties of natural rubber steel reinforced
bearings. The main focus of this study was on the vertical load level, rate
of loading, and contact conditions. A full-scale shear test setup using a
pair of bearings sandwiched between three concrete platens was uti­
lized. Based on tests results and evaluations the following conclusions
are obtained:
It was shown that these bearings can provide adequate flexibility and
shear displacement capacity. All specimens exhibited stable hysteretic
response up to shear strains of 125% and under different levels of ver­
tical load.
A. Maghsoudi-Barmi et al. Structures 32 (2021) 604–616

Table 7
Comparison of effective stiffness versus loading rate.
Shear strain (%) Effective stiffness (kN/mm) Difference (%)
SL-V3-RL SL-V3

25 1.79 1.73 − 3.2

50 1.50 1.57 4.5
75 1.42 1.50 5.2
100 1.43 1.46 2.3
125 1.37 1.40 − 2.0

Table 8
Comparison of damping ratio versus loading rate.
Shear strain (%) Equivalent Viscous damping ratio (%) Difference (%)
SL-V3-RL SL-V3

25 7.60 7.75 2.0

50 7.01 6.31 − 11.2
75 5.25 5.75 8.7
100 5.89 6.48 9.2
125 6.40 7.35 12.9

• The level of axial load on the bearing was evaluated to be critical in

the isolators’ response. It was shown that the isolator’s resisting
shear force changes with the applied axial load on the bearing. In
presence of adequate axial load, meaning the minimum allowable
axial pressure proposed for this type bearing in the literature and also
the design standards, the specimens were capable of tolerating shear
strains more than 125% just by rollover and without slippage of the
bearings.
• By increasing the shear displacement amplitude, the effective hori­
zontal stiffness of the bearing decreases. The effective shear stiffness
of the bearing at low levels of shear deformation diverges from the
theoretical value GA/tr, while they converge at higher shear strains,
i.e. 100% and above.
• Slippage of the Specimens at a high shear strain of about 150% under
the high level of axial load and also in a low level of vertical load (in
uplift situations), indicates that sliding of the bearing is possible in
critical situations, in which seismic actions far beyond the design
scenarios happen, where larger shear deformations can be tolerated
in a frictional mechanism by sliding of the bearings. However, un­
controlled sliding in these bearings is undesirable and should be
avoided. Since it could have severe consequences, e.g. residual
displacement and pounding.
• The occurrence of slippage at the rough surface showed that friction
between the rubber and concrete does not exactly follow Coulomb’s
law, and the adhesion component is predominant. An equivalent
friction coefficient of 0.24 was calculated which is consistent with
quasi-static testing conditions. Higher values are promising for a
dynamic test condition like a real seismic event.
• An equivalent viscous damping ratio, ξ, of about 5–6% could be
proposed for not sliding cases. The damping ratio of SREBs was
evaluated as a limitation and might limit their usage in specific
seismic zones (low to moderate) and also low risk short span bridges.
• Based on the results obtained for two different loading rates with a
ratio of 2, it was not evaluated as an effective factor on the me­
chanical properties of SREBs. Greater stiffness and the maximum
force of the bearing are obtained under a higher loading rate. Due to
the low rate of loading in the prototype tests, results can be conser­
vative while computing displacement demands, although it is un-
conservative in the calculation of force demands.

Fig. 15. Comparison of hysteresis loops for various load ratings.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

614
A. Maghsoudi-Barmi et al. Structures 32 (2021) 604–616

Acknowledgments [21] Toopchi-Nezhad H. Horizontal stiffness solutions for unbonded fiber reinforced
elastomeric bearings. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2014;49(3):395–410. https://doi.org/
10.12989/sem.2014.49.3.395.
This research was supported by Tehran Engineering and Technical [22] Pauletta M, Cortesia A, Russo G. Roll-out instability of small size fiber-reinforced
Consulting Organization (TETCO). We thank all the personnel in TETCO elastomeric isolators in unbonded applications. Eng. Struct. 2015;102:358–86.
who provided insight and expertise that greatly assisted the research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.08.019.
[23] Van Engelen NC, Konstantinidis D, Tait MJ. “Structural and nonstructural
Our gratitude is given to Strong-Hold-Iran Company (SHI) for their performance of a seismically isolated building using stable unbonded fiber-
assistance in providing elastomeric bearings tested in this experiment. reinforced elastomeric isolators”, Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2016;45:421–39.
Special thanks go to Mohsen Zanganeh and Masoud Taheri Jam, the https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2665.
[24] Ruano PC, Strauss A. An experimental study on unbonded circular fiber reinforced
Structural Dynamics Strong Floor laboratory’s assistants for their kind elastomeric bearings. Eng. Struct. 2018;177:72–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
help and support in conducting the experiments. The authors are engstruct.2018.09.062.
grateful to the Center of Excellence in Composite Structures and Seismic [25] Habieb AB, Milani G, Tavio T. Two-step advanced numerical approach for the
design of low-cost unbonded fiber reinforced elastomeric seismic isolation systems
Strengthening (CECSSS) at Sharif University of Technology (SUT). in new masonry buildings. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2018;90:380–96. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.engfailanal.2018.04.002.
References [26] Losanno D, Madera Sierra IE, Spizzuoco M, Marulanda J, Thomson P. a),
“Experimental assessment and analytical modeling of novel fiber-reinforced
isolators in unbounded configuration”. Compos. Struct. 2019;212:66–82. https://
[1] Buckle IG, Mayes RL. Seismic isolation: History, application and performance- a
doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.01.026.
world view. Earthq Spectra 1990;6(2):161–201. https://doi.org/10.1193/
[27] Losanno D, Madera Sierra IE, Spizzuoco M, Marulanda J, Thomson P. b),
1.1585564.
“Experimental Performance of Unbonded Polyester and Carbon Fiber-reinforced
[2] Kunde MC, Jangid RS. Seismic behavior of isolated bridges: A-state-of-the-art
Elastomeric Isolators under Bidirectional Seismic Excitations”. Eng. Struct. 2020;
review. Electron J Struct Eng 2003;3(2):140–69.
209:110003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.110003.
[3] Buckle, I. G., Constantinou, M. C., Diceli, M., Ghasemi, H. (2006), “Seismic
[28] Spizzuoco M, Calabrese A, Serinol G. Innovative low-cost recycled rubber–fiber
isolation of highway bridges, Rep. No. MCEER-06-SP07”, Multidisciplinary center
reinforced isolator: Experimental tests and Finite Element Analyses. Eng. Struct.
for earthquake engineering research, Univ. at Buffalo, State Univ. of New York,
2014;76:99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.07.001.
Buffalo, N.Y.
[29] Calabrese A, Serino G, Strano S, Terzo M. Experimental investigation of a low-cost
[4] He W, Jiang L, Wei B, Wang Z. The influence of pier height on the seismic isolation
elastomeric anti-seismic device using recycled rubber. Mechanica 2015;50:
effectiveness of friction pendulum bearing for Double-Track railway bridges.
2201–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11012-015-0155-7.
Structures 2020;28:1870–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.10.022.
[30] Calabrese A, Losanno D, Spizzuoco M, Strano S, Terzo M. Recycled Rubber Fiber
[5] Khansefid A, Maghsoudi-Barmi A, Khaloo A. Seismic protection of LNG tanks with
Reinforced Bearings (RR-FRBs) as base isolators for residential buildings in
reliability based optimally designed combined rubber isolator and friction damper.
developing countries: The demonstration building of Pasir Badak, Indonesia. Eng.
Earthquakes and structures 2019;16(5):523–32. https://doi.org/10.12989/
Struct. 2019;192:126–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.04.076.
eas.2019.16.5.523.
[31] Losanno D, Spizzuoco M, Calabrese A. Bidirectional shaking-table tests of
[6] Wang Y-P, Chung L-L, Liao W-H. Seismic response analysis of bridges isolated with
unbonded recycled-rubber fiber-reinforced bearings (RR-FRBs). Struct Control
friction pendulum bearings. Earthq Eng Struct D 1998;27(10):1069–93. https://
Health Monit 2019;26(9):e2386. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.2386.
doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1096-984510.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199810)27:
[32] Pauletta M. Method to design fiber-reinforced elastomeric isolators (U-FREIs) and
10<>1.0.CO;2-D10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199810)27:10<1069::AID-
application. Eng. Struct. 2019;197:109366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
EQE770>3.0.CO;2-S.
engstruct.2019.109366.
[7] Jiang L, Zhong J, Yuan W. The pulse effect on the isolation device optimization of
[33] Madera Sierra IE, Marulanda J, Thomson P. Matrix and reinforcement materials for
simply supported bridges in near-fault regions. Structures 2020;27:853–67.
low-cost building isolators: an overview of results from experimental tests and
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.06.034.
numerical simulations. J APPL RES TECHNOL 2018;16:99–111. https://doi.org/
[8] Khaloo, A., Maghsoudi-Barmi, A., Ehteshami Moeini, M. (2020),” Numerical
10.22201/icat.16656423.2019.17.1.756.
parametric investigation of hysteretic behavior of steel-reinforced elastomeric
[34] Stanton JF, Roeder CW. Elastomeric bearings design, construction, and materials.
bearings under large shear deformation”, Structures, 26, 456-470. 10.1016/j.
Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board; 1982.
istruc.2020.04.029.
[35] Roeder CW, Stanton JF, Taylor AW. Performance of elastomeric bearings.
[9] AASHTO. Standard specifications for plain and laminated elastomeric bridge
Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board; 1987.
bearings. Washington, DC: AASHTO; 2008.
[36] Schrage I. “Anchoring of bearings by friction”, American Concrete Institute,
[10] Yura J, Kumar A, Yakut A, Topkaya C, Becker E, Collingwood J. NCHRP REPORT
Special. Publication 1981;SP70-12:197–215.
449: Elastomeric bridge bearings: Recommended test methods. Washington, D.C.:
[37] Mori A, Moss PJ, Cooke N, Carr AJ. The behavior of bearings used for seismic
National cooperative highway research program; 2001.
isolation under shear and axial load. Earthq Spectra 1999;15(2):199–223. https://
[11] Kalfas K, Mitoulis SA, Konstantinidis D. Influence of steel reinforcement on the
doi.org/10.1193/1.1586038.
performance of elastomeric bearings. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering
[38] Konstantinidis, D., JAMES M. Kelly, J. M., and MAKRIS, N. (2008), “Experimental
2020;146(10):04020195. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
Investigation on the Seismic Response of Bridge Bearings, Report 2008/02”,
541X.0002710.
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
[12] Mitoulis SA. Uplift of elastomeric bearings in isolated bridges subjected to
[39] Steelman JS, Fahnestock LA, Filipov ET, LaFave JM, Hajjar JF, Foutch DA. Shear
longitudinal seismic excitations. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2014;11(12):1600–15.
and Friction Response of Nonseismic Laminated Elastomeric Bridge Bearings
https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2014.983527.
Subject to Seismic Demands. J Bridge Eng 2013;18(7):612–23.
[13] Konstantinidis D, Kelly JM. “Advances in Low-Cost Seismic Isolation with Rubber”,
[40] Maghsoudi-Barmi A, Khaloo A. Experimental investigation of life-time
Tenth U.S. In: National Conference on Earthquake Engineering Frontiers of
performance of unbounded natural rubber bearings as an isolation system in
Earthquake Engineering; 2014. 10NCEE..
bridges. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/
[14] Toopchi-Nezhad H, Tait MJ, Drysdale RG. Testing and modeling of square carbon
15732479.2020.1793208.
fiber-reinforced elastomeric seismic isolators. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2008;
[41] EN (2006) BS EN 1337-3:2005, Structural bearings: Elastomeric bearings. Brussels:
15(6):876–900. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.v15:610.1002/stc.225.
European Committee for Standardization.
[15] Toopchi-Nezhad H, Tait MJ, Drysdale RG. Lateral response evaluation of fiber-
[42] EN (2005) EN 1998-2: 2005: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part
reinforced neoprene seismic isolators utilized in an unbonded application.
2: Bridges. Brussels: EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION.
J. Struct. Eng. 2008;134(10):1627–37. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445
[43] AASHTO (2014), Design guide specifications for seismic isolation. Washington, DC:
(2008)134:10(1627).
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
[16] Toopchi-Nezhad H, Tait MJ, Drysdale RG. Shake table study on an ordinary low-
[44] AASHTO (2017) AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. Washington, DC:
rise building seismically isolated with SU-FREIs (stable unbonded-fiber reinforced
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
elastomeric isolators). Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2009;38(11):1335–57. https://doi.
[45] Cuomo, A. M. (2006), “Bridge manual”, New York State department of
org/10.1002/eqe.v38:1110.1002/eqe.923.
transportation.
[17] Toopchi-Nezhad H, Drysdale RG, Tait MJ. Parametric study on the response of
[46] Vaidya SM. Bridge Bearings, second edition. Pune, India: Indian Railway Institute
stable unbonded-fiber reinforced elastomeric isolators (SU-FREIs). J. Compos.
of Civil Engineering; 2014.
Mater. 2009;43(15):1569–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021998308106322.
[47] Van Engelen NC, Tait MJ, Dimitrios Konstantinidis D. Model of the shear behavior
[18] Toopchi-Nezhad H, Tait MJ, Drysdale RG. Bonded versus unbonded strip fiber
of unbonded fiber-reinforced elastomeric isolators. J Struct Eng 2015;141(7):
reinforced elastomeric isolators: finite element analysis. Compos. Struct. 2011;93
04014169. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001120.
(2):850–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2010.07.009.
[48] Kelly, J. M., and Konstantinidis, D. (2007). “Low-cost seismic isolators for housing
[19] de Raaf MGP, Tait MJ, Toopchi-Nezhad H. Stability of fiber-reinforced elastomeric
in highly-seismic developing countries.” 10th world conference on seismic
bearings in an unbonded application. J. Compos. Mater. 2011;45(18):1873–84.
isolation, energy dissipation and active vibrations control of structures, Istanbul,
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021998310388319.
Turkey. 2007.
[20] Russo G, Pauletta M, Cortesia A. A study on experimental shear behavior of fiber-
[49] Association MRPR. Natural Rubber Engineering Data Sheet (EDS). England:
reinforced elastomeric isolators with various fiber layouts, elastomers and aging
Malaysian Rubber Research and development Board Organization; 1979.
conditions. Eng. Struct. 2013;52:422–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2013.02.034.

615
A. Maghsoudi-Barmi et al.
[50] Gent AN. Engineering with Rubber – How to Design Rubber Components. Munich,
Germany: Hanser Publications; 2012.
[51] Mullins, L. (1969), “Softening of rubber by deformation”, Rubber Chem Technol,
42, 339–62.
[52] Tsai HC, Kelly JM. Buckling of short beams with warping effect included. Int. J.
Solids Struct. 2005;42(1):239–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2004.07.021.
[53] Tsai HC, Kelly JM. Buckling load of seismic isolators affected by flexibility of
reinforcement. Int. J. Solids Struct. 2005;42(1):255–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijsolstr.2004.07.020.
[54] Losanno D, Spizzuoco M, Serino G. Optimal design of the seismic protection system
for isolated bridges. Earthquakes and Structures 2014;7(6):969–99. https://doi.
org/10.12989/eas.2014.7.6.969.
[55] Losanno D, Hadad HA, Serino G. Seismic behavior of isolated bridges with
additional damping under far-field and near fault ground motion. Earthquakes and
Structures 2017;13(2):119–30. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.13.2.119.
616
Structures 32 (2021) 604–616
[56] Haney, P. (2003), “The racing & high-performance tire: using tires to tune for grip
& balance”, SAE Int TV Motorsports.
[57] Russo G, Pauletta M. Sliding instability of fiber-reinforced elastomeric isolators in
unbounded applications. Eng. Struct. 2013;48:70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2012.08.031.
[58] Magliulo G, Capozzi V, Fabbrocino G, Manfredi G. Neoprene-Concrete friction
relationships for seismic assessment of existing precast buildings. Eng Struct 2011;
33:532–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.11.011.
[59] CALTRANS. Bridge Memo to Designers. California, USA: California department of
Transportation; 1994.
[60] Madera Sierra IE, Losanno D, Strano S, Marulanda J, Thomson P. Development and
experimental behavior of HDR seismic isolators for low-rise residential buildings.
Eng. Struct. 2019;183:894–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.01.037.