Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Available online 10 August 2010
Keywords:
Strip ber reinforced elastomeric isolators
Laminated rubber bearings
Finite element analysis
Seismic mitigation
Base isolation
a b s t r a c t
This paper presents a nite element (FE) model for the analysis of strip ber reinforced elastomeric isolators (FREIs) that are subjected to any given combination of static vertical and lateral loads. The model is
able to simulate both bonded and unbonded boundary conditions at the top and bottom contact surfaces
of the isolator. Compared to bonded (B)-FREIs, the FE-analysis of stable unbonded (SU)-FREIs presents
additional analysis challenges. SU-FREI refers to unbonded FREIs that exhibit stable rollover deformation
under lateral loads. Additional analysis challenges are attributed to changes in the boundary conditions
of SU-FREI as a result of rollover type deformation. To address these challenges, the utilized FE-mesh is
updated during analysis consistent with the deformed geometry of the isolator. Using the proposed FEmodel, the lateral responses of a B-FREI and a SU-FREI were evaluated. Both isolators had the same material and geometrical properties and were subjected to identical constant vertical loading. Comparing the
lateral responses, it was found that the SU-FREI was considerably more efcient than the B-FREI as a seismic isolator. In addition, the in-service stress demands on the SU-FREI were found to be signicantly
lower than the B-FREI.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Fiber reinforced elastomeric isolators (FREIs) comprise alternating bonded layers of elastomer and ber reinforcement. The elastomeric layers provide lateral exibility and the primary role of ber
reinforcement is to constrain lateral bulging of the elastomer when
the isolator is subjected to vertical compressive loads. In terms of
connection to the isolators top and bottom contact supports, FREIs
can be classied as either bonded or unbonded. In a bonded (B)FREI, two thick steel mounting plates are bonded to the outer rubber layers at the top and bottom of the isolator. During installation,
the top and bottom mounting plates are bolted to the superstructure and substructure, respectively. In an unbonded FREI, the isolator is placed between the substructure and superstructure without
any bonding or fastening at its contact surfaces. During an earthquake, the shear loads at the contact surfaces of an unbonded
isolator are transferred through friction. In a stable unbonded
(SU)-FREI, the isolators geometry can be selected such that it
maintains lateral stability at extreme lateral displacements.
Over the past decade, a number of experimental investigations
on individual bonded and unbonded FREIs have been conducted
[110]. The common outcome of these studies is that the investi Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 905 5259140/24860; fax: +1 905 5299688.
E-mail addresses: toopchh@mcmaster.ca (H. Toopchi-Nezhad), taitm@mcmaster.ca (M.J. Tait), drysdale@mcmaster.ca (R.G. Drysdale).
0263-8223/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2010.07.009
851
are available [1215]. Also, both the horizontal stiffness and buckling load of strip B-FREIs have been analytically investigated
[16,17]. Given the complex deformation characteristics of FREIs,
the analytical solutions for B-FREIs typically involve sophisticated
equations. Furthermore, the literature lacks any closed-form solution for the lateral response of SU-FREIs.
Finite element (FE) is a powerful design tool that can be employed in the preliminary design of FREIs. Analysis of elastomeric
components requires a robust FE-model that is capable of addressing large deformations and accounts for the nearly incompressible
behavior of the elastomer. Although FE-analysis of B-FREIs is relatively straight forward, there are challenges in the FE-analysis of
SU-FREIs due to the rollover deformation of these isolators under
lateral loads. A limited number of studies report on FE-analysis
of FREIs. These studies are either limited to the vertical compression response [18], or focus on the vertical and lateral responses
of B-FREIs only [9].
The focus of this study is on the lateral response evaluation of
both B- and SU-FREIs through FE-analysis. A FE-model, capable of
simulating both conventional bonded and unbonded boundary conditions at the top and bottom contact surfaces of strip FREIs, is presented. The term strip is selected as the analysis is carried out for
the unit out-of-plane length of the isolator. The primary goal of the
presented FE-analysis is to evaluate the horizontal stiffness of the
isolators at different lateral displacements. The analysis results
are also used to assess the stress (or strain) state in the isolators
components. In addition to developing the FE-model, an extensive
comparative study on the lateral response of a B-FREI and a corresponding SU-FREI is presented.
Table 1
Material and geometrical properties of the strip FREI.
Material properties
Ge = Shear modulus of the elastomer (rubber) = 0.4 MPa
tf = Poissons ratio of the ber reinforcement = 0.2
Ef = Youngs modulus of the ber reinforcement = 137 GPa
Geometrical properties
2a = Width of the isolator = 70 mm
te = Thickness of a single elastomer layer = 1.587 mm
tr = Total thickness of the rubber layers = 19.044 mm
tf = Thickness of the ber reinforcement = 0.55 mm
h = Height of the isolator = 25.094 mm
S = Shape factor (=a/te) = 22
(see Fig. 2a) as a result of the internal moment and shear that develop in the isolator.
Horizontal stiffness of a strip B-FREI can be estimated using the
closed-form elastic solution available for the horizontal stiffness
evaluation of a homogeneous short vertical beam that is subjected
to axial compression and lateral shear forces. The theory extends
the Haringx theory [19] on the stability of rubber rods by accounting for the shear and warping deformations of the cross section. To
replicate the boundary conditions of a B-FREI, the lower end of the
beam is assumed to be xed against any displacement, rotation
and warping, and the upper end is constrained against rotation
and warping but allowed to move in both lateral and axial directions. Based on these assumptions, the horizontal stiffness of the
beam (or the B-FREI given in Fig. 1) can be calculated by [16];
KH
P
Ge A
q
p
2
P1
Pb
b
tr
2
1
2qb tan
b
Pb
1
2
8q
2Pb
b
Pb
1
2
q
p
2qb2 tan 8bq2 1
c kb P 0
when 1 Pk
Fig. 1 shows a sketch of the cross section of the FREI investigated in this study. The isolator comprises 11 layers of ber reinforcement layers interleaved and bonded between 12 layers of
rubber. The physical dimensions and material properties of the isolator are shown in Table 1. The isolator carries a constant vertical
compression load of P = 112 N.
KH
3.1. B-FREIs
The main objective of the analytical solution is to evaluate the
horizontal stiffness of a B-FREI based on the properties given in Table 1. The analytical solutions of conventional SREIs are not directly
applicable to B-FREIs due to the different mechanical characteristics of ber reinforcement as compared to the steel reinforcing
plates. In a laterally deformed SREI, the steel plates remain planar
and are nearly rigid in both tension and exure. On the contrary,
despite their very large in-plane tensile stiffness, the ber reinforcement layers show some extensional exibility with no bending rigidity. Accordingly, in a laterally deformed B-FREI, the ber
reinforcement layers undergo warping deformation at their ends
P
Ge A
q
p
t r 2P1Pb2 2qb tan b1
b
Pb
1
2
8q
p
2Pb
2 b2 tan
b
Pb
1
2
b2
8q
1
c kb < 0
when 1 Pk
P
kb kc
b1 P1
q
Pk
c kb
P
kb kc 2 4P1
P1
P
kb kc
b2 P1
q
P
kb kc 2 4P1
Pk
c kb
P1
h
in
h
io2
2
1
3 8 aa2
20 1 21
aa2 1 210
aa2 P
10
525
Kb
2
1 77
aa2 64kS3675
3
3
a=t
R12
te
tf
R6
h
i
2
4
9 26 aa2 245S 3
3 1 21
aa2 23 63
aa2 P
105
12ka=t f
kc
2
aa2 64kS3675
1 77
3
a=t 3
f
R1
2a
Fig. 1. Cross section of the strip FREI used in the nite element analysis.
In Eqs. (5) and (6), aa, the extensional rigidity of the ber reinforcement is given by
852
Warping at
the ends of fiber
reinforcement layers
(a) B-FREI
(b) SU-FREI
aa
s
a
12kS
tf
where
1 t2f Ge
Ef
In Eqs. (1) and (2), q EIeff =Ge At 2r indicates the ratio of the effective bending to shear rigidity of the isolator. For a homogeneous
beam (EI)eff = EI, however, for a laminated strip rubber isolator, it
is dened as follows [17];
EIeff a3 Ge S2
1
aa
1 aa2
3
tan haa
aa
24
3.2. SU-FREIs
As shown in Fig. 2b, when a SU-FREI is laterally displaced, its
upper and lower faces roll off the contact supports and the isolator
exhibits rollover deformation. The rollover deformation results in a
non-linear loaddisplacement relationship. Therefore, the horizontal stiffness varies with isolator lateral displacement. As such, the
analytical stiffness solution for this type of isolators is more complex and Eqs. (1) and (2) are no longer applicable. Currently, no
closed-form solution has been reported in the literature to estimate the horizontal stiffness of SU-FREIs.
3.3. Limitations of closed-form solutions
Any closed-form stiffness solution only serves for the preliminary design of FREIs. There are a number of features which are not
addressed by the simplied equations used in the closed-form
solutions. Among these features, one can refer to the dependency
of the rubber material properties on the amplitude of the shear
strain, which is ignored in closed-form linear solutions. Additionally, due to the static nature of the solution, no information can
be obtained on the inuence of rate and history of the lateral displacement on the lateral response of the isolator. Analytical evaluation of the effective damping of the isolator, which is an important
design parameter, is not possible. Therefore, the nal design properties of any isolation device should be evaluated through experimental testing on prototype samples of the isolator [20].
4. Finite element modeling
4.1. Objectives
In the FE-analysis presented in this paper, the strip isolator, under a constant axial compression load, is subjected to a static lateral load acting at its top support. Due to the non-linear nature
of the analysis, the lateral load is applied incrementally in multiple
steps from zero to its target value. The target lateral load is selected
such that a 200% tr lateral deformation in the isolator is achieved.
853
4.3. Material models used for the rubber and the ber reinforcement
Since the FE-analysis developed in this study serves as a tool for
the preliminary design of FREIs, it relies on a minimum set of required material data properties to minimize the cost of the preliminary design. As such, the presented FE-analysis employs a
Neo-Hookean model as the simplest available hyperelastic material
model for elastomeric materials. In this model, the rubber is treated as an elastic isotropic material with a strain energy function
that is characterized by shear (Ge) and bulk (ke) moduli of the rubber. The nominal shear modulus at 100% elongation can be provided, as routine standard product information, by many rubber
suppliers. If the rubber in an isolator performs as a nearly incompressible material with a Poissons ratio of approximately 0.5, an
appropriate value of the bulk modulus can be estimated using
the following well-known elasticity relationship.
ke
21 te
Ge 31 2te
10
The bulk modulus of rubber in the presented FE-analysis is taken as ke = 1900 MPa. With this value and the shear modulus of
Ge = 0.4 MPa (see Table 1), the use of Eq. (10) results in a Poissons
ratio of 0.4999 which is sufciently close to 0.5 to simulate the
incompressible behavior of the rubber in the FE-analysis.
The ber reinforcement in the presented FE-model is treated as
a linear elastic isotropic material with material properties given in
Table 1.
4.4. Rubber incompressibility
The incompressibility of rubber can result in serious numerical
errors if standard isoparametric elements, in which the stress state
is determined from the strain state, are used in the FE-analysis.
Since the volumetric strain in the nite elements is nearly zero
in a nearly incompressible material, determining the mean stress
or pressure based on the volumetric part of the strain is challenging [22]. Additionally, standard isoparametric elements in an
incompressible material show a pathological behavior entitled volumetric mesh-locking that is attributed to the inaccurate performance of an element due to an over-constrained condition and
insufcient active degrees of freedom [23]. To avoid these problems, modern FE-techniques utilize so called mixed-methods for
incompressible materials [22]. In mixed-methods both the strains
and stresses are assumed as the unknowns. In the FE-model proposed in this paper, a commonly used mixed-method developed
by Hermann [24] has been used for the rubber elements.
4.5. Large deformation and element distortion
Elastomeric isolators may undergo very large deformations under extreme lateral loads. Therefore, in the FE-analysis of these isolators, the use of conventional total Lagrangian formulation is not
recommended. As such, in the FE-analysis presented in this study,
an updated Lagrangian approach has been used. In this approach,
the orientation of the local coordinate system is updated during
the analysis based on the deformed conguration of the element.
In a laterally deformed SU-FREI, the rollover deformation, in
addition to the large deformation of the isolator, adds to the complexity of the FE-analysis. When rollover deformation occurs, one
end of the outer rubber-layers rolls off the contact support while
the opposite end is pressed against the contact support (see
Fig. 2b). Accordingly, in the FE-analysis, the rubber elements at
the pressed ends may experience severe distortion such that they
no longer accurately discretize the problem. As the lateral load is
increased, the intermediate rubber layers of the isolator may also
experience local excessive distortion. When the FE-software detects any excessive distortion, it automatically terminates the analysis to preserve the accuracy of the results. To resolve this
termination, prior to excessive element distortion in the original
mesh, the FE-solution can be mapped onto a new mesh that is
adapted with the current deformed geometry of the model. The
new mesh arrangement results in a new FE-problem. The analysis
is then continued by treating the solution from the previous mesh,
at the point of mapping, as the initial conditions of the new FEproblem.
A global remeshing procedure available in MSC. Marc [21] was
used in the presented FE-analysis. The remeshing procedure utilized the updated Lagrangian formulation. The remeshing criterion
was based on monitoring the deviations of the inner angles of the
elements from their undeformed conguration. The default limit of
the software was used as the threshold angle-change. For the top
and bottom rubber layers, the edge length of the quadrilateral elements was selected to be approximately 0.3 mm in the original
mesh. The element edge length for the intermediate rubber layers
was set to be approximately 0.4 mm due to the reduced distorted
pattern of deformation in these layers as compared to the outer
rubber layers. If required, the updated mesh could be ner in the
regions of high-strain gradients in the rubber layers.
The B-FREI was modeled using the same original FE-mesh that
was employed for the SU-FREI. Since the boundary conditions of
the isolator remained unchanged throughout the analysis, no
remeshing was required. The lower-order nite elements were
used in modeling of both isolators as the performance of these elements is superior to higher-order elements in simulating large distortions [25]. For both isolators, the length of the 2D-truss
elements, representing the ber reinforcement, was selected to
be 0.28 mm.
5. Finite element model validation
5.1. B-FREI
Table 2 contains the horizontal stiffness values of the B-FREI,
which are calculated using closed-formed equations and the FEanalysis. For conventional SREIs, when the vertical load carried
by the isolator is signicantly lower than the isolators buckling
load, the horizontal stiffness can be calculated using the simple
formula of KH = GeA/tr [26]. This simple formula is expected to overestimate the horizontal stiffness of a B-FREI due to the exibility of
the ber reinforcement layers that are employed in the isolator.
Given the properties cited in Table 1, under a vertical load of
c kb acquires a positive
P = 112 N, the control parameter 1 Pk
value. Therefore, Eq. (1) is used to calculate the horizontal stiffness
of the B-FREI. As can be seen in Table 2, for the B-FREI considered in
this study, the stiffness value that is estimated by the simple formula of GeA/tr is in close agreement with the value calculated by
Eq. (1). This close agreement suggests that one can use the simple
formula, with less calculation effort, for the preliminary design of
B-FREIs. However, caution should be used as the error of employing the simple formula rises with increased exibility of the ber
reinforcement in the isolator.
From the FE-analysis, a linear lateral loaddisplacement relationship was evaluated for the B-FREI. The slope of this line was
Table 2
Horizontal stiffness (N/mm) of the B-FREI.
Analytical
Finite element
GeA/tr
Eq. (1)
1.470
1.455
1.453
854
isolated period of the isolator, increasing its seismic mitigation efciency. Accordingly, for a given FREI, unbonded application leads to
superior seismic isolation provided that lateral stability of the isolator is maintained.
It has been shown that unbonded FREIs with inappropriate
geometry may exhibit lateral instability [5]. In the design of an unbonded FREI, the isolator must maintain positive incremental loadresisting capacity throughout the entire range of lateral displacements that are imposed on the isolator. The presented FE-model
can be employed to verify the achievement of stable rollover (SR)
deformation in the preliminary design of an unbonded FREI. As
can be seen in Fig. 4, the unbonded isolator maintained positive tangent stiffness over the range of lateral displacement investigated.
In a base isolated system, the lateral shear load resisted by the
isolators is transmitted to the superstructure. According to Fig. 4,
for any given lateral displacement above 50% tr, the SU-FREI is subjected to a signicantly lower shear compared to the B-FREI. As the
lateral displacement is increased, the difference between the lateral (shear) loads, resisted by the B- and SU-FREIs is found to increase (see Fig. 4). At 200% tr displacement, the shear load that is
transmitted to the superstructure by the SU-FRE is approximately
40% less than that of the B-FREI. Therefore, with the same physical
dimensions and material properties, the response attenuation of
the SU-FREI is superior to that of the B-FREI.
The secant horizontal stiffness of the SU-FREI at 200% tr displacement (38 mm) is calculated to be 0.85 (N/mm)/mm. To
achieve this horizontal stiffness in the B-FREI, using the simple formula of KH = GeA/tr, the minimum required total thickness of rubber layers in the isolator would be tr = 33 mm. To assemble such
an isolator with materials given in Table 1, 21 rubber layers and
20 interleaved bonded ber reinforcement layers are required. This
implies a 75% increase in the volume of utilized materials. Additionally, the signicant increase in the isolator height may force
the designer to increase the isolators width to prevent Euler buckling [26], which may occur in the B-FREI under large lateral
displacements.
An examination of Fig. 4 indicates that for any given level of lateral load, the SU-FREI undergoes larger lateral displacement than
the B-FREI. A well recognized way of dealing with excessive lateral
displacements in elastomeric isolators is to provide supplementary
damping in the isolation system. Traditionally, a lead core or a
high-damped rubber compound is employed in order to dissipate
a larger portion of the input excitation and limit isolator deformation. Results of previous studies [2,57] suggest that in FREIs that
utilize sufcient relative volume of ber to elastomer, the interaction between ber reinforcement and the rubber layers provides a
new source of energy dissipation in addition to the intrinsic damping of the elastomer. This phenomenon is more pronounced for SUFREIs due to the increased distorted pattern of lateral displacement
as compared to B-FREIs (compare Fig. 2a and b). Even though the
855
(a) B-FREI
(b) SU-FREI
Fig. 5. Contour of normal stress S22 (MPa) in the rubber layers of the isolators at lateral displacement of 200% tr (positive values indicate tension).
SU-FREIs are more exible than their corresponding bonded isolators, the presence of increased damping may aid in restricting extreme lateral displacement under a strong earthquake event.
6.2. Stress/strain state in the isolators
For each rubber element, the local axes are denoted by Axis 1
and Axis 2, which are parallel and perpendicular to the orientation
of the ber reinforcement layers, respectively. Fig. 5 contains the
stress contour for normal stress S22 corresponding to 200% tr displacement. The normal stress S22 acts perpendicular to the orientation of ber reinforcement layers. The stress contours shown in
Fig. 5 reects the average analysis output at all integration points
of the elements.
For the B-FREI, as can be seen in Fig. 5a, the axial load is carried
through a compression core within the isolator, which acts as an
equivalent column. The cross section area of the equivalent column
is limited to the overlap region between the top and bottom faces
of the laterally deformed B-FREI. In a B-FREI, the boundary conditions and the point of application of the vertical load resultant at
the top and bottom of the isolator, remain constant regardless of
the level of lateral deformation. Therefore, to establish equilibrium
in the isolator, the balancing moments are generated at the top and
bottom surfaces of a laterally deformed B-FREI (see Fig. 6a). As a result, the regions outside the central compression core undergo signicant tensile stresses which are normal to the bonding interface
between the outer rubber layers and the steel mounting plates and
between the inner rubber and the ber reinforcement layers. The
tensile regions (yellow1 triangles) and the compression core (equivalent column) can be clearly seen in Fig. 5a.
Due to unbonded application, no tensile stress is transferred to
a laterally deformed SU-FREI at the isolators contact supports. As a
result, no balancing moment develops at the top and bottom surfaces of a SU-FREI. As the SU-FREI is deformed laterally, one end
of the contact surface rolls off the support, and the opposite end
is pressed against the support. Therefore, as shown in Fig. 5b, the
stress S22 at the contact surfaces ranges from its maximum value,
at the pressed end, to zero, at contact regions that are at the onset
of rolling off the support. Due to the non-uniform stress distribution, the point of application of the vertical load resultant, at each
contact surface, shifts toward the pressed corner of the isolator. As
can be seen in Fig. 6b, the offset of vertical resultant loads at the
top and bottom of the isolator produces a couple that balances
the overturning moment caused by the shear loads.
A close examination of Fig. 5a and b indicates that tension stresses S22 in the SU-FREI are negligible compared to the B-FREI. Tension regions in the SU-FREI include the outer rubber layers at
regions where the bearing has rolled off the supports, and the rubber layers next to these layers where tension stresses are localized
only near the maximum curvature in the layer. Other than these
regions, the remainder of the SU-FREI carries compression along
local Axis 2 of the rubber elements. From Fig. 5a and b, one can
conclude that the peeling stress demand on the bond between rubber and ber reinforcement layers in a B-FREI is an order of magnitude higher than that of the SU-FREI.
According to Fig. 5a and b the magnitudes of peak compression
S22 that develop in both isolators are comparable. In the B-FREI the
maximum pressure occurs at the centre of the compression core
within the isolator and remains nearly unchanged along the isolators height. As the lateral deformation increases, the cross section
area of the compression core decreases and the magnitude of peak
pressure increases. Accordingly, similar to conventional SREIs, in
the design of a B-FREI, one should ensure that the isolator will
not encounter Euler buckling [26] at extreme lateral deformations.
In the SU-FREI, the peak pressure S22 is locally concentrated at the
corners of the isolator where the outer rubber layers are pressed
against the contact supports. Similar to the B-FREI, the vertical load
is carried through a compression zone within the SU-FREI. However, excluding the local regions at top and bottom corners of the
SU-FREI, the peak pressure within the body of the compression
zone in the SU-FREI is signicantly lower than that of the B-FREI.
Excluding the outer rubber layers, the compression zone in the
SU-FREI is subjected to a relatively more uniform stress as opposed
to the B-FREI.
Fig. 7ad shows the distribution of the normalized stress S22/pn
along the length of the 6th rubber layer (R6) located at the midheight of the isolator (see Fig. 1), at lateral displacements of 50%,
P
M
Va
Va
Vb
Vb
M
P
(a) B-FREI
1
For interpretation of color in Fig. 5, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.
(b) SU-FREI
Fig. 6. Free body diagram in laterally deformed FREIs with different boundary
conditions.
856
(a) 50% tr
(b) 100% tr
(c) 150% tr
(d) 200% tr
Fig. 7. Distribution of normalized stress S22/pn along the length of the 6th bottom rubber layer of the isolators at different lateral displacement amplitudes; (Notes: nominal
vertical pressure pn = 1.6 MPa; negative stress values indicate compression).
2.55
1.50
1.92
0.98
1.30
0.46
0.67
0.05
- 0.06
- 0.58
- 0.58
- 1.10
- 1.20
- 1.62
- 1.83
- 2.14
- 2.45
- 2.66
- 3.08
- 3.18
- 3.70
- 3.70
(a) B-FREI
(b) SU-FREI
Fig. 8. Contour of normal stress S11 (MPa) in the rubber layers of the isolators (positive values indicate tension).
interior rubber layers near the maximum curvature of the layer beyond the central compression zone (see Fig. 8b).
In a laterally deformed SU-FREI, the compressive stresses are
concentrated at the compressed corners of isolator (see Figs. 5b
and 8b). In these regions, the rubber material and bond between
rubber and the ber reinforcement layers are subjected to large
biaxial compressive stresses. Nonetheless, damage in the corner
areas is not a common failure mode in SU-FREIs as the material
sustains a conned state of stress. In previous experimental studies
that were conducted on SU-FREIs [57], no damage or delamination was observed between the rubber and ber reinforcement layers at the corners of the tested isolators. In these tests, the isolators
were repeatedly subjected to large lateral displacements.
The distribution of the normalized stresses S11/pn along the
length of the rubber layer R6 (see Fig. 1) is shown in Fig. 9ad
for lateral displacement magnitudes of 50%, 100%, 150%, and
857
(a) 50% tr
(b) 100% tr
(c) 150% tr
(d) 200% tr
Fig. 9. Distribution of normalized stress S11/pn along the length of the 6th bottom rubber layer of the isolators at different lateral displacement amplitudes; (Notes: nominal
vertical pressure pn = 1.6 MPa; negative stress values indicate compression).
1.65
1.65
1.49
1.39
1.32
1.12
1.26
0.85
0.99
0.59
0.03
0.33
0.66
0.06
0.50
- 0.20
0.33
- 0.47
0.17
- 0.73
- 1.00
0.00
(a) B-FREI
(b) SU-FREI
Fig. 10. Contour of shear strain in the rubber layers of the isolators at 200% tr lateral displacement.
858
(a) 50% tr
(b) 100% tr
(c) 150% tr
(d) 200% tr
Fig. 11. Distribution of shear strain along the length of the 6th bottom rubber layer of the isolators at different lateral displacement amplitudes.
dashed curves in Fig. 11ad, the prole of shear strain is approximately uniform within the B-FREI. However, in the SU-FREI, uniform shear strains are found to occur only in the central region
of the isolator, which remains in contact with the top and bottom
supports. In the regions of the SU-FREI that are not in contact with
the supports, the shear strain is found to decrease from its peak positive value (see Fig. 10b and solid curves in Fig. 11ad). At extreme
displacements the shear strain acquires negative values in the SUFREI at regions close to the ends of the rubber layer (see Fig. 11d).
The main purpose of ber reinforcement in a FREI is to restrain
the lateral bulging of the rubber layers when the isolator is subjected to vertical loads. When a FREI is loaded vertically, the rubber
layers, which are conned by the reinforcement layers, undergo
compression and the ber reinforcement layers in turn experience
tension. At zero lateral displacement, the prole of ber tensile
stress along the length of the reinforcement layer can be described
with a parabola with the peak value of tensile stress occurring at
the mid-length of the reinforcement layer. Lateral displacement
of an FREI can affect the ber stress prole and alter the magnitude
and location of the peak stress developed in the ber reinforcement layer. Fig. 12 shows the variation of peak ber tensile stress
as a function of lateral displacement. The ber reinforcement layer
in this gure is located at the mid-height of the isolator. As can be
seen in Fig. 12, the peak ber tensile stress in the B-FREI increases
signicantly with increased lateral displacement. However, for the
SU-FREI, the inuence of increased lateral displacements on the
peak ber tensile stress is negligible.
From the FE-analysis, it is found that the ber reinforcement
layers in the SU-FREI are generally subjected to signicantly lower
tensile stresses as compared to the B-FREI. According to Fig. 12, at
200% tr displacement, the maximum ber tensile stress at the midheight of the SU-FREI is nearly 40% lower than that of the B-FREI.
Also, the peak shear stress demand on the bond between ber reinforcement and rubber layers in the SU-FREI is lower. At 200% tr
Fig. 12. Inuence of isolator displacement amplitude on the peak tensile stress in
the middle ber reinforcement layer.
displacement, the FE-analysis indicates that in the B-FREI the magnitude of peak tensile stress for different reinforcement layers is
approximately equal. However, in comparison with the inner
layers, the peak tensile stress in the extreme reinforcement layers
of the SU-FREI is largely reduced as a result of rollover response
behavior.
7. Conclusions
Finite element analyses were conducted on two identical FREIs,
one assuming conventional bonded application (the bonded (B)FREI) and the other one assuming unbonded contact surfaces that
remained laterally stable (the stable unbonded (SU)-FREI). The
FE-model was found to be sufciently accurate for the preliminary
859
[5] Toopchi-Nezhad H, Tait MJ, Drysdale RG. Testing and modeling of square
carbon ber-reinforced elastomeric seismic isolators. Struct Control Health
Monit 2008;15(6):876900.
[6] Toopchi-Nezhad H, Tait MJ, Drysdale RG. Lateral response evaluation of berreinforced neoprene seismic isolators utilized in an unbonded application.
Struct Eng, ASCE 2008;134(10):162738.
[7] Toopchi-Nezhad H, Drysdale RG, Tait MJ. Parametric study on the response of
stable unbonded ber-reinforced elastomeric isolators (SU-FREIs). J Compos
Mater 2009;43(15):156987.
[8] Dehghani Ashkezari G, Aghakouchak AA, Kokabi M. Design, manufacturing and
evaluation of the performance of steel like ber reinforced elastomeric seismic
isolators. J Mater Process Technol 2008;197(13):14050.
[9] Mordini A, Strauss A. An innovative earthquake isolation system using bre
reinforced rubber bearings. Eng Struct 2008;30(10):273951.
[10] Kang GJ, Kang BS. Dynamic analysis of ber-reinforced elastomeric isolation
structures. J Mech Sci Technol 2009;23:113241.
[11] Toopchi-Nezhad H, Tait MJ, Drysdale RG. Shake table study on an ordinary
low-rise building seismically isolated with SU-FREIs (stable unbonded
ber-reinforced elastomeric isolators). Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2009;38(11):
133557.
[12] Tsai HC, Kelly JM. Stiffness analysis of ber-reinforced elastomeric isolators.
PEER Report 2001/05, Pacic Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, Berkeley, California; 2001.
[13] Tsai HC. Compression stiffness of innite-strip bearings of laminated elastic
material interleaving with exible reinforcements. Int J Solids Struct
2004;41(2425):664760.
[14] Tsai HC. Compression stiffness of circular bearings of laminated elastic
material interleaving with exible reinforcements. Int J Solids Struct
2006;43(1112):348497.
[15] Pinarbasi S, Mengi Y. Elastic layers bonded to exible reinforcements. Int J
Solids Struct 2008;45(34):794820.
[16] Tsai HC, Kelly JM. Buckling of short beams with warping effect included. Int J
Solids Struct 2005;42(1):23953.
[17] Tsai HC, Kelly JM. Buckling load of seismic isolators affected by exibility of
reinforcement. Int J Solids Struct 2005;42(1):25569.
[18] Toopchi-Nezhad H, Tait MJ, Drysdale RG. Stiffness analysis of ber-reinforced
rubber isolators under compressive loads: a nite element approach. In:
Proceedings of the 9th US national and 10th Canadian conference on
earthquake engineering, Toronto, Ontario; 2010.
[19] Haringx JA. On highly compressible helical springs and rubber rods, and their
application for vibration-free mountings part III. Philips Res Rep
1948;4:20620.
[20] ASCE-7. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE/SEI 705. New York, American Society of Civil Engineers; 2005.
[21] MSC. Marc. Santa Ana, CA: MSC Software Corporation; 2008.
[22] Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL. The nite element method. The basis, vol. 1, 5th
ed.. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, A division of Reed Educational and
Professional Publishing Ltd.; 2000.
[23] MSC Software Corporation. Nonlinear nite element analysis of elastomers,
Technical paper. Los Angeles, CA: MSC Software Corporation; 2000.
[24] Hermann LR. Elasticity equations for incompressible and nearly
incompressible materials by a variational theorem. J Am Inst Aeronaut
Astronaut 1965;3(10):1896900.
[25] MSC. Mrac. Theory and user information, vol. A. Santa Ana, CA: MSC Software
Corporation; 2008.
[26] Kelly JM. Earthquake-resistant design with rubber. 2nd ed. London: Springer;
1997.