66 views

Uploaded by rasika n

- 200-Question-Answer-Civil-Engineering
- Nonconvergence in Caesar II
- Nonconvergence_in_Caesar_In_Caesar_II
- Paper Feed Mechanism Separation Roller
- Problem Set
- Deform Friction Stir Welding
- Report
- Modelling Procedure
- Creating a Continuous and Interactive Simulation Using Bicycle Dynamics and Real World Factors
- Large Sliding Contact Analysis of a Buckle
- Guideline on Using Geosynthetics in Slide
- Multi Cell
- CAESAR II Nonconvergence
- Friction Experiment
- Bulk Properties of Powders
- Hard Rubber Friction Coeffs
- nelson.ppt
- ILSS
- C6
- Chapter1-Jan2015

You are on page 1of 7

Engineering Structures

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

precast buildings

Gennaro Magliulo a, , Vittorio Capozzi a , Giovanni Fabbrocino b , Gaetano Manfredi a

a

Department of Structural Engineering, University of Naples Federico II, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Napoli, Italy

b

Department SAVA, Engineering & Environment Division, Engineering & Environment Division, University of Molise, Via De Sanctis, 86100 Campobasso, Italy

Article history: In Italy many precast industrial buildings built between 1950s and 1970s present beamcolumn connec-

Received 25 May 2010 tions with strength coming from neopreneconcrete friction. Numerical studies recently performed by the

Received in revised form authors confirm that, in order to determine the seismic vulnerability of such structures, a reliable value

11 October 2010

of the neopreneconcrete friction coefficient has to be known. Technical bibliography provides many and

Accepted 2 November 2010

Available online 30 November 2010

different values for this coefficient; consequently, in order to define reliable values, a specific experimen-

tal campaign is carried out. Three types of experimental tests are performed: tests on neoprene hardness,

Keywords:

tilting tests and pulling tests; in the last case, the specimen is also axially loaded.

Friction Tilting tests provide a value of the mean friction coefficient equal to about 0.5, with very low C.O.V..

Friction strength Pulling tests underline a friction strength dependence on axial load and, in particular, a decrease in the

Laboratory tests friction coefficient as the axial load increases; a relationship for compressive stressneopreneconcrete

Connections friction coefficient is proposed.

Prefabrication 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Precast concrete

Neoprene

Seismic analysis

1. Introduction friction strength, can collapse due to the loss of support (Fig. 1).

Consequently, in order to determine the seismic vulnerability

This research was developed in the frame of a project concern- of such structures, it is necessary to know the value of the

ing the seismic vulnerability of precast industrial buildings built in neopreneconcrete friction coefficient.

Italy between the 1950s and the 1970s [1,2]. Few references related to the determination of such coefficient

The part of the project already carried out may be divided can be found in bibliography and its value often concerns applica-

into two phases. The first one is characterized by the definition tions different from structural ones [36]. Interesting indications

of the typologies and structural characteristics of the considered can be found in CNR 10018 [7], Schrage [8], PCI design handbook [9]

buildings, with particular reference to connections, by a large and UNI-EN 1337:3 [10].

bibliography research, interviewing technicians who worked in CNR 10018 [7] provides the relationship between the rub-

the field of precast structures during the reference period and berconcrete friction coefficient and the compressive stress v :

studying actually executed projects. Consequently, some reference 0.2

buildings representative of the most spread typologies during = 0.1 + , (1)

the reference period are selected. The second phase, instead, is v

characterized by numerical analyses, in particular modal elastic where v is the compressive stress in N/mm2 ; Eq. (1) is valid

analyses and nonlinear static and dynamic ones. Such analyses for compressive stress not lower than v,min = 1.5 N/mm2 .

showed that, even under seismic forces characterizing, a medium This equation is determined by means of the friction tests carried

intensity Italian seismic zone, precast existing buildings, whose out in 1964 by the Munich Technical University under the

beamcolumn connections are based on neopreneconcrete auspices of the International Railroad Association (UIC [11]). The

tests take into account laminated bearings and bearing pads of

several European countries. The results underline that the rubber-

bearings friction coefficient depends on average normal stress. The

Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 0817683656; fax: +39 0817683491.

E-mail addresses: gmagliul@unina.it (G. Magliulo), vittorio.capozzi@unina.it

NCHRP report [12] discusses these European studies, but setup,

(V. Capozzi), giovanni.fabbrocino@unimol.it (G. Fabbrocino), gamanfre@unina.it materials, pad dimensions and shear loading rate used in the tests

(G. Manfredi). are not specified.

0141-0296/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.11.011

G. Magliulo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 532538 533

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

COMPRESSIVE STRESS, psi

a. Average values based on tests at 70% shear and slippage strain.

Fig. 1. Technical drawing of the typical beamcolumn connection based on Fig. 2. Neoprene friction strengthaxial stress relationship [9].

neopreneconcrete friction strength.

coefficients for neoprene and ROF pads decrease well below a static

Ref. [8] represents a significant research paper on the topic. In coefficient equal to 0.7, that was commonly used in old US design

it, Schrage presents 27 plain neoprene (also denominated chloro- code, under reference compression loads.

prene) pads undergoing shear/compression tests against concrete The data from the 27 European tests (Schrage tests) and the 22

surface. Tests were characterized by nominal compressive stresses US tests on plain pads were plotted in report [15] in terms of shear

equal to 0.5, 5 and 20 N/mm2 . The pad shape factor S = (a b)/(2 versus compressive stress on the pad; according to such results,

s (a + b)) was equal to 5.5 (a and b are the plan dimensions and Iverson and Pfeifer suggested the following friction coefficient-

s the trickiness of the rectangular pad). Shear loads were applied compressive stress (N/mm2 ) relationship, also reported in PCI

providing constant horizontal displacement rates equal to 50, 0.5 Handbook [9]:

and 0.01 mm/s: the maximum reached displacements were 0.7,

1.4 and 2.1 times the pad thickness. Schrage also performed tests 0.26

= 0.04 + . (3)

under 1 Hz sinusoidal dynamic normal stress varying between 1.5 v

and 5 N/mm2 at the above reported displacement rates. Specimen

materials and test setup are reported in Refs. [13,14] (in German). UNI-EN 1337:3 [10] also provides a relationship characterizing the

In [8] Schrage suggests the following equation, relating the friction friction between a surface and its elastomeric support:

coefficient () to the compressive stress (v in N/mm2 ): 1.5 Kf

= 0.1 + (4)

0.4 v

= 0.05 + . (2)

v where v is the compressive stress in N/mm2 , v,min is equal to

Such an equation is obtained for shear loading rate equal to 3 N/mm2 and Kf is equal to 0.6 if the surface is made by concrete

0.5 mm/s and temperature equal to 20 C. The author concludes and 0.2 if it is made by other materials; consequently, in the case

that the friction coefficient depends on the shear loading rate of friction between concrete and the elastomeric support, Eq. (4)

(increasing shear loading rate, the friction coefficient increases), provides

but does not depend on the nominal area of neoprene slab, on time

of prepressing and on bearings shape. Schrage tests on neoprene 0.9

= 0.1 + . (5)

friction did not investigate on the effects of temperature. v

A study on the shearcompression strength of random-oriented

Eq. (5) is provided without any detail concerning the rubber

fibre (ROF) pads was performed in 198384 by WJE (Wiss, Janney,

characterizing the support and the experimental tests performed

Elstner Associates, Inc.) [15] and by the pad manufacturer JVI [16],

in order to better understand pad behaviour and to develop in order to obtain it.

appropriate design criteria for bearing pads to be included in Eqs. (1)(5), assigned a value of compressive stress, may provide

PCI Design Handbook [9] (in Fig. 2 friction strengthaxial stress significantly different values of friction coefficient between neo-

relationship is represented). Twenty-two tests were performed: prene pad and concrete surface. This is due to the circumstance

18 by JVI and 4 by WJE; only 4 of them concern neoprene pads that they are obtained by tests characterized by different setups,

(3 performed by JVI on concrete and 1 by WJE on steel). JVI and contact surface characteristics, pad dimensions and shape factor

WJE adopted the same shear test methodology. The cyclic shear S, shear loading rates and temperatures; furthermore, Eq. (3) is

displacements equal to 70% of the pad thickness were applied obtained by tests performed by different authors, while parame-

horizontally with a maximum rate of about 1000 cycles per hour. ters characterizing the tests providing Eqs. (1), (4) and (5) are not

The tests concerning plain neoprene pads were characterized by a known in details.

nominal compressive stress equal to 5.9 N/mm2 and by uniform In this paper, the compressive stressneopreneconcrete fric-

float finished concrete surfaces. The pad shape factor S belonged tion coefficient relationship is reported in terms of experimental

to the range 2.493.3. Creep, aging or similar long-term effects curve and empirical formula, based on many experimental tests

were not covered in this investigation. Laboratory temperature performed at the laboratory of Department of Structural Engineer-

during the tests varied approximately from 18 to 24 C. The study ing of University of Naples Federico II; specimen characteristics,

underlines that friction is not sensitive to the shape factor and that setup, test procedure and results are described in details. The spec-

depends on contact surface roughness and on shear displacement imens are provided by an Italian precast industry; this is relevant

rate. These 22 cyclic shearcompression tests substantiate the considering that the research is performed in order to assess the

European data and show that the shearcompression friction seismic vulnerability of existing precast buildings.

534 G. Magliulo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 532538

friction strength (Tfriction ); for larger angles the specimen slips on

the inclined plane:

s = tg a = Tfriction /N (6)

The test setup (Fig. 4) is represented by a rotating frame, where

a concrete plate is constrained; such a plate is characterized by

a drying longer than seven days and by a smooth surface, which

is typical of the element part in contact with the formwork. The

neoprene specimen is glued to a concrete brick, which provides

the necessary load to perform the test and guarantees a uniform

contact between neoprene and concrete surfaces; the neoprene is

then placed on the concrete plate.

The tests are performed on two specimens of different

dimensions: the first one is 20 cm 9 cm 1 cm (S = 3.10),

while the second one is 25 cm 20 cm 1 cm (S = 5.56);

consequently, the contact surfaces are 180 cm2 and 500 cm2 . The

Fig. 3. Hardness test: (a) durometer; (b) durometer indentor. first specimen is loaded by a concrete block whose dimensions are

24 cm 12 cm 5 cm and whose weight is equal to 36 N; the

2. Experimental investigation second one is loaded by a concrete block whose dimensions are

25 cm 30 cm 5 cm and whose weight is equal to 93.8 N. The

2.1. Hardness test corresponding contact stresses are equal to = 0.0020 N/mm2

and = 0.0018 N/mm2 respectively, which are negligible.

The rubber of specimens is characterized by its nominal hard- Four LVDT transducers of inductive type (Fig. 4) are used in

ness, which is determined by tests performed at the Department of order to measure the displacements. Two of them are attached

Materials and Production Engineering of University of Naples Fed- to the concrete brick (A and B in Fig. 4), in order to measure the

erico II according to the provisions of ISO 48 [17] (Fig. 3). displacements along the inclined plane; the other two (E and F in

Two typologies of specimens are tested: one of them is made Fig. 4), vertically positioned, are connected to the rotating frame in

of neoprene, which is generally used as support at beamcolumn order to measure its rotations.

connections of Italian precast buildings; the other one, rarely used The test is performed slowly rotating the frame by a manual

as support, is made of generic rubber. The specimen dimensions system (end-less screw). The neoprene pad does not slip till the

are 100 50 20 mm and 100 50 10 mm, respectively. For angle of the inclined plane is lower than the friction one ( < a );

each specimen typology, two tests are performed: in the case of when the two transducers set on the inclined plane measure a

neoprene the obtained hardness IRHD is equal to 67 and 69, while displacement, it means that the friction force is overpassed. The

in the case of rubber it is equal to 63 and 65. According to the ISO test is stopped and the angle measured by the vertical transducers

7619 [18,19], the hardness IRHD is coincident with the hardness corresponds to the friction angle.

Shore A, by which the material shear elastic modulus is obtained; The results of the 21 tests performed on the two described

this is equal to 1.15 N/mm2 in the case of neoprene and 1.0 N/mm2 specimens are reported in Table 1: the friction coefficient ()

in the case of rubber. obtained by each test is listed along with the average of such

Tests presented in the following (tilting and pulling tests) are coefficients (mean ) and their standard deviation (s.d. ) for each

all performed on neoprene specimens. specimen. The average (mean ) of all the results is also reported

and it is equal to 0.492, while the corresponding standard deviation

2.2. Tilting test s.d. is equal to 0.060; the C.O.V. is equal to 0.122, showing that

the mean result is reliable. Consequently, the neopreneconcrete

The friction (static) coefficient s is determined, according to friction coefficient, deduced by tests without load orthogonal to

its definition, as tangent of the friction angle a , which is the angle the contact surface, is s = 0.492 0.060.

G. Magliulo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 532538 535

Table 1 pulling tests are carried out. The aim of the tests is to obtain the

Tilting tests results. neopreneconcrete friction coefficient that can be attained under

Neoprene specimen Test n. mean s.d. serviceability conditions of an existing connection. The initial set

1 0.528 up, presented below, is modified after the pilot tests, as described

2 0.437 in the next paragraph.

3 0.493 The initial setup (Fig. 5) is composed of two lateral concrete

4 0.516 blocks whose dimensions are 60 60 25 cm and a central steel

5 0.629

20 9 1 cm 6 0.566 0.526 0.053

plate; at each side of such a plate a neoprene specimen, whose

7 0.541 dimensions are 30 15 1 cm (S = 5), is glued by a universal

8 0.471 cold-vulcanizing sticker. The neopreneconcrete contact surfaces

9 0.584 are subjected to an axial load, assigned by a hydraulic horizontal

10 0.501

jack, located in a cradle, which acts on two metallic plates; one

11 0.520

of them uniformly distributes the load on the concrete block and

12 0.444 the other one, on the other side of the jack, restrains it. This plate

13 0.433 is restrained by bolts to three steel bars, as well as another steel

14 0.513

15 0.496

plate which is placed in correspondence of the external surface of

16 0.459 the concrete block on the other side with respect to the jack; such

25 20 1 cm 0.454 0.043

17 0.393 two steel plates close the system.

18 0.409 The two neoprene bearing pads are connected to a vertical jack

19 0.482

by the steel plate and a steel pipe. This provides the shear force

20 0.410

21 0.504 parallel to the neoprene surface, making contrast on a double T

with double web profile; this is supported by two strengthened

0.492 0.048

HE180A profiles, which run on the top surface of each concrete

block. A teflon sheet is placed between the profile and the concrete

Table 1 also seems to show that, in the case of negligible block, in order to avoid undesirable frictions. Vertical bars, bolted

compressive stress, the friction coefficient is little sensitive to the to the two HE180A profiles, ensure the needed restraint to the

shape factor: the friction coefficient scarcely decreases increasing floor: the tensile action applied on the rubber determines on the

S factor. blocks an overturning moment which is controlled by the vertical

bar clamping action.

2.3. Pulling test: initial test setup The displacements are measured by inductive transducers and

potentiometers.

Results of tilting tests cannot take into account the influence of In particular, neoprene displacements are detected by six po-

axial load levels on neoprene bearing pad; consequently, specific tentiometers: two, connected by a steel screw, for each neoprene

536 G. Magliulo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 532538

neoprene bearing pads, i.e. the central concrete block and vertical

bar, have a total weight equal to 1 kN; consequently, such weight

is subtracted from the applied shear force.

Fig. 6. Relative displacement between neoprene specimens and steel plate. The displacements are monitored by two LVDT transducers,

which measure the displacements of the central block with respect

specimen, one for each side, and two on the steel plate which sup- to the lateral ones and, consequently, the neoprene displacements

ports the specimens. Consequently, both the deformations of the with respect to these ones; indeed, the specimens do not slide

neoprene and the absolute displacement of the steel plate, when with respect to the central concrete block, due to its rough surface

the friction is overpassed, can be detected. The potentiometers are (Fig. 8).

fixed to an external support, which is not influenced by the setup

deformations. 3. Experimental results and discussion

The transducers, LVDT of inductive type, are connected to the

two concrete blocks in order to detect the relative displacement 3.1. Pulling test results

between them, and, then, the axial deformation of the neoprene.

In particular, four transducers are used, two for each block, one at Twenty tests are carried out, four for each level of axial force:

the bottom side of the block and the other one at the top side, in 80, 120, 160, 200 and 240 kN (these axial forces correspond to

order to also evaluate possible rotations of the blocks. a tributary area in realistic structures varying from 5 4 m2

to 5 12 m2 ). The last one is a limit value, due to the normal

2.4. Pulling test: final test setup stress limitation on neoprene specimens equal to 5 N/mm2 in

accordance with the CNR 10018 [7]. For each axial load level, the

Two tests are performed by the above presented setup, force parallel to the neoprene/concrete surface (shear force) is

characterized by compressive forces equal to 80 kN and 120 kN, increased monotonously increasing the displacement with a low

respectively. During such tests a relative displacement between speed equal to 0.02 mm/s (shear loading rate).

neoprene specimens and steel plate is observed (Fig. 6), showing Bearing pads are characterized by a gradual transit from partial

the glue failure; this happens at a shear force equal to 20 kN, which slip, i.e. rolling, into the state of slip over the whole surface; the

corresponds to a shear stress equal to 0.44 N/mm2 . Consequently, result is a strongly bended curve of resistance (friction curve).

the initial set up is modified. The test is interrupted when the neoprene significantly slides

The steel plate is replaced by a concrete block. A threaded on the concrete and the displacement increases at a constant

bushing, type 30 MA with a capacity of 40 kN, usually used for shear force value: the whole surface is in the state of slip. The

lifting and moving precast elements, is adopted in order to pull friction coefficient is computed by a shear force equal to the

the concrete block; the design safety factor of bushings is equal minimum value between the test maximum shear force and

to 5, and consequently it is assumed that it can carry 200 kN. The 0.5G = 0.575 N/mm2 (see Section 2.1), which is a code [7]

threaded bushing is anchored by a passing bar and four 10 staples limitation; such a value is never reached during tests (Table 2). Half

(Fig. 7). of the shear force, from which the weight of the central block has

The central concrete block is cast so that its surface presents the been subtracted, divided by the axial load, represents the friction

same characteristics of the column top surface, while the internal coefficient.

surface of the external blocks is cast in order to reproduce the same The results of the 20 performed tests are reported in Table 2.

surface of the bottom part of the beam, which is smooth due to From the left to the right, the following data are listed: the 20 test

the formwork; in this way, real conditions of the beam to column denominations (Test name), the axial load levels (N), the shear

connection are reproduced. forces at the neopreneconcrete surface multiplied by two (T ),

Furthermore, the neoprene specimen is not glued to the central the corresponding friction coefficients (), their average (mean )

concrete block, but it is simply placed between the two concrete and standard deviation (s.d. ) for each level of axial load and the

blocks by a line, so that the surfaces of concrete and neoprene are neoprene normal ( ) and shear ( ) stress. The reliability of tests

parallel and centred with respect to the axial load (Fig. 8). results is supported by the low values of standard deviation. As

This setup is better than the previous one because of the already written, the specimen dimensions are 15 cm30 cm1 cm

following reasons: (1) the beam to column connection is more (S = 5).

faithfully reproduced due to the fact that the neoprene is not glued Considering the results shown in Tables 1 and 2, it can be stated

neither to the beam nor to the column; (2) neoprene is easily that if the contact surface is normally loaded the friction coefficient

monitored and replaced in the case of damage. decreases.

G. Magliulo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 532538 537

Table 2

Pulling tests results.

Test name N T (2) i mean s.d.

(kN) (kN) (N/mm2 ) (N/mm2 )

80-2 80 21.4 0.134 1.78 0.238

80-3 80 19.0 0.119 1.78 0.211

0.131 0.009

80-4 80 21.1 0.132 1.78 0.235

80-5 80 22.4 0.140 1.78 0.249

120-2 120 29.8 0.124 2.67 0.331

120-3 120 27.1 0.113 2.67 0.301

0.120 0.006

120-4 120 30.5 0.127 2.67 0.339

120-5 120 28.1 0.117 2.67 0.312

160-1 160 38.5 0.120 3.56 0.428

160-2 160 35.6 0.111 3.56 0.396 Fig. 9. Comparison between compressiveshear stress curves provided by CNR

0.115 0.004

160-3 160 37.3 0.117 3.56 0.414 10018, Schrage, PCI Handbook and UNI-EN 1337:3 and tests regression curve.

160-5 160 35.8 0.112 3.56 0.398

200-1 200 45.3 0.113 4.44 0.503

200-2 200 48.0 0.120 4.44 0.533

0.114 0.005

200-3 200 45.8 0.115 4.44 0.509

200-4 200 43.6 0.109 4.44 0.484

240-1 240 43.7 0.091 5.33 0.486

240-2 240 46.3 0.097 5.33 0.514

0.095 0.005

240-3 240 44.5 0.093 5.33 0.494

240-4 240 48.8 0.102 5.33 0.542

3.2. Comparison with the data provided by CNR 10018, Schrage, PCI

Handbook and UNIEN 1337:3

provided by CNR 10018 [7] according to Eq. (1), Schage [8]

Fig. 10. Comparison between compressive stressfriction coefficient curves

according to Eq. (2), PCI Handbook [9] according to Eq. (3) and

provided by CNR 10018, Schrage, PCI Handbook and UNI-EN 1337:3 and tests

UNI-EN 1337:3 [10] according to Eq. (5) is shown in Figs. 9 and regression curve.

10. In Fig. 9 the neoprene compressive stress ( ) is reported on

horizontal axis, while the shear stress ( ) on the vertical axis; in The tests results also confirm the moderate increment of fric-

Fig. 10 on the vertical axis, the friction coefficient is presented. tion strength, which corresponds to a light decrement of friction

It is evident that the PCI Handbook curve well approximates the coefficient, as the compressive stress increases (Fig. 10) [8].

experimental data linear regression curve, providing larger friction By experimental results, the following relationships for neo-

strength only for compressive stress lower than about 3.5 N/mm2 ; preneconcrete friction coefficient are proposed:

much larger values characterize the UNI-EN 1337:3 curve. CNR

10018 and Schrage provide moderately larger friction strength = 0.49 if v 0.14 N/mm2 (7)

with respect to the experimental results.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to explain why different authors =c+ if 0.14 < v 5 N/mm2 (8)

proposed different curves (see Figs. 9 and 10). This is mainly due v

to the lack of some data and information concerning the test where v is the compressive stress in N/mm2 , = 0.055, c =

performed in the past, as reported in the Introduction of this paper; 0.1 and v = 5 N/mm2 is neoprene maximum compressive

an important uncertainty is also related to the roughness of the strength according to CNR 10018. Considering that tilting tests

specimens concrete surface. Furthermore, in the case of Eq. (3), are less realistic than pulling tests, the only formula (8) should be

results obtained by different tests were considered. CNR 10018, practically applied, limited to the range 1.5 v 5 N/mm2 .

UNI-EN 1337:3 and experimental data linear regression curves These equations along with linear regression curve of tests

present similar slope, but, at the same compressive stress, different mean results are plotted in Fig. 11: the two curves are almost

shear stresses: probably such curves are obtained at different shear coincident. Vertical dashed lines limit the range of application

loading rates. according to CNR 10018 [7].

538 G. Magliulo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 532538

tests and the results of numerical analyses reported in other

papers underline the low resistance to the seismic actions of the

precast industrial buildings whose beamcolumn connections are

not pinned; they, even for earthquakes of medium intensity, can

collapse for loss of support.

The compressive stressfriction coefficient curve provided in

the paper may be used for computational purposes; as an example,

it can be used when performing nonlinear seismic analysis aimed

at assessing seismic vulnerability of existing precast buildings with

simply supported beamcolumn connections.

relationship.

This research has been partially funded by Italian Department

The presented tests are performed on new bearing pads, not of Civil Protection in the frame of the national project ReLUIS

on pads belonging to existing buildings, due to the difficulty to theme 2.

have them at disposal. It would be interesting in the future to The authors thank Eng. Luigi Manto and Eng. Antonio Gloria of

test also bearings taken from existing structures and to compare Department of Materials and Production Engineering of University

results. However, the authors believe that the results would not of Naples Federico II for collaboration on hardness tests and Eng.

significantly change because the contact surfaces do not much Mauro Redaelli for collaboration on friction tests.

deteriorate.

References

4. Conclusions

[1] Fabbrocino G, Magliulo G, Manfredi G. Seismic vulnerability of existing

A wide bibliographical research is carried out in order to industrial precast structures. In: 13th world conference on earthquake

collect values of neopreneconcrete friction coefficient, which engineering. Vancouver; 2004.

[2] Magliulo G, Fabbrocino G, Manfredi G. Seismic assessment of existing precast

conditions the seismic vulnerability of existing precast buildings, industrial buildings using static and dynamic non linear analyses. Eng Struct

having unilateral simply supported beamcolumn connections: 2008;30(9):25808.

very different values of friction coefficient and very few and [3] Di Pasquale S, Messina C, Paolini L, Furiozzi B. In: Le Monnier, editor. Prontuario

per il calcolo di elementi strutturali. 1991 [in Italian].

uncertain information concerning their determination procedure [4] Esposito T, Mauro R. In: Hevelius, editor. Fondamenti di infrastrutture viarie,

are found. Benevento. 2003 [in Italian].

Consequently, an experimental campaign for the determina- [5] Raymond A. In: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, editors. Physics for scientists and

engineers. 1996.

tion of neopreneconcrete friction coefficient was programmed. [6] Southern Illinois University. Centre for advanced friction studies. Database

In this paper, a detailed description of test procedures, experi- 2004.

mental setup, loading history and measured parameters is pre- [7] CNR (Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche). Apparecchi di appoggio per le

costruzioni. Istruzioni per limpiego (CNR 10018), Rome; 1999 [in Italian].

sented, making tests reproducible and controllable. Tilting tests are

[8] Schrage I. Anchoring of Bearings. Concrete Institute Publication SP-70. Joint

performed in order to determine the friction coefficient without Seal Bear Syst Concrete Struct 1991;1:197215.

normal stress; pulling tests are performed in order to provide neo- [9] Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute. PCI design handbook. Precast and

preneconcrete friction relationships depending on the compres- Prestressed Concrete. 3rd ed. Chicago (IL): Raths, Raths & Johnson Inc.;

1985.

sive stress level. Hardness tests have also been previously carried [10] UNI-EN 1337:3:2005. Appoggi strutturali Parte 3: Appoggi elastomerici, UNI,

out for the determination of the shear elastic modulus of rubber Milano; 2005 [in Italian].

used in Italy as support at the beamcolumn connections. [11] UIC: Verwendung von Gummi fur Bruckenlager, Utrecht; 1964 [in German].

[12] Stanton JF, Roeder CW. Elastomeric bearings, design, construction, materials.

Tilting tests provide a mean value of the friction coefficient NCHRP REPORT NO. 248, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC;

equal to about 0.5, with a low coefficient of variation, i.e. lower 1982.

than 10%. It seems that friction is little sensitive to the shape factors [13] Schrage I. Uber den Bewegungswiderstand von unverankerten Elastomer-

Lagern. Diss. RWTH, Aachen; 1979 [in German].

for negligible compressive stresses; the friction coefficient scarcely [14] Muller-Rochholz J, Fiebrich M. Eine prufeinrichtung fur Baulager. Mat Pruf

decreases as S factor increases. 1981;23 [in German].

The friction coefficient determined by experimental tests with [15] Iverson JK, Pfeifer DW. Criteria for design of bearing pads. Precast and

compressive stress varying between = 1.7 N/mm2 and = Prestressed Concrete, Technical report 4, 1985.

[16] JVI Inc. Masticord design guide. Skokie, Ill: Raths, Raths and Johnson Inc.;

5.3 N/mm2 varies in the range 0.090.13; furthermore, it lightly 1984.

decreases as the normal stress increases, confirming the data found [17] ISO 48. Rubber, vulcanized or thermoplastic determination of hardness

(hardness between 10 IRHD and 100 IRHD), Amendment 1, Geneva,

in bibliography. An empirical friction coefficientcompressive

Switzerland; 1999.

stress relationship, which well fits the experimental results, is also [18] ISO 7619. Rubber, vulcanized or thermoplastic determination of indentation

proposed. The tests confirm the equation = 0.1 + assumed hardness part 1: durometer method (Shore hardness), Geneva, Switzerland;

v 2004.

by CNR 10018 and UNI-EN 1337:3, even though a different value [19] ISO 7619. Rubber, vulcanized or thermoplastic determination of indentation

of is obtained. hardness part 2: IRHD pocket meter method, Geneva, Switzerland; 2004.

- 200-Question-Answer-Civil-EngineeringUploaded bykamalalif
- Nonconvergence in Caesar IIUploaded byMichael Robinson
- Nonconvergence_in_Caesar_In_Caesar_IIUploaded byviv0102
- Paper Feed Mechanism Separation RollerUploaded bybinkyfish
- Problem SetUploaded byMarlo Angelo Tito
- Deform Friction Stir WeldingUploaded byramkumar121
- ReportUploaded byAjay Rai
- Modelling ProcedureUploaded bymidnightcowboy
- Creating a Continuous and Interactive Simulation Using Bicycle Dynamics and Real World FactorsUploaded bySean_T_Robinson
- Large Sliding Contact Analysis of a BuckleUploaded byDan Wolf
- Guideline on Using Geosynthetics in SlideUploaded byRifky Netriady
- Multi CellUploaded byLuis Alejandro Muñoz
- CAESAR II NonconvergenceUploaded byJohn Brindley
- Friction ExperimentUploaded byaswartzenator
- Bulk Properties of PowdersUploaded bylhphong021191
- Hard Rubber Friction CoeffsUploaded bySuzy Chen
- nelson.pptUploaded byMarkusMakuAldo
- ILSSUploaded bySanjib Rai
- C6Uploaded byLindsey Meimban
- Chapter1-Jan2015Uploaded byMuhd ZulQarnain
- 397-Non_convergence_in_CaesarII_R.pdfUploaded bypvsreddy2002
- Drift Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Columns Subjected to Displacement Reversals [Phd Thesis]Uploaded byHenra Halim
- Shear Banding and Flow-Concentration Coupling in Colloidal GlassesUploaded byrbesrbes
- Seal Friction Parker SealsUploaded byChristian Mavarez
- RCI Chapter 1Uploaded byEyoel Ashagre
- An Empirical Correlation Between Different DynamicUploaded byroy anant
- COLORADO - Torsiunea Barelor Cu Pereti Subtiri 1Uploaded byproradex
- 0502495.pdfUploaded byravi khanna
- sdarticle (1)Uploaded byramsamy83
- TorsionUploaded byWilson Teng

- Tata_4923_3Uploaded byAbhishek Maji
- 223 Pile Analysis Survey.pdfUploaded byCrosman Stefan
- jl-95-may-june-5.pdfUploaded byrasika n
- Vastu for HouseUploaded byEspn Sachin
- Jindal_Product range - H beamsUploaded by12december
- Corporate FactsheetUploaded byUtes Fehc
- FOUNDATION for towers1changing the position2 gridline.xlsUploaded byrasika n
- Interview Questions With Answers.Uploaded byrasika n
- 31961_fm.pdfUploaded byrasika n
- Scheme InfoUploaded byApsSIDS
- RMCREF LEED Guide Revised 01-10.pdfUploaded byrasika n
- Imagine YouUploaded byrasika n
- precastdesign.pdfUploaded byrasika n
- Codes ListUploaded byrasika n
- DC-Avanti BROCHURE.pdfUploaded byrasika n
- Parametric 3D modeling in building construction with examples.pdfUploaded byrasika n
- lec-1.pdfUploaded byPawan Khatri

- 337_21Uploaded bykamlesh0106
- BME311-reading assignment-2 stress strain.pdfUploaded bygouravgoelshinu
- Astm c39 c39mUploaded byToyen Blake
- RESIDUAL STRESS INVESTIGATION AND FEM SIMULATION OF HFMI/PIT TREATED WELD-ON-WELD T-JOINT USING S460G2+M HSLA STEELUploaded byNoridzwan Nordin
- WeldUploaded bySunil Kumar Hs
- Fatigue Life Evaluation of a Grab Ship Unloader-macara.pdfUploaded byflorinelvv
- gl_iii-1-1Uploaded byselvithimmarajan@gmail.com
- Copper Beryllium Strip TemperUploaded bysyuepi
- RP-F116Uploaded bypirsiavash
- Bondstrand 2000m-7000m Fp918aUploaded byYanAdhiPra
- Charpy Impact TestUploaded byChinmay Deo
- CRSI-RebarInspectionUploaded bypandavision76
- Emad GadUploaded byRicho
- Design Certification Offshore FrpUploaded byHoney Tiwari
- Theory of Matrix Structural AnalysisUploaded bymansoor azam
- Valve Material ApplicationUploaded byehab8320014413
- مقایسهASD-LRFDUploaded byted
- CE432 L15 BeamDesign ShearUploaded byAchira Chanaka Peiris
- 14 Concrete Box Culverts StructuresUploaded byMOFEN
- Behaviour of Structural Carbon Steel at High Temperatures.pdfUploaded byAlex Gigena
- Jurutera Oct 2012Uploaded byAriffin Ngah
- Caltrans Seismic Design CriteriaUploaded byJuangray
- ANSI APA PRG 320 2018Uploaded byciviliii
- 2720_30Uploaded byleua_690001837
- 17SEAGC Cipularang Masyhur IrsyamUploaded byOrie
- Design and Construction of Oil TankersUploaded byyw_oulala
- Aspects of Conveyor BeltingUploaded bysuraia
- A 1018 _ A 1018M _ 03 ;QTEWMTGVQTEWMTHNLVJFRA__.pdfUploaded byTiến Lượng Nguyễn
- Experimental Lab ManualUploaded byahmedhamdy7
- GATE Mfg LatestUploaded byRanjan Kumar Pathak