Abstract
Fiber Reinforced Elastomeric Isolators (FREIs) were generally studied in unbonded configuration. Due to combined axial and shear loads, the contact area between the bearing and horizontal supports reduces with the horizontal displacement. As a result, both the vertical and the horizontal stiffnesses decrease with the horizontal deformation while also the vertical deformation increases. This paper presents the results of a large set of full-scale 3D Finite Element Analyses on unbonded fiber reinforced bearings with different geometries, subjected to combined axial and multi-directional shear loads. The main vertical response parameters were studied, namely the vertical displacement, the vertical stiffness, and the effective compressive modulus, thus highlighting the influence of both geometry and horizontal loading direction on the vertical response of the FREIs. Conclusion of this study demonstrate to what extent the combined influence of geometric properties and loading conditions affects the vertical response of elastomeric bearings with flexible reinforcements.
1 Introduction
Common Steel Reinforced Elastomeric Isolators (SREIs) used in seismic isolation (
;
;
) are costly and heavy (
). Fiber Reinforced Elastomeric Isolators were proposed as low-cost alternative (
), replacing the embedded steel reinforcements with fiber fabrics and removing the thick steel end plates to use the devices in unbonded condition, i.e. with no bonding with the structure (Unbonded Fiber Reinforced Elastomeric Isolators, U-FREIs (
). Different studies demonstrated the advantages in using FREIs over SREIs as (
):
• Lighter devices can be obtained using fiber fabrics as reinforcements ().
• Bearings of different size and shape can be cut from bigger pads ().
• Hot vulcanization process require for steel reinforcement can be replaced by faster and easier cold vulcanization process used for fiber reinforcements ().
Due to the unbonded configuration, the bearings experience the rollover deformation, i.e. the edges of the device detach from the supports following the horizontal deformation (). This deformation continues until the initial vertical faces of the bearing starting touch the support gradually becoming horizontal, resulting in the full rollover condition (; ).
The reduction of the horizontal stiffness following the rollover deformation enhances the isolation system efficiency (). However, the tangent horizontal stiffness needs to be positive in order the bearing to be stable (; ; ; ; ; ). Unstable U-FREIs show softening response at large lateral deformations prior to full rollover. The stable/unstable response of the U-FREIs mostly depends on the secondary shape factor (; ; ; ), defined as the ratio between the base side in the direction of the horizontal load to the total rubber height (). U-FREIs with a secondary shape factor greater than 2.5 were seen to show stable response up to full rollover (; ; ; ; ), depending also on the mechanical properties, i.e. rubber compound and axial pressure.
The area reduction due to rollover increase the vertical deformation of the bearing, thus reducing the vertical stiffness (). Several research works studied the vertical response of U-FREIs under pure compression or under combined axial and mono-directional shear load (; ; ; ; ; ), highlighting the influence of different geometric parameters, among all the primary shape factor, defined as the ratio between loaded and free to bulge areas.
FREIs under combined axial and multidirectional shear loading were studied considering the effect of the horizontal loading direction on the lateral response of the bearings (; ). Very little is known on the vertical response of U-FREI subjected to axial and multi-directional horizontal loading. The ratio of vertical to horizontal stiffness of these bearings needs to be large enough to support the structure and to avoid rocking motions (). Due to area reduction following the horizontal deformation, in a safety evaluation, the vertical stiffness can be computed at a generic horizontal displacement threshold.
For this purpose, this paper studies the vertical response of rectangular- and square-shaped U-FREIs through a large number of full-scale 3D Finite Element Analyses (FEAs). Different horizontal loading directions are considered for each bearing. The trends of the vertical displacements, of the vertical stiffness and of the effective compressive modulus with the main geometric parameters are given as functions of the horizontal deformation of the bearings.
2 Description of the numerical analyses
2.1 Finite element models
Table 1 reports the variable geometric parameters considered in the numerical analyses, while Figure 1 gives a schematic of the generic rectangular-shaped U-FREI. Four and three different values of the base side in X () and Y () direction are considered, respectively; also, two total heights () and thicknesses of the elastomeric layers () complete the variable geometric parameters. With the thickness of the elastomeric and reinforcements layers and the total heights defined in Table 1, four different values of the total number of rubber layers ( and of the total rubber height () are obtained. Each bearing is loaded in five different horizontal directions, defined by the five angles () listed in Table 1 and computed counterclockwise from the X axis (Figure 1B). Combination of the variable parameters leads to a total number of 240 Finite Element Models (FEMs), as part of the set presented in ().
TABLE 1
| [mm] | [mm] | [mm] | [mm] | [mm] | [-] | [mm] | [-] | [-] | [-] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 200 | 400 | 100 | 10 | 0.500 | 5.00 | 95.7 | From | From | 0 |
| 300 | 800 | 200 | 20 | 9.00 | 98.1 | 3.33 | 1.02 | 30 | |
| 400 | 1,200 | 10.0 | 191 | To | To | 45 | |||
| 500 | 19.0 | 196 | 17.6 | 12.5 | 60 | ||||
| 90 |
Variable geometric parameters in the set of FEMs.
FIGURE 1
The mechanical parameters of each bearing are kept constant in the analyses, their numerical values shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2
| [MPa] | [MPa] | [MPa] | [MPa] | [-] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.00 | 1.00 | 2000 | 50,000 | 0.100 |
Mechanical parameters set for the FEAs.
The primary shape factor (), is included in the range 3.33–17.6 (Table 1). In this paper, the definitions of base side () and shear strain in the horizontal loading direction () given in () are used; accordingly, the secondary shape factors in the horizontal loading direction () range from 1.02 to 12.5 (Table 1).
Each bearing was prior subjected to increasing vertical load up to a target vertical pressure (Table 2) and then displaced in the horizontal directions of Table 1 up to . Past this shear strain threshold, the overturning condition due to rollover deformation lead to increasing vertical and horizontal stiffnesses. Thus, no reduction of the bearing capacity of the U-FREIs would be obtained.
2.2 FEMs specifications
The numerical analyses are carried out using MSC Marc (), a general-purpose finite element software. The compressible Neo-Hookean hyperelastic material was used to model the elastomer. In this model, the strain energy density function is given by the following equation ():Where and are material constants, is the first invariant of the right Cauchy-Green deformation tensor and is the determinant of the deformation gradient. As for consistency with linear elasticity and ; thus, these constants can be set according to parameters shown in Table 2.
The fiber fabrics were modeled considering a bi-directional reinforcement mesh and using a linear elastic material model whose mechanical parameters are shown in Table 2 (last three columns).
The elastomer has been modeled using an eight node, isoparametric, arbitrary hexahedral element (element 7 in Marc (), while the fiber layer has been modeled using a hollow, isoparametric 4-node membrane reinforced with rebars (element 147 in Marc (). A “touch” type contact between the bearing and the upper and lower surfaces has been modeled, allowing the bearing to detach from the supports during roll-over to reproduce the unbonded condition. The supports are modeled as load-controlled rigid surfaces, while the bearings as deformable body. Based on the finite elements assigned to a contact body, the program will automatically set up the outer boundary of the deformable bodies. Also, the nonpenetration constraints are enforced using augmented Lagrangians.
Figure 2 shows a generic FEM used in the parametric FEA. Additional information on the mesh size can be found in ().
FIGURE 2
3 Results of the numerical analyses
In the following sections, vertical displacements, vertical stiffness and effective compressive modulus of each U-FREI of the set are studied. The influence of the main geometric parameters, namely the primary and secondary shape factors are highlighted.
3.1 Vertical displacements
Figure 3 shows the trends of the dimensionless ratio between vertical displacements and total height of the bearing () with the primary (Figures 3A–C) and secondary shape factors (Figures 3D–F) at three significant levels of shear strain: 1) (i.e. pure compression, Figures 3A,D), 2) (Figures 3B,E) and 3) (Figures 3C,F). In Figure 4, the deformed configurations with contour plots of the vertical displacements, of a bearing with and are illustrated for the shear strain thresholds of (Figures 4A,C,E,G,I) and (Figures 4B,D,F,H,J).
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 4
As expected, the vertical deformation decreases with increasing values of the primary shape factor (Figures 3A–C); an approximately exponential decreasing trends is found. The effect of the shear strain and of the horizontal loading direction can be seen comparing Figures 3A–C. The contact area between bearing and supports reduces with increasing shear strain, thus the vertical deformations increase accordingly. A higher increase is related to the smaller base side of the rectangular bearing (), i.e. smaller primary shape factor; for larger values of the primary shape factor (i.e. ) the effect of the horizontal loading direction is negligible.
The vertical deformation appears to be slightly affected by the secondary shape factor (Figures 3D–F) when , as scattered values of vertical deformations in the range 0%–5% are obtained for the same values of . When the vertical deformation appears to decrease with an exponential trend, similar to the trend of with . This confirms how the secondary shape factor plays a key role on the horizontal rather than vertical deformation of the U-FREI. Larger values of ensue stable bearings, thus according to Figure 3F, the vertical deformation tends to increase solely when . Such threshold value matches what previously found on the stability of U-FREIs both on the vertical and horizontal response (; ; ).
3.2 Vertical stiffness
The vertical stiffness as a function of the horizontal deformation of each U-FREI is defined as:
The trends of with the primary and secondary shape factors are plotted in Figure 5. Similar to vertical deformations, the vertical stiffness appears to be greatly affected by the primary shape factor (Figures 5A–C), while plays a minor role (Figures 5D–F).
FIGURE 5
For increasing values of shear strain, the vertical deformation increases accordingly (see Section 3.1) and from Eq. 2 the vertical stiffness reduces. However, the coupled horizontal response of both base sides due to bidirectional shear loads may lead to a slightly increase of the vertical stiffness when (Figure 5C). Marked reductions of the vertical stiffness with the shear strain are obtained from the FEMs solely when (Figures 5B,C).
3.3 Effective compressive modulus
Starting from Eq. 2, the effective compressive modulus as a function of the horizontal deformation can be obtained as:
Figure 6 shows the trends of with and . The effective compressive modulus appears to depend on the primary shape factor with an increasing linear trend (Figure 6A). With increasing values of the shear strain generally reduces (see Eq. 3). The horizontal loading directions appears to affect the effective compressive modulus as greater decrease is related to U-FREI loaded along the smaller base side (i.e. , Figure 6C).
FIGURE 6
Here again, the secondary shape factor plays a minor role when (Figures 6D,E). When , smaller values of (i.e. ) correspond to larger reduction of , while increasing values of the secondary shape factor leads to stable bearings with almost independent on the horizontal deformation (Figure 6F).
3.4 Combined influence of primary and secondary shape factors
The trends of vertical deformation, vertical stiffness and effective compressive modulus with both primary and secondary shape factors are illustrated in Figure 7. This figure shows how the shape factors affect the whole vertical response of the U-FREIs under combined axial and multi-directional shear loads. In each plot of Figure 7, data fitting with regression surfaces are also proposed.
FIGURE 7
The surface fitting on the vertical deformation shows the influence of the shape factors with the shear strain. Under pure compression the vertical deformation slightly depends on and is greatly affected by (Figure 7A), while at larger horizontal deformation the influence of is greater (Figures 7B,C).
Both the vertical stiffness and the effective compressive modulus assume negative values as tends to zero, as expected, almost independent on the corresponding values of (Figures 7D,G). These two parameters largely increase when range from 10 to 20. The influence of is relevant solely when (Figures 7F,I).
3.5 Percentage reduction of the vertical stiffness with the shear strain
Tables 3, 4 report the percentage reductions of the vertical stiffness with increasing shear strains, in the different horizontal loading directions. In Table 3 the influence of the primary shape factor is highlighted, considering U-FREIs with increasing values of and an almost constant , while in Table 4 variable values of the secondary shape factors in the horizontal displacement directions are considered.
TABLE 3
| [-] | [-] | [kN/mm] | [kN/mm] | [%] | [kN/mm] | [%] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.33 | 2.04 | 71 | 60 | 15.8% | 45 | 36.3% | |
| 4.00 | 2.04 | 166 | 138 | 17.2% | 102 | 38.6% | |
| 5.00 | 2.04 | 124 | 103 | 17.1% | 77 | 37.9% | |
| 6.67 | 2.04 | 326 | 264 | 19.0% | 192 | 41.0% | |
| 7.50 | 2.04 | 533 | 429 | 19.5% | 312 | 41.4% | |
| 8.00 | 2.09 | 448 | 365 | 18.6% | 249 | 44.5% | |
| 10.00 | 2.09 | 299 | 253 | 15.6% | 187 | 37.4% | |
| 13.33 | 2.09 | 725 | 609 | 16.0% | 448 | 38.1% | |
| 3.33 | 2.36 | 71 | 60 | 15.3% | 48 | 32.4% | |
| 4.00 | 2.36 | 166 | 140 | 15.7% | 111 | 33.4% | |
| 5.00 | 2.36 | 124 | 100 | 19.1% | 75 | 39.4% | |
| 6.67 | 2.36 | 326 | 268 | 17.7% | 210 | 35.8% | |
| 7.50 | 2.36 | 533 | 440 | 17.4% | 347 | 34.8% | |
| 8.00 | 2.41 | 448 | 371 | 17.1% | 285 | 36.4% | |
| 10.00 | 2.42 | 299 | 246 | 17.9% | 187 | 37.6% | |
| 13.33 | 2.42 | 725 | 618 | 14.7% | 508 | 29.9% | |
| 3.33 | 2.88 | 71 | 62 | 13.2% | 51 | 28.8% | |
| 4.00 | 2.88 | 166 | 145 | 13.0% | 120 | 28.1% | |
| 5.00 | 2.89 | 124 | 100 | 19.4% | 75 | 39.8% | |
| 6.67 | 2.89 | 326 | 276 | 15.4% | 227 | 30.4% | |
| 7.50 | 2.89 | 533 | 458 | 14.0% | 385 | 27.8% | |
| 8.00 | 2.96 | 448 | 388 | 13.3% | 335 | 25.2% | |
| 10.00 | 2.96 | 299 | 246 | 17.7% | 189 | 36.7% | |
| 13.33 | 2.96 | 725 | 630 | 13.0% | 560 | 22.7% | |
| 5.00 | 4.71 | 255 | 236 | 7.50% | 219 | 14.0% | |
| 6.67 | 4.72 | 326 | 287 | 12.0% | 252 | 22.6% | |
| 7.69 | 4.72 | 473 | 425 | 10.2% | 394 | 16.8% | |
| 6.67 | 4.83 | 195 | 173 | 11.4% | 152 | 22.3% | |
| 8.57 | 4.83 | 396 | 366 | 7.36% | 353 | 10.8% | |
| 10.91 | 4.84 | 463 | 397 | 14.1% | 332 | 28.3% | |
| 13.33 | 4.84 | 725 | 650 | 10.3% | 599 | 17.3% | |
| 15.38 | 4.84 | 991 | 908 | 8.42% | 870 | 12.2% | |
| 4.00 | 4.09 | 82 | 77 | 5.32% | 72 | 11.4% | |
| 5.45 | 4.09 | 191 | 180 | 5.82% | 167 | 12.5% | |
| 7.69 | 4.09 | 473 | 447 | 5.40% | 416 | 12.1% | |
| 6.67 | 4.18 | 195 | 185 | 4.94% | 174 | 10.7% | |
| 8.57 | 4.18 | 396 | 377 | 4.75% | 353 | 10.7% | |
| 11.11 | 4.18 | 827 | 791 | 4.28% | 742 | 10.3% | |
| 10.91 | 4.19 | 463 | 438 | 5.29% | 414 | 10.5% | |
| 13.33 | 4.19 | 725 | 687 | 5.20% | 651 | 10.1% |
Percentage reductions of the vertical stiffness with the shear strain in the different horizontal loading directions for bearings with variable primary shape factors.
TABLE 4
| [-] | [-] | [kN/mm] | [kN/mm] | [%] | [kN/mm] | [%] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.33 | 1.02 | 35 | 19 | 45.1% | 5 | 85.9% | |
| 4.29 | 1.53 | 76 | 57 | 25.7% | 32 | 57.5% | |
| 3.33 | 2.04 | 71 | 60 | 15.8% | 45 | 36.3% | |
| 5.56 | 2.56 | 174 | 152 | 12.2% | 127 | 26.6% | |
| 4.29 | 3.06 | 156 | 140 | 10.1% | 124 | 20.6% | |
| 5.00 | 4.08 | 255 | 238 | 6.43% | 222 | 12.9% | |
| 5.56 | 5.10 | 359 | 343 | 4.22% | 325 | 9.3% | |
| 11.1 | 5.22 | 827 | 801 | 3.12% | 774 | 6.4% | |
| 3.33 | 1.18 | 35 | 25 | 27.8% | 5 | 85.0% | |
| 4.29 | 1.77 | 76 | 57 | 25.1% | 35 | 53.5% | |
| 3.33 | 2.36 | 71 | 60 | 15.3% | 48 | 32.4% | |
| 5.56 | 2.95 | 174 | 146 | 16.0% | 118 | 32.3% | |
| 4.29 | 3.53 | 156 | 140 | 10.3% | 125 | 20.0% | |
| 5.00 | 4.71 | 255 | 236 | 7.50% | 219 | 14.0% | |
| 5.56 | 5.89 | 359 | 336 | 6.26% | 321 | 10.5% | |
| 11.1 | 6.03 | 827 | 787 | 4.84% | 808 | 2.29% | |
| 3.33 | 1.45 | 35 | 23 | 33.4% | 5 | 84.3% | |
| 4.29 | 2.17 | 76 | 58 | 23.4% | 39 | 48.9% | |
| 3.33 | 2.88 | 71 | 62 | 13.2% | 51 | 28.8% | |
| 5.56 | 3.61 | 174 | 143 | 17.5% | 112 | 35.3% | |
| 4.29 | 4.33 | 156 | 140 | 10.0% | 126 | 19.5% | |
| 5.00 | 5.77 | 255 | 234 | 8.17% | 218 | 14.3% | |
| 5.56 | 7.21 | 359 | 333 | 7.19% | 315 | 12.1% | |
| 11.1 | 7.39 | 827 | 785 | 5.02% | 802 | 3.00% | |
| 3.33 | 2.36 | 35 | 26 | 25.7% | 13 | 63.0% | |
| 10.0 | 2.42 | 299 | 246 | 17.9% | 186 | 37.9% | |
| 4.00 | 4.72 | 82 | 64 | 22.3% | 38 | 53.4% | |
| 4.29 | 7.08 | 129 | 101 | 21.5% | 64 | 50.7% | |
| 15.0 | 7.26 | 1,155 | 1,056 | 8.55% | 1,024 | 11.4% | |
| 8.00 | 9.65 | 448 | 408 | 8.86% | 373 | 16.8% | |
| 7.50 | 14.1 | 1,118 | 1,074 | 4.00% | 1,065 | 4.82% | |
| 12.0 | 14.5 | 1,504 | 1,445 | 3.96% | 1,488 | 1.08% | |
| 3.33 | 2.04 | 35 | 30 | 13.4% | 24 | 31.4% | |
| 10.0 | 2.09 | 299 | 254 | 15.1% | 192 | 35.9% | |
| 4.00 | 4.09 | 82 | 77 | 5.32% | 72 | 11.4% | |
| 4.29 | 6.13 | 129 | 125 | 3.18% | 121 | 6.39% | |
| 15.0 | 6.28 | 1,155 | 1,121 | 2.89% | 1,090 | 5.61% | |
| 8.00 | 8.36 | 448 | 441 | 1.51% | 431 | 3.77% | |
| 7.50 | 12.2 | 1,118 | 1,107 | 1.01% | 1,058 | 5.36% | |
| 12.0 | 12.5 | 1,504 | 1,497 | 0.481% | 1,485 | 1.26% |
Percentage reductions of the vertical stiffness with the shear strain in the different horizontal loading directions for bearings with variable secondary shape factors.
From Table 3 it can be seen how the percentage reductions of in the generic horizontal loading direction are almost independent on the primary shape factor. Average reductions of the order of 17.4%, 16.9%, 14.9%, 10.2% and 5.12% for and of the order of 39.4%, 35.0%, 29.9%, 18.0% and 11.0% for are obtained for , , , and , respectively. These values prove how greater reductions of the vertical stiffness can be expected when the U-FREI is loaded along the smaller base side, regardless of the value of . In other words, the main influence on is related to the secondary shape factor in the horizontal displacement direction. This concept is illustrated in Table 4 in numerical terms. This table shows how, when the bearing is loaded in a generic horizontal direction, the vertical stiffness always reduces with the shear strain according to the secondary shape factor in the same horizontal direction. It is worth mentioning how great percentage reductions of are obtained when , while the little reductions of the same parameter are obtained for .
4 Conclusion
In this paper, the vertical response of unbonded fiber reinforced elastomeric isolators subjected to axial and multi-directional shear loading was studied through finite element analyses. A large set of bearings with different base area, total height and thickness of elastomeric layers were studied under a constant value of the vertical pressure and horizontal loading in five different directions.
The results of the finite element models were proposed in terms of vertical deformation, vertical stiffness and effective compressive modulus. The trends of these three parameters with the primary and secondary shape factors were given at different levels of shear strain and for each of the horizontal loading directions.
The vertical response of the U-FREIs was found to be greatly affected by the primary shape factor either when the bearing is subjected to pure compression or to axial and multi-directional shear loads. The secondary shape factor affects the vertical response of the bearing at large horizontal deformations, while plays a minor role at relatively small shear strain thresholds. However, when the bearings are stables and the vertical response is slightly dependent on the shear strain.
Finally, the combined influence of the primary and secondary shape factors on the vertical deformation, vertical stiffness and effective compressive modulus was studied using surface fitting of the results of the finite element analyses. In the range of primary and secondary shape factors of the set of numerical models, the trends at different shear strain thresholds and for the five different horizontal loading directions were proposed.
This works reports preliminary results on the vertical response of U-FREIs under vertical and multi-directional horizontal loads. Further developments include multiple values of the vertical pressure and of the shear modulus of the rubber (including reclaimed rubber compounds (; ), as well as different shape of the bearings. Also, additional FEAs on elastomeric bearings needs to be carried out implementing different material models for the elastomer, including viscoelasticity, or compared with results obtained using phenomenological approaches (; ).
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
SG: Conceptualization, methodology, software, investigation, resources, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Review Editing.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
Al-AnanyY. M.Van EngelenN. C.TaitM. J. (2017). Vertical and lateral behavior of unbonded fiber-reinforced elastomeric isolators. J. Compos. Constr.21 (5), 4017019. 10.1061/(asce)cc.1943-5614.0000794
2
AngeliP.RussoG.PaschiniA. (2013). Carbon fiber-reinforced rectangular isolators with compressible elastomer: Analytical solution for compression and bending. Int. J. Solids Struct.50, 3519–3527. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2013.06.016
3
ASCE-7 (2010). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers.
4
CalabreseA.SpizzuocoM.GalanoS.TranN.StranoS.TerzoS. (2021). A parametric study on the stability of fiber reinforced rubber bearings under combined axial and shear loads. Eng. Struct.2021 (227), 111441. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111441
5
CilentoF.LosannoD.PigaL. (2022). An experimental study on a novel reclaimed rubber compound for fiber-reinforced seismic isolators. Structures45 (11), 9–22. 10.1016/j.istruc.2022.09.009
6
de RaafM. G.TaitM. J.Toopchi-NezhadH. (2011). Stability of fiber-reinforced elastomeric bearings in an unbonded application. J. Compos. Mater.45 (18), 1873–1884. 10.1177/0021998310388319
7
Decree January 17 (2018). Update of the "Technical standards for construction.
8
GalanoS. (2022). Stability assessments of unbonded fiber rienforced elastomeric isolators. Naples: University of Naples Federico II.
9
GalanoS.CalabreseA.LosannoD. (2021). On the response of fiber reinforced elastomeric isolators (FREIs) under bidirectional shear loads. Structures34, 2340–2354. 10.1016/j.istruc.2021.08.107
10
GalanoS.CalabreseA.LosannoD.SerinoG.StranoS. (2022). Tuning the lateral response of unbonded fiber reinforced elastomeric isolators (U-FREIs) through horizontal holes: Experimental and numerical findings. Compos. Struct.289115454. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.115454
11
GalanoS.CalabreseA.LosannoD. (2021). Tuning the lateral response of unbonded fiber reinforced elastomeric isolators (U-FREIs): Experimental - numerical findings, Composite Structures, 289, 28–30. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.115454
12
GalanoS.LosannoD.CalabreseA. (2021). Stability analysis of unbonded fiber reinforced isolators of square shape. Eng. Struct.245 (2021), 112846. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112846
13
GalanoS. (June 2021). “On the vertical response of fiber reinforced elastomeric isolators (FREIs) under combined vertical and lateral loading,” in Proceedings of the Compdyn 2021 - 8th ECCCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and Earthquake engineering (Athene, Greece, 28–30.
14
KalfasK.MitoulisS. A. (2017). Performance of steel-laminated rubber bearings subjected to combinations of axial loads and shear strains. Procedia Eng.199, 2979–2984. 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.09.533
15
KalfasK. N.MitoulisS. A.KonstantinidisD. (2020). Influence of steel reinforcement on the performance of elastomeric bearings. J. Struct. Eng. (N. Y. N. Y).146 (10). 10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0002710
16
KellyJ. M. (1999). Analysis of fiber-reinforced elastomeric isolators. J. Seismic Earthq. Eng.2 (1), 19–34.
17
KellyJ. M.KonstantinidisD. A. (2011). Mechanics of rubber bearings for seismic and vibration isolation. John Wiley & Sons.
18
KonstantinidisD.KellyJ. M. (2014). “Advances in low-cost seismic isolation with rubber,” in Tenth U.S. National conference on Earthquake engineering (Alaska: Anchorage).
19
LosannoD.CalabreseA.Madera-SierraI. E.SpizzuocoM.MarulandaJ.ThomsonP.et al (2020). Recycled versus natural-rubber fiber-reinforced bearings for base isolation: Review of the experimental findings. J. Earthq. Eng.26, 1921–1940. 10.1080/13632469.2020.1748764
20
LosannoD.De DomenicoD.Madera-SierraI. E. (2022). Experimental testing of full-scale fiber reinforced elastomeric isolators (FREIs) in unbounded configuration. Eng. Struct.260, 114234. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114234
21
LosannoD.Madera SierraI. E.SpizzuocoM.MarulandaJ.ThomsonP. (2019). Experimental assessment and analytical modeling of novel fiber-reinforced isolators in unbounded configuration. Compos. Struct.212, 66–82. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.01.026
22
Madera SierraI. E.LosannoD.StranoS.MarulandaJ.ThomsonP. (2019). Development and experimental behavior of HDR seismic isolators for lowrise residential buildings. Eng. Struct.183, 894–906. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.01.037
23
MoonB. Y.KangG. J.KangB. S.KellyJ. M. (2002). Design and manufacturing of fiber reinforced elastomeric isolator for seismic isolation. J. Mater. Process. Technol.130 (131), 145–150. 10.1016/s0924-0136(02)00713-6
24
MoonB. Y.KangG. J.KangB. S.KimH. S. (2003). Mechanical property analysis and design of shock absorber system using fiber bearing by experimental method. JSME Int. J. Ser. C46 (1), 289–296. 10.1299/jsmec.46.289
25
MSC.Software Corporation (2017). MAR103 experimental elastomer analysis. Santa Ana, CA, USA.
26
MSC.Software Corporation, MSC.Marc Mentat release guide, Santa Ana, CA, USA, 2005.
27
MSC.Software Corporation, Volume B: Element Library, Santa Ana, CA, USA, 2017.
28
NaeimF.KellyJ. M. (1999). Design of seismic isolated structures: From theory to practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
29
NgoT. V.DebS. K.DuttaA. (2017). Effect of horizontal loading direction on performance of prototype square unbonded fibre reinforced elastomeric isolator. Struct. Control Health Monit.25 (2112), e2112–e2118. 10.1002/stc.2112
30
NgoT. V.DuttaA.DebS. K. (2020). Predicting stability of a prototype unbonded fiber-reinforced elastomeric isolator by finite element analysis. Int. J. Comput. Methods17 (10), 2050015. 10.1142/s0219876220500152
31
OsgooeiP. M.KonstantinidisD.TaitM. J. (2016). Variation of the vertical stiffness of strip-shaped fiber-reinforced elastomeric isolators under lateral loading. Compos. Struct.144, 177–184. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.01.089
32
OsgooeiP. M.TaitM. J.KonstantinidisD. (2014). Finite element analysis of unbonded square fiber-reinforced elastomeric isolators (FREIs) under lateral loading in different directions. Compos. Struct.113, 164–173. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.02.033
33
OsgooeiP. M.TaitM. J.KonstantinidisD. (2014). Three-dimensional finite element analysis of circular fiber-reinforced elastomeric bearings under compression. Compos. Struct.108, 191–204. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.09.008
34
PaulettaM.CortesiaA.RussoG. (2015). Roll-out instability of small size fiber-reinforced elastomeric isolators in unbonded applications. Eng. Struct.102, 358–368. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.08.019
35
RussoG.PaulettaM. (2013). Sliding instability of fiber-reinforced elastomeric isolators in unbonded applications. Eng. Struct.48, 70–80. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.08.031
36
Toopchi-NezhadH.DrysdaleR. G.TaitM. J. (2009). Parametric study on the response of stable unbonded-fiber reinforced elastomeric isolators (SU-FREIs). J. Compos. Mater.43 (15), 1569–1587. 10.1177/0021998308106322
37
Toopchi-NezhadH.TaitM. J.DrysdaleR. G. (2008). Lateral response evaluation of fiber-reinforced neoprene seismic isolators utilized in an unbonded application. J. Struct. Eng. (N. Y. N. Y).134 (10), 1627–1637. 10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2008)134:10(1627)
38
Toopchi-NezhadH.TaitM. J.DrysdaleR. G. (2008). Testing and modeling of square carbon fiber-reinforced elastomeric seismic isolators. Struct. Control Health Monit.15, 876–900. 10.1002/stc.225
39
TubaldiE.MitoulisS. A.AhmadiH. (2018). Comparison of different models for high damping rubber bearings in seismically isolated bridges. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.104, 329–345. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.09.017
40
CodeP., (1998-1:20132). Eurocode 8 - design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, 2005,
41
VaianaN.RosatiL. (2023). Classification and unified phenomenological modeling of complex uniaxial rate-independent hysteretic responses. Mech. Syst. Signal Process.182, 109539. 10.1016/j.ymssp.2022.109539
42
VaianaN.SessaS.MarmoF.RosatiL. (2019). An accurate and computationally efficient uniaxial phenomenological model for steel and fiber reinforced elastomeric bearings. Compos. Struct.211, 196–212. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.12.017
Summary
Keywords
fiber reinforced elastomeric isolators, seismic isolation, vertical stiffness, vertical displacements, effective compressive modulus
Citation
Galano S (2022) Vertical response of unbonded fiber reinforced elastomeric isolators (U-FREIs) under bidirectional shear loading. Front. Built Environ. 8:1056187. doi: 10.3389/fbuil.2022.1056187
Received
28 September 2022
Accepted
01 November 2022
Published
15 November 2022
Volume
8 - 2022
Edited by
Yuan Tian, University of Science and Technology Beijing, China
Reviewed by
Stergios Aristoteles Mitoulis, University of Surrey, United Kingdom
Ahmad Basshofi Habieb, Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology, Indonesia
Updates
Copyright
© 2022 Galano.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Simone Galano, simone.galano@unina.it
This article was submitted to Earthquake Engineering, a section of the journal Frontiers in Built Environment
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.