Shear and Friction Response of Nonseismic Laminated

Elastomeric Bridge Bearings Subject to Seismic Demands

Joshua S. Steelman, S.M.ASCE1; Larry A. Fahnestock, P.E., M.ASCE2; Evgueni T. Filipov, S.M.ASCE3;
James M. LaFave, P.E.4; Jerome F. Hajjar, P.E., F.ASCE5; and Douglas A. Foutch, P.E., M.ASCE6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Laminated elastomeric bridge bearings are commonly used in areas with low-to-moderate seismicity, although the applications are
typically intended for service-level considerations such as thermal movements of the bridge superstructure. These components provide a po-
tential source of displacement capacity frequently neglected in seismic design. An experimental program was carried out to evaluate the behav-
ioral characteristics and performance of steel-reinforced, laminated elastomeric bearings, which had not been designed for seismic demands, as
the primary quasi-isolation components for seismic events by permitting slip at the interface of the bearing and substructure. The rubber at the top
of the bearing is vulcanized to a steel plate, which is bolted to the test frame to simulate a connection to the superstructure. At the base of the
bearing, the elastomer directly contacts concrete representing the substructure, with no restraint of horizontal motion other than friction. The
elastomeric bearings investigated during the experimental program displayed an approximately linear elastic response before sliding, with an
initial friction coefficient in the range of 0.25–0.5 (at a shear strain between 125 and 250%) depending on combinations of the contact surface
roughness, applied load, and bearing velocity. The friction coefficient decreased as a nonlinear function of the imposed vertical load. The maximum
elastomer shear strain prior to sliding exhibited nonlinear increases with vertical load, resulting from the influence of the variable friction coefficient.
Linear shear moduli were primarily influenced by the maximum shear strain imposed on the bearing, and showed shear stiffness reductions of
approximately 40–50% following multiple, large displacement slip cycles, compared with 15–25% after reaching 50% shear strain. Multiple cycles
of large displacement demands resulted in noticeable degradation in the friction coefficient over the duration of the tests. However, the bearings
possessed a high degree of resiliency, considering that the specimens retained load-carrying capacity through total cumulative slip travel demands
in the range of 3.5–4.5 m (140–180 in.). DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000406. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Highway bridges; Earthquake resistant structures; Friction; Cyclic tests; Seismic effects; Laminated
materials; Shear resistance.
Author keywords: Elastomeric bearings; Quasi-isolation; Full-scale tests; Friction coefficient.

Introduction
Seismic isolation has been implemented as an effective means of
earthquake damage mitigation in structural engineering, with some
1
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engi-
neering, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, 205 N. Mathews Ave.,
Urbana, IL 61801. E-mail: jsteelm2@illinois.edu
2 Japan and New Zealand) where additional design and construction costs
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, 205 N. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL
61801 (corresponding author). E-mail: fhnstck@illinois.edu
3 components that permit relative thermal superstructure displacements
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engi-
neering, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, 205 N. Mathews Ave.,
Urbana, IL 61801. E-mail: filipov1@illinois.edu
4
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, 205 N. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL
61801. E-mail: jlafave@illinois.edu
5
Professor and Chair, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Northeastern Univ., 360 Huntington Ave., Boston, MA 02115. E-mail: jf.
hajjar@neu.edu
6
Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, 205 N. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL
61801. E-mail: dfoutch@illinois.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 26, 2011; approved on
April 24, 2012; published online on April 26, 2012. Discussion period open
until December 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering,
Vol. 18, No. 7, July 1, 2013. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2013/7-612–623/
$25.00.
of the earliest patents dating back to the turn of the twentieth century
(Buckle and Mayes 1990). Extensive subsequent research efforts
have further developed seismic isolation design methods and related
bearing technologies (e.g., Calvi and Pavese 1997; Kikuchi and Aiken
1997; Mayes and Naeim 2001; Buckle et al. 2002; Taylor and Igusa
2004). Structural isolation systems have typically been used in high
seismic regions (such as the west coast of the United States, as well as
are justifiable when balanced against the seismic hazard. However, for
bridges outside of high seismic areas some commonly used structural
with respect to the substructure can provide improved seismic perfor-
mance. For example steel-reinforced, laminated elastomeric bridge
bearings may inherently possess properties suitable for an isolation
system, even though elastomeric bearing designs in such regions are
nominally restricted to 50–70% shear strain to ensure satisfactory long-
term performance (AASHTO 2008a; Stanton and Roeder 1982). Re-
cently, Konstantinidis et al. (2008) investigated the behavior of such
bearings, recognizing that they can sustain shear strains much larger than
typically observed under nonseismic service-level conditions.
Consequently, a quasi-isolated design that relies on thermal ex-
pansion devices to also provide seismic energy dissipation could
be an appealing pragmatic design approach for bridges in moderate
seismic regions, providing the benefit of reduced force demands,
as long as the structural system can be designed to account for
increased displacements associated with an isolated response

612 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2013

J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(7): 612-623

 potentially having very low stiffness after sliding is initiated. The
key characteristics of a quasi-isolated bridge are that the design
approach is significantly simplified and the fabrication costs for the
bearings are less than conventional seismic isolation bearings. Here,
the term quasi-isolated has been chosen because the system response
resembles that of a conventionally isolated system (AASHTO 2010)
in that the superstructure can move relative to the substructure with
minimal restraint. Although the configuration of a quasi-isolated
system is simpler than that of a conventionally isolated system, this
benefit must be considered along with the limitations. Compared
with a conventionally isolated system, there is larger uncertainty in the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
seismic response of a quasi-isolated system and greater damage is
expected, primarily constrained to the bearings. However, compared
with a conventional nonisolated system, a quasi-isolated system is
expected to sustain less damage at the substructures. For a quasi-
isolated bridge, support surfaces at the substructures may need to
be enlarged to prevent unseating of bearings, and the bridge super-
structure could be permanently offset following sliding of the bear-
ings. Calibration of the standards and guidelines recommended for use
when designing a quasi-isolated bridge are in development as part of
the project in which the experiments reported here were performed.
The Illinois Center for Transportation (ICT), working in con-
junction with the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), is
currently investigating the behavior of quasi-isolated bridge sys-
tems, to calibrate and refine the IDOT earthquake-resisting system
(ERS) design and construction methodology. The IDOT ERS phi-
losophy relies in part on prescribed sequential fusing (i.e., slip,
yielding, or rupture) of specific components to limit forces that can
be transferred down through the bridge system (Tobias et al. 2008).
The specific feature of the IDOT ERS addressed in this paper is the
use of Type I elastomeric bearings, which allow thermal expansion
under typical service conditions, to accommodate much larger
earthquake-induced displacements and provide a significant elon-
gation of the structural period (possibly in conjunction with fixed
bearing fusing). Bearings identified as Type I by IDOT are fabricated
with an external top steel plate vulcanized to a steel-reinforced
elastomer block, and are differentiated from Type II and III elas-
tomeric bearings in that they lack a Teflon sliding surface and an
internal shear restrictor pin within the elastomeric block, re-
spectively (IDOT 2009). Slip for Type I bearings is anticipated at the
interface of the bottom surface of the elastomer and the top surface of
the concrete substructure.
The behavior of steel-reinforced, laminated elastomeric bearings
has been studied extensively for shear strains up to about 75%,
which are consistent with typical service conditions (Stanton and
Roeder 1982; Roeder et al. 1987). Schrage (1981) investigated slip
thresholds of neoprene bearings on concrete surfaces. Mori et al.
(1999) performed experiments on the shear response of laminated
rubber bearings, which were not bonded to top or bottom steel plates
and were thus free to roll, to approximately 200% shear strain, with
and without stops to restrict slip. Konstantinidis et al. (2008) tested
similar bearing configurations as Mori et al. (1999), without top or
bottom steel plates, and concluded that the ultimate displacement
capacity was approximately 150–225% shear strain, limited by
rollover of the bearing to the point where the originally vertical face
of the bearing becomes horizontal against the supports. It was noted
that any further imposed displacement would cause slipping of the
bearing, and that the bearing surface may be damaged by repeated
slipping; however, the experimental results did not exhibit cyclic
degradation.
This paper describes laboratory testing of full-scale steel-
reinforced, laminated elastomeric bridge bearings to study their
shear and friction response when subjected to simulated seismic
demands. The objective of the tests is to determine the behavioral
J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(7): 612-623
characteristics for bearings positively connected to the superstruc-
ture and permitted to slide on the concrete substructure, a bearing
configuration that has only been studied to a limited degree in prior
experimental research. Primary focus is placed on multiple cycles to
large displacements in order to evaluate the potential for bearing
degradation and associated changes in response properties. The tests
are part of a broader experimental program that is also investigat-
ing elastomeric bearings with Teflon sliding surfaces (IDOT Type II
bearings), steel fixed bearings with anchor bolts and pintles, and
side (transverse) retainers that are typically used in conjunction with
the elastomeric bearings (LaFave et al. 2013). The experimental
results presented in this paper provide new information to un-
derstand how steel-reinforced, laminated elastomeric bearings that
have not been designed or fabricated to tolerate seismic demands
will behave under simulated field conditions when subjected to large
displacement demands, which include both elastomer shear and
sliding components.
Testing Program Background
Test Setup
The tests described in this paper were performed in the Newmark
Structural Engineering Laboratory at the University of Illinois using
the experimental apparatus shown in Fig. 1, which was specifically
designed to realistically reflect field conditions for the full-scale
bridge bearing test specimens. Vertical loading was imposed on a
bearing using a pair of 445 kN (100 kip) capacity actuators reacting
against a steel frame secured to the laboratory strong floor with
pretensioned anchors. The use of a pair of actuators allowed the
vertical load to be maintained at a specified target of simulated
gravity load (and the loading beam to remain level) regardless of the
lateral displacement of the bearing. Concrete pads were cast to
simulate typical bridge substructures, including a brushed finish as
specified by IDOT (2007), to ensure that the frictional response at the
elastomer-to-concrete substructure interface appropriately reflected
expected field conditions. The concrete pads were secured to the
strong floor using 10 pretensioned anchors around the perimeter of
the pad.
The primary objective of the testing program was to characterize
the structural performance and behavior of elastomeric bearings
subjected to large lateral deformations during seismic events. Based
on preliminary systems analyses of full bridges, in conjunction with
a review of the literature documenting previous tests of similar
elastomeric bearings (Stanton and Roeder 1982; Roeder et al. 1987;
Kulak and Hughes 1992; Mori et al. 1999; Konstantinidis et al.
2008), a target of 400% shear strain was selected for the testing
program. Actual displacements can include both elastomeric shear
deformations and frictional sliding because the bearings are posi-
tively connected at their top surface but are not anchored at their base
against horizontal motion at the elastomer-to-concrete substructure
interface. Thus, although the elastomer portion of the bearings tested
in the present research is similar to those tested by Konstantinidis
et al. (2008), the overall behavior is quite different. The bearings
tested by Konstantinidis et al. (2008) were not bonded to top or
bottom plates, thus their large-displacement behavior was a com-
bination of shear and rollover (without sliding).
To homogenize descriptions of the testing protocols across
experiments with variable slip thresholds, deformations are referred
to herein using the measure of equivalent shear strain (ESS), where
ESS is the average bearing shear strain that would have been de-
veloped at a given displacement if no slip had occurred. The
largest bearings in the testing program comprised five layers of
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2013 / 613
 15.9 mm (5/8 in.) elastomer, for a total height of rubber (hrt ) of
79.4 mm (3.125 in.), and an associated 400% ESS of 317.5 mm
(12.5 in.). A 762 mm (30 in.) stroke, 980 kN (220 kip) capacity
actuator was used to provide the required 635 mm (25 in.) total
horizontal displacement capacity for fully reversed cyclic testing.
Test Specimens
The experimental results presented in this paper are for the speci-
mens listed in Table 1. IDOT Size 7-c and 13-c bearings are rep-
resentative of those appropriate for use at abutment and pier
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
elastomer used in the bearing specimens. The hardness measure-
ments shown in Table 1 were averages taken using a durometer at
quarter points along each side, at the second and fourth layers of the
elastomer, for each bearing.
An example of the initial state of a bearing prior to application of
lateral load is shown in Fig. 1. The top steel plates were bonded to the
elastomer during the vulcanization process, and positive anchorage
was provided to secure the bearing to the test frame loading beam,
which represents a bridge girder, with four 25 mm (1 in.) diameter
threaded steel studs in tapped holes in the bearing top plate. This
attachment method is consistent with bridge construction in Illinois,

locations, respectively. All elastomeric bearings were furnished by
Tobi Engineering, Inc., located in Glenview, Illinois. The dimen-
sions of the test specimens conformed to standards used by IDOT, as
specified in their bridge manual (IDOT 2009); they are provided in
Table 1 (in units of mm) for the elastomer layers, steel reinforcing
shims, and the top steel plate. According to documentation supplied
by the manufacturer, the elastomer used for the bearings was
composed of polyisoprene (natural rubber) meeting the AASHTO
thermal requirements of Grade 3. Specifications for bearings sup-
plied to IDOT, require a Shore A hardness of 55 6 5, which cor-
responds to a range of estimated shear moduli from 655 to 1,380 kPa
(95 to 200 psi), according to AASHTO (2008a). All of the bearing
specimens satisfied this hardness requirement. The manufacturer
reported a hardness of 54.3, and a shear modulus, according to
ASTM D4014, Annex A (ASTM 2007), of 855 kPa (124 psi) for the
except that in practice the four threaded steel studs are typically
19 mm (3/4 in.) diameter (IDOT 2009). The stud size was increased
to ensure that the studs and surrounding material would remain
elastic and that slip would occur only between the elastomer and
concrete, not between the top plate and the loading beam. Horizontal
lines were drawn on the sides of the elastomer to indicate the
locations of the internal shims, and vertical lines were added to form
a grid. The elastomer bore directly on the roughened concrete
surface, without any positive horizontal restraint at the simulated
substructure interface (see Fig. 2).
Test Procedure
All tests simulated longitudinal motion of a bridge superstructure.
Two 127 cm (50 in.) cable-extension position transducers were

Fig. 1. Testing setup elevation and typical specimen

Table 1. Test Specimen Characteristics

Average
Elastomer layer Top plate
IDOT Shape hardness Shim,
Specimen size W (mm) L (mm) t (mm) Quantity hrt (mm) factor (Shore A) t (mm) W (mm) L (mm) t (mm)
1 7-c 305 178 9.53 5 47.6 5.895 50.5 2.38 356 203 38.1
2 7-c 305 178 9.53 5 47.6 5.895 54.7 2.38 356 203 38.1
3 7-c 305 178 9.53 5 47.6 5.895 53.4 2.38 356 203 38.1
4 13-c 508 330 15.9 5 79.4 6.303 54.7 4.76 559 356 63.5

614 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2013

J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(7): 612-623

 attached to welded studs at the center of the bearing top plate to make
the primary measurements used for control of the tests. Additionally,
four 63.5 cm (25 in.) cable-extension position transducers were at-
tached to needles inserted in the sides of the elastomer, inset by
approximately 19 mm (3/4 in.) from the ends of each bearing. Fig. 1
illustrates the attachment points for these transducers on one side of
a bearing. The parameters for each test are summarized in the testing
matrix shown in Table 2.
In Table 2, the protocol field indicates whether a test was
monotonic [including direction, (1) or (2), see Fig. 1] or cyclic, and
the test travel field indicates the total travel of the top plate for that
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
multiple imposed cycles of strain) that may develop in the elastomer
material response. Material scragging effects were seen to be
minimal after the first excursion to a new maximum shear strain
during the preslip cycles of the tests.
The rate field in Table 2 indicates whether a test was quasi-static
(QS) or performed at an increased strain rate (ISR) to investigate
sensitivity in the response characteristics to velocity demands. QS
tests were performed by dividing the displacement record into
substeps that were composed of iterations on the horizontal actuator
position to converge to a target horizontal position of the bearing top
plate, followed by iterations of the vertical actuator positions to

particular test, in units of ESS (where 100% 5 1). The displacement
record used for fully reversed cyclic testing, as shown in Fig. 3, was
determined after a review of documentation available for other
prequalification and characterization tests of seismic isolation
bearings [Shenton 1996; Highway Innovative Technology Evalu-
ation Center (HITEC) 1996; AASHTO 2010]. The initial stages
included seven cycles each to 25 and 50% shear strain, followed by
three cycles each at 100, 200, 300, and 400% ESS. The additional
cycles at the lower strain levels were imposed to investigate any
effect of scragging (i.e., degradation in stiffness resulting from
Fig. 2. Specimen 1 (Test 1-1) at incipient sliding
maintain the target simulated gravity load. Because the net vertical
force on the bearing and its horizontal position are related in
a coupled fashion to both the horizontal and vertical actuator
positions, particularly at large displacements, successive loops were
performed within a substep to adjust the horizontal and vertical
actuator positions until both of their target criteria had converged to
within acceptable tolerances. The vertical force on the bearing varied
by as much as 6 8.9 kN (2 kip), from the target during vertical
control iterations of the QS tests.
For the QS tests, the velocity of the top plate was determined
by the time required to sample signals and perform calculations
between iterations, and was generally low relative to the hydraulic
capacity of the testing equipment. For example, the average velocity
for Test 3-1 was approximately 0.068 mm/s (0.0027 in./s), or about
0.14% shear strain per second. For the ISR tests, the command
signals from a previous (slower) test were used to preestablish the
signals corresponding to converged states. Those signals were then
mapped to a sinusoidal waveform on a compressed time line so that
the bearing travel would meet a target velocity. Target velocities for
the ISR tests were selected based on the available hydraulic capacity
of the testing setup, and ranged from 1.5 to 6.3 cm/s (0.6 to 2.5 in./s),
or 32–80% shear strain per second. Although the velocities con-
sidered are smaller than expected for seismic demands, the ISR tests
do provide some insight into potential rate effects. Prior research
[Malaysian Rubber Producers’ Research Association (MRPRA)
1980] shows that a strain rate dependency does exist for natural
rubber with respect to the shear modulus but that the shear modulus
is more significantly influenced by peak shear strain than by strain
rate. More recent research by Konstantinidis et al. (2008) agreed

Table 2. Testing Matrix

Cumulative prior Average vertical
Test number Specimen Protocol Test travel (ESS) tests (ESS) Rate stress (MPa)
1-1 1 Monotonic (2X) 4 0 QS 3.45
1-2 1 Monotonic (2X) 4 4 QS 3.45
1-3 1 Monotonic (2X) 4 8 QS 3.45
1-4 1 Monotonic (1X) 4 12 QS 3.45
1-5 1 Monotonic (1X) 4 16 QS 2.59
1-6 1 Monotonic (1X) 4 20 QS 1.38
1-7 1 Monotonic (1X) 4 24 QS 3.45
1-8 1 Monotonic (1X) 4 28 ISR 3.45
1-9 1 Monotonic (1X) 4 36 QS 3.45
1-10 1 Monotonic (1X) 5 56 QS 3.45
2-1 2 Cyclic 141 0 QS 1.38
2-2 2 Cyclic 141 141 QS 5.52
3-1 3 Cyclic 141 0 QS 3.45
3-2 3 Cyclic 141 141 ISR 3.45
4-1 4 Cyclic 141 0 QS 2.65
4-2 4 Monotonic (1X) 4 141 QS 2.65
4-3 4 Monotonic (1X) 4 145 ISR 2.65
Note: ESS 5 equivalent shear strain; QS 5 quasi-static; and ISR 5 increased strain rate.

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2013 / 615

J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(7): 612-623

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Cyclic quasi-static testing protocol
with this finding, showing a relatively minor influence of strain rate,
which was overshadowed by the influence of peak shear strain.
Ideally, strain rates for a testing program such as reported in this
paper would reach those expected for large seismic events; however,
peak strain demand and capturing the behavior of the bearings when
subjected to large cycles with slip were judged to be even more
significant for characterizing the bearings’ behavior during large
earthquakes.
Standard IDOT designs are required to maintain an average
compression stress between 1.38 and 5.52 MPa (200 and 800 psi) on
the elastomer plan area as a result of gravity load. Accordingly, the
compression levels selected for the tests, shown in the average
vertical stress field, fall within this range, and the first phase of each
test applied a simulated gravity load to the bearing specimen. Each
bearing was first subjected to a vertical loading/unloading/reloading
cycle to obtain data for the compression stiffness of the specimen
and also to preload the bearing with the target simulated gravity load
before applying lateral displacements.
Test Results
Observed Force-Displacement Response at High
Shear Strains
All bearings exhibited stable hysteretic response at high shear
strains, with modest degradation of slip force levels upon increasing
numbers of slip cycles. Constitutive force-displacement response
plots are provided in Figs. 4 and 5(a–d) for selected tests to illustrate
key aspects of their behavior. In Figs. 4 and 5(a–d), points where slip
is regarded to initiate are indicated with circular markers. Fig. 4
presents data for all of the monotonic tests performed on Specimen 1.
Successive tests in each direction resulted in degraded stiffness
and slip resistance; however, the incremental stiffness degradation
effects diminished with increasing number of cycles. The rapid sta-
bilization of stiffness degradation, with little degradation occurring
after the second test in each direction, suggests that the more sig-
nificant decrease in stiffness from the first test to the second tests may
be a consequence of chamfering at the leading edges of the base of the
elastomer that occurs when the elastomer is ground against the
concrete surface, rather than by unrecovered scragging of the elas-
tomeric material. Tests at increased strain rates resulted in a significant
increase in breakaway coefficient, as well as a minor increase in
stiffness, which was typically sufficient to overcome the degradation
effects of previous tests, as in the case of Test 1-8 in Fig. 4.
Figs. 5(a–c) were obtained from a bearing with an elasto-
mer footprint measuring 178 3 305 mm ð7 3 12 in:Þ, whereas
the footprint for the bearing represented in Fig. 5(d) is
616 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2013
J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(7): 612-623
Fig. 4. Specimen 1 force versus displacement
330 3 508 mm ð13 3 20 in:Þ. The rate of degradation of friction
resistance was more pronounced (seen as a decrease of sliding force
with increasing cycles) for the larger bearing size, which was per-
formed on a new concrete pad (and therefore unaffected by any in-
fluence of prior tests). Increasing vertical load correlates to both an
increased slip load and development of a stiffening branch prior to
slip, as is evident from a comparison of Figs. 5(a and c).
The bearings used for this study are specified primarily on the
basis of Shore A durometer hardness, with a requirement of 55 6 5.
Bearing producers will sometimes add reinforcing fillers such as
carbon black to achieve the required hardness, and will also modify
the composition of the rubber compound according to pro-
prietary techniques to optimize other performance objectives re-
quired by departments of transportation. Consequently, the damping
of the rubber compound is not intentionally low or high, and is
generally ignored when evaluating the structural suitability of the
bearings. When effective damping was calculated for the bearing
tests reported in this paper according to AASHTO (2010), the values
obtained for preslip cycles ranged from about 5 to 10%, with a mean
of 7% of critical, for Tests 2-1 and 4-1 with relatively light com-
pression loads and slip initiating between 100 and 200% ESS. Under
higher compression in Tests 2-2, 3-1, and 3-2, slip was delayed until
after the 200% ESS cycles, and the effective damping ranged from
about 9 to 18%, with a mean of 13% of critical.
Although delamination of internal shims and instability have
been observed in previous research on elastomeric bearings (Roeder
et al. 1987; Buckle et al. 2002), neither of these failure mechanisms
was observed for any of the specimens. Taken as a whole, the results
suggest that unrestrained, steel-reinforced, laminated elastomeric
bearings that have not been specifically designed to resist seismic
demands may be permitted to slide on substructures and can be
expected to perform satisfactorily without compromising the
structural integrity of the bearing during seismic events with large
magnitudes, long durations, and multiple cyclic reversals.
Elastomeric Bearing Stiffness Characteristics
Shear stiffness of bearings in nonseismic applications is usually
a secondary concern—where the AASHTO specifications are used,
Method A is often used for bearing designs. Consequently, bearings
may be specified for manufacture using only durometer hardness
limits rather than the shear modulus, as would be required in
Method B, and the shear modulus used for design capacity checks is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Force versus displacement results for the cyclic tests: (a) Specimen 2 (Test 2-1); (b) Specimen 3 (Test 3-1); (c) Specimen 2 (Test 2-2);
(d) Specimen 4 (Test 4-1)
assumed based on historically observed correlations with hardness.
Quantification of shear stiffness varies between alternative recog-
nized standards, where both ASTM (2007) D4014 and AASHTO
(2008b) M251 constrain the range of shear strain imposed on test
specimens to the range of typical design limits but with maximum
strain demands of 50 and 65%, respectively.
When bearings are subjected to seismic demands, shear strains
can extend significantly beyond the nominal service load limits. The
tests performed for this experimental program indicate that elasto-
mer shear strains could be expected to reach approximately
125–250% before slip, depending on the vertical load. A pro-
nounced, high-strain stiffening branch associated with crystalliza-
tion was not observed because slip precluded such a phenomenon for
each bearing test. Therefore, the results provided herein focus on the
effective linear stiffness, accounting for softening that occurs at
moderate strain levels that exceed typical service limits.
The compression and shear stiffness results from the testing
program are summarized in Table 3, Kv represents the vertical
stiffness of the bearing determined from the experimental load-
deflection curve, as shown in Fig. 6. The values are linear regressions
of the experimental data for a region bounded by the first instance
when the loading curve reached 50% of the target vertical load and
the end of the unloading/reloading cycle. Although the loading rate
used to determine Kv was roughly 20 times faster than that specified
in AASHTO (2008b) M251 and ASTM (2007) D4014, an exper-
imental study of load rate sensitivity showed that the increase in
vertical stiffness caused by the faster loading rate was only about 5%
when compared with the AASHTO (2008b) and ASTM (2007)
loading protocols. The reported Kv values are also larger than values
that would be obtained from AASHTO (2008b) or ASTM (2007)
procedures because the range of data used in the regression was
restricted to a stiffer portion of the loading curve. Consequently,
J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(7): 612-623
when the range of the regression was considered together with
the loading rate, the increased stiffness was about 12–14% higher
than would be obtained from AASHTO (2008b) or ASTM (2007)
procedures.
A general relationship has been recognized between compression
and shear stiffness in the form of
s
ɛ¼ (1)
aGS2
where ɛ 5 vertical strain, s 5 average vertical stress, G 5 shear
modulus, S 5 shape factor, and a 5 constant (primarily influenced
by geometry and boundary conditions). Roeder et al. (1987) pre-
sented an approximate equation for practical bridge bearings with
large shape factors, where the a term would be 6k and k is related
to rubber hardness and can be estimated between 0.75 and 0.55 for
50 to 65 Shore A hardness elastomers. In the AASHTO (2008a)
specifications, the commentary provides this equation with a 5 6,
although a ballot has been proposed to modify the value from 6 to 4.8
(Daniel H. Tobias, personal communication, 2012).
Kelly and Konstantinidis (2011) provide extensive treatment of
compression stiffness for various geometric arrangements and
boundary conditions. If the relaxation permitted by friction is
neglected, a for the bearings in this study would be 6.37 and 6.50 for
the small and large bearings, respectively. If the lack of restraint
provided by friction only at the bottom surface of the bearing is
considered in accordance with Kelly and Konstantinidis (2009), and
the bearings are assumed to be infinite strips with the narrow di-
mension used as the width of the strip, the vertical stiffness decreases
by 4.9% if the coefficient of friction, m, between the rubber and
concrete is as high as 0.5, or up to 13.0% if m is as low as 0.2.
Reductions in a values were calculated for each specimen,
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2013 / 617
 Table 3. Vertical Stiffness and Apparent Shear Moduli
Test number Kv (kN/mm) GEst,Kv (kPa) GLin (kPa) G25 (kPa) G50 (kPa) g max,test (%) g max,specimen (%)
1-1 136 593 565 962 678 220 220
1-2 134 583 465 700 553 195 220
1-3 134 583 436 631 533 206 220
1-4 143 623 513 534 494 206 220
1-5 138 601 423 524 489 185 220
1-6 97 424 390 544 484 136 220
1-7 133 581 452 493 466 206 220
1-8 134 586 582 730 617 229 229
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1-9 135 590 427 471 444 210 229

1-10 128 557 416 646 512 227 229
2-1 110 461 Varies Varies Varies Varies 127
2-2 152 673 Varies Varies Varies Varies 244
3-1 132 575 Varies Varies Varies Varies 211
3-2 122 533 Varies Varies Varies Varies 224
4-1 304 593 Varies Varies Varies Varies 152
4-2 292 588 497 882 736 135 152
4-3 288 581 626 972 802 158 158

Fig. 6. Determination of vertical stiffness

reflecting the frictional restraint observed during sliding in the re-
spective experiments, with a final value calculated for each specimen
by considering the individual layers of rubber as a series of springs
(Kelly and Konstantinidis 2011). The resulting range of a factors
was 5.80–6.02 for the small bearings and 5.92–6.10 for the large
bearing. Applying the relationship between compression and shear
stiffness, an estimate of shear modulus from a compression test is
obtained by substituting ɛ 5 dv =ERT, s 5 Fv =A, and Kv 5 Fv =dv , to
obtain
Kv hrt
GEst,Kv ¼ (2)
aAS2
In addition to this estimated material stiffness parameter, several
apparent shear moduli were also calculated from the experimental
results.
Calculation of effective linear stiffness required identification
of slip initiation. To identify slip initiation, data from the sensors
measuring displacements at the two welded steel studs (dh,high in
Fig. 7) were compared with the average displacement measurements
of four points near the base of the elastomer (dh,low in Fig. 7). Shear
strain was estimated according to


dh,high 2 dh,low
gshear ¼ P (3)
h 2 tshim,incl
where h 5 height from the lower P attachment points to the un-
derside of the top steel plate, and tshim,incl 5 total thickness of the
shims included in h. Slip corresponds to regions of measured
response with incremental Dgshear  0. Points identified as slip
initiations were used to bound ranges for linear regression of shear

618 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2013

J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(7): 612-623

 stiffness to the experimental results, and secant stiffnesses were
also calculated to bounds of 25 and 50% ESS beyond the first data
point at which the horizontal load crossed zero in the direction of
loading. These fixed ranges were chosen to approximately reflect
stiffness estimations consistent with ASTM 4014 and AASHTO
M251, respectively. The 25 and 50% secant stiffnesses and the
slope of the linear fit are converted to apparent shear moduli ac-
cording to
DFh hrt
G¼ (4)
Ddh A
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The apparent shear moduli corresponding to 25 and 50% shear
strain, denoted as G25 and G50 , respectively, provide context for
comparison with recognized standards and illustrate the general
trend of shear constitutive response for increasing shear demands.
However, GLin , determined from the shear stiffness bounded by slip
initiation, captures the reduced stiffness associated with strains
exceeding typical service-level limits, and is therefore a preferred
parameter for evaluating the performance of quasi-isolated systems.
Fig. 7. Measurement of shear deformation
Fig. 8. Linear shear moduli for cyclic tests
J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(7): 612-623
The results for the apparent shear moduli according to the various
approaches are summarized in Table 3 for monotonic tests, sup-
plemented with Fig. 8 for cyclic tests.
Fig. 8 illustrates that apparent shear moduli degrade with in-
creasing shear strain, and the data also suggest that the apparent
reduction in stiffness at large strain levels is influenced by other
factors besides material scragging. For example, Tests 2-1 and 2-2
show that the apparent shear modulus at low strain levels in the
second test is reflective of the previously attained 125% strain level
in the first test, and only recovers partially in the interim of several
days between the tests, when the bearing was dismounted from the
test frame and therefore completely unloaded. The trailing edge of
the base of the elastomer was observed to curl, and the leading edge
was rounded off by being ground against the concrete. These effects
contributed to the observed stiffness degradation through reduced
mechanical and geometric participation of the elastomer. The re-
duction as a result of the concentrated abrasion at the leading edge
escalated with increasing numbers of slip cycles such that the
maximum degradation from the initial stiffness of the first 25%
quarter cycle reached about 40–50%, compared with about 15–25%
reductions through the 50% peak strain cycles. Additionally, when
the bearing was subjected to deformation at a high strain rate, the
observed stiffness was larger than for a low strain rate, as illustrated
by Tests 4-1 and 4-3.
When combined with the friction slip force limits, the apparent
shear modulus provides insight into the dynamic characteristics of
a bridge system prior to slip and the amount of deformation that can
be sustained without incurring a residual offset in bridge position
following an earthquake. However, care should be taken to ap-
propriately adjust the values obtained from standard tests to reflect
the various influences on sliding bearing response. The secant
stiffness used to characterize shear response up to about 50 to 65%
tended to overestimate dynamic, larger strain shear stiffness, es-
pecially with increasing slip cycles in Test 3-2. Alternatively, shear
stiffness estimated from compression stiffness overestimated the
values observed during Test 3-2 but underestimated shear stiffness
for Test 4-3.
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2013 / 619
 Slip Response of Elastomeric Bearings on Concrete However, for a quasi-isolated system the influence of the true friction
value is more significant than in design scenarios to prevent walking,
Friction resistance has been studied for various combinations of
and the conservatism normally exercised in design considerations
natural rubber and neoprene elastomeric materials in plain and
to prevent walking could have other implications for global bridge
laminated configurations with steel, smooth concrete, and rough
performance in seismic scenarios. As the coefficient of friction
concrete mating surfaces and at various compression levels and
increases, the peak and residual seismic displacements of the su-
shearing velocities, producing a broad range of potential friction
perstructure diminish, while forces transmitted down into the
thresholds (Schrage 1981; Muscarella and Yura 1995; McDonald
substructure may increase. Therefore, considerable effort has been
et al. 2000). The bearings in the current testing program are full-scale
expended to characterize the expected slip behavior for large
laminated elastomeric bearings, using natural rubber, and as in-
deformations and multiple cycles.
dicated in Table 2, the testing program included multiple com-
As has been observed in previous tests, there is a significant
pression levels and shearing velocities. Characterization of friction
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

correlation between the friction coefficient and normal stress at the

mating surfaces is often subjective, using terms such as rough or
smooth. For this testing program, the concrete surfaces were
roughened following IDOT (2007) standard specifications; how-
ever, the guidance in that case is also subjective, calling for a uni-
form, slightly roughened surface. To correlate the surface roughness
to a recognized measurement system, the surfaces were visually
classified as having a rating of 3 or 4 using concrete surface profile
chips produced by the International Concrete Repair Institute
(ICRI 1997).
A primary emphasis in previous studies has been to establish
a reliable threshold to prevent slip and walking during service
loading, where walking is the phenomenon of bearings gradually
accruing sliding displacements on substructures over extended
periods of time. Such a phenomenon was clearly seen at an accel-
erated rate in this testing program during pauses in the tests (with the
top plate held in place by the test frame while the base of the elas-
tomer was only restrained by friction) that coincided with high
elastomeric shear strains. The base of the bearing continued to slip
during such intervals, with observable reduction in the horizontal
force required to hold the top plate in position, reflecting the offset of
walking slip with reduced elastomer shear strains.
To address slip in service, the AASHTO (2008a) specifications
recommend an assumed design coefficient of friction of 0.2 between
the elastomer and concrete. The 0.2 value is presumed to be con-
servative in the sense of underestimating the true resistance to slip.
slip interface. Schrage (1981) observed an inversely proportional
trend of the friction coefficient versus compression stress. The data
obtained from the current testing program agree with this general
trend, as seen in Fig. 9 (these data were averaged over 25% ESS slip
segments for each plotted point in both Figs. 9 and 10). In the QS
tests, the data are clustered around the target vertical load on the
horizontal axis of the plot. During the ISR tests, there was a wider
variation of imposed vertical load, with the average compression
stress ranging from 1.59 to 5.30 MPa (230 to 770 psi), arising from
differing hydraulic capacities and demands among the actuators.
Starting from the form proposed by Schrage (1981), for the cyclic
quasi-static tests, the residual of the observed and expected
coefficients of friction can be accounted for approximately
according to
P
0:37 duslip
mQS ¼ 0:18 þ 2 (5)
s 100
P
where duslip 5 total aggregation of slip travel for the bearing (m),
and s 5 average compression stress acting on the bearing (MPa).
The variation of the coefficient of friction with average compression
stress and total slip is less amenable to fitting with minor adjustments
to Schrage’s original formula. However, those data are only rep-
resentative of a single cyclic test and two monotonic tests, thus there
is not yet sufficient data to conclusively correlate the discrepancy in

Fig. 9. Observed friction versus average vertical compression stress

620 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2013

J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(7): 612-623

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 10. Observed friction versus total slip travel
the observed trend with respect to Schrage (1981) to the slip rate. The
ISR tests displayed marked increases in breakaway friction coef-
ficients over the QS test cases. For Specimen 1, the friction co-
efficient rose from an average of 0.29 in QS Test 1-7 to an initial
breakaway coefficient of 0.42 in ISR Test 1-8. Similarly, after
Specimen 4 had exhibited sliding at an average friction coefficient
of 0.27 for the final slip excursion of QS Test 4-1, and 0.30 for QS
Test 4-2, the initial breakaway coefficient rose to 0.46 in ISR Test
4-3. The friction coefficients obtained from the QS tests appear to be
consistent with the kinetic slip coefficients in the ISR tests.
Similar increases in the static friction breakaway coefficient
relative to the kinetic friction coefficient have been observed for
tests of rubber on concrete, with a kinetic friction coefficient of 0.8
and a static friction coefficient of at least 1 (Serway and Beichner
2000). Friction tends to reach a peak and then drop off at higher
velocities, where the velocity at which the peak occurs is a function
of the hardness of the mating surfaces and the size of the surface
asperities (Persson 2001). Recent tests reported by Guo et al. (2006)
indicate that maximum friction coefficients tend to occur around slip
velocities of 1 m/s for rubber tires on dry concrete. Therefore, for
large earthquakes the coefficient of friction could be higher than the
values observed in this testing program.
For the QS tests, the observed friction coefficient degraded with
increasing cycles. For example, during Test 4-1 Fig. 9 shows the
coefficient of friction varying from a maximum of about 0.45 to
a minimum of about 0.25, and Fig. 10 shows that the general trend is
to degrade with increasing cumulative slip imposed on the bearing.
Generally, visible damage was limited to chamfered corners and
abrasions on the base of the bearing, with portions of elastomer that
had been ground off remaining on the concrete surface after com-
pletion of the tests. The most severe damage was observed in
Specimen 2. That specimen was first subjected to about 3.05 m
(120 in.) of total slip travel at a normal force of approximately 75 kN
(16.8 kip) during Test 2-1. The bearing was then further subjected to
an additional slip travel of about 1.02 m (40 in.) with a normal force
of approximately 300 kN (67.2 kip). At the end of Test 2-2, abrasion
of the elastomer base edges was sufficient to expose the edge of the
lowest internal shim. Despite this damage, the rate of slip coefficient
J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(7): 612-623
degradation as a function of cumulative slip in Test 2-2 was similar
to Test 2-1.
To put these cumulative slip values into perspective, the total
slip travel demands estimated from system analyses of full bridge
models subjected to 2,500-year return period earthquake motions
for southern Illinois were 2.15 m (85 in.) (Filipov et al. 2011),
compared with the total slip travel demands of about 4 m (160 in.)
imposed on the bearing specimens during the tests. When the
expected total slip travel during major earthquakes is taken into
account, the data from these tests suggest bearings that were not
designed to tolerate seismic demands can be expected to survive
large slip travel demands with minor visible abrasions, while
maintaining reliable strength to support vertical loads and pro-
viding stable hysteretic shear sliding response to dissipate seismic
energy.
Summary and Conclusions
Tests were performed to characterize the elastomeric shear de-
formation and slip response of steel-reinforced, laminated bearings
unrestrained against horizontal translation atop concrete sub-
structures. All bearings were composed of steel-reinforced natural
rubber, vulcanized to top steel plates. The tests included various
combinations of bearing size, vertical stress, and shearing rate, with
monotonic and fully reversed cyclic loading protocols. Two vertical
actuators and a horizontal actuator were used to impose target hor-
izontal displacements in a range of 6 400% of total rubber thickness,
while maintaining an approximately constant vertical load. The
bearing specimens reacted at their base against concrete test pads
with roughened surfaces conforming to standard specifications
used by IDOT.
The experimental program has produced test data indicating that
typical bearings used by IDOT can generally be characterized with
linear elastic response for low-to-moderate loads, even at large
displacement demands on the order of 250% shear strain. Addi-
tionally, the elastomer compound demonstrated appreciable damp-
ing as an unintentional consequence of the measures taken to
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2013 / 621
 provide hardness sufficient to meet standard specifications used by
IDOT. Development of a pronounced stiffening branch is precluded
because the elastomer is permitted to slide on the concrete sub-
structure, although the force-displacement response near slip may
stiffen slightly for large gravity load stresses. The shear stiffness
observed at moderate strains showed significant degradation, with
reductions up to about 40–50% from the initial shear stiffness ob-
served at 25% shear strain. Either values taken from standard shear
stiffness tests or estimated values derived from compression stiff-
ness provide some insight into the stiffness to be expected at strains
exceeding service limits; however, neither is perfectly suited to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
defining a reliable value for dynamic shear stiffness at strain levels
expected during large earthquakes.
Repeated monotonic tests on a single bearing, along with cyclic
tests incorporating multiple reversed cycles up to 400% equivalent
shear strain, indicate that the bearings are remarkably resilient.
Scragging effects on stiffness appear minor in relation to the more
significant influence of maximum shear strain demand. The bottom
surface of the elastomer is visibly worn and roughened by abrasion
with the concrete through multiple cycles of large displacements;
however, this visible damage appears to have only a minor influence
on the force-displacement response. Additionally, delamination
was not observed externally, and the only visible damage extend-
ing to the internal shims was for the case of the highest tested
vertical load.
The bearing slip response gradually transitioned through a range
of shear strains, from shear dominant to slip dominant. Therefore,
even when displacements arise primarily from shear deformations,
a bearing may experience an accelerated walking phenomenon
for long duration earthquakes. The observed slip coefficients varied
significantly with vertical load, following a nonlinear inverse re-
lationship. Deterioration of slip resistance is also noticeable over
significant accumulations of slip for a constant vertical load.
The stiffness and slip characteristics obtained from this series of
experiments have been incorporated into full bridge system analyses
to evaluate the global response resulting from the use of bearings
such as those in this paper (Filipov et al. 2013a; Filipov et al. 2013b).
The global system analyses provide a comprehensive estimation of
seismic peak and residual displacements, accounting for the in-
fluence of the abutments in the longitudinal direction, the stiffened
angle retainer brackets anchored to the concrete substructure in the
transverse direction, as well as the bearing performance charac-
teristics observed from these experiments. Supplementary to the
experiments reported in this paper and the global bridge system
analyses, additional tests incorporated in the full scope of the testing
program will provide further information regarding how the bearings
described in this paper behave under alternate situations and con-
figurations, such as when transverse retainers are included, and
together with three-dimensional systems models will offer insight
into how a quasi-isolated system performs during large magnitude
earthquakes.
Acknowledgments
This paper is based on the results of ICT R27-70, Calibration and
Refinement of Illinois’ Earthquake Resisting System Bridge Design
Methodology (LaFave et al. 2013). ICT R27-70 was conducted in
cooperation with the Illinois Center for Transportation (ICT), IDOT,
Division of Highways, and the U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA). The content of this paper
reflects the view of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and
the accuracy of the data presented herein. The content does not
necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the ICT, IDOT, or
622 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2013
J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(7): 612-623
FHwA. The authors would like to thank the members of the project
Technical Review Panel, chaired by D. H. Tobias of the Illinois
Department of Transportation, for their valuable assistance with this
research.
References
AASHTO. (2008a). AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications,
AASHTO, Washington, DC.
AASHTO. (2008b). “Standard specification for plain and laminated elasto-
meric bridge bearings.” AASHTO M251-06, Washington, DC.
AASHTO. (2010). Guide specifications for seismic isolation design,
AASHTO, Washington, DC.
ASTM. (2007). “Standard specification for plain and steel-laminated
elastomeric bearings for bridges.” D4014-03, West Conshohocken, PA.
Buckle, I. G., and Mayes, R. L. (1990). “Seismic isolation: History, ap-
plication, and performance—A world view.” Earthquake Spectra, 6(2),
161–201.
Buckle, I., Nagarajaiah, S., and Ferrell, K. (2002). “Stability of elasto-
meric isolation bearings: Experimental study.” J. Struct. Eng., 128(1),
3–11.
Calvi, G. M., and Pavese, A. (1997). “Conceptual design of isolation systems
for bridge structures.” J. Earthquake Eng., 1(1), 193–218.
Filipov, E. T., et al. (2013a). “Seismic performance of highway bridges
with fusing bearing components for quasi-isolation.” Earthquake En-
gineering and Structural Dynamics, in press.
Filipov, E. T., Fahnestock, L. A., Steelman, J. S., Hajjar, J. F., LaFave, J. M.,
and Foutch, D. A. (2013b). “Evaluation of quasi-isolated seismic bridge
behavior using nonlinear bearing models.” Eng. Struct., 49(14), 168–
181.
Filipov, E. T., Hajjar, J. F., Steelman, J. S., Fahnestock, L. A., LaFave, J. M.,
and Foutch, D. A. (2011). “Computational analyses of quasi-isolated
bridges with fusing bearing components.” Proc., ASCE/SEI Structures
Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA, 276–288.
Guo, K.-h., Zhuang, Y., Chen, S.-k., and William, L. (2006). “Experimental
research on friction of vehicle tire rubber.” Front. Mech. Eng. China,
1(1), 14–20.
Highway Innovative Technology Evaluation Center (HITEC). (1996).
Guidelines for the testing of seismic isolation and energy dissipating
devices, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). (2007). Standard specifi-
cation for road and bridge construction, IDOT, Springfield, IL.
Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). (2009). Bridge manual,
IDOT, Springfield, IL.
International Concrete Repair Institute (ICRI). (1997). “Concrete surface
profile chips.” Æhttp://www.icri.org//bookstore/launchCatalog.asp?
ItemID=PCæ (Apr. 14, 2010).
Kelly, J. M., and Konstantinidis, D. (2009). “Effect of friction on unbonded
elastomeric bearings.” J. Eng. Mech., 135(9), 953–960.
Kelly, J. M., and Konstantinidis, D. A. (2011). Mechanics of rubber
bearings for seismic and vibration isolation, Wiley, Chichester, U.K.
Kikuchi, M., and Aiken, I. D. (1997). “An analytical hysteresis model for
elastomeric seismic isolation bearings.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.,
26(2), 215–231.
Konstantinidis, D., Kelly, J. M., and Makris, N. (2008). “Experimental
investigations on the seismic response of bridge bearings.” Rep. No.
EERC 2008-02, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of
Engineering, Univ. of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Kulak, R. F., and Hughes, T. H. (1992). “Mechanical tests for validation of
seismic isolation elastomer constitutive models.” Proc., Pressure Ves-
sels and Piping Conf. on DOE Facilities Programs, Systems Interaction,
and Active/Inactive Damping, C.-W. Lin and W. W. Chen, eds., Vol.
229, ASME, New York, 41–46.
LaFave, J., et al. (2013). “Experimental investigation of the seismic response
of bridge bearings.” Research Report No. ICT-13-002, Illinois Center for
Transportation, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.
Malaysian Rubber Producers’ Research Association (MRPRA). (1980).
“Natural rubber engineering data sheet.” EDS 16, Malaysian Rubber
Research and Development Board Organization, Hertford, U.K.
 Mayes, R. L., and Naeim, F. (2001). “Design of structures with seismic
isolation.” The seismic design handbook, F. Naeim , ed., Kluwer, Boston,
724–755.
McDonald, J., Heymsfield, E., and Avent, R. R. (2000). “Slippage of
neoprene bridge bearings.” J. Bridge Eng., 5(3), 216–223.
Mori, A., Moss, P. J., Cooke, N., and Carr, A. J. (1999). “The behavior of
bearings used for seismic isolation under shear and axial load.”
Earthquake Spectra, 15(2), 199–224.
Muscarella, J. V., and Yura, J. A. (1995). “An experimental study of
elastomeric bridge bearings with design recommendations.” Research
Rep. No. 1304-3, Center for Transportation Research, Bureau of En-
gineering Research, Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Persson, B. N. J. (2001). “Theory of rubber friction and contact mechanics.”
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
J. Chem. Phys., 115(8), 3840–3861.
Roeder, C. W., Stanton, J. F., and Taylor, A. W. (1987). “Performance of
elastomeric bearings.” National Cooperative Highway Research Program
298, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(7): 612-623
Schrage, I. (1981). “Anchoring of bearings by friction.” Special Publication
SP70-12, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 197–215.
Serway, A. R., and Beichner, R. J. (2000). Physics for scientists and
engineers, Saunders College Publishing, Philadelphia.
Shenton, H. W. (1996). “Guidelines for pre-qualification, prototype and
quality control testing of seismic isolation systems.” NISTIR 5800, NIST,
Gaithersburg, MD.
Stanton, J. F., and Roeder, C. W. (1982). “Elastomeric bearings design,
construction, and materials.” National Cooperative Highway Research
Program 248, Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, Washington, DC.
Taylor, A. W., and Igusa, T. (2004). Primer on seismic isolation, ASCE,
Reston, VA.
Tobias, D. H., Anderson, R. E., Hodel, C. E., Kramer, W. M., Wahab, R. M.,
and Chaput, R. J. (2008). “Overview of earthquake resisting system
design and retrofit strategy for bridges in Illinois.” Pract. Period. Struct.
Des. Constr., 13(3), 147–158.
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2013 / 623