Keikha2019 PDF

Journal of Earthquake Engineering
ISSN: 1363-2469 (Print) 1559-808X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20
Seismic Performance Assessment of Quintuple

Friction Pendulum Isolator with a Focus on
Frictional Behavior Impressionability from Velocity
and Temperature
Hamed Keikha & Gholamreza Ghodrati Amiri
To cite this article: Hamed Keikha & Gholamreza Ghodrati Amiri (2019): Seismic Performance
Assessment of Quintuple Friction Pendulum Isolator with a Focus on Frictional Behavior
Impressionability from Velocity and Temperature, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, DOI:
10.1080/13632469.2019.1568929
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2019.1568929
Published online: 28 Jan 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 25
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueqe20
JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2019.1568929
Seismic Performance Assessment of Quintuple Friction

Pendulum Isolator with a Focus on Frictional Behavior
Impressionability from Velocity and Temperature
Hamed Keikha and Gholamreza Ghodrati Amiri
School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper describes the development of a numerical model using Received 7 November 2017
finite element modeling (FEM) with the ability to simulate and ana- Accepted 21 December 2018
lyze the thermal–mechanical behavior of a new generation of curved KEYWORDS
surface sliders called as Quintuple Friction Pendulum Isolators Quintuple friction pendulum
(QFPIs). The QFPI is a spherical sliding isolator with six sliding sur- isolator; finite element
faces, five effective pendula, and nine stages of operation which modeling; frictional heating;
allow for a multistage adaptive behavior depending on the ampli- seismic performance;
tude of displacement. The focus of this study is on the effect of effective stiffness; energy
velocity, heat generation, and temperature rise, which occurs at the dissipated per cycle
sliding surfaces under large friction forces and high velocities, on the
frictional behavior of this new type of isolators. Heat generation is
simulated through a heat source located on the sliding surfaces, with
surface heat flux intensity dependent on the coefficient of friction,
the contact pressure, and the velocity. At the same time of the
mechanical analysis, the thermal calculation was also done and the
coefficient of friction is adjusted step by step on the current tem-
perature and velocity at the sliding surfaces. To validate the numer-
ical approach, the hysteretic force–displacement behavior of isolator
is compared by that of the experimental test result. Moreover, seismic
performance of this type of new sliding isolators was analyzed and
evaluated in terms of the effective stiffness, Keff, and the energy
dissipated per cycle, EDC or Eloop, based on EN 15129, ASCE 7-10,
ASCE 7-16, and AASHTO 2014 codes. The assessment results show
that the codes requirements on the maximum allowable variation in
Keff and EDC are fulfilled. The numerical process can help in early
studies to select the isolator materials accounting for their thermal
consistency and evaluating the design properties variation of sliding
isolation due to frictional heating.
1. Introduction
Buildings’ full operation after a major seismic event is of great importance for handling
of post-earthquake emergency. However, recent earthquakes have shown that the tradi-
tional approach for design of earthquake-resistant structures based on the strengthening,
though preventing the collapse of the building, may result in severe damages to non-
structural elements and electro-medical equipment, especially for essential structures.
CONTACT Gholamreza Ghodrati Amiri ghodrati@iust.ac.ir School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science
and Technology, Tehran, Iran
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ueqe.
© 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 H. KEIKHA AND G. GHODRATI AMIRI
On the contrary, seismic mitigation design by means of base isolation has shown to be
an efficient way for protecting the structures and their contents from earthquake-
induced damages by raising the resilience and reducing the time and cost of repair
compared to a conventional fixed-base structures [Gandelli, 2017]. The idea of this
approach is to “decouple,” or “isolate,” a structure from the earthquake-induced ground
motion by lengthening the structure’s fundamental period using flexible devices, called
isolators, so that the mechanical energy transmitted to the isolated structure from high-
frequency seismic wave is reduced. Thereupon, seismic isolation both significantly
lengthens the fundamental period of the structure as well as increases the overall level
of damping. The reduction of the transmitted energy reduces response, including
deformation and absolute movement, velocity and acceleration, and hence the damage,
of the isolated structure. The seismic isolation layer is assembled under the structure,
and in these cases is referred to as base isolation [Kelly, 1997; Cutfield, 2015].
Nowadays, Friction Pendulum Bearing system (FPB), also known as curved surface
slider (CSS) [Zayas et al., 1987, 1990; Fenz et al., 2006, 2008b, 2008c], is a well-
acknowledged anti-seismic device for isolating the structures against earthquakes,
regulated in the most recent American [ASCE/SEI 7-10, 2010; ASCE/SEI 7-16, 2016;
AASHTO, 2014] and European [EN 15129, 2009] standards as anti-seismic devices.
These isolation devices demonstrate favorable characteristics like high load and dis-
placements capacity, well-set and smaller dimensions, independency of vibration per-
iod from the mass of the superstructure, and the lack of torsional effects in case of
asymmetric buildings, which make them the most practical device for seismic retro-
fitting of structures; yet, notwithstanding the large usage of these types of isolation
devices in the last decades, a full understanding and precise modeling of their behavior
has not been yet completely achieved, and this is also reflected in the codes and in the
design tools available to structural engineers [Gandelli, 2017]. This paper describes the
characterization of the complete behavior of a new generation of FPB system called as
Quintuple Friction Pendulum Isolator (QFPI), as shown in Fig. 1, which is an exten-
sion of the Triple Friction Pendulum Isolators (TFPIs) [Morgan, 2007; Fenz et al.,
2008b] and anticipated as a new sliding isolation device in the collection of isolators
available to the engineering decisions to choose from when very large displacement
capacities are needed and when intricate multistage behavior ameliorates the
Figure 1. Typical cross-section of Quintuple Friction Pendulum Isolator (QFPI) prototype model.
JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 3
performance of the system. The QFPI consists of six spherical sliding surfaces, five
effective pendula, and nine stages (or regimes) of operation which allow for a more
complex multistage adaptive behavior and smoother transition between regimes than
the TFPI, depending on the amplitude of displacement. The basic design parameters of
QFPIs sliding surfaces are similar to those of TFPIs [Morgan, 2007; Fenz et al., 2008b],
defined by the effective radius of curvature (Li = Ri − hi) and the actual displacement
capacity (d*i = di(Li/Ri)) of ith surface, with Ri and hi defined in Fig. 1 which are the
radius of curvature and the height of each sliding surfaces relative to the center of
isolator, respectively.
Typically, two design configurations are considered for friction coefficients of QFPI
sliding surfaces because a model with general geometric and frictional parameters
entails additional consideration of equilibrium of moments and eventuates in a much
higher complexity without any practical importance as shown by Sarlis and
Constantinou [2013]. These two design configurations are as follows: configuration 1
μ3 ¼ μ4 < μ5 μ2 < μ6 μ1 and configuration 2 μ3 ¼ μ4 < μ2 μ5 < μ6 μ1 , and also
one design configuration for their effective radius of curvature, which is
L3 ¼ L4 L2 L5 L1 L6 . It is noteworthy that configuration 2 is achieved by
interchanging plates C and E of configuration 1, as shown in Fig. 1, which leads to
small differences in hysteresis loops in a way that their operational stages II and III
and also VIII and IX are interchanged. Moreover, the combination of conditions
μ3 ¼ μ4 and L3 ¼ L4 certifies that initiation of motion occurs on sliding surfaces 3
and 4, simultaneously. Also, the configurations 1 and 2 include the simpler config-
uration where μ3 ¼ μ4 < μ5 ¼ μ2 < μ6 μ1 , which is characterized by four effective
pendula and seven stages of operation. The rest of required assumptions for QFPI
design parameters are described in Lee and Constantinou [2016].
The nine stages (or regimes) of operation of this isolator’s behavior, and its hysteretic
force–displacement relationship for the configuration 1, are depicted in Figs. 2 and 3,
respectively, which include
Stage I: Sliding motion occurs on surfaces 3 and 4 (inner pendulum surfaces) with
high stiffness and low friction coefficient. Properties of the inner pendulum (period
Figure 2. QFPI’s nine stages of operation (for configuration 1). (Note: the surfaces marked with “x” are
surfaces where sliding occurs).
Figure 3. The nine operational stages of QFPI’s force–displacement relationship (for configuration 1).
and friction coefficient) are typically chosen small to reduce the peak accelerations and
shear forces acting on the isolated structure and its contents, minimizing the partici-
pation of higher structure modes responses in the total responses of system that occur
during wind load or service level of earthquake (ground motions with small displace-
ment and high frequency).
Stage II: Sliding stops on surface 4 and occurs on surfaces 3 and 5 with higher friction and
lower stiffness to reduce the responses during moderate earthquakes.
Stage III: Sliding stops on surface 3 and occurs on surfaces 2 and 5, also with higher
friction and lower stiffness during moderate earthquakes.
Stage IV: Sliding stops on surface 5 and occurs on surfaces 2 and 6, having greater friction
and lower stiffness.
Stage V: Sliding stops on surface 2 and occurs on surfaces 1 and 6, again with higher
friction and lower stiffness to reduce the responses during strong earthquakes.
Stage VI: Sliding reaches to restrainer on surface 6 and stops, then motion occurs on
surfaces 1 and 5.
Stage VII: Sliding reaches to restrainer on surface 1 and stops, then motion occurs on
surfaces 2 and 5.
Stage VIII: Sliding reaches to restrainer on surface 5 and stops, then motion occurs on
surfaces 2 and 4.
Stage IX: Sliding reaches to restrainer on surface 2 and stops, then motion occurs on
surfaces 3 and 4.
The last three stages behave with very high stiffness with higher friction to minimize
isolator displacements that occur during very strong earthquakes at the location of isolated
structure (i.e., maximum credible earthquakes for far-field locations, or large pulse-like
ground motions, especially those that have forward directivity and fling-step effects,
generated at near-fault locations), which reduces the size and cost of the bearings and
reduces the displacements required for the structure’s seismic gaps, although usually the
displacement capacity of isolator device is designed in such a way that its last one or two
stages of operation’s displacement capacity are not activated under design earthquake
(which is different in the seismic codes) and saved for very strong rare events which are
defined exclusively at the location of the isolated structure site.
The investigations in this study is based on the development of advanced numerical
tools, using finite element modeling (FEM) with the ability to simulate and analyze the
thermal–mechanical behavior of this system, for the design or retrofitting purposes of
structures with this new kind of isolators. The effect of heat generation and temperature
rise, which occurs at the sliding surfaces under large friction forces and high velocities, on
its frictional behavior is also studied.
2. Friction Pendulum Isolators’ State of the Art

The FPBs have been proved to be an effective seismic device to decrease the seismic
responses of structures both experimentally and numerically [Zayas et al., 1987; Al-
Hussaini et al., 1994; Tsai, 1997; Jangid, 2005]. Zayas et al. [1987] first introduced and
developed the Friction Pendulum System (FPS) with a concave sliding surface and an
articulated slider. To avoid the amplification of the isolator’s responses in long dominant
periods of strong ground motions, Tsai et al. [2003a] developed a variable curvature FPS
analytically. [Tsai, Cheng et al., 2005a; Tsai et al., 2003b, 2003c, 2005b, and 2006], to improve
the anti-seismicity efficiency and lessen the size of the FPS isolator, proposed a new kind of
sliding isolation system called as Multiple Friction Pendulum System (MFPS) with double
concave surfaces and an articulated slider located between the concave surfaces. Moreover,
Fenz and Constantinou [2006] followed their research. Kim and Yun [2007] studied the
seismic response of bridges using an MFPS isolation system with double concave sliding
surfaces. [Tsai, 2003; Tsai et al., 2008] also introduced several other types of MFPS isolators
in 2002, each with multiple sliding surfaces, and its behavior has been defined so that each FP
isolation system has multiple sliding interfaces connected in series. Fenz and Constantinou
[2008b] and Morgan and Mahin [2008, 2010] simultaneously investigated the characteristics
of an MFPS isolator called Triple FPBs with four sliding concave surfaces and five stages of
operation under unidirectional loadings. Fenz and Constantinou [2008a] developed analy-
tical studies on the equivalent behavior of TFPB isolators by connecting three FPBs in series
and validated through experimental tests under unidirectional excitation. [Tsai and Lin,
2009; Tsai et al., 2010a] proposed a general theory representing the mechanical characteristic
of an MFPS isolator and a Multiple Trench Friction Pendulum System both with numerous
sliding interfaces under unidirectional excitation. Furthermore, Tsai et al. [2009a, 2009b,
2010a, 2010b] developed a plasticity model, called as the multiple yield and bounding
surfaces model, which is a device-specific hysteresis rule to simulate an MFPS isolator with
numerous sliding interfaces subjected to multidirectional excitations. Although the invention
of the QFPIs was claimed by Tsai et al. [2010a] who studied isolators with multiple sliding
surfaces and proposed a computational plasticity-based model of its behavior, but the force–
displacement relationships developed by them were only applicable for the loading branch
and provide no information for unloading [Lee and Constantinou, 2016]. So, Lee and
Constantinou [2016] developed an analytical model of the Quintuple FPB with the ability
of applying for both the loading and unloading branches and verified it with computational
and experimental results.
Based on experimental results [Tsai, 1997; Mosqueda et al., 2004] and also the studies of
De Domenico et al. [2018], it has been proven that the frictional behavior of friction
pendulum (FP) isolators depends on (a) the applied vertical load (which has been shown
that the friction coefficient reduces as the applied vertical load increases), (b) the sliding
velocity (which causes an increase in the friction coefficient with velocity), and (c) the
direction of motion (repetition of cycles and consequent temperature rise, which is the
reason of underestimating the displacements expected during seismic events and also over-
estimating the friction coefficient and dissipation capacity of the most sliding isolators). The
effects of these parameters are well shown and considered in the models of Tsai [1997] and
Mosqueda et al. [2004] and proved to affect the behavior of FP isolators during the earth-
quake events. Lomiento et al. [2013] developed a systematic investigation on the sliding
isolator performance through a range of realistic vertical loads and sliding velocities, because
in this context, most of the testing programs were often done as “project specific” and their
results demonstrated to be of difficult correlation for the definition of a performance model.
Also Lomiento et al. [2013] developed a numerical model to represent the effects of above-
mentioned parameters on the frictional response characteristics of the sliding devices which
is applicable in generalized structural analysis codes and provides an important design tool
for realistic assessment of the seismic response of structures equipped with friction-based
isolators. Gandelli and Quaglini [2018] developed a modeling strategy to account for the
contribution of static friction, which is an increased friction at the beginning of motion or
motion reversal and referred to as breakaway and stick-slip phenomena, respectively, under
unidirectional ground motion histories and used to assess its effects on the response of
a building isolated with CSSs. De Domenico et al. [2018] investigated the thermomechanical
coupled (TMC) response of friction concave isolators when subjected to bidirectional
excitation in both an analytical and a numerical framework. Their work consists of
a simplified phenomenological model that accounts for the friction degradation due to the
distance traveled via a macroscale cycling variable, based on the assumption of a uniform heat
flux (power dissipated per unit area) at the sliding interface, and then, a numerical investiga-
tion via a TMC finite element (FE) model. Here, to consider the temperature rise effect on
frictional behavior of QFPI sliding surfaces, the equivalent uniformly distributed heat flux
definition of Lomiento et al. [2013] has been used to model the frictional heating effect.
Many recent studies are on the robustness and probabilistic analyses, seismic reliability-
based analysis, optimization, and seismic performance of base-isolated systems as well as
those of previously introduced and most commonly used sliding isolation systems under
random earthquake excitations. Castaldo et al. [2017] has proposed the seismic reliability-
based design approach for different structural properties, as a new methodology aimed at
providing useful design solutions for the seismic devices. Castaldo and Tubaldi [2018]
studied the influence of ground motion characteristics by means of Peak Ground

Acceleration (PGA) and the PGA/Peak Ground Velocity (PGV) ratio on the optimal
friction properties of single concave sliding bearings employed for the seismic isolation
of structural systems. The seismic performance of bridges isolated with FPS considering
different limit states has been investigated by Castaldo and Priore [2018]. Castaldo et al.
[2018] also evaluated the seismic robustness of a three-dimensional (3D)-reinforced
concrete structure equipped with single-concave FPS devices by estimating the seismic
reliability in its design life (50 years) of different models related to different malfunction
scenarios of the seismic isolators.
3. FE Analysis
3.1. FE Model
In implementing the Finite Element Analysis, FEA, as there is a complex interaction between
sliding interfaces, a 3D FEM model of this type of isolator is generated. The technique of FEA
lies in the development of a suitable mesh arrangement. Therefore, at the beginning of the
research, a number of different trial models were created. On the account of the fact that the
mesh configuration must balance the need for a fine mesh to give an accurate stress distribu-
tion and reasonable analysis time, the optimal solution is using a fine mesh in areas of high
stress along with a coarser mesh in the remaining areas. In the 3D modeling herein, all
elements of the QFPI components were meshed by the linear TMC 8-node tetrahedral solid
structural elements, C3D8RT, with reduced integration to reduce the simulation time. Each
node has four degrees of freedom (the three displacement components along three directions
X, Y, and Z, and the temperature). Details of the mesh are reported in Table 1. Figure 4a shows
a typical cross-section of a QFPI FE model, and also a longitudinal section and main
components of it are shown in Fig. 4b,c, respectively. The complex interactions between the
sliding interfaces of the sliding plates and sliding pads were considered as the surface-to-
surface contact which will allow the finite sliding interaction between a deformable and a rigid
body. In detail, in very low velocity (static state of movements), Coulomb coefficient of
frictions are defined for sliding resistance between sliding surfaces and presented in Table 2.
Moreover, Table 2 presents the geometric properties of sliding surfaces of the QFPI-simulated
specimen for both (a) validating the numerical modeling with experimental results of Lee and
Constantinou [2016] and (b) investigating the complete mechanical and thermal behavior of
these types of new isolators. The last two column of Table 2 can be used to derive the analytical
force–displacement relations using the approach of Morgan [2007] and Fenz and
Constantinou [2008b]. All of the parameters of Table 2 are defined in Fig. 1.
Table 1. Size of the finite element mesh.

Part Component C3D8RT elements (#) Nodes (#)
Parts A and G Sliding plates 5468 7912
Sliding pads 1516
Parts B and F Sliding plates 4320 7038
Sliding pads 3584
Parts C and E Sliding plates 8135 10,446
Sliding pads 2678
Part D Sliding plates 8192 9275
Sliding pads 768
Total 34,661 34,671
Figure 4. Typical finite element model of the QFPI specimen: (a) cross-section, (b) longitudinal section,
and (c) its main components.
3.2. Material Properties

The QFPI consists of seven parts, as shown in Fig. 4c, including one base sliding plate,
which is fixed to the base, one exterior sliding plate, which is fixed beneath the column,
four intermediate sliding plates, one rigid slider, and six spherical sliding pads of friction
material, locked to the upper convex surface of the sliders and rubbing onto the concave
surface of the sliding plate and located between sliding interfaces and have a thickness of
7 mm. The sliding pads are made of apolytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-based composite
material with nominal coefficient of frictions described in Table 2 for each interface at
ambient temperature of 20°C. These values of the friction coefficient are typical of very
low conditions and an axial load of W = 88,964.43 N (20 kip) and these values varied
a little because of the velocity and heating effects on friction material and discussed later.
The sliding plates are made of carbon steel, with the surfaces of the sliding plates and of
the rigid slider mating the pads covered with a thin (2 mm) overlay of polished stainless
steel. Mechanical and thermal properties of the QFPI components’ materials have been
presented in Table 3.
During the movement of QFPI, frictional heating has been generated at the inter-
faces between the sliding pads and the sliding plates. At each interface, a surface heat
Table 2. Sliding surfaces’ parameters of QFPI simulated specimen based on Lee and Constantinou
[2016] experimental test.
Effective radius of
Radius of Height (hi) Friction Displacement curvature (m) Actual displacement
curvature (Ri) (m) (m) coefficient capacity (m) (Li = Ri − hi) capacity (m) d*i = di (Li/Ri)
R1 0.4572 h1 0.0356 µ1 0.12 d1 0.0381 L1 0.4216 d*1 0.035
R2 0.2032 h2 0.0305 µ2 0.085 d2 0.03302 L2 0.1727 d*2 0.0281
R3 0.0508 h3 0.0229 µ3 = µ4 0.015 d3 0.013971 L3 0.028 d*3 0.0077
R4 0.0508 h4 0.0229 d4 0.013971 L4 0.028 d*4 0.0077
R5 0.2032 h5 0.0305 µ5 0.035 d5 0.03302 L5 0.1727 d*5 0.0281
R6 0.4572 h6 0.0356 µ6 0.11 d6 0.0381 L6 0.4216 d*6 0.035
Total actual displacement capacity of isolator: d*total = ∑ d*i 0.1418
Table 3. Material properties of QFPI components considered based on Quaglini et al. [2014].
Material Elastic modulus (MPa) Conductivity (W/(m K)) Specific heat (J/(kg·K))
PTFE composite 800 0.65 1.1 × 106
Carbon steel 209,000 53.7 4.9 × 105
Stainless steel 196,000 16.0 5.0 × 105
source spread all over the contour area of the pad is assumed, which produces a local
surface heat flux (power dissipated per unit area) of intensity qi generated by the
frictional forces is defined as the following equation [Constantinou et al., 2007]:
μi :W:jvi j
qi ¼ μi :pi :vi ¼ (1)
πai 2
where μi is the static coefficient of friction of ith sliding interface, pi is the contact
pressure of ith sliding interface, which has been considered equal to pi ¼ W=πa2i , vi is
the sliding velocity of ith sliding surface, W is the applied vertical load, and ai is the
radius of the contact surface i (i.e., the radius of the slider i). The area is considered as
the projection over the horizontal plane of the concave sliding surface. From Eq. (1) it
can be seen that the intensity and position of heat flux change during the sliding motion.
With the aid of Fig. 5a, during the time interval dt, the slider experiences a displacement
increment du and the distributed heat flux increment over the traveled gray surface “2ai
·du” may be considered as an equivalent heat flux uniformly distributed over the entire
concave sliding surface i (as shown in Fig. 5b), given by [Lomiento et al., 2013]
μi W jvi j 2ai du 2μi Wvi2 dt
dqi ¼ ¼ (2)
πa2i πA2i ai π2 A2i
For short duration motion, for example, earthquake motion, the temperature rise on the
sliding surface i is straightly related to the cumulative heat flux acting on the surface from
the initiation of the sliding motion. In particular, the uniformly distributed heat flux of
Eq. (2) developed during the time interval (t − t0) can be cumulated as follows for sliding
surface i:
2 t
qi ðt Þ ¼ ò μ Wv2 dt (3)
ai π2 A2i t0 i i
Figure 5. (a) Actual and (b) equivalent uniformly distributed heat flux during the time interval dt
[Lomiento et al., 2013].
The cumulative heat flux distributed on sliding surface i is a function of the radius ai of
the slider, radius Ai of the sliding surface, applied vertical load W, momentary sliding
velocity vi, and coefficient of friction μi.
Here, in order to simplifying the simulation procedure and because of the low effect on
the results, during each time interval dt, the surface is exposed to an equivalent heat flux of
intensity qi assumed uniformly distributed over the whole concave sliding surface, as
shown in Fig. 5b. In abovementioned equations, it was assumed that the heat flux
q generated at the contact surface is divided into two fluxes, q1 = λ q pointing to the
stainless steel surface, and q2 = (1 − λ) q pointing to the pad, where λ is the heat separation
factor that depends on the thermal properties and geometry of the bodies in contact
[Quaglini et al., 2014, 2015]. In this study, λ = 1.00 is assumed at either sliding surface
(i.e., the 100% of the heat flux points to the stainless steel surface). This assumption is
considered because of the poor thermal conductivity of thermoplastic materials (i.e.,
PTFE) in comparison to steel.
In this study, the coefficient of friction of each sliding pads, μi, was formulated in
a customized subroutine and implemented in FE program so that as the analysis pro-
gresses, the friction coefficients of sliding surfaces are updated at each stage of analysis as
an explicit function of (a) the sliding surface velocity and (b) the sliding surface tempera-
ture. The dependency of friction coefficient to the applied vertical load, or surface
pressure, is neglected because the vertical applied load variation is possible under (a)
vertical ground motion component, (b) second-order (P–Δ) effects due to large displace-
ment of isolator, (c) uneven distribution of pressure in sliding surfaces of isolator caused
by overturning forces, (d) unequal distribution of vertical load on isolators of an isolated
structure, and other situations, which is not the focus of this study, so here the vertical
applied load, and also contact pressure of surfaces, is considered to be constant as that
of Lee and Constantinou [2016] test conditions. For the velocity dependency of μi, it’s
assumed that the coefficient of friction follows the following relation [Constantinou et al.,
1990; Lee and Constantinou, 2016]:

μvel;i ¼ ðμFast Þi μFast i μSlow i eαi vi (4)
where (μFast)i and (μSlow)i are values of the coefficient of friction of sliding surface i in large
velocity and quasi-static states, respectively, vi is the velocity of sliding surface i, and αi is
the rate parameter of sliding surface i (for given pressure of ith sliding surface) determin-
ing the shape of the relationship, used to describe the velocity-dependence of friction.
Table 4 presents values of friction and the rate parameter for each sliding surfaces
extracted from Lee and Constantinou [2016] test results and used in FEM analysis of
the tested isolator. Moreover, for the temperature dependency of QFPI sliding surfaces μi,
Table 4. Values of friction coefficient and rate parameter used in FEM analysis of QFP
isolator [Lee and Constantinou, 2016].
QFPI μ1 μ2 μ3 = μ4 μ5 μ6
μFast 0.16 0.11 0.04 0.09 0.15
μSlow 0.12 0.085 0.015 0.035 0.11
Rate parameter α (s/m) 157.48 141.73 118.11 141.73 157.48
the model of Quaglini et al. [2014, 2015], among other models, was found most proper
after several sensitivity analyses which is defined as follows:
μTemp i ¼ μi eβi ðTi T0 Þ (5)
where µi is the coefficient of friction for ith sliding surface based on Eq. (4) at the initial
ambient temperature T0 = 20°C, βi represents the decay rate parameter of friction with
temperature, which is assumed to be constant equal to 0.005 for all sliding interfaces based
on Quaglini et al.’s [2014, 2015] proposal, which is determined in friction tests performed
on pad material specimens (75 mm diameter) at temperatures between 20 and 100°C, and
Ti is the temperature of ith sliding surface.
3.3. Analysis Methodology

The execution of the analysis procedure and solution of the FEM involved two mechanical
load steps and also thermal boundary conditions, that is, the heat flux qi distribution at the
sliding surfaces and the ambient initial temperature (20°C) of isolator specimen. First, the
specified constant design vertical load W = 88,964.43238 N (20 kip) was applied to the top
of exterior sliding plate “G,” as shown in Fig. 1. After solving the first load step, the second
one consisted of a laterally harmonic displacement load, shown in Fig. 6 being applied at the
concentrated loading point identified on exterior sliding plate “G.” Meanwhile and at the
same time of QFPI mechanical movement, thermal boundary conditions are also applied to
the sliding interfaces. The iteration procedure is based on full Newton–Raphson iteration
method, an iterative process of solving the nonlinear equations, which is performed within
each increment to achieve a quadratic convergence. As shown in Fig. 6 and Table 5,
the second step of mechanical loading history includes five unidirectional quasi-static
Figure 6. Illustration of the harmonic cyclic loading procedures for validation process with quasi-static
test of Lee and Constantinou [2016].
Table 5. Test specimen loading parameters for validating the delivered 3D FEM results
with quasi-static test results of Lee and Constantinou [2016].
Test Vertical load Displacement amplitude Frequency No. of Stage of
no. (kN) (m) (Hz) cycles operation
1 88.964 0.0127 0.005 2 III
2 88.964 0.0381 0.005 2 V
3 88.964 0.0762 0.005 2 V
4 88.964 0.1143 0.005 2 VII
5 88.964 0.127 0.005 2 VIII
harmonic tests according to the sinusoidal waveform, d(t) = A sin(ωbt), of frequency equal
to fb = 0.005 Hz with the peak displacement and velocity of 0.127 m and 4 mm/s for the last
test, respectively, to validate delivered 3D FEM results with Lee and Constantinou [2016]
test results. Although the peak displacement of test is 0.127 m that represented a limit of
their experiment test machine, but the displacement capacity of the isolator is 0.142 m
(based on Table 2 last column calculations), so under the peak displacement of 0.127 m, the
isolator was deformed up to operation stage VIII. Thus, for the validating process with the
test of Lee and Constantinou [2016], in FEM modeling, here the peak displacement capacity
considered equal to 0.127 m and the loading history parameters are listed in Table 5.
4. Determination of Force–Deflection Characteristics

The force–deflection characteristics of the isolation system shall be based on the cyclic
load tests of prototype isolator specified based on ASCE/SEI 7-10 [2010] and ASCE/SEI
7-16 [2016]. The effective stiffness of isolator specimen, Keff, shall be calculated for each
cycle of loading as prescribed by the following equation
jF þ j þ jF j
keff ¼ (6)
jΔþ j þ jΔ j
where F+ and F− are the positive and negative forces, at the maximum positive and the
minimum negative displacement of isolator specimen during each cycle of prototype
testing, Δ+ and Δ−, respectively. Moreover, the effective period of the isolated structure,
Teff, shall be determined as presented by the following equation:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
W
Teff ¼ 2π (7)
keff g
where W is the effective seismic weight of the structure acting through the bearings in N,
as defined in Section 12.7.2 of ASCE 7-10 [2010] standard. Keff (in N/m) is the effective
stiffness, as prescribed by Eq. (6), of the isolation system at the design displacement DD or
maximum displacement DM, as required, in the horizontal direction under consideration,
and g is the acceleration due to gravity in m/s2. Also, the effective damping, βeff, of an
isolator specimen shall be calculated for each cycle of loading by the following equation:
2 EDC
βeff ¼ (8)
π keff ðjΔþ j þ jΔ jÞ2
where the energy dissipated per cycle of loading, EDC or Eloop, and the effective stiffness,
Keff, shall be based on peak test displacements of Δ+ and Δ− [ASCE/SEI 7-10, 2010; ASCE/
SEI 7-16, 2016].
As required, the post-yield stiffness, kd, of each isolator specimen shall be calculated for
each cycle of loading using the following assumptions [ASCE/SEI 7-16, 2016]:
(1) A test loop shall be assumed to have a bilinear hysteretic characteristic with values
of k1, kd, Fo, Fy, Keff, and Eloop (or EDC) as shown in Fig. 7.
(2) The computed loop shall have the same values of effective stiffness, Keff, and energy
dissipated per cycle of loading, Eloop or EDC, as the test loop.
(3) The assumed value of k1 shall be a visual fit to the elastic stiffness of the isolator
specimen during unloading immediately after DM.
Based on ASCE 7-16 [2016], it is permitted to use different methods for fitting the loop,
such as a straight-line fit of kd directly to the hysteresis curve and then determining k1 to
match Eloop, or defining Dy and Fy by visual fit and then determining kd to match Eloop.
McVitty and Constantinou [2015] have considered kd for FP isolators as a function of
the effective radius of curvature of the concave plates Reff and the weight W. This
assumption is an accurate representation for a single FP isolator and for a double FP
isolator where the upper and lower concave plates have the same radius of curvature and
same coefficient of friction. For a triple FP isolator, it slightly underpredicts the friction
coefficient at zero displacement; however, the effect is minor on the structures global
response. Based on their recommendation, kd is equal to W/(2L1) for double and triple
FP isolators when the upper and lower concave surfaces have an identical radius of
curvature [McVitty and Constantinou, 2015].
Figure 7. Nominal (average) properties of the isolator bilinear force-deflection model.

5. Results Discussion and Validation of the Delivered 3D FEM

In order to assess the validity of the delivered 3D FEM, experimental and FEM studies are
used for direct contrast. The experimental program revealed by Lee and Constantinou
[2016], which conducted on a QFPI specimen, was used for comparison with the delivered
3D FEM results and its geometrical and material properties used for FEM modeling are
given in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. The comparison of delivered 3D FEM and test in terms
of hysteretic normalized force versus displacement behaviors under quasi-static test loading
condition, as described previously in Fig. 6 and Table 5, is shown in Fig. 8. It is obvious that
the numerical results have good agreement with the experimental results. The numerical
model can accurately simulate the mechanical behavior of QFPI test specimen, where the
fine mesh was used, and also, the actual elastic modulus, conductivity, and specific heat of
used material were chosen. With respect to the curves of Fig. 8, there is some small
discrepancy between modeling and testing results. This is due to the higher loading velocity
of used “Dynamic Explicit” FEM analysis method than quasi-static state of experiment, and
also using “mass scaling” of the isolator specimen to reduce the computational time of FEM
analysis with no significant error. Figure 9 illustrates the Von Mises Stress and contact
pressure distributions on the sliding pad 3 overlay, which is positioned between rigid slider
“D” and intermediate sliding plate “C”, at final stage of operation, that is, stage of operation
VIII, under quasi-static test loading conditions of Table 5. According to this figure, it can be
seen that pressure increases from the center of the pad toward the perimeter perpendicular
to the direction of motion, where larger values are produced due to the effect of the
curvature of the sliding surface and the load eccentricity.
5.1. Velocity Effect

Experimental studies have pointed out the inner intricacy of the friction mechanism
especially for its dependency on velocity [Constantinou et al., 1990]. A sharp difference
Figure 8. Comparison of hysteresis behavior of delivered 3D FEM with Lee and Constantinou [2016] test
under quasi-static loading.
Figure 9. (a) Von Mises (S. Mises) stress distribution of isolator specimen, (b) Von Mises (S. Mises) stress
distribution on the sliding pad 3 overlay, and (c) contact pressure (CPRESS) on the sliding pad 3 overlay,
at final stage of operation (values in Pa).
exists between the dynamic (kinetic) coefficient of friction that develops during stable
sliding, and which intensity changes regular with speed, and the static coefficient of
friction that resists to the motion between mating surfaces at zero relative velocity, such
static friction develops either at the very first initiation of motion, or breakaway, or at
motion reversals, when the instantaneous velocity is zero. The increased µ in the begin-
ning of motion is known as a static coefficient of friction and is often referred to as
a breakaway coefficient of friction, and the increase of µ at each direction reversal of
motion is typically referred to as stick-slip, which are characterized by a short duration
increase of µ followed by a rapid drop. Both static µ and stick-slip are caused by an
instantaneous sticking of the interfaces and acceleration impulses. Generally, the transi-
tion from the static to the kinetic coefficient of friction is very sharp, and depending on
the material, the value at the breakaway can be from 1.5 to more than four times higher
than the dynamic value [Pooley and Tabor, 1972; Mokha et al., 1990; Constantinou et al.,
2007; Quaglini et al., 2012; Lomiento et al., 2013]. The static coefficient of friction is
a macroscopic effect of the breaking of the chemical bonds between the mating surfaces.
As a consequence of the fact that the number and strength of such bonds increases with
the duration of the sticking, the value at the breakaway is generally much larger than at
motion reversal [Gandelli and Quaglini, 2018]. These phenomena are visible in different
delivered 3D FEM loops of Fig. 8, which is shown in detail for its first loop in Fig. 10, as an
example. Some experimental works indeed demonstrated that the breakaway friction
coefficient for PTFE–stainless steel interfaces disappears after just one cycle of loading
[Mokha et al., 1988, 1990], but at motion reversal, the stick-slip still exists, which is also
proved here for tested QFPI specimen as shown in Fig. 8 loops and it is because of the
Figure 10. Appearance of breakaway (or static) coefficient of friction and stick-slip phenomena in the
first loop of the QFPI’s delivered 3D FEM.
higher loading process and its resultant impulses at motion reversals of “Dynamic
Explicit” FEM analysis procedure.
In this study, in order to reveal the behavior of QFPI under dynamic conditions,
additional simulation was conducted on the tested QFPI specimen under the same load
amplitudes with those of quasi-static loading conditions, as described previously, but
larger velocity of motion. Dynamic analysis was performed by first imposing a slow
motion to the maximum displacement over a period of 7Tb, then pausing for a duration
of loading period, and then imposing two cycles of harmonic motion for each five
amplitudes, same with those of quasi-static test, but with the higher dynamic loading
frequency of fb = 0.1 Hz as follows:
8
< A ð1 cosðωb t Þ0 < t < 7Tb
d ðt Þ ¼ A7Tb < t < 8Tb (9)
:
A sinðωb t Þ 8Tb < t < 10Tb
where Tb is the dynamic loading period equal to Tb = 1/fb = 10 s, and fb is the dynamic
loading frequency. The peak velocity of dynamic motion was 80 mm/s (3.1 in/s), which was
obtained in the last two cycles with 0.127 m amplitudes. The dependency of the coefficient of
friction on velocity is generally implemented by means of Eq. (4) and the variation of friction
coefficients of sliding surfaces with sliding velocity for the tested QFPI of this study is shown
in Fig. 11. Also, for example, a comparison has been made between the delivered FEM result
and Eq. (4) mathematical expression for the variation of friction coefficient of sliding surface
5 with sliding velocity, as illustrated in Fig. 12, which shows a good agreement between the
results and also includes the breakaway effect at the initiation of motion for delivered FEM
results. Table 4 presents values of friction and the rate parameter for each sliding surfaces of
tested QFPI extracted from test results of Lee and Constantinou [2016] used in FEM analysis
based on Eq. (4). There are three sources of uncertainty in the proposed data of Table 4: (a)
unlike the case of quasi-static conditions, the actual values of friction at high velocity (μFast)
Figure 11. Variation in the coefficient of sliding friction with sliding velocity at the sliding surfaces of
the tested QFPI specimen.
Figure 12. Comparison between FEM result and Eq. (4) mathematical expression for the variation of
friction coefficient of sliding surface 5 with sliding velocity.
are not directly measured (uncertain due to the smoothness of the experimental loops) but
assumed although some information was obtained from the recorded loops, (b) the actual
values of the rate parameter for each sliding surface are not known but rather assumed, and
(c) the values of the rate parameter in the FEM model are approximated as the velocities are
not directly computed but rather estimated on the basis of a simplified theory [Lee and
Constantinou, 2016]. The delivered 3D FEM hysteretic loops of the tested QFPI specimen
under previously mentioned dynamic loading conditions are shown in Fig. 13. This figure
also includes the loops obtained in the quasi-static state of loading for comparison. The
results clearly illustrate the effect of increasing the friction coefficients with velocity. For
validating the delivered 3D FEM results of tested QFPI under Eq. (9) dynamic loading
conditions, the last loop of it is compared in Fig. 14 with that of experimental loop obtained
by Lee and Constantinou [2016] with 0.127 m amplitude and 80 mm/s peak velocity. The
figure also includes the loops obtained in the quasi-static FEM and testing at the same
amplitude of motion for comparison. The small diversity between modeling and testing
results is caused by higher loading velocity of used “Dynamic Explicit” FEM analysis method
Figure 13. Comparison of force–displacement loops of QFPI specimen under quasi-static and dynamic
loading states.
Figure 14. Comparison of hysteresis behavior of delivered 3D FEM with Lee and Constantinou [2016]
test under dynamic and quasi-static loadings.
which uses equations of motion in solving process and depends on the real mass of each part
of isolator, and because the “mass scaling” option is used for the isolator mass modeling,
these differences have been created between FEM and test results and caused smoother
transitions between stages of operation of isolator for FEM loops.
5.2. Heating Effect

The thermal boundary conditions which have been intended for the analysis are the heat
flux distribution at the sliding surfaces and the ambient initial temperature of isolator
specimen. At each sliding surface, it is assumed that the entire energy dissipated by
friction is converted into heat in accordance with Eq. (1) and that 100% of the momentary
heat flux is directed to the stainless steel surface, λ = 1, of each sliding interface. The
numerical integration of the heat balance equation provides the temperature distribution
within the sliding surfaces of isolator. Figure 15 shows the variation in the coefficient of
sliding friction with temperature at the sliding surfaces of QFPI specimen tested here in
accordance with Eq. (5), and Fig. 16 illustrates the temperature histories of the sliding pad
4 overlay, which is positioned between rigid slider “D” and intermediate sliding plate “E,”
at three points A, B, and C, located at perpendicularly to the direction of sliding, center of
the pad surface, and in the direction of the sliding, respectively. It is visible that the
maximum values of temperature were recorded at point A aligned perpendicularly to the
direction of sliding, where most of the contact pressure is also concentrated (the same as
shown in Fig. 9 for sliding pad 3). A continuous increase in temperature occurred with the
increasing travel of the isolator. The temperature pattern is not uniform, with higher
values toward the perimeter and lower values at the center of the pad. Moreover, Fig. 17
Figure 15. Variation in the coefficient of sliding friction with temperature at the sliding surfaces of QFPI
specimen.
Figure 16. Peak temperature on the sliding pad 4 overlay during cycles at displacement amplitudes of
Table 5 (values in °C).
Figure 17. Comparison of peak temperature histories of all the six sliding pads at isolator’s final stage
of operation under loading cycles of Table 5 (values in °C).
illustrates the comparison of peak temperature histories of all the six sliding pads at final
stage of operation, that is, stage of operation VIII, under test quasi-static loading condi-
tions of Table 5. The maximum temperature has been developed at sliding pads 3 and 4
because of more travel time of these sliding surfaces in comparison with other sliding
surfaces of the isolator, based on the sequence of isolator’s stages of operation described
before in detail for design configuration 1 in Section 1. Also, the effect of temperature rise
on tested QFPI sliding surfaces’ friction coefficients (decrease) obtained by FEM analysis
illustrated as the hysteresis loops in Fig. 18 and compared with those of QFPI without
Figure 18. Comparison of delivered 3D FEM hysteresis loops under quasi-static loading with and
without temperature rise effect.
temperature rise effect both under quasi-static loading conditions of Table 5. The results
show a small reduction of kinetic friction coefficients and also softening and disappearing
static friction coefficients (breakaway and stick-slip phenomena) due to temperature rise
effect, which have a very low impact (decrease) on the energy dissipation capability of the
isolator.
6. Seismic Performance Assessment

The limitation of the sliding isolators’ response due to aging and environmental effects,
testing tolerances, heating, rate of loading, scragging effect (cyclic loading or working of
rubber products, including elastomeric isolators, to effect a reduction in stiffness proper-
ties, a portion of which will be recovered over time), and permissible manufacturing
variations is presented in current standards. Analysis was performed with the FEM
replicating the tests conditions of EN 15129 [2009], ASCE/SEI 7-10 [2010], ASCE/SEI
7-16 [2016], and AASHTO [2014] codes. The validated 3D FEM model of the QFPI
specimen described in Section 5 was used in the study case.
CEN 15129 [2009] test specimen load conditions and adequacy for the seismic perfor-
mance of sliding isolators are defined in Chapter 8.3 of the standard. During three cycles of
movement at 0.25, 0.5, and 1.0 times, the design displacement, DD, at the natural period of
the isolator, the effective stiffness, Keff, and the energy dissipated per cycle, EDC or Eloop, in
each of the three cycles shall deviate no more than 15% from their design values. Also, based
on ASCE/SEI 7-10 [2010] standard, Chapter 17, seismic design requirements for seismically
isolated structures, the performance of the test specimens shall be deemed adequate if the
following conditions are satisfied: (a) the difference between the effective stiffness at each of
the three fully reversed cycles of loading at each of the following increments of the total
design displacement, 0.25 DD, 0.5 DD, 1.0 DD, of test and the average value of effective
stiffness, Keff,avg., is no greater than 15%, and (b) there is no greater than a 20% change in the
initial effective stiffness over the cycles of test. Moreover, the AASHTO [2014] code requires
that during 20 cycles of loading at the design displacement, DD, the variations of the Keff and
the EDC must be less than 20% and 30%, respectively, with respect to the peak values at the
first cycle. Tests parameters for the study case of ASCE/SEI 7-10 [2010], AASHTO [2014],
and CEN 15129 [2009] are listed in Table 6.
6.1. Assessment of CEN 15129 [2009] and ASCE/SEI 7-10 [2010] Tests Results
The hysteretic load–displacement diagrams of the considered QFPI specimen in
numerical assessment of T.N. 1, T.N. 2, and T.N. 3, described in Table 6, and their
Table 6. Test specimen loading parameters.

CEN 15129 [2009] and ASCE/SEI 7-10 [2010] test parameters
Test Vertical load (kN) Displacement amplitude (m) Frequency (Hz) No. of cycles
T.N. 1 88.964 0.0354 0.005 3
T.N. 2 88.964 0.0709 0.005 3
T.N. 3 88.964 0.1417 0.005 3
AASHTO [2014]
Test Axial load (kN) Amplitude (m) Frequency (Hz) No. of cycles
T.N. 4 88.964 0.1417 0.005 20
Figure 19. (a) Hysteretic load–displacement diagrams and (b) peak temperature histories at the sliding
pad 4 overlay of the tested QFPI specimen during tests T.N. 1, T.N. 2, and T.N. 3.
relevant plots of the peak surface temperature at the sliding pad 4 overlay, which is
positioned between rigid slider “D” and intermediate sliding plate “E,” have been
illustrated in Fig. 19. The resisting force becomes smaller and the surface temperature
increases with increasing the number of cycles, and both effects are more obvious at
higher displacements and velocities, subsequently. The effective stiffness, Keff, and the
energy dissipated per cycle, EDC or Eloop, were calculated from the hysteretic loops,
based on Section 4 formulations, and are shown in Figs. 20 and 21 based on CEN
15129 [2009] and ASCE/SEI 7-10 [2010] requirements, respectively. By examining Fig.
20, it can be figured out that both Keff and EDC generally have a continuous decay and
their variation from the relevant initial value over three cycles is lower than 15% and
the CEN 15129 [2009] standard requirement is fulfilled (in Fig. 20 the ranges of
acceptability are shown as bound by the dotted lines). Also, Fig. 21 satisfies the
ASCE/SEI 7-10 [2010] adequacy requirements, described in the previous section.
Figure 22 illustrates the temperature distribution on the sliding pad 4 overlay, which
is positioned between rigid slider “D” and intermediate sliding plate “E,” during tests
T.N. 1, T.N. 2, and T.N. 3 (for each cycle, the values calculated and reported at zero
displacement position of isolator). The temperature increases over the cycles due to
frictional heating. The temperature pattern is not uniform, with higher values toward
the perimeter and lower values at the center of the pad.
Figure 20. Energy dissipated per cycle, EDC, and effective stiffness, Keff, of tested QFPI specimen during
cycles at different velocities and range of acceptability (dotted lines) according to CEN 15129 [2009].
Figure 21. Effective stiffness, Keff, of tested QFPI specimen during cycles at different velocities, and
range of acceptability (dotted lines) according to ASCE/SEI 7-10 [2010] two described conditions (a)
and (b).
Figure 22. Temperature distribution on the sliding pad 4 overlay during tests T.N. 1, T.N. 2, and T.N. 3
(values in °C).
6.2. Assessment of AASHTO [2014] Tests Results

Figure 23 illustrates the time histories of the maximum temperature on the sliding pad 4
overlay calculated in numerical Test T.N. 4. The rate of temperature growth reduces after
a fast increase in the first cycles. Although the significant increase in temperature has an
important effect on the response of the isolator, with respect to the Fig. 24 for the tested QFPI
specimen analyzed in the case study, the AASHTO [2014] code requirement on the maximum
allowable variation in effective stiffness and energy dissipation capability is fulfilled.
Figure 23. Maximum temperature histories on the sliding pad 4 overlay during Test T.N. 4.
Figure 24. Energy dissipated per cycle, EDC, and effective stiffness, Keff, of tested QFPI specimen during
cycles at different velocities and range of acceptability (dotted lines) according to AASHTO [2014].
6.3. Assessment of ASCE/SEI 7-16 [2016] Tests Results

Currently, the 2010 edition of the ASCE 7 Standard (ASCE 7-10) is being revised with
a number of alterations proposed in Chapter 17, seismic design requirements for
seismically isolated structures, of the 2016 edition (ASCE 7-16). One of its primary
modifications is the attachment of a new section titled “Isolation System Properties.”
This section strengthens and illuminates previous provisions and provides new provi-
sions for the explicit development of property modification (lambda or λ) factors. The
previous version of standard briefly discussed about the effect of isolator’s material
properties in clauses 17.1.1 and 17.2.4.1 of the standard. These two clauses almost
expressed that “analysis shall consider variations in isolator material properties” without
any further details. Considering the importance of the isolation system in reducing
seismic response of structure, along with the possibility for large variations in material
properties (from those assumed for design) from different isolators’ manufacturers and
environmental and loading effects on different projects, among other reasons, it is
appropriate that ASCE/SEI 7-16 [2016] has introduced the official requirement of
bounding analysis based on the concept of using property modification factors (lambda
or λ factors). These lambda factors are used to determine the upper and lower bound
force–displacement behavior of isolation system components on a project-specific and
product-specific basis and provide a logical and practical approach to explicitly account
for the variations in the nominal (average) properties of an isolator. The standard
defines three unique categories of lambda factors including the aging effects and the
environmental conditions lambda factors λae.max and λae.min, the manufacturing varia-
tion lambda factors λspec,max and λspec,min, the testing lambda factors λtest,max and λtest,min
[McVitty and Constantinou, 2015].
Based on ASCE/SEI 7-16 [2016] test sequences and cycles considerations, three fully
reversed cycles of quasi-static loading at each of the following increments of the displace-
ment 0.25 DM, 0.5 DM, 0.67 DM, and 1.0 DM should be considered, where DM is the
maximum displacement at the center of rigidity of the isolation system in the most critical
direction of horizontal response.
Test specimen adequacy of isolator specimen of ASCE/SEI 7-16 [2016] requires that the
performance of the test specimen under mentioned above test sequences shall be deemed
adequate if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The force–deflection plots for all three previously specified tests have a positive
incremental force-resisting capacity.
(2) For each three fully reversed cycles of tests under each previously expressed displace-
ment increment, the value of the post-yield stiffness, kd, at each of the cycles of test at
a common displacement shall fall within the range defined by λtest,min and λtest,max
multiplied by the nominal (average) value of post-yield stiffness, kd,avg.
In the above descriptions, λtest,max is the property modification factor used to calculate
the maximum value of the isolator property of interest, used to account for heating,
rate of loading, and scragging and shall be determined as the ratio of the first cycle
property value obtained in the prototype testing to the nominal (average) property
value, in which property value is the post-yield stiffness here, kd, at each of the cycles of
each test. Also, λtest,min is the property modification factor used to calculate the
minimum value of the isolator property of interest, used to account for heating, rate
of loading, and scragging and shall be determined as the ratio of the property value at
a representative cycle determined by the Registered Design Professional; however, the
default cycle is the third cycle as obtained in the prototype testing, to the nominal
(average) property value. Table 7 assesses and shows the calculation results of post-
yield stiffness, kd, of the studied QFPI specimen, with details in Table 5, from the
bilinear hysteretic loops, based on Section 4 formulations under above provisions. In
this study, the DM is assumed to be equal to DD. The post-yield stiffness, kd determina-
tion is based on ASCE 41-16, part 17.8.3: Determination of force–deflection character-
istics, which is completely explained in Section 4 of this paper. By investigating Table 7,
it can be figured out that kd values generally have a continuous decay and their
variation is in the acceptability range defined by λtest,min and λtest,max multiplied by
the nominal (average) value of post-yield stiffness, kd,avg, thus, the standard require-
ment is fulfilled. Moreover, Fig. 25a, as an example, shows the determination of
equivalent bilinear hysteretic behavior and effective stiffness of studied isolator for
first cycle of 1.0 DM displacement amplitude of sinusoidal cyclic test, and Fig. 25b
compares the three loops of 1.0 DM displacement amplitude cyclic test of the studied
isolator with their corresponding equivalent bilinear model.
26
Table 7. Assessment of post-yield stiffness, kd, resulted from bilinear models of the studied QFPI specimen based on ASCE/SEI 7-16 [2016] provisions.
0.25 DM 0.5 DM
Cyclic test displacement Lower bound: λtest,min·kd, Upper bound: λtest,max·kd, Lower bound: λtest,min·kd, Upper bound: λtest,
H. KEIKHA AND G. GHODRATI AMIRI
amplitude kd λtest,min λtest,max nominal nominal kd λtest,min λtest,max nominal max·kd,nominal

First cycle 203.2 0.996 1.007 200.9 203.2 159.4 0.894 1.07 133.1 159.4
Second cycle 201.2 154.5
Third cycle 200.9 133.1
Nominal (average value) 201.8 149.0
Cyclic test displacement
amplitude 0.67 DM 1.0 DM
First cycle 129.3 0.919 1.043 113.9 129.3 111.6 0.974 1.015 107.1 111.6
Second cycle 128.6 111.0
Third cycle 113.9 107.1
Nominal (average value) 123.9 109.9
*All the stiffness dimensions are in (kN/m).
Figure 25. (a) Determination of bilinear hysteretic behavior and effective stiffness of studied
isolator for first cycle of 1.0 DM displacement amplitude, and (b) comparison of the three loops
of 1.0 DM displacement amplitude cyclic test of the studied isolator with their corresponding
equivalent bilinear model.
7. Summary and Conclusions

In this paper, a 3D FE model of a new kind of CSSs called QFPI is developed to assess
the numerical thermal–mechanical behavior of this type of isolator. The QFPI is
a spherical sliding isolator with six sliding surfaces, five effective pendula, and nine
stages of operation. Contrary to being fully passive device, QFPI presents adaptive
behavior under different hazard level of earthquakes owing to multiple sliding surfaces
and stages of operation. Two configurations of a model QFPI were presented. The focus
in this investigation is on the effect of frictional heat generation and temperature rise
due to large friction forces and high velocities which occurs at the sliding surfaces. Heat
generation is simulated through a heat source located on the sliding surfaces, with
surface heat flux intensity dependent on the coefficient of friction, the contact pressure,
and the velocity. The thermal and mechanical loading and analysis were done simulta-
neously and the coefficient of friction of each surface is adjusted step by step on the
current temperature and velocity at the sliding surfaces. The verification process of the
numerical approach was done by comparing the hysteretic force–displacement behavior
of isolator by that of the experimental test result. At the end, seismic performance of this
new kind of sliding isolators was analyzed and evaluated in terms of the effective
stiffness, Keff, and the energy dissipated per cycle, EDC or Eloop, based on CEN 15129
[2009], ASCE/SEI 7-10 [2010], ASCE/SEI 7-16 [2016], and AASHTO [2014] codes
recommendations. The assessment results show that the codes requirements on the
maximum allowable variation in Keff and EDC are fulfilled. The numerical process can
help in early studies to select the bearing materials accounting for their thermal con-
sistency and evaluating the design properties variation of sliding isolation due to
frictional heating. The following observations and conclusions can be drawn from the
studies presented in this paper:
(1) This research shows that 3D FEM and analyzing could be an appropriate solution
to predict the exact thermal–mechanical behavior of these types of sliding isolators
under seismic events.
(2) The mathematical expressions to predict the dependency of friction coefficient of

sliding surfaces to local surface variables like velocity and temperature have good
agreement with delivered numerical results.
(3) The coefficient of friction’s temperature-dependent formulation of the sliding isolator
material allows to capture the self-restricting mechanism of frictional heating and to
provide appropriate predictions of temperature histories under high-speed motion.
(4) The presented procedure can be used as a design tool to perform a preliminary
evaluation of the seismic isolator specimen simulating the test conditions
determined by the standards, providing valuable information for the assessment
and selection of friction materials accounting for their temperature-dependent
characteristics.
(5) This numerical procedure can properly predict the phenomena like temperature
rise history and the sliding velocity effect on friction coefficients at the sliding
surfaces of the isolator which cannot be directly measured in the experimental test
of full-scale isolators.
(6) The variation of the isolator’s mechanical behavior predicted by the numerical
procedure during cyclic loading acknowledged that the reduction in stiffness and
energy dissipation capacity of sliding isolators during seismic events is a possible
issue related to frictional heating of the sliding surfaces.
ORCID
Hamed Keikha http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9932-8118
References
AASHTO. [2014] Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
Al-Hussaini, T. M., Constantinou, M. C. and Zayas, V. A. [1994] Seismic Isolation of Multi-Story
Frame Structures Using Spherical Sliding Isolation Systems, National Center for earthquake
engineering research, State University of New York at Buffalo, NY.
ASCE/SEI 7-10. [2010] Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American
Society of Civil Engineers ASCE, Reston.
ASCE/SEI 7-16. [2016] Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American
Society of Civil Engineers ASCE, Reston.
Castaldo, P., Amendola, G. and Palazzo, B. [2017] “Seismic fragility and reliability of structures
isolated by friction pendulum devices: seismic reliability-based design (SRBD),” Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics 46(3), 425–446. doi:10.1002/eqe.2798.
Castaldo, P., Mancini, G. and Palazzo, B. [2018] “Seismic reliability-based robustness assessment of
three-dimensional reinforced concrete systems equipped with single-concave sliding devices,”
Engineering Structures 163, 373–387. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.02.067.
Castaldo, P. and Priore, R. L. [2018] “Seismic performance assessment of isolated bridges for
different limit states,” Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring 8(1), 17–32. doi:10.1007/
s13349-017-0255-2.
Castaldo, P. and Tubaldi, E. [2018] “Influence of ground motion characteristics on the optimal
single concave sliding bearing properties for base-isolated structures,” Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering 104, 346–364. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.09.025.
CEN 15129. [2009] Anti-Seismic Devices, European committee for standardization, Bruxelles.
Constantinou, M., Mokha, A. and Reinhorn, A. [1990] “Teflon bearings in base isolation II:
modeling,” Journal of Structural Engineering 116(2), 455–474. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445-
(1990)116:2(455).
Constantinou, M. C., Whittaker, A. S., Kalpakidis, Y., Fenz, D. M. and Warn, G. P. [2007]
Performance of seismic isolation hardware under service and seismic loading, Report MCEER-
07-0012, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY.
Cutfield, M. [2015] “Advanced methods for performance-based seismic loss assessment and their
application to a base isolated and conventional office building,” Doctoral dissertation,
ResearchSpace@ Auckland.
De Domenico, D., Ricciardi, G. and Benzoni, G. [2018] “Analytical and finite element investigation
on the thermo-mechanical coupled response of friction isolators under bidirectional excitation,”
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 106, 131–147. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.12.019.
Fenz, D. M. and Constantinou, M. C. [2006] “Behaviour of the double concave friction pendulum
bearing,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 35(11), 1403–1424. doi:10.1002/eqe.589.
Fenz, D. M. and Constantinou, M. C. [2008a] “Modeling triple friction pendulum bearings for
response-history analysis,” Earthquake Spectra 24(4), 1011–1028. doi:10.1193/1.2982531.
Fenz, D. M. and Constantinou, M. C. [2008b] “Spherical sliding isolation bearings with
adaptive behavior: theory,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 37(2), 163–183.
doi:10.1002/eqe.751.
Fenz, D. M. and Constantinou, M. C. [2008c] “Spherical sliding isolation bearings with adaptive
behavior: experimental verification,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 37(2),
185–205. doi:10.1002/eqe.750.
Gandelli, E. [2017] “Advanced tools for the design of sliding isolation systems for seismic-retrofitting
of hospitals,” Doctoral dissertation, Politecnico di Milano, Italy.
Gandelli, E. and Quaglini, V. [2018] “Effect of the static coefficient of friction of curved surface
sliders on the response of an isolated building,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1–29.
doi:10.1080/13632469.2018.1467353
Jangid, R. S. [2005] “Optimum friction pendulum system for near-fault motions,” Engineering
Structures 27(3), 349–359. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.09.013.
Kelly, J. [1997] Earthquake Resistant Design with Rubber, Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering, Richmond, CA.
Kim, Y. S. and Yun, C. B. [2007] “Seismic response characteristics of bridges using double concave
friction pendulum bearings with tri-linear behavior,” Engineering Structures 29(11), 3082–3093.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.02.009.
Lee, D. and Constantinou, M. C. [2016] “Quintuple friction pendulum isolator: behavior, modeling,
and validation,” Earthquake Spectra 32(3), 1607–1626. doi:10.1193/040615EQS053M.
Lomiento, G., Bonessio, N. and Benzoni, G. [2013] “Friction model for sliding bearings under
seismic excitation,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering 17(8), 1162–1191. doi:10.1080/136324
69.2013.814611.
McVitty, W. J. and Constantinou, M. C. [2015] Property modification factors for seismic isolators:
design guidance for buildings. MCEER Report (2015): 15-0005.
Mokha, A., Constantinou, M. and Reinhorn, A. [1990] “Teflon bearings in base isolation I: testing,”
Journal of Structural Engineering 116(2), 438–454. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1990)
116:2(438).
Mokha, A., Constantinou, M. C. and Reinhorn, A. M. [1988] Teflon bearings in aseismic base
isolation: experimental studies and mathematical modeling (No. NCEER-88/0038 TECHNICAL).
Buffalo, NY: National Center for earthquake engineering research. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-
0302(88)79586-7
Morgan, T. A. [2007] The Use of Innovative Base Isolation Systems to Achieve Complex Seismic
Performance Objectives, University of California, Berkeley.
Morgan, T. A. and Mahin, S. A. [2008] “The optimization of multi-stage friction pendulum isolators
for loss mitigation considering a range of seismic hazard,” In 14th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, Paper No. 11-0070.
Morgan, T. A. and Mahin, S. A. [2010] “Achieving reliable seismic performance enhancement using
multi-stage friction pendulum isolators,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 39(13),
1443–1461. doi:10.1002/eqe.1043.
Mosqueda, G., Whittaker, A. S. and Fenves, G. L. [2004] “Characterization and modeling of friction
pendulum bearings subjected to multiple components of excitation,” Journal of Structural
Engineering 130(3), 423–432. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:3(433).
Pooley, C. M. and Tabor, D. [1972] “Friction and molecular structure: the behaviour of some
thermoplastics,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering
Sciences 329(1578), 251–274. doi:10.1098/rspa.1972.0112.
Quaglini, V., Bocciarelli, M., Gandelli, E. and Dubini, P. [2014] “Numerical assessment of frictional
heating in sliding bearings for seismic isolation,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering 18(8),
1198–1216. doi:10.1080/13632469.2014.924890.
Quaglini, V., Dubini, P. and Poggi, C. [2012] “Experimental assessment of sliding materials for
seismic isolation systems,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 10(2), 717–740. doi:10.1007/
s10518-011-9308-9.
Quaglini, V., Gandelli, E., Bocciarelli, M. and Dubini, P. [2015] “Numerical investigation of
frictional heating in curved surface sliders,” In 14th World Conference on Seismic Isolation,
Energy Dissipation and Active Vibration Control of Structures. Anti-Seismic System
International Society (ASSISi), San Diego, California, USA, pp. 1–17.
Sarlis, A. S. and Constantinou, M. C. [2013] “Model of triple friction pendulum bearing for general
geometric and frictional parameters and for uplift conditions,” Technical Report MCEER-13-
0010, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, University at Buffalo,
Buffalo, NY.
Tsai, C. S. [1997] “Finite element formulations for friction pendulum seismic isolation bearings,”
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 40(1), 29–49. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)
1097-0207.
Tsai, C. S. [2003] “Improved structures of base isolation systems.” Taiwan Patent, (207126).
Tsai, C. S., Chen, W. S., Chiang, T. C. and Chen, B. J. [2006] “Component and shaking table tests
for full-scale multiple friction pendulum system,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics
35(13), 1653–1675. doi:10.1002/eqe.598.
Tsai, C. S., Cheng, C. K., Chen, M. J. and Yu, S. H. [2005a] “Experimental study of MFPS-isolated
sensitive equipment,” vASME 2005 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, Denver, Colorado, USA, pp. 11–17.
Tsai, C. S., Chiang, T. C. and Chen, B. J. [2003a] “Finite element formulations and theoretical study
for variable curvature friction pendulum system,” Engineering Structures 25(14), 1719–1730.
doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(03)00151-2.
Tsai, C. S., Chiang, T. C. and Chen, B. J. [2003b] “Seismic behavior of MFPS isolated structure
under near-fault sources and strong ground motions with long predominant periods,” In ASME
2003 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
Cleveland, Ohio, USA, pp. 73–79.
Tsai, C. S., Chiang, T. C. and Chen, B. J. [2003c] “Shaking table tests of a full scale steel structure
isolated with MFPS,” In ASME 2003 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, Cleveland, Ohio, USA, pp. 41–47.
Tsai, C. S., Chiang, T. C. and Chen, B. J. [2005b] “Experimental evaluation of piecewise exact
solution for predicting seismic responses of spherical sliding type isolated structures,” Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics 34(9), 1027–1046. doi:10.1002/eqe.430.
Tsai, C. S., and Lin, Y. C. [2009] "Mechanical characteristics and modeling of multiple trench
friction pendulum system with multi-intermediate sliding plates," International Journal of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 3(2), 70–
87. doi:1307-6892/2064
Tsai, C. S., Lin, Y. C. and Su, H. C. [2009a] “Multiple yield and bounding surfaces model for
analysis of multiple friction pendulum system,” In ASME 2009 Pressure Vessels and Piping
Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 143–152).
Tsai, C. S., Lin, Y. C. and Su, H. C. [2009b] “Multiple yield and bounding surfaces theory for
multiple friction pendulum system,” In the 33rd National Conference on Theoretical and Applied
Mechanics. United University (NUU), Chinese Taipei, Paper No. F2-414.
Tsai, C. S., Lin, Y. C. and Su, H. C. [2010a] “Characterization and modeling of multiple friction
pendulum isolation system with numerous sliding interfaces,” Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics 39(13), 1463–1491. doi:10.1002/eqe.1044.
Tsai, C. S., Lin, Y. C. and Su, H. C. [2010b] “Seismic responses of a building isolated with multiple
friction pendulum system subjected to multi-directional excitations,” In ASME 2010 Pressure
Vessels and Piping Division/K-PVP Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
Bellevue, Washington, pp. 157–165.
Tsai, C. S., Lu, P. C., Chen, W. S., Chiang, T. C., Yang, C. T. and Lin, Y. C. [2008] “Finite element
formulation and shaking table tests of direction-optimized-friction-pendulum system,”
Engineering Structures 30(9), 2321–2329. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.12.023.
Zayas, V. A., Low, S. A. and Mahin, S. A. [1987] The FPS earthquake resisting system experimental
report, Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
Zayas, V. A., Low, S. S. and Mahin, S. A. [1990] “A simple pendulum technique for achieving
seismic isolation,” Earthquake Spectra 6(2), 317–333. doi:10.1193/1.1585573.

Keikha2019 PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Keikha2019 PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

ISSN: 1363-2469 (Print) 1559-808X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20

Seismic Performance Assessment of Quintuple

Hamed Keikha & Gholamreza Ghodrati Amiri

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2019.1568929

Published online: 28 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Seismic Performance Assessment of Quintuple Friction

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

2. Friction Pendulum Isolators’ State of the Art

studied the inﬂuence of ground motion characteristics by means of Peak Ground

Table 1. Size of the ﬁnite element mesh.

3.2. Material Properties

3.3. Analysis Methodology

4. Determination of Force–Deﬂection Characteristics

Figure 7. Nominal (average) properties of the isolator bilinear force-deﬂection model.

5. Results Discussion and Validation of the Delivered 3D FEM

5.1. Velocity Eﬀect

5.2. Heating Eﬀect

6. Seismic Performance Assessment

Table 6. Test specimen loading parameters.

6.2. Assessment of AASHTO [2014] Tests Results

6.3. Assessment of ASCE/SEI 7-16 [2016] Tests Results

amplitude kd λtest,min λtest,max nominal nominal kd λtest,min λtest,max nominal max·kd,nominal

7. Summary and Conclusions

(2) The mathematical expressions to predict the dependency of friction coeﬃcient of

S-ar putea să vă placă și