Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 532538

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Neopreneconcrete friction relationships for seismic assessment of existing

precast buildings
Gennaro Magliulo a, , Vittorio Capozzi a , Giovanni Fabbrocino b , Gaetano Manfredi a
a
Department of Structural Engineering, University of Naples Federico II, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Napoli, Italy
b
Department SAVA, Engineering & Environment Division, Engineering & Environment Division, University of Molise, Via De Sanctis, 86100 Campobasso, Italy

article info abstract

Article history: In Italy many precast industrial buildings built between 1950s and 1970s present beamcolumn connec-
Received 25 May 2010 tions with strength coming from neopreneconcrete friction. Numerical studies recently performed by the
Received in revised form authors confirm that, in order to determine the seismic vulnerability of such structures, a reliable value
11 October 2010
of the neopreneconcrete friction coefficient has to be known. Technical bibliography provides many and
Accepted 2 November 2010
Available online 30 November 2010
different values for this coefficient; consequently, in order to define reliable values, a specific experimen-
tal campaign is carried out. Three types of experimental tests are performed: tests on neoprene hardness,
Keywords:
tilting tests and pulling tests; in the last case, the specimen is also axially loaded.
Friction Tilting tests provide a value of the mean friction coefficient equal to about 0.5, with very low C.O.V..
Friction strength Pulling tests underline a friction strength dependence on axial load and, in particular, a decrease in the
Laboratory tests friction coefficient as the axial load increases; a relationship for compressive stressneopreneconcrete
Connections friction coefficient is proposed.
Prefabrication 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Precast concrete
Neoprene
Seismic analysis

1. Introduction
This research was developed in the frame of a project concern-
ing the seismic vulnerability of precast industrial buildings built in
Italy between the 1950s and the 1970s [1,2].
The part of the project already carried out may be divided
into two phases. The first one is characterized by the definition
of the typologies and structural characteristics of the considered
buildings, with particular reference to connections, by a large
bibliography research, interviewing technicians who worked in
the field of precast structures during the reference period and
studying actually executed projects. Consequently, some reference
buildings representative of the most spread typologies during
the reference period are selected. The second phase, instead, is
characterized by numerical analyses, in particular modal elastic
analyses and nonlinear static and dynamic ones. Such analyses
showed that, even under seismic forces characterizing, a medium
intensity Italian seismic zone, precast existing buildings, whose
beamcolumn connections are based on neopreneconcrete
Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 0817683656; fax: +39 0817683491.
E-mail addresses: gmagliul@unina.it (G. Magliulo), vittorio.capozzi@unina.it
(V. Capozzi), giovanni.fabbrocino@unimol.it (G. Fabbrocino), gamanfre@unina.it
(G. Manfredi).
0141-0296/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.11.011
friction strength, can collapse due to the loss of support (Fig. 1).
Consequently, in order to determine the seismic vulnerability
of such structures, it is necessary to know the value of the
neopreneconcrete friction coefficient.
Few references related to the determination of such coefficient
can be found in bibliography and its value often concerns applica-
tions different from structural ones [36]. Interesting indications
can be found in CNR 10018 [7], Schrage [8], PCI design handbook [9]
and UNI-EN 1337:3 [10].
CNR 10018 [7] provides the relationship between the rub-
berconcrete friction coefficient and the compressive stress v :
0.2
= 0.1 + , (1)
v
where v is the compressive stress in N/mm2 ; Eq. (1) is valid
for compressive stress not lower than v,min = 1.5 N/mm2 .
This equation is determined by means of the friction tests carried
out in 1964 by the Munich Technical University under the
auspices of the International Railroad Association (UIC [11]). The
tests take into account laminated bearings and bearing pads of
several European countries. The results underline that the rubber-
bearings friction coefficient depends on average normal stress. The
NCHRP report [12] discusses these European studies, but setup,
materials, pad dimensions and shear loading rate used in the tests
are not specified.
 G. Magliulo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 532538 533

350

RESISTANCE TO HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT,

300

psi OF CONTACT SURFACE

250

200

150

100

50

0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
COMPRESSIVE STRESS, psi
a. Average values based on tests at 70% shear and slippage strain.

Fig. 1. Technical drawing of the typical beamcolumn connection based on
neopreneconcrete friction strength.
Ref. [8] represents a significant research paper on the topic. In
it, Schrage presents 27 plain neoprene (also denominated chloro-
prene) pads undergoing shear/compression tests against concrete
surface. Tests were characterized by nominal compressive stresses
equal to 0.5, 5 and 20 N/mm2 . The pad shape factor S = (a b)/(2
s (a + b)) was equal to 5.5 (a and b are the plan dimensions and
s the trickiness of the rectangular pad). Shear loads were applied
providing constant horizontal displacement rates equal to 50, 0.5
and 0.01 mm/s: the maximum reached displacements were 0.7,
1.4 and 2.1 times the pad thickness. Schrage also performed tests
under 1 Hz sinusoidal dynamic normal stress varying between 1.5
and 5 N/mm2 at the above reported displacement rates. Specimen
materials and test setup are reported in Refs. [13,14] (in German).
In [8] Schrage suggests the following equation, relating the friction
coefficient () to the compressive stress (v in N/mm2 ):
0.4
= 0.05 + . (2)
v where v is the compressive stress in N/mm2 , v,min is equal to
Such an equation is obtained for shear loading rate equal to
0.5 mm/s and temperature equal to 20 C. The author concludes
that the friction coefficient depends on the shear loading rate
(increasing shear loading rate, the friction coefficient increases),
but does not depend on the nominal area of neoprene slab, on time
of prepressing and on bearings shape. Schrage tests on neoprene
friction did not investigate on the effects of temperature.
A study on the shearcompression strength of random-oriented
fibre (ROF) pads was performed in 198384 by WJE (Wiss, Janney,
Elstner Associates, Inc.) [15] and by the pad manufacturer JVI [16],
in order to better understand pad behaviour and to develop
appropriate design criteria for bearing pads to be included in
PCI Design Handbook [9] (in Fig. 2 friction strengthaxial stress
relationship is represented). Twenty-two tests were performed:
18 by JVI and 4 by WJE; only 4 of them concern neoprene pads
(3 performed by JVI on concrete and 1 by WJE on steel). JVI and
WJE adopted the same shear test methodology. The cyclic shear
displacements equal to 70% of the pad thickness were applied
horizontally with a maximum rate of about 1000 cycles per hour.
The tests concerning plain neoprene pads were characterized by a
nominal compressive stress equal to 5.9 N/mm2 and by uniform
float finished concrete surfaces. The pad shape factor S belonged
to the range 2.493.3. Creep, aging or similar long-term effects
were not covered in this investigation. Laboratory temperature
during the tests varied approximately from 18 to 24 C. The study
underlines that friction is not sensitive to the shape factor and that
depends on contact surface roughness and on shear displacement
rate. These 22 cyclic shearcompression tests substantiate the
European data and show that the shearcompression friction
Fig. 2. Neoprene friction strengthaxial stress relationship [9].
coefficients for neoprene and ROF pads decrease well below a static
coefficient equal to 0.7, that was commonly used in old US design
code, under reference compression loads.
The data from the 27 European tests (Schrage tests) and the 22
US tests on plain pads were plotted in report [15] in terms of shear
versus compressive stress on the pad; according to such results,
Iverson and Pfeifer suggested the following friction coefficient-
compressive stress (N/mm2 ) relationship, also reported in PCI
Handbook [9]:
0.26
= 0.04 + . (3)
v
UNI-EN 1337:3 [10] also provides a relationship characterizing the
friction between a surface and its elastomeric support:
1.5 Kf
= 0.1 + (4)
v
3 N/mm2 and Kf is equal to 0.6 if the surface is made by concrete
and 0.2 if it is made by other materials; consequently, in the case
of friction between concrete and the elastomeric support, Eq. (4)
provides
0.9
= 0.1 + . (5)
v
Eq. (5) is provided without any detail concerning the rubber
characterizing the support and the experimental tests performed
in order to obtain it.
Eqs. (1)(5), assigned a value of compressive stress, may provide
significantly different values of friction coefficient between neo-
prene pad and concrete surface. This is due to the circumstance
that they are obtained by tests characterized by different setups,
contact surface characteristics, pad dimensions and shape factor
S, shear loading rates and temperatures; furthermore, Eq. (3) is
obtained by tests performed by different authors, while parame-
ters characterizing the tests providing Eqs. (1), (4) and (5) are not
known in details.
In this paper, the compressive stressneopreneconcrete fric-
tion coefficient relationship is reported in terms of experimental
curve and empirical formula, based on many experimental tests
performed at the laboratory of Department of Structural Engineer-
ing of University of Naples Federico II; specimen characteristics,
setup, test procedure and results are described in details. The spec-
imens are provided by an Italian precast industry; this is relevant
considering that the research is performed in order to assess the
seismic vulnerability of existing precast buildings.
534 G. Magliulo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 532538
Fig. 3. Hardness test: (a) durometer; (b) durometer indentor.
2. Experimental investigation
2.1. Hardness test
The rubber of specimens is characterized by its nominal hard-
ness, which is determined by tests performed at the Department of
Materials and Production Engineering of University of Naples Fed-
erico II according to the provisions of ISO 48 [17] (Fig. 3).
Two typologies of specimens are tested: one of them is made
of neoprene, which is generally used as support at beamcolumn
connections of Italian precast buildings; the other one, rarely used
as support, is made of generic rubber. The specimen dimensions
are 100 50 20 mm and 100 50 10 mm, respectively. For
each specimen typology, two tests are performed: in the case of
neoprene the obtained hardness IRHD is equal to 67 and 69, while
in the case of rubber it is equal to 63 and 65. According to the ISO
7619 [18,19], the hardness IRHD is coincident with the hardness
Shore A, by which the material shear elastic modulus is obtained;
this is equal to 1.15 N/mm2 in the case of neoprene and 1.0 N/mm2
in the case of rubber.
Tests presented in the following (tilting and pulling tests) are
all performed on neoprene specimens.
2.2. Tilting test
The friction (static) coefficient s is determined, according to
its definition, as tangent of the friction angle a , which is the angle
Fig. 4. Tilting test setup.
corresponding to the attainment of the maximum value of the
friction strength (Tfriction ); for larger angles the specimen slips on
the inclined plane:
s = tg a = Tfriction /N (6)
where N is the load component orthogonal to the inclined surface.
The test setup (Fig. 4) is represented by a rotating frame, where
a concrete plate is constrained; such a plate is characterized by
a drying longer than seven days and by a smooth surface, which
is typical of the element part in contact with the formwork. The
neoprene specimen is glued to a concrete brick, which provides
the necessary load to perform the test and guarantees a uniform
contact between neoprene and concrete surfaces; the neoprene is
then placed on the concrete plate.
The tests are performed on two specimens of different
dimensions: the first one is 20 cm 9 cm 1 cm (S = 3.10),
while the second one is 25 cm 20 cm 1 cm (S = 5.56);
consequently, the contact surfaces are 180 cm2 and 500 cm2 . The
first specimen is loaded by a concrete block whose dimensions are
24 cm 12 cm 5 cm and whose weight is equal to 36 N; the
second one is loaded by a concrete block whose dimensions are
25 cm 30 cm 5 cm and whose weight is equal to 93.8 N. The
corresponding contact stresses are equal to = 0.0020 N/mm2
and = 0.0018 N/mm2 respectively, which are negligible.
Four LVDT transducers of inductive type (Fig. 4) are used in
order to measure the displacements. Two of them are attached
to the concrete brick (A and B in Fig. 4), in order to measure the
displacements along the inclined plane; the other two (E and F in
Fig. 4), vertically positioned, are connected to the rotating frame in
order to measure its rotations.
The test is performed slowly rotating the frame by a manual
system (end-less screw). The neoprene pad does not slip till the
angle of the inclined plane is lower than the friction one ( < a );
when the two transducers set on the inclined plane measure a
displacement, it means that the friction force is overpassed. The
test is stopped and the angle measured by the vertical transducers
corresponds to the friction angle.
The results of the 21 tests performed on the two described
specimens are reported in Table 1: the friction coefficient ()
obtained by each test is listed along with the average of such
coefficients (mean ) and their standard deviation (s.d. ) for each
specimen. The average (mean ) of all the results is also reported
and it is equal to 0.492, while the corresponding standard deviation
s.d. is equal to 0.060; the C.O.V. is equal to 0.122, showing that
the mean result is reliable. Consequently, the neopreneconcrete
friction coefficient, deduced by tests without load orthogonal to
the contact surface, is s = 0.492 0.060.
 G. Magliulo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 532538 535

Fig. 5. Pulling test initial setup.

Table 1 pulling tests are carried out. The aim of the tests is to obtain the
Tilting tests results. neopreneconcrete friction coefficient that can be attained under
Neoprene specimen Test n. mean s.d. serviceability conditions of an existing connection. The initial set
1 0.528 up, presented below, is modified after the pilot tests, as described
2 0.437 in the next paragraph.
3 0.493 The initial setup (Fig. 5) is composed of two lateral concrete
4 0.516 blocks whose dimensions are 60 60 25 cm and a central steel
5 0.629
20 9 1 cm 6 0.566 0.526 0.053
plate; at each side of such a plate a neoprene specimen, whose
7 0.541 dimensions are 30 15 1 cm (S = 5), is glued by a universal
8 0.471 cold-vulcanizing sticker. The neopreneconcrete contact surfaces
9 0.584 are subjected to an axial load, assigned by a hydraulic horizontal
10 0.501
jack, located in a cradle, which acts on two metallic plates; one
11 0.520
of them uniformly distributes the load on the concrete block and
12 0.444 the other one, on the other side of the jack, restrains it. This plate
13 0.433 is restrained by bolts to three steel bars, as well as another steel
14 0.513
15 0.496
plate which is placed in correspondence of the external surface of
16 0.459 the concrete block on the other side with respect to the jack; such
25 20 1 cm 0.454 0.043
17 0.393 two steel plates close the system.
18 0.409 The two neoprene bearing pads are connected to a vertical jack
19 0.482
by the steel plate and a steel pipe. This provides the shear force
20 0.410
21 0.504 parallel to the neoprene surface, making contrast on a double T
with double web profile; this is supported by two strengthened
0.492 0.048
HE180A profiles, which run on the top surface of each concrete
block. A teflon sheet is placed between the profile and the concrete
Table 1 also seems to show that, in the case of negligible block, in order to avoid undesirable frictions. Vertical bars, bolted
compressive stress, the friction coefficient is little sensitive to the to the two HE180A profiles, ensure the needed restraint to the
shape factor: the friction coefficient scarcely decreases increasing floor: the tensile action applied on the rubber determines on the
S factor. blocks an overturning moment which is controlled by the vertical
bar clamping action.
2.3. Pulling test: initial test setup The displacements are measured by inductive transducers and
potentiometers.
Results of tilting tests cannot take into account the influence of In particular, neoprene displacements are detected by six po-
axial load levels on neoprene bearing pad; consequently, specific tentiometers: two, connected by a steel screw, for each neoprene
536 G. Magliulo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 532538
Fig. 6. Relative displacement between neoprene specimens and steel plate.
specimen, one for each side, and two on the steel plate which sup-
ports the specimens. Consequently, both the deformations of the
neoprene and the absolute displacement of the steel plate, when
the friction is overpassed, can be detected. The potentiometers are
fixed to an external support, which is not influenced by the setup
deformations.
The transducers, LVDT of inductive type, are connected to the
two concrete blocks in order to detect the relative displacement
between them, and, then, the axial deformation of the neoprene.
In particular, four transducers are used, two for each block, one at
the bottom side of the block and the other one at the top side, in
order to also evaluate possible rotations of the blocks.
2.4. Pulling test: final test setup
Two tests are performed by the above presented setup,
characterized by compressive forces equal to 80 kN and 120 kN,
respectively. During such tests a relative displacement between
neoprene specimens and steel plate is observed (Fig. 6), showing
the glue failure; this happens at a shear force equal to 20 kN, which
corresponds to a shear stress equal to 0.44 N/mm2 . Consequently,
the initial set up is modified.
The steel plate is replaced by a concrete block. A threaded
bushing, type 30 MA with a capacity of 40 kN, usually used for
lifting and moving precast elements, is adopted in order to pull
the concrete block; the design safety factor of bushings is equal
to 5, and consequently it is assumed that it can carry 200 kN. The
threaded bushing is anchored by a passing bar and four 10 staples
(Fig. 7).
The central concrete block is cast so that its surface presents the
same characteristics of the column top surface, while the internal
surface of the external blocks is cast in order to reproduce the same
surface of the bottom part of the beam, which is smooth due to
the formwork; in this way, real conditions of the beam to column
connection are reproduced.
Furthermore, the neoprene specimen is not glued to the central
concrete block, but it is simply placed between the two concrete
blocks by a line, so that the surfaces of concrete and neoprene are
parallel and centred with respect to the axial load (Fig. 8).
This setup is better than the previous one because of the
following reasons: (1) the beam to column connection is more
faithfully reproduced due to the fact that the neoprene is not glued
neither to the beam nor to the column; (2) neoprene is easily
monitored and replaced in the case of damage.
Fig. 7. Threaded bushing and reinforcement of the central concrete block.
The elements that transmit shear force by the jack to the
neoprene bearing pads, i.e. the central concrete block and vertical
bar, have a total weight equal to 1 kN; consequently, such weight
is subtracted from the applied shear force.
The displacements are monitored by two LVDT transducers,
which measure the displacements of the central block with respect
to the lateral ones and, consequently, the neoprene displacements
with respect to these ones; indeed, the specimens do not slide
with respect to the central concrete block, due to its rough surface
(Fig. 8).
3. Experimental results and discussion
3.1. Pulling test results
Twenty tests are carried out, four for each level of axial force:
80, 120, 160, 200 and 240 kN (these axial forces correspond to
a tributary area in realistic structures varying from 5 4 m2
to 5 12 m2 ). The last one is a limit value, due to the normal
stress limitation on neoprene specimens equal to 5 N/mm2 in
accordance with the CNR 10018 [7]. For each axial load level, the
force parallel to the neoprene/concrete surface (shear force) is
increased monotonously increasing the displacement with a low
speed equal to 0.02 mm/s (shear loading rate).
Bearing pads are characterized by a gradual transit from partial
slip, i.e. rolling, into the state of slip over the whole surface; the
result is a strongly bended curve of resistance (friction curve).
The test is interrupted when the neoprene significantly slides
on the concrete and the displacement increases at a constant
shear force value: the whole surface is in the state of slip. The
friction coefficient is computed by a shear force equal to the
minimum value between the test maximum shear force and
0.5G = 0.575 N/mm2 (see Section 2.1), which is a code [7]
limitation; such a value is never reached during tests (Table 2). Half
of the shear force, from which the weight of the central block has
been subtracted, divided by the axial load, represents the friction
coefficient.
The results of the 20 performed tests are reported in Table 2.
From the left to the right, the following data are listed: the 20 test
denominations (Test name), the axial load levels (N), the shear
forces at the neopreneconcrete surface multiplied by two (T ),
the corresponding friction coefficients (), their average (mean )
and standard deviation (s.d. ) for each level of axial load and the
neoprene normal ( ) and shear ( ) stress. The reliability of tests
results is supported by the low values of standard deviation. As
already written, the specimen dimensions are 15 cm30 cm1 cm
(S = 5).
Considering the results shown in Tables 1 and 2, it can be stated
that if the contact surface is normally loaded the friction coefficient
decreases.
 G. Magliulo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 532538 537

Fig. 8. Pulling test final setup.

Table 2
Pulling tests results.
Test name N T (2) i mean s.d.
(kN) (kN) (N/mm2 ) (N/mm2 )
80-2 80 21.4 0.134 1.78 0.238
80-3 80 19.0 0.119 1.78 0.211
0.131 0.009
80-4 80 21.1 0.132 1.78 0.235
80-5 80 22.4 0.140 1.78 0.249
120-2 120 29.8 0.124 2.67 0.331
120-3 120 27.1 0.113 2.67 0.301
0.120 0.006
120-4 120 30.5 0.127 2.67 0.339
120-5 120 28.1 0.117 2.67 0.312
160-1 160 38.5 0.120 3.56 0.428
160-2 160 35.6 0.111 3.56 0.396 Fig. 9. Comparison between compressiveshear stress curves provided by CNR
0.115 0.004
160-3 160 37.3 0.117 3.56 0.414 10018, Schrage, PCI Handbook and UNI-EN 1337:3 and tests regression curve.
160-5 160 35.8 0.112 3.56 0.398
200-1 200 45.3 0.113 4.44 0.503
200-2 200 48.0 0.120 4.44 0.533
0.114 0.005
200-3 200 45.8 0.115 4.44 0.509
200-4 200 43.6 0.109 4.44 0.484
240-1 240 43.7 0.091 5.33 0.486
240-2 240 46.3 0.097 5.33 0.514
0.095 0.005
240-3 240 44.5 0.093 5.33 0.494
240-4 240 48.8 0.102 5.33 0.542

3.2. Comparison with the data provided by CNR 10018, Schrage, PCI
Handbook and UNIEN 1337:3

Comparison between tests results and friction coefficient values

provided by CNR 10018 [7] according to Eq. (1), Schage [8]
according to Eq. (2), PCI Handbook [9] according to Eq. (3) and
UNI-EN 1337:3 [10] according to Eq. (5) is shown in Figs. 9 and
10. In Fig. 9 the neoprene compressive stress ( ) is reported on
horizontal axis, while the shear stress ( ) on the vertical axis; in
Fig. 10 on the vertical axis, the friction coefficient is presented.
It is evident that the PCI Handbook curve well approximates the
experimental data linear regression curve, providing larger friction
strength only for compressive stress lower than about 3.5 N/mm2 ;
much larger values characterize the UNI-EN 1337:3 curve. CNR
10018 and Schrage provide moderately larger friction strength
with respect to the experimental results.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to explain why different authors
proposed different curves (see Figs. 9 and 10). This is mainly due
to the lack of some data and information concerning the test
performed in the past, as reported in the Introduction of this paper;
an important uncertainty is also related to the roughness of the
specimens concrete surface. Furthermore, in the case of Eq. (3),
results obtained by different tests were considered. CNR 10018,
UNI-EN 1337:3 and experimental data linear regression curves
present similar slope, but, at the same compressive stress, different
shear stresses: probably such curves are obtained at different shear
loading rates.
Fig. 10. Comparison between compressive stressfriction coefficient curves
provided by CNR 10018, Schrage, PCI Handbook and UNI-EN 1337:3 and tests
regression curve.
The tests results also confirm the moderate increment of fric-
tion strength, which corresponds to a light decrement of friction
coefficient, as the compressive stress increases (Fig. 10) [8].
By experimental results, the following relationships for neo-
preneconcrete friction coefficient are proposed:
= 0.49 if v 0.14 N/mm2 (7)
=c+ if 0.14 < v 5 N/mm2 (8)
v
where v is the compressive stress in N/mm2 , = 0.055, c =
0.1 and v = 5 N/mm2 is neoprene maximum compressive
strength according to CNR 10018. Considering that tilting tests
are less realistic than pulling tests, the only formula (8) should be
practically applied, limited to the range 1.5 v 5 N/mm2 .
These equations along with linear regression curve of tests
mean results are plotted in Fig. 11: the two curves are almost
coincident. Vertical dashed lines limit the range of application
according to CNR 10018 [7].
538 G. Magliulo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 532538
Fig. 11. Proposed compressive stressconcreteneoprene friction coefficient
relationship.
The presented tests are performed on new bearing pads, not
on pads belonging to existing buildings, due to the difficulty to
have them at disposal. It would be interesting in the future to
test also bearings taken from existing structures and to compare
results. However, the authors believe that the results would not
significantly change because the contact surfaces do not much
deteriorate.
4. Conclusions
A wide bibliographical research is carried out in order to
collect values of neopreneconcrete friction coefficient, which
conditions the seismic vulnerability of existing precast buildings,
having unilateral simply supported beamcolumn connections:
very different values of friction coefficient and very few and
uncertain information concerning their determination procedure
are found.
Consequently, an experimental campaign for the determina-
tion of neopreneconcrete friction coefficient was programmed.
In this paper, a detailed description of test procedures, experi-
mental setup, loading history and measured parameters is pre-
sented, making tests reproducible and controllable. Tilting tests are
performed in order to determine the friction coefficient without
normal stress; pulling tests are performed in order to provide neo-
preneconcrete friction relationships depending on the compres-
sive stress level. Hardness tests have also been previously carried
out for the determination of the shear elastic modulus of rubber
used in Italy as support at the beamcolumn connections.
Tilting tests provide a mean value of the friction coefficient
equal to about 0.5, with a low coefficient of variation, i.e. lower
than 10%. It seems that friction is little sensitive to the shape factors
for negligible compressive stresses; the friction coefficient scarcely
decreases as S factor increases.
The friction coefficient determined by experimental tests with
compressive stress varying between = 1.7 N/mm2 and =
5.3 N/mm2 varies in the range 0.090.13; furthermore, it lightly
decreases as the normal stress increases, confirming the data found
in bibliography. An empirical friction coefficientcompressive
stress relationship, which well fits the experimental results, is also
proposed. The tests confirm the equation = 0.1 + assumed
v 2004.
by CNR 10018 and UNI-EN 1337:3, even though a different value
of is obtained.
The low values of the friction coefficient provided by the
tests and the results of numerical analyses reported in other
papers underline the low resistance to the seismic actions of the
precast industrial buildings whose beamcolumn connections are
not pinned; they, even for earthquakes of medium intensity, can
collapse for loss of support.
The compressive stressfriction coefficient curve provided in
the paper may be used for computational purposes; as an example,
it can be used when performing nonlinear seismic analysis aimed
at assessing seismic vulnerability of existing precast buildings with
simply supported beamcolumn connections.
Acknowledgements
This research has been partially funded by Italian Department
of Civil Protection in the frame of the national project ReLUIS
theme 2.
The authors thank Eng. Luigi Manto and Eng. Antonio Gloria of
Department of Materials and Production Engineering of University
of Naples Federico II for collaboration on hardness tests and Eng.
Mauro Redaelli for collaboration on friction tests.
References
[1] Fabbrocino G, Magliulo G, Manfredi G. Seismic vulnerability of existing
industrial precast structures. In: 13th world conference on earthquake
engineering. Vancouver; 2004.
[2] Magliulo G, Fabbrocino G, Manfredi G. Seismic assessment of existing precast
industrial buildings using static and dynamic non linear analyses. Eng Struct
2008;30(9):25808.
[3] Di Pasquale S, Messina C, Paolini L, Furiozzi B. In: Le Monnier, editor. Prontuario
per il calcolo di elementi strutturali. 1991 [in Italian].
[4] Esposito T, Mauro R. In: Hevelius, editor. Fondamenti di infrastrutture viarie,
Benevento. 2003 [in Italian].
[5] Raymond A. In: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, editors. Physics for scientists and
engineers. 1996.
[6] Southern Illinois University. Centre for advanced friction studies. Database
2004.
[7] CNR (Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche). Apparecchi di appoggio per le
costruzioni. Istruzioni per limpiego (CNR 10018), Rome; 1999 [in Italian].
[8] Schrage I. Anchoring of Bearings. Concrete Institute Publication SP-70. Joint
Seal Bear Syst Concrete Struct 1991;1:197215.
[9] Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute. PCI design handbook. Precast and
Prestressed Concrete. 3rd ed. Chicago (IL): Raths, Raths & Johnson Inc.;
1985.
[10] UNI-EN 1337:3:2005. Appoggi strutturali Parte 3: Appoggi elastomerici, UNI,
Milano; 2005 [in Italian].
[11] UIC: Verwendung von Gummi fur Bruckenlager, Utrecht; 1964 [in German].
[12] Stanton JF, Roeder CW. Elastomeric bearings, design, construction, materials.
NCHRP REPORT NO. 248, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC;
1982.
[13] Schrage I. Uber den Bewegungswiderstand von unverankerten Elastomer-
Lagern. Diss. RWTH, Aachen; 1979 [in German].
[14] Muller-Rochholz J, Fiebrich M. Eine prufeinrichtung fur Baulager. Mat Pruf
1981;23 [in German].
[15] Iverson JK, Pfeifer DW. Criteria for design of bearing pads. Precast and
Prestressed Concrete, Technical report 4, 1985.
[16] JVI Inc. Masticord design guide. Skokie, Ill: Raths, Raths and Johnson Inc.;
1984.
[17] ISO 48. Rubber, vulcanized or thermoplastic determination of hardness
(hardness between 10 IRHD and 100 IRHD), Amendment 1, Geneva,
Switzerland; 1999.
[18] ISO 7619. Rubber, vulcanized or thermoplastic determination of indentation
hardness part 1: durometer method (Shore hardness), Geneva, Switzerland;
[19] ISO 7619. Rubber, vulcanized or thermoplastic determination of indentation
hardness part 2: IRHD pocket meter method, Geneva, Switzerland; 2004.