Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 18741884

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Experimental tests and analytical model of high damping
rubber dissipating devices
A. DallAsta
a,
, L. Ragni
b
a
Dipartimento di Progettazione e Costruzione dellAmbiente, Universit` a di Camerino, Ascoli Piceno, Italy
b
Dipartimento di Architettura Costruzioni e Strutture, Universit` a Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
Received 14 November 2005; received in revised form 16 March 2006; accepted 17 March 2006
Available online 22 May 2006
Abstract
High damping rubber (HDR) consists of natural rubber to which black carbon ller is added to increase its damping properties. The use of HDR
as a dissipating device in structural systems is very promising in terms of controlling the response under live actions like wind or earthquake. The
use of HDR does however entail some problems because its dynamic behaviour is not completely understood and the few HDR models that exist
are not completely satisfactory for seismic analysis of structures equipped with HDR-base dissipation devices. Experimental tests were performed
to obtain more accurate information about the behaviour of the material under cyclic shear paths with different strain rate and strain amplitude. A
nonlinear viscoelastic damage model was proposed to describe the behaviour of rubber under cyclic loads.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: High damping rubber; Mullins effect; Experimental tests; Dynamic behaviour of damper devices; Rheological model
1. Introduction
In the last few years great interest has been generated in high
damping rubber (HDR) due to its increasing use in industry, for
example in vibration isolators, earthquake bearings, dissipating
devices, but also because of its extensive use in vehicle tyres.
HDR consists of natural rubber to which black carbon ller is
added in order to improve a wide range of desirable material
properties such as the strength and damping capacities. The
addition of this ller however also has other effects, that are
not always desirable, such as the Mullins effect described
below.
The use of HDR as a dissipating device in structural systems
is very promising in terms of controlling the structural response
under live actions like wind or earthquake. This type of
dissipating device can in fact be used to realize dissipative
steel bracings which may be placed in the interior of reinforced
concrete or steel frames. The dampers may be connected
directly to the bottom of the beams and to the rigid braces
so as to endure shear strain under store drift. The result is an

Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 0736 249620; fax: +39 071 2204576.
E-mail address: andrea.dallasta@unicam.it (A. DallAsta).
increase of the frame stiffness and energy dissipation capacity
so that both the control of lateral displacements in the case of
small tremors and the reduction of damage in the case of strong
motions are ensured [1,2].
With respect to other types of damper devices, based on
elasto-plastic, viscous or shape memory materials, the HDR-
based damper seems to be a promising energy dissipating
device for a number of reasons. First, it is preferable with
respect to dissipating devices based on elasto-plastic behaviour
because the lled rubber is a fading memory material so that
no permanent strains exist even after strong seismic events.
In addition it permits dissipating energy even for the small
lateral displacements produced by wind or minor earthquakes.
Similar properties are also common to visco-elastic and viscous
devices, but their energy dissipation capacity is very sensitive
to the strain rate, contrary to HDR-based devices which show a
lower strain-rate sensitivity.
The difculty in the use of HDRmaterial is that its behaviour
is quite complex because it is strain-rate, strain-amplitude and
process dependent. The dependence on the process is known as
the Mullins effect which consists of a rapid decrease of stiffness
in the early load cycles (stress softening) due to a strain-
induced evolution of the microstructure of the material [3]. This
0141-0296/$ - see front matter c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.03.025
A. DallAsta, L. Ragni / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 18741884 1875
Fig. 1. Dissipating device.
phenomenon is not completely understood and few models of
HDR exist. Additionally, the behaviour of rubber is affected by
temperature, but only marginally in the temperature range of
interest for seismic applications [4].
It should be noted that the use of rubber with enhanced
dissipating properties is not new in the mitigation of seismic
effects although, up to now, it has almost exclusively been
adopted to produce bearings for seismic isolation of bridges or
buildings. In the case of seismic isolation the main aim was
to obtain a shift of the natural frequencies by means of very
deformable supports. The dissipative properties of the material
may be considered as a secondary effect. Very simplied
models neglecting strain-rate dependence and the Mullins effect
may be acceptable for the design [57]. These models do not
furnish an adequate description of the dynamic behaviour of
HDR devices analyzed in this paper that are usually used to
increase dissipation and stiffness. It should also be noted that
the rubber of these devices undergoes strain (homogeneous pure
shear strain) which is different from the strain experienced by
isolator rubber (simple shear and compression).
A number of experimental works on carbon lled rubber
have been published in the scientic literature and a complete
overview may be found in [8] and [9]. These works show
that the behaviour of HRD materials is mainly inuenced
by nonlinear elasticity coupled with a number of inelastic
effects: nonlinear rate dependence, the Mullins effect and
its dependence on strain amplitude. Several analytical papers
do in fact propose models for these inelastic behaviours. In
particular, in some works the quasi-static behaviour was studied
and rate independent models of the Mullins effect based on
the elasticity theory [3,10], the pseudo-elasticity theory [11]
and the continuum damage theory were proposed. Only in
work [12] is the damage theory applied to viscoelasticity
in order to obtain a rate dependent damage model. The
Mullins effect has however usually been analyzed as a
phenomenon occurring on the virgin material only whereas
further investigation is required to evaluate if the initial stiffness
may be recovered after a sufciently long period. This aspect is
particularly important in devices used for reducing the effect of
seismic events which rarely happen.
In other works, like [9,13], the dynamic behaviour of rubbers
under cyclic loads was studied by experimental tests and uni-
axial rheological models, successively extended to the three-
dimensional case, were proposed on the bases of experimental
data. In these models the nonlinear strain-rate dependence and
the small rate independent hysteresis of the stable loops are
included in order to match the energy dissipating property, but
the Mullins effect related to early cycles was not considered.
In general, these models and the experimental tests did not
aim at analyzing rubber based dissipation devices where pure
shear strain occurs, but their main aim was to characterize
the tensioncompression behaviour under loadingunloading
paths. There is thus a lack of experimental information in this
regard and the proposed relations between stress and strain
tensors are not as accurate in describing the pure shear, as
required in foreseeing the dynamic behaviour of structures.
In order to dene a model for the dynamic analysis of a
structure equipped with HDR devices, the authors carried out
a test program that aims at overcoming the previously cited
limitations of existing tests and focuses on describing the device
behaviour in the range of strain and strain rate of interest to
mitigate seismic effects.
Lastly, an analytical model is proposed. It is based on
a rheological, thermodynamically compatible, approach and
permits describing the main phenomena of relevance in the
dynamic response of structures equipped with HDR-based
dissipation devices.
2. Experimental tests
The rubber dampers used in the experimental tests (Fig. 1)
were manufactured by T.A.R.R.C. (Tun Abdul Razak Research
Center). They are based on the enhanced damping properties
of a compound of natural rubber with addition of black carbon
ller and they are designed to undergo a pure shear strain in
one direction. A single device is made by the superposition of
1876 A. DallAsta, L. Ragni / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 18741884
Fig. 2. Cyclic strain history (a) Cyclic tests (b)
max
= 0.5 and = 1.0 s
1
, different time intervals.
two rubber layers with area A = 170 230 mm
2
and thickness
h
l
= 5 mm separated by an intermediate 2 mm thick steel shim.
They are usually arranged in vertical or horizontal position
and they are disposed to connect rigid bracings to concrete or
steel frames so that the relative displacements between the steel
plates usually coincide with the inter-storey drift [1,2].
The dynamic behaviour of rubber dampers was character-
ized by performing a series of tests with a displacement feed-
back. A couple of dampers were tested in order to have a ver-
tical plane of symmetry. A 100 kN AMSLER servo-controlled
hydraulic actuator was used to assign the displacement to the
system. The actuator was mounted in such a way as not to give
eccentric loads and it was positioned in series with the load cell.
The actuator was connected to a reaction rigid frame, as shown
by Fig. 1(a). During the entire duration of the test, the total dis-
placements of the rubber devices were measured by means of
inductive displacement transducers.
The strain was measured as the ratio = /h between
the relative displacement of the plates and the total rubber
thickness h = 10 mm. The devices achieve the collapse at
a strain value of about = 4.0 and are designed to sustain
deformations up to = 2.0. The tests were performed by
limiting the maximum value of the shear strain to = 2.0 and
considering a strain rate range from 0.01 s
1
to 10 s
1
.
The rst set of cyclic tests is intended to characterize
the Mullins effect which is responsible for a softening in
the material in the initial loading path. In particular, it was
necessary to clarify whether the Mullins effect occurred in
virgin material only or if it may be observed even on a device
that has not worked for a long period of time. The rst test
was carried out on a device that had been subjected to very
numerous tests in the past and that had not successively worked
for three years so that data as to a possible aging effect of the
material could also be obtained. Further tests were carried out
after 1 week and after 1 day in order to obtain information
regarding the recovery times of the Mullins effect. The tests
consisted in applying a cyclic shear deformation where shear
strain varies with a constant rate between an amplitude of
= +0.5 and = 0.5 (Fig. 2(a)). The results reported refer
to a strain rate = 1.0 s
1
.
The forcestrain diagrams are reported in Fig. 2(b) (here
and hereafter, force F of the diagram refers to the total force
of the couple of devices). Results show that the rst loop is
very similar to the stressstrain diagram of the virgin material
(furnished by the manufacturer), thus no damage, induced
by age and previous activities, occurs in this type of rubber.
Furthermore, the test claried that the Mullins effect does not
occur on virgin material only but that it may be observed even
in non-virgin material that has not worked for a long period
of time. As a matter of fact, successive tests showed that the
softening due to the Mullins effect can be recovered in quite
a short period. A remarkable Mullins effect can be observed
even on material which has not worked for about 1 day. This
effect strongly inuences both the stiffness and the dissipating
properties of the device.
In this paper the stiffness and dissipating properties under
cyclic paths are analyzed by introducing three parameters: K
eff
,
R, and .
The rst parameter furnishes a conventional measure of the
stiffness and it can be obtained by the following ratio between
the extreme values of force F and strain :
K
eff
=
F
max
F
min

max

min
. (1)
The second parameter R furnishes information about the
dissipation capacity for cycles with different amplitudes and it
may be evaluated by the ratio
R =
W

max
(2)
where W is the external work done for every cycle and
max
is
the maximum strain attained.
Finally, the third parameter (equivalent viscous damping
coefcient) furnishes approximate information about the ratio
between the energy dissipated within a cycle and the maximum
energy stored during the strain path. It may be dened by
equating the external works done in a cycle for the considered
material and the external work done in a linear viscous system
with stiffness K
eff
at resonance condition [14]. The expression
obtained for is
=
W
2K
eff
(h
max
)
2
. (3)
A. DallAsta, L. Ragni / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 18741884 1877
Fig. 3. K
eff
(a), R (b) and (c) of each loop for different tests.
The values of K
eff
, R and observed during the tests are
reported in Fig. 3. In the rst test (3 years) a remarkable
reduction of K
eff
, and R occurred between the rst and last
cycle; the variation with respect to the stable cycle is about
22% for K
eff
, 58% for R and 15% for . As a consequence, the
way the Mullins effect inuences the structural response cannot
be neglected when HDR is employed to control the behaviour
under live actions, like earthquakes, that rarely occur.
A second aspect that also requires investigations is the
dependence of the response on the strain amplitude. This aspect
has already been observed in the uni-axial stretch test [9,13].
In order to investigate the phenomenon, a number of cyclic
tests at a constant strain rate = 1.0 s
1
were carried out by
increasing amplitude, and allowing 1 day of rest between two
subsequent tests.
The results reported in Fig. 4 show that after 68 cycles,
once that transient contribution due to the Mullins effect has
vanished, the response always attains a stable loop which has a
typical buttery shape. Furthermore, stable loops attained for
different maximum strains differ from each other both in terms
of stiffness and shape. More specically, loops corresponding
to lower strain exhibit a lower dissipation and a higher stiffness.
A comparison between these and loops is reported in Fig. 5.
Fig. 6 reports the values of K
eff
, R and for each cycle
amplitude. The diagrams show that K
eff
decreases remarkably
when the amplitude increases, while the ratio between the
energy dissipated and the maximum strain increases with rising
values of amplitude. As a result, the devices are less rigid and
more efcient in dissipating energy for larger strain values.
The change of dissipation properties that occurs when the
strain amplitude is varied, is between the behaviour of elasto-
plastic materials, where R tends to a constant value, and linear
viscoelastic materials, for which R linearly increases. Despite
the stiffness and the energy dissipated strongly varying by
varying the cycle amplitude, the equivalent damping coefcient
is approximately constant and the average value is about 0.135
for the rst cycles and 0.11 for stable cycles.
The difference between the stable loops reveals that the
change of material behaviour related to the Mullins effect is
inuenced by the maximum strain. This is also conrmed by a
further test where a loop with amplitude of about = 0.5 is
carried out after that larger strain has been applied by means of
a test with amplitude = 2.0. In both the cases, before and
after the test at = 2.0 the response attains a stable loop but
cycle stiffness is different as shown by Fig. 7.
In order to investigate the dependence of the response on
the strain rate a number of cyclic tests with different rates were
conducted. Results concerning a similar amplitude of around
= 2.0 and different strain rate spanning from 0.01 s
1
to 10 s
1
are reported in Fig. 8. In general, a remarkable
increase in stiffness and dissipating properties was observed
when the rate exceeds the value of 1.0 s
1
that is usual in
structural systems undergoing earthquake or wind tremors. It
is interesting to observe that the strain rate affects both the
transient response and the stable loops: the Mullins effect is
very small for strain rates below 1.0 s
1
and becomes more
and more remarkable when strain rate increases. The stable
loops, compared in Fig. 9, are also different: the stiffness
increases and the buttery shape becomes more evident for
high values of strain rate. As previously, the values of K
eff
,
R and are reported in Fig. 10. In the range considered both
K
eff
and R increase from slow cycles to fast cycles. A limit
1878 A. DallAsta, L. Ragni / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 18741884
Fig. 4. Cyclic tests at different amplitudes.
Fig. 5. Stable loop at different strain amplitudes.
value of the energy dissipated seems to be achieved however,
for = 5.0 s
1
. The cycle with the maximum strain rate
shows a remarkable increase of K
eff
and R, of about 37% and
40% respectively, with respect to the cycle with the minimum
strain rate. Regarding the equivalent damping coefcient ,
from Fig. 10(c) it can be observed that it remains about constant
around the value 0.14 for strain rate up to 5.0 s
1
while it
strongly increases up to 0.19 for larger strain rate values.
Finally in order to verify that no permanent strain occurs and
in order to separate the elastic response from the time relaxing
overstress, relaxation tests were carried out with different strain
values through to = 2.0. The forcestrain diagrams are
reported in Fig. 11(a). The overstress contribution vanishes in a
very long period and, in order to obtain an upper and lower
bound of the elastic contribution, the stress evolution at the
same constant strain was measured by applying two different
time histories (type a and b of Fig. 11(b)) in which the
equilibrium stress is obtained from lower and higher values of
stress.
There is a certain gap between the termination points of
relaxation and this seems to indicate a very small equilibrium
hysteresis. As shown in the forcetime diagram however, the
relaxation process may not be completed within the time
interval observed. These observations lead to the conclusion
that there are relaxation processes leading to equilibrium
with different (very short and very long) relaxation times.
Consequently, after a sufciently long period of time from
the application of the strain history, the device returns to its
natural state (zero stress and zero strain) and the material can
be classied as a fading memory material.
In conclusion, experimental tests showed that the material
behaviour is characterized by a transient contribution, usually
called the Mullins effect, which vanishes for a repeated cyclic
strain path and depends both on the strain rate and the
maximum strain experienced. Furthermore, once the transient
response disappears, the material exhibits stable loops which
are strain-rate dependent and have a typical buttery shape
that becomes more evident when the strain amplitude increases.
After the application of a strain history, the material relaxes to
its initial natural state in just a few hours and recovers its
initial characteristics, i.e. it shows a similar transient response
for similar strain histories, in just a few days. The variation
A. DallAsta, L. Ragni / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 18741884 1879
Fig. 6. K
eff
(a), R (b) and (c) for different strain amplitudes.
of the properties in terms of effective stiffness and lost energy
related to the Mullins effect and the strain-rate and amplitude
dependence, can be quite remarkable even if the equivalent
viscous coefcient exhibits less signicant variations.
3. Constitutive model
The aim of this section is to formulate a constitutive model
for the devices tested, to describe the transient and stable
responses, in the range of strain rate and strain amplitude
of interest for practical applications. The proposed model
furnishes a relation between the strain (previously dened)
and the shear force in the dissipating devices which is expressed
by the ratio between the force and the area of the rubber.
1
The response of the material has been decomposed as the
sum of two contributions: the former exists for every strain
history and the latter describes a transient response (Mullins
effect) which vanishes as the strain history progresses.
The former component of the stress
0
has been described
by assuming a rheological model consisting of a nonlinear
elastic spring acting in parallel with two generalized Maxwell
elements with linear springs. This approach has the advantage
of furnishing models whose thermodynamic compatibility may
be easily checked [15]. The total stress can consequently be
expressed in the form:

0
=
e
+
v1
+
v2
(4)
1
The pure shear strain of the rubber also produces a reactive traction on the
steel plates. It may be of interest to design the devicestructure connection. This
force is usually small and was not considered in this paper.
Fig. 7. Cyclic tests before (a) and after (b) test at = 2.0.
where

e
= f
e
( ) (5a)

v1
= E
v1
[
v1
] (5b)

v2
= E
v2
[
v2
] . (5c)
The rst term represents an elastic contribution and the other
two terms are overstresses relaxing in time. At least two terms
are required to describe different material behaviours related to
long-time (Eq. (5b)) and short-time relaxation (Eq. (5c)).
1880 A. DallAsta, L. Ragni / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 18741884
Fig. 8. Cyclic tests at different strain rates.
The internal variables
v1
and
v2
describe inelastic strains
and their evolution is controlled by the two different laws

v1
=

| |

1
( )
+
1

v1
(6a)

v2
=

H ( )

2
| | +
2

v2
(6b)
where
1
( ) =
0
+
1
| | and H is the Heaviside function
(H (x) = 1 if x > 0 and H (x) = 0 if x 0). The constant
parameters
1
and
2
control the rate of relaxation in time while
the other terms control the shape of the diagram.
This partial model can describe the limit loops experimen-
tally observed for strain cycles ranging from = 2.0 to
= 2.0 and involving different strain rates. The comparison
between model and experimental data is reported in Fig. 12 for
= 2.0 and strain rate ranging from 0.1 s
1
to 10 s
1
.
The approach proposed with internal variables is similar to
that presented by [13] but the evolution laws proposed in this
paper are different and permit describing the particular shape
of the stable loops and the change observed for different strain
rates.
The other contribution due to the Mullins effect is modelled
hereafter. The experimental tests show that the material tends
to different stable loops when strain cycles involve different
maximum strains and this phenomenon may be described by
means of a damage parameter q
e
which tends to a limit value
depending on the maximum strain experienced. Its evolution
law may be posed in the following form:
q
e
=
e
| | (0.5| | q
e
) if q
e
< 0.5| | (7a)
Fig. 9. Stable loop at different strain rates.
q
e
= 0 if 0.5| | q
e
1. (7b)
The experimental tests also showed that a strain-rate dependent
contribution to stress exists in the transient response. This
completely vanishes as the strain history progresses and can
be described by a second damage parameter q
v
with a simpler
evolution law:
q
v
=
v
| | (1 q
v
) . (8)
The total contribution to stress
m
from the Mullins effect,
controlled by the two damage parameters, can now be described
as the sum of the two contributions

m
=
me
+
mv
(9)
A. DallAsta, L. Ragni / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 18741884 1881
Fig. 10. K
eff
(a), R (b) and (c) at different strain rates.
Fig. 11. Relaxation tests at different strain values (a). Time history a and b (b).
where

me
=
m
(1 q
e
) f
e
( ) (10a)

mv
= E
v3
(1 q
v
) [
v3
] . (10b)
The former is elastic and describes a stiffness increment which
tends to a strain dependent value and the latter is a strain-
rate dependent contribution similar to
v2
which requires the
denition of the related evolution law

v3
=

H ( )
(1 q
v
)
| |

3
+
3

mv
. (11)
It should be observed that q
e
also affects the parameter

1
, previously introduced, whose complete expression is

1
(, q
e
) =
01
+
02
(1 q
e
)
2
+
1
| |. The total stress is
consequently the sum of
0
(Eq. (4)) and
m
(Eq. (9)). Fig. 13
gives a comparison between the experimental data and the
analytical model with different maximum strains to test the
ability of q
e
to describe the asymptotic behaviour. In Fig. 14
experimental data and the analytical model for different strain
rates are compared to test the other damage parameter q
v
.
In describing the Mullins effect, the authors followed
the basic idea of introducing a growing damage, already
1882 A. DallAsta, L. Ragni / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 18741884
Fig. 12. Stable loops at different strain rates: comparison between experimental data and analytical model.
Fig. 13. Transient response at different strain amplitudes: comparison between experimental data and analytical model.
proposed by [12] but, in the model proposed in this paper,
two different damage parameters, with different evolution
laws, were introduced to describe both the dependence on the
maximum strain and the strain rate.
The constitutive behaviour is completely dened once the
strain and ve internal variables, which may be collected in
a vector y = [
v1
,
v2

v3
, q
e
q
v
], are known. The specic free
energy per unit volume has the following form
(, y) = [1 +
m
(1 q
e
)]
e
( ) +
E
v1
2
(
v1
)
2
+
E
v2
2
(
v2
)
2
+(1 q
v
)
E
v3
2
(
v3
)
2
(12)
where
e
( ) is the strain energy of the elastic component,
such that f
e
= d
e
/d (see Eqs. (5a) and (10a)), and the
other terms describe the strain-rate dependent contributions.
Thermodynamic compatibility requires that (repeated index
denotes summation).
=

y
k
y
k
0 (13)
and is ensured once E
vi
0,
i
> 0,
i
0,
e
0,

v
0, (i = 1, 2, 3). In this work no attempt to describe the
recovery of the initial stiffness of the material in time was made
because it is not of particular interest in studying the response
A. DallAsta, L. Ragni / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 18741884 1883
Fig. 14. Transient response at different strain rates: comparison between experimental data and analytical model.
Table 1
Constant values
f
e
( ) E
v1

1

1
(, q
e
) E
v2

2

2

N
mm
2

N
mm
2

mm
2
N s

N
mm
2

N
mm
2

mm
2
N s

N
mm
2

0.029
5
0.082
3
+0.29 2.56 0.078 0.179 0.127(1 q
e
)
2
+0.047| | 0.447 26 0.025

m
E
3v

3

3

e

v

N
mm
2

N
mm
2

mm
2
N s

N
mm
2

1.5 0.256 2.23 0.025 1.0 0.2

under seismic actions which act rarely and for a short period of
time so that a complete recovery of the initial stiffness usually
occurs between two subsequent events. The results reported in
the diagrams were obtained by adopting the parameter values
reported in Table 1.
4. Conclusions
An experimental test program was performed in order to
characterize the cyclic behaviour of high damping rubber under
pure shear strain and investigate some aspects not previously
completely understood more thoroughly.
Experimental tests demonstrated that material behaviour is
characterized by a transient contribution. Once the transient
response has disappeared, the material exhibits stable loops
which are strain-rate dependent and have a typical buttery
shape. After applying a strain history, the material relaxes to its
initial natural state and recovers its initial characteristics.
On the basis of experimental results, an analytical model,
able to describe the material behaviour in the range of interest
for seismic applications, was developed. The constitutive
behaviour was described by means of a thermodynamically
compatible rheological model, in which internal variables were
introduced to describe inelastic phenomena. The results are
quite accurate and permit overcoming the limitations of models
previously adopted in seismic analysis, that were generally
based on hysteretic laws neglecting the dependence on the
strain rate and the Mullins effect.
References
[1] DallAsta A, Dezi L, Giacchetti R, Leoni G, Ragni L. Dynamic response
of composite frames with rubber-based dissipating devices: experimental
tests. In: Proceedings of ICASS, fourth international conference on
advances in steel structures. 2005.
[2] Bartera F, Giacchetti R. Steel dissipating braces for upgrading existing
building frames. J Construct Steel Res 2004;60(3):75169.
1884 A. DallAsta, L. Ragni / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 18741884
[3] Govindjee S, Simo JC. Transition from micro-mechanics to computation-
ally efcient phenomenology: carbon black lled rubbers incorporating
Mullins effect. J Mech Phys Solids 1992;40:21333.
[4] Lion A. On large deformation behaviour of reinforced rubber at different
temperatures. J Mech Phys Solids 1997;45:180534.
[5] FEMA450: NEHRP Recommended provisions for seismic regulations for
new buildings and other structures. Part 1: Provisions. Washington D.C.:
Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2003.
[6] FEMA 356: Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings. Washington D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency;
2000.
[7] PrEN 1998-2. Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance.
Part 2: Bridges. Brussels (Belgium): CECN, European Committee for
standardization, 2003.
[8] Dorfmann A, Ogden RW. A constitutive model for the Mullins effect with
permanent set in particle-reinforced rubber. Int J Solids Struct 2004;41:
185578.
[9] Lion A. A physically based method to represent the thermomechanical
behaviour of elastomers. Acta Mech 1997;123:125.
[10] Govindjee S, Simo JC. A micro-mechanically based continuum damage
model for carbon black lled-rubber incorporating the Mullins effect.
J Mech Phys Solids 1991;39:87112.
[11] Dorfmann A, Ogden RW. A pseudo-elastic model for loading, partial
unloading and reloading of particle-reinforced rubber. Int J Solids Struct
2003;40:2699714.
[12] Govindjee S, Simo JC. Mullins effect and the strain amplitude dependence
of the storage modulus. Int J Solids Struct 1992;29:173751.
[13] Haupt P, Sedlan H. Viscoplasticity of elastomeric materials: experimental
facts and constitutive modelling. Arch Appl Mech 2001;71:89109.
[14] Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to
earthquake engineering. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice-Hall;
2000.
[15] Fabrizio M, Morro A. Mathematical problems in linear viscoelasticity,
Philadelphia: SIAMStudies In Applied Mathematics; 1992.