International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 15, Number 1 (2020) pp.

40-47
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

Analysis of Neoprene Bearings on Requests and Strains

Gustavo C. Braga¹, Luiz C. Mendes²

1
PhD student in Federal Fluminense University (UFF), Department of Civil Engineering (TEC), Passo da Pátria St, 156 - 3rd
floor - Room 365 – Block "D" – São Domingos – Niterói – Rio de janeiro – Brazil – Zip code 24210-240,
2
Associate Professor in Federal Fluminense University (UFF), Department of Civil Engineering (TEC), Passo da Pátria St, 156 -
3rd floor - Room 365 – Block "D" – São Domingos – Niterói – RJ – Brazil – Zip code 24210-240,

Abstract such bearings that are used in large scale on several

highways, in accordance with relevant standards.
Bearings are subjected to several structural instability
mechanisms due to their loads. Several mechanisms
involving buckling will be analyzed in this article, like strain
ELASTOMER CHARACTERISTIC
limit, sliding limit, tensile in steel sheet, rotation limit
verification, curvature instability and friction instability to The rubber of which the elastomer is made has basically the
different kinds of loads. Finite Element Method and following properties: modulus of longitudinal elasticity of
Symbolic Algebraic Computation were employed in order to approximately 2.7MPa, Poisson coefficient of 0.488 which
analyze behavior in several bearings sections in provides a modulus of transverse elasticity of approximately
compliance with European Codes. 0.9MPa and has a compressive strength of 12MPa. Because
it is a very flexible material, the reinforceing was created to
Keywords: Bridges dimensions; Elastomeric Bearings;
improve the resistance to rigidity of these bearings.
supports; Neoprene; Sizing; Finite Element Method;
Symbolic Algebraic Computation After reinforceing the tendency of the rubber to flow
laterally is prevented by the steel, which is drawn,
compressing the elastomer [3]. Fret sheets which are coated
INTRODUCTION with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) decrease transverse
strains, and then their stiffness is increased and the
A reinforced elastomer bearing is a vulcanized block of
compressive strength reaches a value of up to 80 MPa.
elastomer reinforced internally by steel sheets chemically
bonded by the vulcanization process [1]. The elastomer is a The main physical parameter of the elastomer used within
macromolecular material that fits in its initial shape and the design of the bearing is its transverse shear modulus G.
dimensions, after achieving significant strain under the Unless otherwise specified, the nominal value of the
effect of a compression variation. transverse shear modulus G is 0.91 MPa [4].
Reinforced elastomer bearings are the ones that can best Under dynamic effects, it is advisable to increase the
combine the necessary properties in a Project [2]. Having calculation value of the G modulus of the elastomer. Under
rubber as its main material, these bearings have the capacity the horizontal effect of the exploration loads, a G-module
of rotating with low resistance and transmitting the reaction equal to 1.8 MPa is proposed.
in a well defined area.
There is a G module for low temperatures. At temperatures
The reinforced elastomers are currently the most used in below -25 °C the neoprene begins to crystallize. Some cold
special works of art made of reinforced and prestressed countries integrate module G at low temperatures in their
concrete, among many reasons, this is due to the fact that design, where there are regions with temperatures below -30
they have not only the low cost but also a great ease of ° C.
assembly and maintenance. Such bearings have the
advantage of allowing translations in all directions besides
being highly durable, with excellent resistance to corrosion METAL LAYERS CHARACTERISTICS
and vibrations, provide dynamic damping effects and have
The thickness of the layers must be greater than or equal to 2
high compressive strength.
mm. The steel used must have the equivalent breaking
The present work will analyze the behavior of certain elongation. The yield strength of the steel to be used within
sections of bearings in reinforced neoprene, for a given the calculation is therefore 235 MPa, its modulus of
combination of loads within a characteristic range of usual elasticity approximately 200,000MPa and Poisson's
loads of medium-sized bridges and viaducts. As a reference, coefficient equal to 0.3 [5].
the verifications established by the European Code will be
used as well as some analyzes made by a finite element
method (FEM) in order to show the workability ranges of

40
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 15, Number 1 (2020) pp. 40-47
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

The steel sheet must be used to stiffen the bearing in the B = dimension of the horizontal plane normal to the axis of
vertical direction and at the same time so that there is no rotation of the bearing;
change in the horizontal displacement or rotation capacity,
G = transversal modulus of elasticity; and
thus making it a nearly incompressible element. (Leonhardt,
1979). σN,lim = Maximum permissible normal stress.
Stainless steel can also be used for bearings, being a forged
part of stainless steel X4 CrNiMo 16-5-1 (material No.
1.4418), for a Project of low corrosion in areas of high
pressure contact [6,7].

SIZE VERIFICATIONS
Normal compressive stress
The elastomeric cushion should be considered to be an
elastic sheet compressed by two rigid elements that have flat
Figure 1. Distribution of normal stress in a bearing
surfaces that remain flat after force application.
subjected to vertical loading
In the centered compression it is observed that there is a
difference in the distribution of the normal stresses in the
neoprene. For example, the stresses are higher in the center Limitation of distortion
than in the peripheries of the bearing, because the central
The distortion in a reinforced neoprene bearing given by the
region behaves in a confined way, unlike the peripheral
sum of three factors:
regions, which have a greater tendency to expel, have their
stress decreased with values that tend to zero as shown in 1) εc = Distortion due to vertical stress, which is given by
the schematic of Figure 1. equation 3 [8].
The capacities of the elastomers are limited and the sizing
procedure is simple. The primary design limit is the 1,5 Vmáx
compression effort. It has limited compressive load capacity εc = (3)
because the bulging is constrained only by friction at the V Vy a'2 b'2
G (1- x - )
loading interface and local slip will result in a higher a' b' 2 hmáx (a'+b')
elastomer stress. As a result, the average total compression
effort should be given by equation 1[4].
at where:
Vmax
σ𝑁 = (1) Vmax = maximum vertical load;
A
at where: G = cross modulus of elasticity;
Vmax = maximum vertical load; a'= smaller dimension of the steel sheet;
A = surface area of the bearing; and b'= larger dimension of the steel sheet;
σN = Normal stress. Vx = horizontal deformation in the x-axis direction;
And should be limited by equation 2: Vy = horizontal deformation in the y-axis direction; and
hmax = maximum height of bearing.

a b Q B 2
σN,lim =1,875.G ( ) {1-0,20 [ máx ( ) ]} (2)
2.hmáx (a+b) n ti 2) εq = Distortion due to horizontal displacements,
which is given by equation 4 [8].
at where:
Fx
a = smaller size of the bearing; εq = (4)
G a b
b = larger size of the bearing; at where:
hmax = maximum height of the bearing; Fx = resulting from the maximum horizontal relative
Qmax = maximum rotation in service on any axis; displacement of the parts of the bearing;
n = number of spacing between the metal sheets; a = smaller size of bearing;
ti = spacing between the metal sheets; b = larger size of the bearing; and
G = transverse modulus of elasticity.

41
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 15, Number 1 (2020) pp. 40-47
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

3) εα = Distortion due to the rotations of the tray, which is In the case of heavily-requested bearings with rotation close
given by equation 5 [8]. to the buckling limit it is advisable that the ratio between b
'and a' is less than 1.24 and that there is an increase in the
thickness t of the metal sheets, from 5 to 10%.
2 2
(a' αa +b' αb ) ti
εα = (5)
2 ∑ t3i Rotation limits conditions
at where: The rotational stability of the bearing in the ultimate limit
a'= smaller dimension of the steel sheet; state shall be verified by equation 8 [8].

b'= larger dimension of the steel sheet;

(a´αa + b´αb )
αa = rotation of the axis parallel to side a of the bearing; Vz ≥ (8)
Kr
αb = rotation of the axis parallel to side b of the bearing; and
ti = spacing between the metal sheets.
at where:
And the total distortion εt at all points of the bearing for
road structures is limited to the ultimate limit state by αa and αb = rotations of the axes perpendicular to sides a and
equation 6 [8]. b of the bearing;
Kr = factor of rotation that must be equal to 3;

εt = (εc + εq +εα )  7 (6) Vz = total vertical deformation.

The distortions are limited under the effects of forces or and the total vertical deformation of Vz by the equation 9 is
horizontal displacements because the ratio must be less than [8]:
or equal to 1.
The prescriptions relate the efforts and the displacements of
short and long duration. On the other hand, the cases of Fz ti 1 1
loading to be considered a component of the forces and the Vz = ∑ 2+E
(9)
a’b’ a' b' b
concomitant displacements in the two perpendicular 5G ( )
( 2 hmáx (a'+b') )
directions are in agreement with the vector composition for
these verifications.
Note that there are no limitations for εc or Fz with the at where:
exception of those related to buckling. Eb = elastomer longitudinal modulus of elasticity;
G = elastomer transversal modulus of elasticity;
Drift in Layers a'= smaller dimension of the steel sheet;
The layers must be at least 2 mm thick. The standard also b'= larger dimension of the steel sheet;
requires checking the minimum thickness of the metal layers
in the ultimate limit state (ULS). For cell-free (non- Fz = maximum applied vertical load; and
perforated) holders, the sheets are of constant thickness ti. ti = spacing between the metal sheets;
The minimum thickness ts of the layers is defined by
equation 7 [8].
2,6 Fz ti It is observed that rotations αa and αb must include
ts = γm (7)
V Vy installation defects. These depend very much on the
a'b' (1- x - ) fy attention given to the launch, on the precision of the
a' b'
deformation calculations, which depend on the placement
at where: and degree of internal homogeneity of the bearing . As far as
Fz = maximum applied vertical load; possible, a method of laying plans will be sought by
combining the surfaces, for example with a layer of mortar,
fy = elastic limit of the steel that make up the layers; and a concrete cream of the tray concreted in loco.
ti = spacing between the metal sheets; Is proposed the following default values: a) 0.003 radians in
γm = partial safety factor whose value is 1 [8]. the case of methods of placing mentioned conjugate
materials; b) 0.010 radians for structures placed directly on
Vx = horizontal deformation in the x-axis direction; the bearing.This setting defect will be adjusted for large
Vy = horizontal deformation in the y-axis direction. rotations αa or αb [8].

42
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 15, Number 1 (2020) pp. 40-47
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

Stability to buckling (wind and braking effect) and permanent or variable efforts
due to deformation or distortion (temperature, retraction,
The stability to buckling must be verified in the ELU under
volubility, bearing unevenness).
the conditions pertinent to the code [8].
The coefficient of μe is imposed by the norm in most cases
a' b'
FZ 2 G a' ( ) as [8]:
2 hmáx (a'+b')
< (10)
V Vy 3[hmáx − ts (n + 1)]
a' b' (1- x - )
a' b' 1,5Kf
µe = 0,1+ (13)
σm
at where:
a'= smaller dimension of the steel sheet; being:
b'= larger dimension of the steel sheet;
Vx = horizontal deformation in the x-axis direction; Fz
σm = MPa (14)
V Vy
Vy = horizontal deformation in the y-axis direction; A' (1- x - )
a' 𝑏′
G = elastic modulus of elasticity of the elastomer;
hmax = maximum height of the bearing;
at where:
Fz = maximum applied vertical load;
Kf = 0.60 for the concrete;
ts = thickness of the metal sheets; and
Kf = 0.20 for other surfaces including mortars and resins;
n = number of spacing between the metal sheets.
σm = average compression stress of Fz,Gmin
Vx = horizontal deformation in the x-axis direction;
Non-slip conditions
Vy = horizontal deformation in the y-axis direction.
Slow application loads (permanent loads, thermal effects,
retraction) and fast application loads (mobile load, braking,
etc.) are separated [9]. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The non-slip check is considered in the absence of anti- Their behavior was investigated through a moving load
chemical bearings. variation of 480kN to 3280kN with increments of 200kN, in
Fxy ≤ μe Fz, Gmin (11) addition to a permanent load of 920kN at 4700kN with
increments of 270kN, and a lateral load of 5kN to 145kN
And with increments of 10kN, all with 14 breaks.
Fz, Gmin Moreover, the bearing has a height of 84cm with 7 layers of
≥ 3 MPa (12)
V Vy steel sheet 4mm, 8.5mm and spaced apart by at least 2.5mm
a' b' (1- x - )
a' b' coatings.
at where: Calculations were made using symbolic algebraic
computation and some comparisons of results using finite
Fz, Gmin = vertical design force; element shaped bearings for rupture load compression
Fxy = vertical and resulting reaction of the horizontal forces; shown in Figure 2. Such bearings were modeled as solid
elements (neoprene) as a isotropic material, with
μe = coefficient of friction between the bearing and the longitudinal modulus of elasticity E = 2,7MPa, transverse
structure; elastic modulus G = 0,9MPa. The steel sheets were modeled
a'= smaller dimension of the steel sheet; as area elements as an isotropic material with longitudinal
modulus of elasticity E = 200000MPa and yield stress of
b'= larger dimension of the steel sheet; 235MPa. In addition, steel sheets with excessive stiffness
Vx = horizontal deformation in the x-axis direction; were molded on the upper and lower faces of the bearing so
that the centered point load was applied to the upper sheet.
Vy = horizontal deformation in the y-axis direction. For the area elements 400 finite elements were used for each
metal sheet and for the elements of solid 3200 finite
elements [10].
In the calculation of Fxy to compose vectorially the
horizontal forces coming from all the concomitant actions Then the behavior for reinforced elastomeric bearings for
resulting from combinations of actions, Fxy is composed of several sections were investigated, as follows:
permanent or variable forces applied directly on the board • Section 1 - (400mmx5mm);

43
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 15, Number 1 (2020) pp. 40-47
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

• Section 2 - (400mmx600mm);
• Section 3 - (450mmx600mm); and
• Section 4 - (475mmx725mm).

Maximum compressive stress in a charcoal elastomer

It can be seen in Figure 2 that the maximum compressive
stress limit was not met in most cases, for loads considered
high within the range.
For the bearing (400mmx500mm) loads higher than 4220kN
lead to rupture, whereas for bearings (400mmx600mm) the Figure 3. Stability of buckling in bearing in reinforced
bursting loads are higher than 4690kN. elastomeric
Loads exceeding 6100kN lead bearings with a transversal
section (450mmx600mm) to rupture. The only section that
presented values below the maximum limit for the Limit of strain in bearing in reinforced elastomeric
investigated interval was that of (475mmx725mm). A
projection using the trend line of the curve shows that the
rupture will occur only for a load of 9747.2kN. The strain limit has a condition where no bearing can exceed
the maximum specific strain of value equal to 7. It is clear
This shows that the larger the cross section, the better it will that the smaller the transversal section area, the more
meet this criterion. susceptible it will be to strain more than the one permitted
by the code [8]. For the bearing (400mmx500mm) loads
above 5160kN lead to this limit of strain, while for bearing
(400mmx600mm) this fact occurs for loads of 6570kN, and
the load of 7890kN instabilizes the bearing with a cross
section of (450mmx600mm). The only section that
presented values below the maximum limit for the
investigated interval was that of (475mmx725mm). A
projection using the trend line of the curve shows that only
for a load of 10687.5kN the upper limit of use of this
bearing will not be met.

Figure 2. Maximum compressive stresses in an elastomeric

reinforced bearing

Stability to buckling in an elastomeric bearing

reinforced
The buckling stability condition behaves very much like the
maximum compression stress. For both analyzes the limits
were not observed in most cases for loads considered high.
For the bearing (400mmx500mm) loads higher than 3750kN Figure 4. Limit of strain in bearing in reinforced elastomeric
lead to instability, while for bearings (400mmx600mm) such
fact occurs with loads of 5160kN. The load of 7040kN
instabilizes the bearing with a transversal section of Stability to rotation in bearing in reinforced elastomeric
(450mmx600mm). The only section that presented values
below the maximum limit for the investigated interval was When instability is investigated, it becomes increasingly
that of (475mmx725mm). A projection using the trend line critical with low value loads, and the greater the transversal
of the curve shows that for a load of 11387.5kN the limit section, the less unstable this criterion will be. Transversal
will not be met, which shows that the larger the transversal section (400mmx500mm) and (400mmx600mm) transversal
section, the better it will meet this verification. sectional bearings comply with the specification of the code
for the entire range analyzed [8]. The transversal section
bearing (450mmx600mm) was unstable only for loads of
less than 1400kN, while that of transversal section

44
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 15, Number 1 (2020) pp. 40-47
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

(475mmx725mm) was unstable for loads below 2810kN. By the smaller the cross section, the more likely to meet the
analyzing the function of the trend line of the bearing given criterion proposed by the code [8] it is, however, for the
by the two upper functions of the graph, it is calculated that, interval investigated all sections presented unstable zones.
for the first, the instability would occur with a negative load, The section bearing (400mmx500mm) is the most stable of
that is, from the bottom up, and, for the second, with a all, and only does not meet the condition for values less than
loading of approximately 1000 kN. 510kN. The section bearing (400mmx600mm) must have
load values greater than 650kN to meet such specification.
The bearings with larger sections (450mmx600mm) and
(475mmx725mm), respectively, should have minimum
loads greater than 720kN and 930kN, to meet the second
criterion of non-slip condition.

Figure 5. Stability of rotation in bearing in reinforced

elastomeric

First criterion for condition of non-slip in bearing in

reinforced elastomeric Figure 7. Non-slip condition in bearing in reinforced
elastomeric
The sliding condition takes into account the minimum load.
For the entire verification curve there is a limit curve. For
the interval investigated all sections met the codes [8,11]. As Verification of the traction condition in the layers
shown in the graph of Figure 6, larger sections have higher
frictional forces. Analyzing the meeting of the trend lines of For the model adopted, a steel sheet with a thickness of
each pair, the bearing of (475mmx725mm) has the condition 4mm was used. The thickness of the layers must be
that the minimum load of 2486,1kN is not met. For the sufficient to withstand the traction to which they are
section of (450mmx600mm) a load of 2129,1kN is also not subjected. The graph of Figure 8 shows that in the model
met. For the (400mmx600mm) section a load of 2019,2kN is adopted this verification is not met for the steel used with
also not met, and for the smaller section of lower load values and with smaller bearings.
(400mmx500mm) a load of 1905,1kN is also not met. Note If we compare with the compressive stability of the
that the smaller the section, the more susceptible they are of elastomer, the values of limiting loads are practically the
not meeting the non-slip condition when the loads increase. same for the two smaller bearings investigated and smaller
for the larger ones for the traction check.
This difference is shown in 7.7% for the bearing with
dimensions (450mmx600mm), since the limiting load
ranged from 5630kN to 6100kN and 22.95% for the largest
bearing (475mmx725mm) that had its load ranging from
7510kN to 9747.2kN.

Figure 6. Condition of non-slip in bearing in reinforced

elastomeric

Second criterion for condition of non-slip in bearing in

reinforced elastomeric
The second non-slip condition criterion takes into account Figure 8. Verification of traction condition in layers
lower limits. It is observed from the graph of Figure 7 that,

45
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 15, Number 1 (2020) pp. 40-47
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

Checking the behavior of the compression and

displacement stress using MEF
Figures 9, 10, 11 and 12 show the compression stresses and
the maximum vertical displacement, in the largest lateral
transversal section of the investigated, for their respective
rupture loads.
As seen in the graph of Figure 2, the transversal section
bearing (400mmx500mm) reached its compression limit for
a load of 4220kN. Figure 9. (a) Compressive stress in MPa and (b) maximum
For this load it was modeled in finite element software and distortion limit in mm for a bearing in reinforced neoprene
the scheme of Figure 9 was reached. It is possible to notice of 400mmx500mm
that the highest stress reached was approximately 8MPa in
the yellow section and the minimum stresses (in blue) at the
ends, as suggests the normal stress distribution shown in
Figure 1. Using the expressions suggested by the code [8]
for the shown loading of 4220kN, the maximum
compression stress was given at 8.4MPa, which shows a
proximity to the value found in the finite element model,
with a difference of only 4.7%. The vertical maximum
displacement shown in the software was approximately the
same as that found using equation 1. Figure 10. (a) Compressive stress in MPa and (b) maximum
Figure 2 also shows that for a transversal section bearing distortion limit in mm for a bearing in reinforced neoprene
(400mmx600mm) the load limit for leading the bearing to of 400mmx600mm
rupture is of 4690 kN. For this load value, the rupture
occurred at a stress of 7.8MPa. Observing Figure 10, it can
be seen that, using the MEF, this stress was 7.16MPa, with a
difference of 8.2%. When analyzing the total vertical
displacement for the same bearing and the same load, it is
noted that using the analytical methods the displacement
value is 4.78 mm, while using the MEF the displacement is
4.86 mm, with a difference of 1.64%.
When analyzing the bearing of dimensions
(450mmx500mm) it is realized that the difference in stress Figure 11. (a) Compressive stress in MPa and (b) maximum
between analytical methods and numerical methods is distortion limit in mm for a bearing in reinforced neoprene
1.96%, since the value shown in Figure 2 was 9.18MPa, and of 450mmx600mm
the one found in the software was 9MPa. For the total
vertical displacement, this difference was 0.6%, since the
value shown in Figure 2 was 4.92mm, and the one found in
the software was 4.95mm.
Finally, a comparison was made between the results in the
largest bearing investigated. For this bearing with
dimensions of (425mmx725mm) it was necessary to
extrapolate using the trend line of the curve, which showed
that this rupture would occur only for a load of 9747,2kN.
For this load, the maximum stress found using equation 1 is Figure 12. (a) Compressive stress in MPa and (b) maximum
11.16MPa. Using the MEF, this value is of approximately distortion limit in mm for a bearing in reinforced neoprene
12.3MPa, which gives a difference of 9.26%. For this same of 475mmx725mm
load using the numerical method model shown in Figure 12,
the total displacement is 4.92mm, larger than that shown by
the graph of Figure 5, which is limited by a load of 7890kN,
less than that investigated. This shows the consistency
between the two values when considering extrapolation of
load values.
The graph of Figure 13 shows the behavior of these
variations for all transversal sections investigated by
Figure 13. Percentage variation between the two methods
comparing the two methods for rupture stresses and
for stresses and deformation.
maximum displacement.

46
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 15, Number 1 (2020) pp. 40-47
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES
The bearings must be compatible with functions for which [1] Marchetti, O. ,2007, Pontes de Concreto Armado,
they have been designed, and must meet the various São Paulo: ed. Edgard Blucher.
performance criteria imposed by the current standards.
[2] DNIT ,2006, DEPARTAMENTO NACIONAL DE
There are a lot of analytical parameters for the design of a
INFRA-ESTRUTURA DE TRANSPORTES,
bearing to be deployed.
NORMA DNIT 091/2006 Tratamento de aparelhos
The presentation of vertical loads, horizontal loads, stress, de apoio: concreto, neoprene e metálicos –
displacements, rotations and dimensioning aspects done especificação de serviço, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.
along this work show the great amount of data that must be
[3] Vivan, M. E. ,2015, Aparelhos de Apoio Estruturais.
incorporated in a project of analysis and dimensioning of
[Editorial]. Revista “Concreto e Construções”
bearings.
IBRACON, p. 112-115, Jan-Mar.
The formulation used, combined with international
[4] AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN
standards, is a very important tool for analysis.
SPECIFICATIONS ,2010, “American Association of
Symbolic algebraic computation has shown a wide variety State Highway and Transportation Officials”
of behaviors in the aspect of the workability of bearings in Washington, D.C.
reinforced neoprene, and its proper choice rests with the
[5] NF EN 10025-2 ,2005, – Produits laminés à chaud en
designer, within the limitations of the design, to be done in
aciers de construction - Partie 2 : conditions
an analytical and coherent way with the behavior that can
techniques de livraison pour les aciers de
occur in each situation.
construction non allies.
Within the investigated parameters, it was observed that the
[6] Puga, M. H. R. G. ,2008, Análise de aparelhos de
values presented by the finite element method converge with
apoio em estruturas de pontes. Dissertação (Mestrado
the formulation presented by the standards, and there is not
em Engenharia Civil) - Universidade Federal
much distance between the results.
Fluminense.
The investigation showed that the bearings that presented
[7] ISO 683 ,2004, – Preview Heat-treatable steels, alloy
the highest range of workability were the charcoal neoprene
steels and free-cutting steels.
of 475mmx725mm with a much higher elastic range
compared to the others investigated. It is concluded that the [8] NF EN 1337-3 ,2005, – Appareils d'appui
transversal section area is a determining factor in the load structuraux. – Partie 3: Appareils d'appui en
capacity of the various investigated parameters. élastomère.
[9] UCI CODE 776-1 ,2006, - A UNION
INTERNATIONALE DES CHEMINS DE FER, 5th
edition.
[10] Prado, E. B. T.; e Aguiar, A. R. ,2009, Estudo do
comportamento de um sólido elástico-linear
transversalmente isotrópico via MHA via
MEF. Cadernos de Engenharia de Estruturas, vol. 11,
p. 117-121
[11] NF EN 1337-2 ,2005, – Appareils d'appui
Figure 14. Working ranges of bearings structuraux. – Partie 2: Eléments de glissement.

47