SlideShare ist ein Scribd-Unternehmen logo
1 von 10
Downloaden Sie, um offline zu lesen
Concrete Solutions 09                                                                          Paper 7a-3

 Seismic Protection of Structures with Modern Base Isolation Technologies
                                     Luis Andrade1 and John Tuxworth2
                             1
                              Senior Structural Engineer, Green Leaf Engineers
                                      2
                                       Director, Green Leaf Engineers


Synopsis: Increased resistance to earthquake forces is not always a desirable solution for buildings
which house contents that are irreplaceable or simply more valuable than the actual primary structure (eg
museums, data storage centres, etc). Base isolation can be employed to minimize inter-story drifts and
floor accelerations via specially designed interfaces at the structural base, or at higher levels of the
superstructure.

This paper presents the design comparison of two isolation systems (lead-rubber bearings, and friction
pendulum bearings) for a five-story reinforced concrete framed building. The response of the base-case,
fixed-structure, and isolated systems is compared for dynamic analysis to actual historical records for five
significant seismic events.

Keywords: bearing, concrete, damping, dissipation, drift, isolation, inter-storey, lead-rubber, pendulum,
seismic.


1.      Introduction
Conventionally, seismic design of building structures is based on the concept of increasing resistance
against earthquake forces by employing the use of shear walls, braced frames, or moment-resistant
frames. For stiff buildings these traditional methods often result in high floor accelerations, and large inter-
story drifts for flexible buildings. With both scenarios building contents and nonstructural components may
suffer significant damage during a major event, even if the structure itself remains basically intact.
Obviously this is an undesirable outcome for buildings which house contents that are irreplaceable, or
simply more costly and valuable than the actual primary structure (eg museums, data storage centers,
etc).
The concept of base isolation is increasingly being adopted in order to minimize inter-story drift and floor
accelerations. In this instance the control of structural forces and motion is exercised through specially
designed interfaces at the structural base — or potentially at a higher level of the superstructure — thus
filtering out the actions transmitted from the ground. The effect of base isolation is to essentially uncouple
the building from the ground.
This paper presents the design comparison of two isolation systems — Friction Pendulum System (FPS)
and Lead-Plug Bearings (LPB) — for a five-story reinforced concrete framed building. The response of the
fixed-base structure is compared to base-isolated cases for five different historical time-history records for
significant earthquake events.


2.      Base Isolation Systems

There are two common categories of large-displacement base (or seismic) isolation hardware: Sliding
Bearings and Elastomeric Bearings. This paper considers Friction Pendulum Systems (FPS) and Lead-
Plug-Bearings (LPB), which belong to the first and second categories respectively.

2.1     Friction Pendulum System (FPS)

A FPS is comprised of a stainless steel concave surface, an articulated sliding element, and cover plate.
The slider is finished with a self-lubricating composite liner (e.g. Teflon). During an earthquake, the
articulated slider within the bearing, travels along the concave surface, causing the supported structure to
move with gentle pendulum motions as illustrated in Figure 1(a) and 1(b). Movement of the slider

                                                                                                              1
Concrete Solutions 09                                                                               Paper 7a-3
generates a dynamic frictional force that provides the required damping to absorb the earthquake energy.
Friction at the interface is dependent on the contact between the Teflon-coated slider and the stainless
steel surface, which increases with pressure. Values of the friction coefficient ranging between 3% to 10%
are considered reasonable for a FPS to be effective, Wang (1).

The isolator period is a function of the radius of curvature (R) of the concave surface. The natural period is
independent of the mass of the supported structure, and is determined from the pendulum equation:
T = 2π R / g                                                                                        (1)

where g is the acceleration due to gravity.
The horizontal stiffness (KH) of the system, which provides the restoring capability, is provided by:
kH = W / R                                                                                          (2)

where W is the weight of the structure.
The movement of the slider generates a dynamic friction force that provides the required damping for
absorbing earthquake energy. The base shear V, transmitted to the structure as the bearing slides to a
distance (D), away from the neutral position, includes the restoring forces and the friction forces as can be
seen on the following equation, where μ is the friction coefficient:
           W
V = μW +     D                                                                                      (3)
           R
The characterised constant (Q) of the isolation system is the maximum frictional force, which is defined as:
Q = μW                                                                                              (4)

The effective stiffness (keff) of the isolation system is a function of the estimated largest bearing
displacement (D), for a given value of μ and R, and is determined by:
                  μW       W
k eff = V / D =        +                                                                            (5)
                  D        R
A typical hysteresis loop of a FPS can be idealized as shown in Figure 1(c).

                                                                        Force
                                                                            Vmax
                                                                                     1
                                                                             Q kH
                                                                                             keff
                               (a)                                                       1          Dmax
                                                                                               Displacement




                               (b)
                                                                                   (c)

 Figure 1. Motion in a FPS (a) initial condition, (b) displaced condition at maximum displacement,
                               (c) Idealized Hysteresis Loop of a FPS
The dissipated energy (area inside the hysteretic loop) for one cycle of sliding, with amplitude (D), can be
estimated as:
E D = 4 μWD                                                                                         (6)

Thus the damping of the system can be estimated as:


                                                                                                                 2
Concrete Solutions 09                                                                                       Paper 7a-3
         ED               2   μ
β=                    =                                                                                     (7)
      4πk eff D   2
                          π D/R+μ

2.2       Lead-Plug Bearings (LPB)

The elastomeric LPB which are generally used for base isolation of structures consist of two steel fixing
plates located at the top and bottom of the bearing, several alternating layers of rubber and steel shims,
and a central lead core as shown in Figure 2(a). The elastomeric material provides the isolation
component with lateral flexibility; the lead core provides energy dissipation (or damping), while the internal
steel shims enhance the vertical load capacity whilst minimizing bulging. All elements contribute to the
lateral stiffness. The steel shims, together with the top and bottom steel fixing plates, also confine plastic
deformation of the central lead core. The rubber layers deform laterally during seismic excitation of the
structure, allowing the structure to translate horizontally, and the bearing to absorb energy when the lead
core yields.

The nonlinear behavior of a LPB isolator can be effectively idealized in terms of a bilinear force-deflection
curve, with constant values throughout multiple cycles of loading as shown on Figure 2(b).

                                                                             Force
                                                                                Vmax
                                                                                             1
                                                                                       kd
                                                                                 Q
                                                                                                     keff
                                                                                        ki       1
                                                                                                                   Dmax
                                                                                       Dy
                                                                                                            Displacement




                                  (a)                                                  (b)
               Figure 2. LPB isolator (a) components, (b) Idealized Hysteresis Loop of a LPB

The natural period of the isolated LPB system is provided by:

            W
T = 2π                                                                                                      (8)
           k eff g

The characterised strength (Q) is effectively equal to the yield force (Fy,) of the lead plug. The yield stress
of the lead plug is usually taken as being around 10MPa. The effective stiffness (keff ) of the LPB, at a
horizontal displacement (D) being larger than the yield displacement (Dy) may be defined in terms of the
post-elastic stiffness (kd,) and characteristic strength (Q), with the following equation:
k eff = k d + Q / D                                                                                         (9)

As a rule of thumb for LPB isolators, the initial stiffness (ki) is usually taken as 10 x kd , Naeim et al (2).

The energy dissipated for one cycle of sliding, with amplitude (D) can be estimated as:
E D = 4Q ( D − D y )                                                                                        (10)

Following on from this assumption, it has been shown by Naeim et al (2) that the effective percentage of
critical damping provided by the isolator can be obtained from:

                                                                                                                           3
Concrete Solutions 09                                                                      Paper 7a-3
        ED               2 Q ( D − Q / 9k I
β=                   =                                                                      (11)
     4πk eff D   2
                         π (k i D + Q) D

3.       Model-building Configuration
A reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame was adopted as the structural system for the analysis
building. Figure 3 (a) and 3(b) show the structural configuration of the building in plan.




                                   (a)                                          (b)
          Figure 3. Structural configuration plans (a) 1st to 3rd floors. (b) 4th and 5th floors.

Self weight of the structure was based on a concrete density (γ ) = 24 kN/m3. Super-dead loads of 1 kN/m2
was also applied to represent floor finishes, and 140 mm thick, 2.5-m high hollow masonry partitions with
a density of (γ ) = 15 kN/m3 were considered to contribute as a line-load along beams of 4.9 kN/m. The
imposed (live) load applied in each floor was taken as 2 kN/m2. Story heights were taken as 3 m.

The Universal Building Code was considered in relation to seismic classification and variables, so as to
enable consistency of symbols and nomenclature throughout the paper. Most international standards
including AS 1170.4:2007 are either based on, or align significantly with, UBC 1997(3). It was assumed
that the building ‘model’ was located in a Seismic Zone 4 of source Type A, and rests on a soil profile
Type C.


4.       Design Parameters
According to Mayes et al (4), an effective seismic isolation system should have the following
characteristics:

•    sufficient horizontal flexibility to increase the structural period and accommodate spectral demands of
     the installation (except for very soft soil sites),
•    sufficient energy dissipation capacity to limit displacement to a practical level,
•    adequate rigidity to enable the building structure to behave similarly to a fixed base building under
     general service loadings.

As recommended by both Naeim et al (2) and Mayes et al (4), a target period (T) of 2.2 seconds was
adopted for the isolated structure — approximately 3 times the fixed-base fundamental period (TF ) of 0.7
seconds.

Following UBC 1997, the target design displacement can be calculated as:



                                                                                                          4
Concrete Solutions 09                                                                     Paper 7a-3
       ( g / 4π 2 )C VD T
DD =                                                                                      (12)
              BD
where CVD is a seismic coefficient, and BD is a damping coefficient which is a function of the effective
damping β.

From UBC 1997 Table 16-R, CVD = 0.56. An affective damping of 15% was assumed for both LPB and
FPS — to be confirmed at the end of the design. From Equation 12, the design displacement = 220 mm.

The effective stiffness for both bearing types was calculated following the formulas presented previously.
Properties including damping, hardness, modulus of rigidity, modulus of elasticity and poisons ratio (for
LPB), and friction coefficient (for FPS) were adopted from manufacturer’s data.

As the performance of LPB isolators is weight dependant, three different sizes were incorporated in the
model. The positions nominated in Figure 5 were adopted to promote an economical design. Final design
parameters and details for each isolator type are provided following.

Detailed design calculations have been omitted for clarity, however iterative calculation is required to
ascertain effective stiffness and effective damping as both are typically displacement dependent.

Figures 4(a) & 4(b) display cross-sectional details for isolator characteristics summarised in Tables 1 and
2 respectively.




                                  R=1200mm




                            (a)                                                (b)
             Figure 4. Geometrical characteristics of Base Isolators (a) FPS. (b) LPB Type A

                                 Table 1. Design Parameters of FPS isolators.
  Symbol            Value   Nomenclature
  T (sec)            2.2    (Design Period)
   β (%)              15    (Effective damping)
     BD              1.38   (Damping factor)
  DD (mm)            220    (Design displacement Eq. 12)
  R (mm)            1200    (radius of curvature, calculated from Eq. 1)
       μ            0.057   (friction coefficient)
                            (Force reduction factor, UBC 1997 Table A-16-E, Concrete special moment
       RI             2.0
                            resisting frame)
   W (kN)           7318    (Total weight of the building)
 Keff (kN/m)        7961    (Total effective stiffness Eq. 5)
 kH (kN/m)          6085    (Non-linear stiffness Eq. 2 )
                    31033
  ki (kN/m)                 (Elastic stiffness, taken as 51kH)
                      0
   Q (kN)            416    (Frictional force Eq. 4)
   Dy (m)            1.4    (Yield displacement calculated as Q / ( ki- kH )
    β (%)            14.9   (Check of assumed effective damping Eq. 7)

                                                                                                         5
Concrete Solutions 09                                                                     Paper 7a-3
                          Table 2. Design Parameters of LPB isolators.
 Parameter      Value Nomenclature
  T (sec)        2.2  (Design period)
   β (%)          15  (Effective damping)
     BD          1.38 (Damping factor)
  DD (mm)        220  (Design displacement Eq. 12)
  G (MPa)        0.45 (Shear modulus)
  T (sec)        2.2  (Design period)
                       Isolator            Nomenclature
 Parameter
                Type A Type B Type C
  Wi (kN)        1030     740       510    (Axial load on isolator)
 Keff (kN/m)      840     604       416    (Effective stiffness calculated from Eq. 8)
 ED (kN-m)       38.9     28.0      19.3   (Global energy dissipated per cycle, calculated from Eq. 11)
   Q (kN)        43.9     31.5      21.7   (Short term yield force, calculated form Eq. 10)
 Kd (kN/m)        642     461       318    (Inelastic stiffness, calculated form Eq.9)
 Ki (kN/m)       6422    4614       3180   (Elastic stiffness, taken as 10kd)
   Kd / Ki       0.10     0.10      0.10   (Stiffness ratio)
  Dy (mm)         7.6     7.6        7.6   (Yield displacement, calculated as Q/9 kd)
  Fy (kN)        48.8     35.0      24.1   (Yield Force calculated as kiDy)




                         Figure 5. Location of LPB isolators Type A, B and C.
5.      Modal Analysis

SAP2000 structural analysis software is capable of Time History Analysis, including Multiple Base
Excitiation. SAP2000 facilitates the dynamic modeling of base isolators as link elements, which can be
assigned various stiffness properties. This stiffness values for both FPS and LPB isolators were calculated
as detailed in previous sections of this paper. Calculations associated with the following summary and
totaling some one-hundred pages have been excluded from the paper.

Table 3 provides the fundamental period for the three cases studied: structure with fixed base; with FPS
isolators; and with LPB isolators, as derived from an SAP2000 modal analysis. It can be seen that the
periods obtained for both types of isolator are close to the target period (T = 2.2 sec) recommended by
Naeim et al (2) and Mayes et al (4). Figure 6 shows the shape of the first mode of vibration for the 3
models. In addition to influencing fundamental period Figure 6 shows the isolators’ influence on modal
shape.
                                     Table 3. Fundamental Periods
                                  Model                 Fundamental Period, T (sec)
                                Fixed Base                         0.73
                                   LPB                             2.23
                                   FPS                             2.05

                                                                                                         6
Concrete Solutions 09                                                                       Paper 7a-3




                 (a)                                  (b)                                (c)
 Figure 6. First mode of vibration for (a) fixed base building, (b) FPS isolated building and (c) LPB
                                           isolated building.
6.       Time History Analysis

A nonlinear analysis was carried out in SAP2000 in order to test the response of the structural systems,
and to validate isolator functionality. The models were subjected to the following historical seismic time-
history records:

     •   1940 Imperial Valley Earthquake, El Centro Record (Richter Scale 7.1),
     •   1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake, El Centro Record, Array #5 (Richter Scale 6.4),
     •   1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, Los Gatos Record (Richter Scale 7.1),
     •   1994 Northridge Earthquake, Newhall Record (Richter Scale 6.6),
     •   1995 Aigion Earthquake, Greece (Richter Scale approx. 5)

A seismologist is of invaluable assistance when selecting applicable time-histories, however guidance for
selecting scaling records can be gleaned from codes, Kelly (5). The events chosen for consideration in
this paper represent several of the major earthquakes in recorded history, with the 1995 Aigion
Earthquake in Greece being of similar magnitude to the Newcastle earthquake of 1989 (Richter Scale 5.6)

Figure 7 shows maximum response values for each of the earthquake records for roof acceleration,
elastic base shear, inter-storey drift, and isolator displacements.

Maximum roof acceleration is dominated by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake record which yields a value
of about 36 m/sec2 for the fixed base structure, while for the isolated structures is in the order of 8.5
m/sec2 (76% reduction) (see Figure 7(a)).

Maximum elastic base shears are dominated also by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. An elastic base
shear of approximately 120%W (where W is the building’s weight) for the fixed base building is reduced to
35%W (68% reduction) and 45%W (63% reduction) for LPB and FPS isolators respectively (see Figure
7(b)).

Maximum Inter-storey drifts for fixed base and isolator cases are again generated by the 1989 Loma
Prieta Earthquake, with values of about 129mm for the fixed base structure and 25mm (81% reduction)
and 35mm (73% reduction) for LPB and FPS respectively (see Figure (c)). The drift ratio derived for Level-
1 of the fixed base structure is 4.3%, about twice the maximum limit of 2% imposed by the UBC 1997. The
FPS isolated structure displays a value of 1.15% which is well under the limit.

Figure 7(d) shows maximum isolator displacements in the order of 473mm and 469mm. It can be seen in
Figure 7(e) that these values are round 215% of the isolator design displacement of 220 mm, indicating
that both isolator systems would fail during the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake and 1994 Northridge
Earthquake.


                                                                                                         7
Concrete Solutions 09                                                                                                                                                                    Paper 7a-3
Force-Displacement hysteresis loops for the FPS and LPB isolator (Type A), as subjected to the 1989
Loma Prieta earthquake record, are provided in Figures 8(a) and 8(b). These curves follow the
mathematical models presented in section 2 of this paper. Elastic and post-elastic stiffness can be
obtained as the slopes of the first two initial segments.

                                                     Roof Acceleration                                                                                                  Elastic Base Shear
                           40                                                                                                             140
                           35
                                     LBS                                                                                                             LRB
                                                                                                                                          120
Acceleration (m/sec/sec)




                                     FPS                                                                                                             FPS
                           30




                                                                                                             V / W (%)
                                     Fixed Base                                                                                           100
                           25                                                                                                                        Fixed Base
                                                                                                                                           80
                           20
                                                                                                                                           60
                           15
                                                                                                                                           40
                           10
                                                                                                                                           20
                            5
                            0                                                                                                               0
                                    1940 El    1979 El       1989 Loma        1994        1995 Aigion                                               1940 El       1979 El    1989 Loma      1994       1995 Aigion
                                    Centro     Centro          Prieta       Northridge                                                              Centro        Centro       Prieta     Northridge
                                                       Earthquake Record                                                                                                Earthquake Record


                                                               (a)                                                                                                            (b)

                                               1st Floor Inter - Story Drift                                                                                         Isolator Displacement
                           140                                                                                                             500
                                      LRB                                                                                                            LRB
                                                                                                                                           450
                                                                                                             Isolator Displacement (mm)

                           120                                                                                                                       FPS
                                      FPS                                                                                                  400
                           100                                                                                                             350
                                      Fixed Base
                                                                                                                                           300
               Drift (mm)




                            80
                                                                                                                                           250
                            60                                                                                                             200
                            40                                                                                                             150
                                                                                                                                           100
                            20
                                                                                                                                            50
                                0                                                                                                               0
                                     1940 El       1979 El    1989 Loma        1994         1995 Aigion                                              1940 El      1979 El     1989 Loma     1994     1995 Aigion
                                     Centro        Centro       Prieta       Northridge                                                              Centro       Centro        Prieta    Northridge
                                                         Earthquake Record                                                                                             Earthquake Record
                                                              (c)                                                                                                           (d)
                                                                                           Time History Displacement / Design Value
                                                                     250%
                                                                                 LRB
                                                                                 FPS
                                                                     200%


                                                                     150%


                                                                     100%


                                                                     50%


                                                                      0%
                                                                                1940 El        1979 El       1989 Loma                                 1994        1995 Aigion
                                                                                Centro         Centro          Prieta                                Northridge
                                                                                                          Earthquake Record

                                                                                                                 (e)
                           Figure 7. Comparison of Response to the 5 earthquake records (a) roof acceleration, (b) elastic
                           base shear (c) 1st floor inter-story drift, (d) isolator displacement, (e) time history displacement /
                                                               design value utilization ratio.


                                                                                                                                                                                                           8
Concrete Solutions 09                                                                                                                       Paper 7a-3
The energy dissipated by each isolator is provided by the area inside each loop cycle. Effective damping
can be calculated using Equations 7 or 11 and compared with the assumed design value. Note that there
is seemingly an anomaly present in Figure 8 (a), as maximum ‘-ve’ deflection for the FPS isolator
corresponds to a reduction in elastic base shear. This anomaly was evident only for the Loma Prieta
earthquake, and further study is required to ascertain why this issue occurred.




                                                           (a)                                                            (b)
   Figure 8. 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake Record. Force-displacement hysteresis loops for (a) FPS
                                  isolator (b) LPB isolator Type A.

                                                               Lead Plug Bearing               Friction Pendulum System             Fixed Base
                                      40.0
           Acceleration (m/sec/sec)




                                      20.0

                                       0.0

                                      -20.0

                                      -40.0
                                                       0       5                10                 15                20                25                30
                                                                                                Time (sec)

                                                                   Lead Plug Bearing           Friction Pendulum System            Fixed Base
                                  9000
  Base Shear (kN)




                                  4500

                                           0

                            -4500

                            -9000
                                                   0       5                   10                  15               20                 25                30
                                                                                               Time (sec)

                                                                           Lead Plug Bearing            Friction Pendulum System
                                  500
Isolator Displacement




                                  250
         (mm)




                                       0

                           -250

                           -500
                                               0           5                   10                 15                20                25                 30
                                                                                               Time (sec)

     Figure 9. Time-history results for 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake record. (a) Roof acceleration, (b)
                               elastic base shear, (c) isolator displacement.

                                                                                                                                                              9
Concrete Solutions 09                                                                         Paper 7a-3
Finally, time-history results for the Loma Prieta earthquake record are shown in Figure 9. It can be noticed
from Figures 9(a) and 9(b) how the response in time of the isolated system is significantly less than the
fixed base structure, specially between the first 10 to 15 seconds of the seismic excitation. Figure 9(c)
compares the two types of isolators’ lateral displacements, which appears to be less for the FPS.

7.      Conclusions & Recommendations

It can be seen that resultant accelerations, elastic base shears and inter-storey drifts were all effectively
reduced by the adoption of Lead-Plug and Friction-Pendulum isolator systems, resulting in significant
improvement in modeled building performance, and a very likely minimisation of post-event losses. For
the ground conditions and sway-frame structural system adopted, LPB & FPS base isolation would be
excellent options to reduce structural and non-structural damage, and to protect building contents. Both
the LPB and FP systems provided a comparative reduction in roof level accelerations (up to 76%);
however the LPB provided the best reduction in elastic base shear, and inter-storey drift (at first floor). For
the adopted bearing characteristics, the FPS provided greatest control of isolator displacement — a
significant serviceability constraint with respect to boundary conditions.
Response of the isolated structural framing systems was dominated by the time-history record of the 1989
Loma Prieta Earthquake. The second highest intensity experienced by the test structure was due to 1994
Northbridge earthquake. The isolator design displacement (being a function of the nominated isolator
characteristics) of both systems was exceeded by these earthquakes, indicating alternate properties/sizes
would be required to accommodate higher intensity events.
Further work is recommended to establish applicability of these base-isolation systems for the common
braced-frame structural framing paradigm, and also to confirm suitability (or lack thereof) for high-rise
construction, and or use on deep alluvial soil strata as evident in Australian centers such as Newcastle.


8.      References

     1. Wang, Yen-Po, “Fundamentals of Seismic Base Isolation”, International Training programs for
        Seismic Design of Building Structures.
     2. Naeim, F. & Kelly, J. M., “Design of Seismic Isolated Structures: From Theory to Practice”, John
        Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1999.
     3. International Conference of Building Officials, ICBO (1997), “Earthquake Regulations for Seismic-
        Isolated Structures”, Uniform Building Code, Appendix Chapter 16, Whittier, CA.
     4. Mayes, R. & Naeim, F., “Design of Structures with Seismic Isolation”, Earthquake Engineering
        Handbook, University of Hawaii, CRC Press, 2003.
     5. Kelly, T. E., “Base Isolation of Structures Design Guidelines”, Holmes Consulting Group Ltd, July
        2001.




                                                                                                            10

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Lateral load resisting systems
Lateral load resisting systemsLateral load resisting systems
Lateral load resisting systemsAhmad T.
 
Base isolation.ppt [Autosaved] [Autosaved]
Base isolation.ppt [Autosaved] [Autosaved]Base isolation.ppt [Autosaved] [Autosaved]
Base isolation.ppt [Autosaved] [Autosaved]Sumit Srivastav
 
Vibration control system
Vibration control systemVibration control system
Vibration control systemKok Kei Liew
 
Theory of Plates and Shells
Theory of Plates and ShellsTheory of Plates and Shells
Theory of Plates and ShellsDrASSayyad
 
Moment Resisting Frame.pdf
Moment Resisting Frame.pdfMoment Resisting Frame.pdf
Moment Resisting Frame.pdfZeinab Awada
 
Base isolation and its Application By Mukesh Singh Ghuraiya
Base isolation and its Application By Mukesh Singh GhuraiyaBase isolation and its Application By Mukesh Singh Ghuraiya
Base isolation and its Application By Mukesh Singh GhuraiyaMukesh Singh Ghuraiya
 
Base isolation earthquake resistance wooden house
Base isolation earthquake resistance wooden houseBase isolation earthquake resistance wooden house
Base isolation earthquake resistance wooden houseTwinkal Jambu
 
Soil structure interaction amec presentation-final
Soil structure interaction amec presentation-finalSoil structure interaction amec presentation-final
Soil structure interaction amec presentation-finalAhmad Hallak PEng
 
Diagrid Structures: Introduction & Literature Survey
Diagrid Structures: Introduction & Literature SurveyDiagrid Structures: Introduction & Literature Survey
Diagrid Structures: Introduction & Literature SurveyUday Mathe
 
Comparative study on solid and coupled shear wall
Comparative study on solid and coupled shear wallComparative study on solid and coupled shear wall
Comparative study on solid and coupled shear wallIAEME Publication
 
Formulation of Two-Dimensional Elasticity Problems.ppt
Formulation of Two-Dimensional Elasticity Problems.pptFormulation of Two-Dimensional Elasticity Problems.ppt
Formulation of Two-Dimensional Elasticity Problems.pptSamirsinh Parmar
 
Earthquake Load Calculation (base shear method)
Earthquake Load Calculation (base shear method)Earthquake Load Calculation (base shear method)
Earthquake Load Calculation (base shear method)Shekh Muhsen Uddin Ahmed
 
From force-based to displacement-based seismic design. What comes next?
From force-based to displacement-based seismic design. What comes next?From force-based to displacement-based seismic design. What comes next?
From force-based to displacement-based seismic design. What comes next?Academia de Ingeniería de México
 
Base isolation techniques-Earthquake Engineering
Base isolation techniques-Earthquake EngineeringBase isolation techniques-Earthquake Engineering
Base isolation techniques-Earthquake EngineeringGokul Ayyappan
 
Base isolation topic as per jntu syllabus for m.tech 1st year structures
Base isolation topic as per jntu syllabus for m.tech 1st year structuresBase isolation topic as per jntu syllabus for m.tech 1st year structures
Base isolation topic as per jntu syllabus for m.tech 1st year structuresvaignan
 

Was ist angesagt? (20)

response spectra
response spectraresponse spectra
response spectra
 
Base isolation
Base isolationBase isolation
Base isolation
 
Lateral load resisting systems
Lateral load resisting systemsLateral load resisting systems
Lateral load resisting systems
 
TUNED LIQUID DAMPER
TUNED LIQUID DAMPERTUNED LIQUID DAMPER
TUNED LIQUID DAMPER
 
Base isolation.ppt [Autosaved] [Autosaved]
Base isolation.ppt [Autosaved] [Autosaved]Base isolation.ppt [Autosaved] [Autosaved]
Base isolation.ppt [Autosaved] [Autosaved]
 
Vibration control system
Vibration control systemVibration control system
Vibration control system
 
Theory of Plates and Shells
Theory of Plates and ShellsTheory of Plates and Shells
Theory of Plates and Shells
 
Moment Resisting Frame.pdf
Moment Resisting Frame.pdfMoment Resisting Frame.pdf
Moment Resisting Frame.pdf
 
Base isolation and its Application By Mukesh Singh Ghuraiya
Base isolation and its Application By Mukesh Singh GhuraiyaBase isolation and its Application By Mukesh Singh Ghuraiya
Base isolation and its Application By Mukesh Singh Ghuraiya
 
Base isolation earthquake resistance wooden house
Base isolation earthquake resistance wooden houseBase isolation earthquake resistance wooden house
Base isolation earthquake resistance wooden house
 
Design notes for seismic design of building accordance to Eurocode 8
Design notes for seismic design of building accordance to Eurocode 8 Design notes for seismic design of building accordance to Eurocode 8
Design notes for seismic design of building accordance to Eurocode 8
 
Soil structure interaction amec presentation-final
Soil structure interaction amec presentation-finalSoil structure interaction amec presentation-final
Soil structure interaction amec presentation-final
 
Diagrid Structures: Introduction & Literature Survey
Diagrid Structures: Introduction & Literature SurveyDiagrid Structures: Introduction & Literature Survey
Diagrid Structures: Introduction & Literature Survey
 
Comparative study on solid and coupled shear wall
Comparative study on solid and coupled shear wallComparative study on solid and coupled shear wall
Comparative study on solid and coupled shear wall
 
Formulation of Two-Dimensional Elasticity Problems.ppt
Formulation of Two-Dimensional Elasticity Problems.pptFormulation of Two-Dimensional Elasticity Problems.ppt
Formulation of Two-Dimensional Elasticity Problems.ppt
 
seismic ubc -97
seismic ubc -97seismic ubc -97
seismic ubc -97
 
Earthquake Load Calculation (base shear method)
Earthquake Load Calculation (base shear method)Earthquake Load Calculation (base shear method)
Earthquake Load Calculation (base shear method)
 
From force-based to displacement-based seismic design. What comes next?
From force-based to displacement-based seismic design. What comes next?From force-based to displacement-based seismic design. What comes next?
From force-based to displacement-based seismic design. What comes next?
 
Base isolation techniques-Earthquake Engineering
Base isolation techniques-Earthquake EngineeringBase isolation techniques-Earthquake Engineering
Base isolation techniques-Earthquake Engineering
 
Base isolation topic as per jntu syllabus for m.tech 1st year structures
Base isolation topic as per jntu syllabus for m.tech 1st year structuresBase isolation topic as per jntu syllabus for m.tech 1st year structures
Base isolation topic as per jntu syllabus for m.tech 1st year structures
 

Andere mochten auch

Base Isolation(2000.12.28)
Base Isolation(2000.12.28)Base Isolation(2000.12.28)
Base Isolation(2000.12.28)mahadianto
 
Eatrhquake response of reinforced cocrete multi storey building with base iso...
Eatrhquake response of reinforced cocrete multi storey building with base iso...Eatrhquake response of reinforced cocrete multi storey building with base iso...
Eatrhquake response of reinforced cocrete multi storey building with base iso...eSAT Journals
 
Comparison of Two Similar Buildings with and without Base Isolation
Comparison of Two Similar Buildings with and without Base IsolationComparison of Two Similar Buildings with and without Base Isolation
Comparison of Two Similar Buildings with and without Base IsolationIJARIIT
 
Base isolator presentation
Base isolator presentationBase isolator presentation
Base isolator presentationpremkumar mk
 
Base isolation
Base isolationBase isolation
Base isolationpremsai05
 
Comparision of building for sesmic response by using base isolation
Comparision of building for sesmic response by using base isolationComparision of building for sesmic response by using base isolation
Comparision of building for sesmic response by using base isolationeSAT Journals
 
Analitical and Experimental Studies to Reduce Seismic Vibratioin in Critical ...
Analitical and Experimental Studies to Reduce Seismic Vibratioin in Critical ...Analitical and Experimental Studies to Reduce Seismic Vibratioin in Critical ...
Analitical and Experimental Studies to Reduce Seismic Vibratioin in Critical ...Global Risk Forum GRFDavos
 
Study on laminated rubber bearing base isolators for seismic protection of st...
Study on laminated rubber bearing base isolators for seismic protection of st...Study on laminated rubber bearing base isolators for seismic protection of st...
Study on laminated rubber bearing base isolators for seismic protection of st...eSAT Journals
 
Seismic performance of structure with fixed base, base isolated structure and...
Seismic performance of structure with fixed base, base isolated structure and...Seismic performance of structure with fixed base, base isolated structure and...
Seismic performance of structure with fixed base, base isolated structure and...eSAT Journals
 
DESIGN OF ISOLATOR (LEAD RUBBER BEARING)
DESIGN OF ISOLATOR (LEAD RUBBER BEARING)DESIGN OF ISOLATOR (LEAD RUBBER BEARING)
DESIGN OF ISOLATOR (LEAD RUBBER BEARING)premkumar mk
 
Devices for vibration isolation
Devices for vibration isolationDevices for vibration isolation
Devices for vibration isolationPruthviraj A
 
STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING USING PENDULUM PRINCIPLE FOR BUCKET TYPE ...
STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING USING PENDULUM PRINCIPLE FOR BUCKET TYPE ...STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING USING PENDULUM PRINCIPLE FOR BUCKET TYPE ...
STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING USING PENDULUM PRINCIPLE FOR BUCKET TYPE ...Pranita Thorat
 
ELASTOMERIC BASE ISOLATION SYSTEM FOR SEISMIC MITIGATION OF LOW-RISE STRUCTURES
ELASTOMERIC BASE ISOLATION SYSTEM FOR SEISMIC MITIGATION OF LOW-RISE STRUCTURESELASTOMERIC BASE ISOLATION SYSTEM FOR SEISMIC MITIGATION OF LOW-RISE STRUCTURES
ELASTOMERIC BASE ISOLATION SYSTEM FOR SEISMIC MITIGATION OF LOW-RISE STRUCTURESIAEME Publication
 
137518876 bearing-capacity-from-spt
137518876 bearing-capacity-from-spt 137518876 bearing-capacity-from-spt
137518876 bearing-capacity-from-spt James Chan
 
Base isolation case study PDF
Base isolation case study PDFBase isolation case study PDF
Base isolation case study PDFchetansingh999
 
Earthquake resistant construction
Earthquake resistant constructionEarthquake resistant construction
Earthquake resistant constructionHarsh Jain
 

Andere mochten auch (20)

Base Isolation(2000.12.28)
Base Isolation(2000.12.28)Base Isolation(2000.12.28)
Base Isolation(2000.12.28)
 
Eatrhquake response of reinforced cocrete multi storey building with base iso...
Eatrhquake response of reinforced cocrete multi storey building with base iso...Eatrhquake response of reinforced cocrete multi storey building with base iso...
Eatrhquake response of reinforced cocrete multi storey building with base iso...
 
Comparison of Two Similar Buildings with and without Base Isolation
Comparison of Two Similar Buildings with and without Base IsolationComparison of Two Similar Buildings with and without Base Isolation
Comparison of Two Similar Buildings with and without Base Isolation
 
Base isolator presentation
Base isolator presentationBase isolator presentation
Base isolator presentation
 
Base isolation
Base isolationBase isolation
Base isolation
 
fulltext
fulltextfulltext
fulltext
 
Comparision of building for sesmic response by using base isolation
Comparision of building for sesmic response by using base isolationComparision of building for sesmic response by using base isolation
Comparision of building for sesmic response by using base isolation
 
Analitical and Experimental Studies to Reduce Seismic Vibratioin in Critical ...
Analitical and Experimental Studies to Reduce Seismic Vibratioin in Critical ...Analitical and Experimental Studies to Reduce Seismic Vibratioin in Critical ...
Analitical and Experimental Studies to Reduce Seismic Vibratioin in Critical ...
 
Study on laminated rubber bearing base isolators for seismic protection of st...
Study on laminated rubber bearing base isolators for seismic protection of st...Study on laminated rubber bearing base isolators for seismic protection of st...
Study on laminated rubber bearing base isolators for seismic protection of st...
 
Seismic performance of structure with fixed base, base isolated structure and...
Seismic performance of structure with fixed base, base isolated structure and...Seismic performance of structure with fixed base, base isolated structure and...
Seismic performance of structure with fixed base, base isolated structure and...
 
DESIGN OF ISOLATOR (LEAD RUBBER BEARING)
DESIGN OF ISOLATOR (LEAD RUBBER BEARING)DESIGN OF ISOLATOR (LEAD RUBBER BEARING)
DESIGN OF ISOLATOR (LEAD RUBBER BEARING)
 
Devices for vibration isolation
Devices for vibration isolationDevices for vibration isolation
Devices for vibration isolation
 
STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING USING PENDULUM PRINCIPLE FOR BUCKET TYPE ...
STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING USING PENDULUM PRINCIPLE FOR BUCKET TYPE ...STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING USING PENDULUM PRINCIPLE FOR BUCKET TYPE ...
STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING USING PENDULUM PRINCIPLE FOR BUCKET TYPE ...
 
Vibration isolation
Vibration isolationVibration isolation
Vibration isolation
 
ELASTOMERIC BASE ISOLATION SYSTEM FOR SEISMIC MITIGATION OF LOW-RISE STRUCTURES
ELASTOMERIC BASE ISOLATION SYSTEM FOR SEISMIC MITIGATION OF LOW-RISE STRUCTURESELASTOMERIC BASE ISOLATION SYSTEM FOR SEISMIC MITIGATION OF LOW-RISE STRUCTURES
ELASTOMERIC BASE ISOLATION SYSTEM FOR SEISMIC MITIGATION OF LOW-RISE STRUCTURES
 
137518876 bearing-capacity-from-spt
137518876 bearing-capacity-from-spt 137518876 bearing-capacity-from-spt
137518876 bearing-capacity-from-spt
 
Bse isolation and-seismic-consideration-in-civil-engineering
Bse isolation and-seismic-consideration-in-civil-engineeringBse isolation and-seismic-consideration-in-civil-engineering
Bse isolation and-seismic-consideration-in-civil-engineering
 
Base isolation case study PDF
Base isolation case study PDFBase isolation case study PDF
Base isolation case study PDF
 
Earthquake resistant construction
Earthquake resistant constructionEarthquake resistant construction
Earthquake resistant construction
 
Final report
Final reportFinal report
Final report
 

Ähnlich wie Seismic Protection of Structures with Base Isolation

Design alternative revetments pilarczyk2008+
Design alternative revetments pilarczyk2008+Design alternative revetments pilarczyk2008+
Design alternative revetments pilarczyk2008+Krystian Pilarczyk
 
Dissipative Capacity Analysis of Steel Buildings using Viscous Bracing Device
Dissipative Capacity Analysis of Steel Buildings using Viscous Bracing DeviceDissipative Capacity Analysis of Steel Buildings using Viscous Bracing Device
Dissipative Capacity Analysis of Steel Buildings using Viscous Bracing Deviceidescitation
 
IJCER (www.ijceronline.com) International Journal of computational Engineerin...
IJCER (www.ijceronline.com) International Journal of computational Engineerin...IJCER (www.ijceronline.com) International Journal of computational Engineerin...
IJCER (www.ijceronline.com) International Journal of computational Engineerin...ijceronline
 
Question Paper Nov-Dec-2018.pdf
Question Paper Nov-Dec-2018.pdfQuestion Paper Nov-Dec-2018.pdf
Question Paper Nov-Dec-2018.pdfVICTORYSUBIKSHI
 
Extradosed Bridges – Assessment of seismic damage using Ground Acceleration a...
Extradosed Bridges – Assessment of seismic damage using Ground Acceleration a...Extradosed Bridges – Assessment of seismic damage using Ground Acceleration a...
Extradosed Bridges – Assessment of seismic damage using Ground Acceleration a...irjes
 
Predictive model of moment of resistance for rectangular reinforced concrete ...
Predictive model of moment of resistance for rectangular reinforced concrete ...Predictive model of moment of resistance for rectangular reinforced concrete ...
Predictive model of moment of resistance for rectangular reinforced concrete ...Alexander Decker
 
04-LRFD Concept (Steel Structural Design & Prof. Shehab Mourad)
04-LRFD Concept (Steel Structural Design & Prof. Shehab Mourad)04-LRFD Concept (Steel Structural Design & Prof. Shehab Mourad)
04-LRFD Concept (Steel Structural Design & Prof. Shehab Mourad)Hossam Shafiq II
 
Prestressed concrete Course assignments, 2015
Prestressed concrete Course assignments, 2015Prestressed concrete Course assignments, 2015
Prestressed concrete Course assignments, 2015JanneHanka
 
Fulltext1509
Fulltext1509Fulltext1509
Fulltext1509pkarkantz
 
Fulltext1509
Fulltext1509Fulltext1509
Fulltext1509pkarkantz
 
10346 07 08 examination paper
10346 07 08 examination paper10346 07 08 examination paper
10346 07 08 examination paperEddy Ching
 
Deflections in PT elements pt structure for all pt slabs in civil industry.pdf
Deflections in PT elements pt structure for all pt slabs in civil industry.pdfDeflections in PT elements pt structure for all pt slabs in civil industry.pdf
Deflections in PT elements pt structure for all pt slabs in civil industry.pdfvijayvijay327286
 
1998 advanced firedesign
1998 advanced firedesign1998 advanced firedesign
1998 advanced firedesigntanhoi2000
 
Reinforced concrete Course assignments, 2020
Reinforced concrete Course assignments, 2020Reinforced concrete Course assignments, 2020
Reinforced concrete Course assignments, 2020JanneHanka
 
Hysteresis models otani
Hysteresis models otaniHysteresis models otani
Hysteresis models otaniManuel Miranda
 
Effect of Barrier Height on Nuclear Fusion
Effect of Barrier Height on Nuclear FusionEffect of Barrier Height on Nuclear Fusion
Effect of Barrier Height on Nuclear FusionIOSRJAP
 
World Trade Center Collapse
World Trade Center CollapseWorld Trade Center Collapse
World Trade Center CollapseLionel Wolberger
 

Ähnlich wie Seismic Protection of Structures with Base Isolation (20)

Design alternative revetments pilarczyk2008+
Design alternative revetments pilarczyk2008+Design alternative revetments pilarczyk2008+
Design alternative revetments pilarczyk2008+
 
Ingles
InglesIngles
Ingles
 
Dissipative Capacity Analysis of Steel Buildings using Viscous Bracing Device
Dissipative Capacity Analysis of Steel Buildings using Viscous Bracing DeviceDissipative Capacity Analysis of Steel Buildings using Viscous Bracing Device
Dissipative Capacity Analysis of Steel Buildings using Viscous Bracing Device
 
IJCER (www.ijceronline.com) International Journal of computational Engineerin...
IJCER (www.ijceronline.com) International Journal of computational Engineerin...IJCER (www.ijceronline.com) International Journal of computational Engineerin...
IJCER (www.ijceronline.com) International Journal of computational Engineerin...
 
Question Paper Nov-Dec-2018.pdf
Question Paper Nov-Dec-2018.pdfQuestion Paper Nov-Dec-2018.pdf
Question Paper Nov-Dec-2018.pdf
 
Extradosed Bridges – Assessment of seismic damage using Ground Acceleration a...
Extradosed Bridges – Assessment of seismic damage using Ground Acceleration a...Extradosed Bridges – Assessment of seismic damage using Ground Acceleration a...
Extradosed Bridges – Assessment of seismic damage using Ground Acceleration a...
 
Sdof
SdofSdof
Sdof
 
Predictive model of moment of resistance for rectangular reinforced concrete ...
Predictive model of moment of resistance for rectangular reinforced concrete ...Predictive model of moment of resistance for rectangular reinforced concrete ...
Predictive model of moment of resistance for rectangular reinforced concrete ...
 
04-LRFD Concept (Steel Structural Design & Prof. Shehab Mourad)
04-LRFD Concept (Steel Structural Design & Prof. Shehab Mourad)04-LRFD Concept (Steel Structural Design & Prof. Shehab Mourad)
04-LRFD Concept (Steel Structural Design & Prof. Shehab Mourad)
 
Prestressed concrete Course assignments, 2015
Prestressed concrete Course assignments, 2015Prestressed concrete Course assignments, 2015
Prestressed concrete Course assignments, 2015
 
Fulltext1509
Fulltext1509Fulltext1509
Fulltext1509
 
Fulltext1509
Fulltext1509Fulltext1509
Fulltext1509
 
10346 07 08 examination paper
10346 07 08 examination paper10346 07 08 examination paper
10346 07 08 examination paper
 
Deflections in PT elements pt structure for all pt slabs in civil industry.pdf
Deflections in PT elements pt structure for all pt slabs in civil industry.pdfDeflections in PT elements pt structure for all pt slabs in civil industry.pdf
Deflections in PT elements pt structure for all pt slabs in civil industry.pdf
 
1998 advanced firedesign
1998 advanced firedesign1998 advanced firedesign
1998 advanced firedesign
 
Springs.ppt
Springs.pptSprings.ppt
Springs.ppt
 
Reinforced concrete Course assignments, 2020
Reinforced concrete Course assignments, 2020Reinforced concrete Course assignments, 2020
Reinforced concrete Course assignments, 2020
 
Hysteresis models otani
Hysteresis models otaniHysteresis models otani
Hysteresis models otani
 
Effect of Barrier Height on Nuclear Fusion
Effect of Barrier Height on Nuclear FusionEffect of Barrier Height on Nuclear Fusion
Effect of Barrier Height on Nuclear Fusion
 
World Trade Center Collapse
World Trade Center CollapseWorld Trade Center Collapse
World Trade Center Collapse
 

Seismic Protection of Structures with Base Isolation

  • 1. Concrete Solutions 09 Paper 7a-3 Seismic Protection of Structures with Modern Base Isolation Technologies Luis Andrade1 and John Tuxworth2 1 Senior Structural Engineer, Green Leaf Engineers 2 Director, Green Leaf Engineers Synopsis: Increased resistance to earthquake forces is not always a desirable solution for buildings which house contents that are irreplaceable or simply more valuable than the actual primary structure (eg museums, data storage centres, etc). Base isolation can be employed to minimize inter-story drifts and floor accelerations via specially designed interfaces at the structural base, or at higher levels of the superstructure. This paper presents the design comparison of two isolation systems (lead-rubber bearings, and friction pendulum bearings) for a five-story reinforced concrete framed building. The response of the base-case, fixed-structure, and isolated systems is compared for dynamic analysis to actual historical records for five significant seismic events. Keywords: bearing, concrete, damping, dissipation, drift, isolation, inter-storey, lead-rubber, pendulum, seismic. 1. Introduction Conventionally, seismic design of building structures is based on the concept of increasing resistance against earthquake forces by employing the use of shear walls, braced frames, or moment-resistant frames. For stiff buildings these traditional methods often result in high floor accelerations, and large inter- story drifts for flexible buildings. With both scenarios building contents and nonstructural components may suffer significant damage during a major event, even if the structure itself remains basically intact. Obviously this is an undesirable outcome for buildings which house contents that are irreplaceable, or simply more costly and valuable than the actual primary structure (eg museums, data storage centers, etc). The concept of base isolation is increasingly being adopted in order to minimize inter-story drift and floor accelerations. In this instance the control of structural forces and motion is exercised through specially designed interfaces at the structural base — or potentially at a higher level of the superstructure — thus filtering out the actions transmitted from the ground. The effect of base isolation is to essentially uncouple the building from the ground. This paper presents the design comparison of two isolation systems — Friction Pendulum System (FPS) and Lead-Plug Bearings (LPB) — for a five-story reinforced concrete framed building. The response of the fixed-base structure is compared to base-isolated cases for five different historical time-history records for significant earthquake events. 2. Base Isolation Systems There are two common categories of large-displacement base (or seismic) isolation hardware: Sliding Bearings and Elastomeric Bearings. This paper considers Friction Pendulum Systems (FPS) and Lead- Plug-Bearings (LPB), which belong to the first and second categories respectively. 2.1 Friction Pendulum System (FPS) A FPS is comprised of a stainless steel concave surface, an articulated sliding element, and cover plate. The slider is finished with a self-lubricating composite liner (e.g. Teflon). During an earthquake, the articulated slider within the bearing, travels along the concave surface, causing the supported structure to move with gentle pendulum motions as illustrated in Figure 1(a) and 1(b). Movement of the slider 1
  • 2. Concrete Solutions 09 Paper 7a-3 generates a dynamic frictional force that provides the required damping to absorb the earthquake energy. Friction at the interface is dependent on the contact between the Teflon-coated slider and the stainless steel surface, which increases with pressure. Values of the friction coefficient ranging between 3% to 10% are considered reasonable for a FPS to be effective, Wang (1). The isolator period is a function of the radius of curvature (R) of the concave surface. The natural period is independent of the mass of the supported structure, and is determined from the pendulum equation: T = 2π R / g (1) where g is the acceleration due to gravity. The horizontal stiffness (KH) of the system, which provides the restoring capability, is provided by: kH = W / R (2) where W is the weight of the structure. The movement of the slider generates a dynamic friction force that provides the required damping for absorbing earthquake energy. The base shear V, transmitted to the structure as the bearing slides to a distance (D), away from the neutral position, includes the restoring forces and the friction forces as can be seen on the following equation, where μ is the friction coefficient: W V = μW + D (3) R The characterised constant (Q) of the isolation system is the maximum frictional force, which is defined as: Q = μW (4) The effective stiffness (keff) of the isolation system is a function of the estimated largest bearing displacement (D), for a given value of μ and R, and is determined by: μW W k eff = V / D = + (5) D R A typical hysteresis loop of a FPS can be idealized as shown in Figure 1(c). Force Vmax 1 Q kH keff (a) 1 Dmax Displacement (b) (c) Figure 1. Motion in a FPS (a) initial condition, (b) displaced condition at maximum displacement, (c) Idealized Hysteresis Loop of a FPS The dissipated energy (area inside the hysteretic loop) for one cycle of sliding, with amplitude (D), can be estimated as: E D = 4 μWD (6) Thus the damping of the system can be estimated as: 2
  • 3. Concrete Solutions 09 Paper 7a-3 ED 2 μ β= = (7) 4πk eff D 2 π D/R+μ 2.2 Lead-Plug Bearings (LPB) The elastomeric LPB which are generally used for base isolation of structures consist of two steel fixing plates located at the top and bottom of the bearing, several alternating layers of rubber and steel shims, and a central lead core as shown in Figure 2(a). The elastomeric material provides the isolation component with lateral flexibility; the lead core provides energy dissipation (or damping), while the internal steel shims enhance the vertical load capacity whilst minimizing bulging. All elements contribute to the lateral stiffness. The steel shims, together with the top and bottom steel fixing plates, also confine plastic deformation of the central lead core. The rubber layers deform laterally during seismic excitation of the structure, allowing the structure to translate horizontally, and the bearing to absorb energy when the lead core yields. The nonlinear behavior of a LPB isolator can be effectively idealized in terms of a bilinear force-deflection curve, with constant values throughout multiple cycles of loading as shown on Figure 2(b). Force Vmax 1 kd Q keff ki 1 Dmax Dy Displacement (a) (b) Figure 2. LPB isolator (a) components, (b) Idealized Hysteresis Loop of a LPB The natural period of the isolated LPB system is provided by: W T = 2π (8) k eff g The characterised strength (Q) is effectively equal to the yield force (Fy,) of the lead plug. The yield stress of the lead plug is usually taken as being around 10MPa. The effective stiffness (keff ) of the LPB, at a horizontal displacement (D) being larger than the yield displacement (Dy) may be defined in terms of the post-elastic stiffness (kd,) and characteristic strength (Q), with the following equation: k eff = k d + Q / D (9) As a rule of thumb for LPB isolators, the initial stiffness (ki) is usually taken as 10 x kd , Naeim et al (2). The energy dissipated for one cycle of sliding, with amplitude (D) can be estimated as: E D = 4Q ( D − D y ) (10) Following on from this assumption, it has been shown by Naeim et al (2) that the effective percentage of critical damping provided by the isolator can be obtained from: 3
  • 4. Concrete Solutions 09 Paper 7a-3 ED 2 Q ( D − Q / 9k I β= = (11) 4πk eff D 2 π (k i D + Q) D 3. Model-building Configuration A reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame was adopted as the structural system for the analysis building. Figure 3 (a) and 3(b) show the structural configuration of the building in plan. (a) (b) Figure 3. Structural configuration plans (a) 1st to 3rd floors. (b) 4th and 5th floors. Self weight of the structure was based on a concrete density (γ ) = 24 kN/m3. Super-dead loads of 1 kN/m2 was also applied to represent floor finishes, and 140 mm thick, 2.5-m high hollow masonry partitions with a density of (γ ) = 15 kN/m3 were considered to contribute as a line-load along beams of 4.9 kN/m. The imposed (live) load applied in each floor was taken as 2 kN/m2. Story heights were taken as 3 m. The Universal Building Code was considered in relation to seismic classification and variables, so as to enable consistency of symbols and nomenclature throughout the paper. Most international standards including AS 1170.4:2007 are either based on, or align significantly with, UBC 1997(3). It was assumed that the building ‘model’ was located in a Seismic Zone 4 of source Type A, and rests on a soil profile Type C. 4. Design Parameters According to Mayes et al (4), an effective seismic isolation system should have the following characteristics: • sufficient horizontal flexibility to increase the structural period and accommodate spectral demands of the installation (except for very soft soil sites), • sufficient energy dissipation capacity to limit displacement to a practical level, • adequate rigidity to enable the building structure to behave similarly to a fixed base building under general service loadings. As recommended by both Naeim et al (2) and Mayes et al (4), a target period (T) of 2.2 seconds was adopted for the isolated structure — approximately 3 times the fixed-base fundamental period (TF ) of 0.7 seconds. Following UBC 1997, the target design displacement can be calculated as: 4
  • 5. Concrete Solutions 09 Paper 7a-3 ( g / 4π 2 )C VD T DD = (12) BD where CVD is a seismic coefficient, and BD is a damping coefficient which is a function of the effective damping β. From UBC 1997 Table 16-R, CVD = 0.56. An affective damping of 15% was assumed for both LPB and FPS — to be confirmed at the end of the design. From Equation 12, the design displacement = 220 mm. The effective stiffness for both bearing types was calculated following the formulas presented previously. Properties including damping, hardness, modulus of rigidity, modulus of elasticity and poisons ratio (for LPB), and friction coefficient (for FPS) were adopted from manufacturer’s data. As the performance of LPB isolators is weight dependant, three different sizes were incorporated in the model. The positions nominated in Figure 5 were adopted to promote an economical design. Final design parameters and details for each isolator type are provided following. Detailed design calculations have been omitted for clarity, however iterative calculation is required to ascertain effective stiffness and effective damping as both are typically displacement dependent. Figures 4(a) & 4(b) display cross-sectional details for isolator characteristics summarised in Tables 1 and 2 respectively. R=1200mm (a) (b) Figure 4. Geometrical characteristics of Base Isolators (a) FPS. (b) LPB Type A Table 1. Design Parameters of FPS isolators. Symbol Value Nomenclature T (sec) 2.2 (Design Period) β (%) 15 (Effective damping) BD 1.38 (Damping factor) DD (mm) 220 (Design displacement Eq. 12) R (mm) 1200 (radius of curvature, calculated from Eq. 1) μ 0.057 (friction coefficient) (Force reduction factor, UBC 1997 Table A-16-E, Concrete special moment RI 2.0 resisting frame) W (kN) 7318 (Total weight of the building) Keff (kN/m) 7961 (Total effective stiffness Eq. 5) kH (kN/m) 6085 (Non-linear stiffness Eq. 2 ) 31033 ki (kN/m) (Elastic stiffness, taken as 51kH) 0 Q (kN) 416 (Frictional force Eq. 4) Dy (m) 1.4 (Yield displacement calculated as Q / ( ki- kH ) β (%) 14.9 (Check of assumed effective damping Eq. 7) 5
  • 6. Concrete Solutions 09 Paper 7a-3 Table 2. Design Parameters of LPB isolators. Parameter Value Nomenclature T (sec) 2.2 (Design period) β (%) 15 (Effective damping) BD 1.38 (Damping factor) DD (mm) 220 (Design displacement Eq. 12) G (MPa) 0.45 (Shear modulus) T (sec) 2.2 (Design period) Isolator Nomenclature Parameter Type A Type B Type C Wi (kN) 1030 740 510 (Axial load on isolator) Keff (kN/m) 840 604 416 (Effective stiffness calculated from Eq. 8) ED (kN-m) 38.9 28.0 19.3 (Global energy dissipated per cycle, calculated from Eq. 11) Q (kN) 43.9 31.5 21.7 (Short term yield force, calculated form Eq. 10) Kd (kN/m) 642 461 318 (Inelastic stiffness, calculated form Eq.9) Ki (kN/m) 6422 4614 3180 (Elastic stiffness, taken as 10kd) Kd / Ki 0.10 0.10 0.10 (Stiffness ratio) Dy (mm) 7.6 7.6 7.6 (Yield displacement, calculated as Q/9 kd) Fy (kN) 48.8 35.0 24.1 (Yield Force calculated as kiDy) Figure 5. Location of LPB isolators Type A, B and C. 5. Modal Analysis SAP2000 structural analysis software is capable of Time History Analysis, including Multiple Base Excitiation. SAP2000 facilitates the dynamic modeling of base isolators as link elements, which can be assigned various stiffness properties. This stiffness values for both FPS and LPB isolators were calculated as detailed in previous sections of this paper. Calculations associated with the following summary and totaling some one-hundred pages have been excluded from the paper. Table 3 provides the fundamental period for the three cases studied: structure with fixed base; with FPS isolators; and with LPB isolators, as derived from an SAP2000 modal analysis. It can be seen that the periods obtained for both types of isolator are close to the target period (T = 2.2 sec) recommended by Naeim et al (2) and Mayes et al (4). Figure 6 shows the shape of the first mode of vibration for the 3 models. In addition to influencing fundamental period Figure 6 shows the isolators’ influence on modal shape. Table 3. Fundamental Periods Model Fundamental Period, T (sec) Fixed Base 0.73 LPB 2.23 FPS 2.05 6
  • 7. Concrete Solutions 09 Paper 7a-3 (a) (b) (c) Figure 6. First mode of vibration for (a) fixed base building, (b) FPS isolated building and (c) LPB isolated building. 6. Time History Analysis A nonlinear analysis was carried out in SAP2000 in order to test the response of the structural systems, and to validate isolator functionality. The models were subjected to the following historical seismic time- history records: • 1940 Imperial Valley Earthquake, El Centro Record (Richter Scale 7.1), • 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake, El Centro Record, Array #5 (Richter Scale 6.4), • 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, Los Gatos Record (Richter Scale 7.1), • 1994 Northridge Earthquake, Newhall Record (Richter Scale 6.6), • 1995 Aigion Earthquake, Greece (Richter Scale approx. 5) A seismologist is of invaluable assistance when selecting applicable time-histories, however guidance for selecting scaling records can be gleaned from codes, Kelly (5). The events chosen for consideration in this paper represent several of the major earthquakes in recorded history, with the 1995 Aigion Earthquake in Greece being of similar magnitude to the Newcastle earthquake of 1989 (Richter Scale 5.6) Figure 7 shows maximum response values for each of the earthquake records for roof acceleration, elastic base shear, inter-storey drift, and isolator displacements. Maximum roof acceleration is dominated by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake record which yields a value of about 36 m/sec2 for the fixed base structure, while for the isolated structures is in the order of 8.5 m/sec2 (76% reduction) (see Figure 7(a)). Maximum elastic base shears are dominated also by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. An elastic base shear of approximately 120%W (where W is the building’s weight) for the fixed base building is reduced to 35%W (68% reduction) and 45%W (63% reduction) for LPB and FPS isolators respectively (see Figure 7(b)). Maximum Inter-storey drifts for fixed base and isolator cases are again generated by the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, with values of about 129mm for the fixed base structure and 25mm (81% reduction) and 35mm (73% reduction) for LPB and FPS respectively (see Figure (c)). The drift ratio derived for Level- 1 of the fixed base structure is 4.3%, about twice the maximum limit of 2% imposed by the UBC 1997. The FPS isolated structure displays a value of 1.15% which is well under the limit. Figure 7(d) shows maximum isolator displacements in the order of 473mm and 469mm. It can be seen in Figure 7(e) that these values are round 215% of the isolator design displacement of 220 mm, indicating that both isolator systems would fail during the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake and 1994 Northridge Earthquake. 7
  • 8. Concrete Solutions 09 Paper 7a-3 Force-Displacement hysteresis loops for the FPS and LPB isolator (Type A), as subjected to the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake record, are provided in Figures 8(a) and 8(b). These curves follow the mathematical models presented in section 2 of this paper. Elastic and post-elastic stiffness can be obtained as the slopes of the first two initial segments. Roof Acceleration Elastic Base Shear 40 140 35 LBS LRB 120 Acceleration (m/sec/sec) FPS FPS 30 V / W (%) Fixed Base 100 25 Fixed Base 80 20 60 15 40 10 20 5 0 0 1940 El 1979 El 1989 Loma 1994 1995 Aigion 1940 El 1979 El 1989 Loma 1994 1995 Aigion Centro Centro Prieta Northridge Centro Centro Prieta Northridge Earthquake Record Earthquake Record (a) (b) 1st Floor Inter - Story Drift Isolator Displacement 140 500 LRB LRB 450 Isolator Displacement (mm) 120 FPS FPS 400 100 350 Fixed Base 300 Drift (mm) 80 250 60 200 40 150 100 20 50 0 0 1940 El 1979 El 1989 Loma 1994 1995 Aigion 1940 El 1979 El 1989 Loma 1994 1995 Aigion Centro Centro Prieta Northridge Centro Centro Prieta Northridge Earthquake Record Earthquake Record (c) (d) Time History Displacement / Design Value 250% LRB FPS 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% 1940 El 1979 El 1989 Loma 1994 1995 Aigion Centro Centro Prieta Northridge Earthquake Record (e) Figure 7. Comparison of Response to the 5 earthquake records (a) roof acceleration, (b) elastic base shear (c) 1st floor inter-story drift, (d) isolator displacement, (e) time history displacement / design value utilization ratio. 8
  • 9. Concrete Solutions 09 Paper 7a-3 The energy dissipated by each isolator is provided by the area inside each loop cycle. Effective damping can be calculated using Equations 7 or 11 and compared with the assumed design value. Note that there is seemingly an anomaly present in Figure 8 (a), as maximum ‘-ve’ deflection for the FPS isolator corresponds to a reduction in elastic base shear. This anomaly was evident only for the Loma Prieta earthquake, and further study is required to ascertain why this issue occurred. (a) (b) Figure 8. 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake Record. Force-displacement hysteresis loops for (a) FPS isolator (b) LPB isolator Type A. Lead Plug Bearing Friction Pendulum System Fixed Base 40.0 Acceleration (m/sec/sec) 20.0 0.0 -20.0 -40.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (sec) Lead Plug Bearing Friction Pendulum System Fixed Base 9000 Base Shear (kN) 4500 0 -4500 -9000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (sec) Lead Plug Bearing Friction Pendulum System 500 Isolator Displacement 250 (mm) 0 -250 -500 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (sec) Figure 9. Time-history results for 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake record. (a) Roof acceleration, (b) elastic base shear, (c) isolator displacement. 9
  • 10. Concrete Solutions 09 Paper 7a-3 Finally, time-history results for the Loma Prieta earthquake record are shown in Figure 9. It can be noticed from Figures 9(a) and 9(b) how the response in time of the isolated system is significantly less than the fixed base structure, specially between the first 10 to 15 seconds of the seismic excitation. Figure 9(c) compares the two types of isolators’ lateral displacements, which appears to be less for the FPS. 7. Conclusions & Recommendations It can be seen that resultant accelerations, elastic base shears and inter-storey drifts were all effectively reduced by the adoption of Lead-Plug and Friction-Pendulum isolator systems, resulting in significant improvement in modeled building performance, and a very likely minimisation of post-event losses. For the ground conditions and sway-frame structural system adopted, LPB & FPS base isolation would be excellent options to reduce structural and non-structural damage, and to protect building contents. Both the LPB and FP systems provided a comparative reduction in roof level accelerations (up to 76%); however the LPB provided the best reduction in elastic base shear, and inter-storey drift (at first floor). For the adopted bearing characteristics, the FPS provided greatest control of isolator displacement — a significant serviceability constraint with respect to boundary conditions. Response of the isolated structural framing systems was dominated by the time-history record of the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. The second highest intensity experienced by the test structure was due to 1994 Northbridge earthquake. The isolator design displacement (being a function of the nominated isolator characteristics) of both systems was exceeded by these earthquakes, indicating alternate properties/sizes would be required to accommodate higher intensity events. Further work is recommended to establish applicability of these base-isolation systems for the common braced-frame structural framing paradigm, and also to confirm suitability (or lack thereof) for high-rise construction, and or use on deep alluvial soil strata as evident in Australian centers such as Newcastle. 8. References 1. Wang, Yen-Po, “Fundamentals of Seismic Base Isolation”, International Training programs for Seismic Design of Building Structures. 2. Naeim, F. & Kelly, J. M., “Design of Seismic Isolated Structures: From Theory to Practice”, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1999. 3. International Conference of Building Officials, ICBO (1997), “Earthquake Regulations for Seismic- Isolated Structures”, Uniform Building Code, Appendix Chapter 16, Whittier, CA. 4. Mayes, R. & Naeim, F., “Design of Structures with Seismic Isolation”, Earthquake Engineering Handbook, University of Hawaii, CRC Press, 2003. 5. Kelly, T. E., “Base Isolation of Structures Design Guidelines”, Holmes Consulting Group Ltd, July 2001. 10