Low cost friction seismic base-isolation of residential new

masonry buildings in developing countries: a small masonry

house case study
A.B Habieb1*, G. Milani2, T. Tavio1, F. Milani3
1 Dept. of Civil Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, 60111 Surabaya, Indonesia
2 Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milan, Italy
3 Chem.Co Consultant, Via J.F.Kennedy 2, 45030 Occhiobello (RO), Italy
*corresponding author e-mail: basshofi.ahmad10@mhs.ce.its.ac.id
Abstract. A Finite element model was established to examine performance of a low-cost friction base-isolation system in reducing
seismic vulnerability of rural buildings. This study adopts an experimental investigation of the isolation system which was conducted
in India. Four friction isolation interfaces, namely, marble-marble, marble-high-density polyethylene, marble-rubber sheet, and marblegeosynthetic were involved. Those interfaces differ in static and dynamic friction coefficient obtained through previous research. The
FE model was performed based on a macroscopic approach and the masonry wall is assumed as an isotropic element. In order to
observe structural response of the masonry house, elastic and plastic parameters of the brick wall were studied. Concrete damage
plasticity (CDP) model was adopted to determine non-linear behavior of the brick wall. The results of FE model shows that involving
these friction isolation systems could much decrease response acceleration at roof level. It was found that systems with marble-marble
and marble-geosynthetic interfaces reduce the roof acceleration up to 50% comparing to the system without isolation. Another
interesting result is there was no damage appearing in systems with friction isolation during the test. Meanwhile a severe failure was
clearly visible for a system without isolation.

Keywords: friction base-isolation, rural housing, masonry, concrete damage plasticity, peak ground acceleration

INTRODUCTION
Seismic isolator is an important issue for building designers to protect constructions from unexpected damage
particularly in regions having high risk of earthquake. Basically, earthquake is not the cause of loss of lives, but its
secondary effect is. Casualties appear because of an inadequate seismic protection of housing.
In developing countries, one of common types of housing in rural areas is masonry bricks [1]. Without frame resisting
moment, the masonry house seems to have no sufficient seismic protection to prevent a severe failure. However, the
masonry house is a reasonable choice for lower-class people. It costs them cheaply and is easy to be built. Consequently,
its seismic resistance should be an attention for researchers in order to avoid casualties.
A practical solution to improve building resistance during earthquake involves the installation of base isolation, which
contributes to decouple the superstructure from its foundation to reduce propagation of seismic energy from the ground
into the structure [2-3]. Unfortunately, conventional isolators applied in many countries are expensive and heavy, leading
to an unreasonable cost of constructions. In addition, unskilled labors in rural regions would have difficulties in installing
conventional isolators. Friction-base isolator is an alternative choice to reduce the cost of isolator installation. It can
improve the resistance of structure by providing a sliding interface between foundation and upper structure. Thus, the
energy transmission of earthquake can be isolated [1-3].
An experimental study of structure basing on friction isolation was conducted by R.P Nanda et al. [2]. A typical singleroom residential building in masonry bricks with one door and two windows opening was examined (Fig. 1a). It is a
common type of traditional housing in developing countries such as India and Indonesia. Before performing the structure
model, properties of friction isolations was also examined through experimental work. Four friction isolation interfaces,
namely, marble-marble, marble-high-density polyethylene, marble-rubber sheet, and marble-geosynthetic were involved.
Those interfaces differ in static and dynamic friction coefficient. From the researches mentioned, it can be concluded that
friction isolation can significantly reduce the acceleration at roof level, leading to less damage of the masonry wall. It
indicates that seismic energy propagation was certainly well isolated during earthquake. However, a disadvantage of
friction isolation is that the system results a permanent sliding displacement between the interface, requiring additional
energy to restore its position. Thus, the effectiveness of friction isolation is the optimum value of roof acceleration and
sliding displacement. According to the results, marble-marble interface is the most recommended interface to be applied
as friction isolator.

slave plate
master plate

FIGURE 1. (a) Mounting of super structure above the plinth beam in friction isolation system during
experimental work [1], (b) FE model of masonry house

FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF FRICTION BASE ISOLATION

In order to develop investigation in low-cost base isolation, the previous experimental work was adopted to conduct
a study of the friction isolation through finite element (FE) computation. The FE model was performed based on a
macroscopic approach and the masonry wall is assumed as an isotropic element. Numerous investigations were conducted
to understand the behavior and mechanical properties of masonry wall [5-7]. In this paper, a simplified concrete damage
plasticity (CDP) model [8] was adopted to determine non-linear behavior of the brick wall as shown in figure 2 and table
2. Compressive strength of masonry wall corresponds to brick strength, while in tension, the strength of brick wall is
more related to mortar strength [4]. However, damage behavior of the structure is likely determined by tensile and shear
stresses [7].
In the previous experiment, friction isolation is provided by plinth beam-superstructure interface (Fig. 1a). Meanwhile,
in the FE model, friction isolation employs the interface of two very rigid surfaces, master and slave plate (Fig. 1b). This
attempt made computation simpler, considering that the rigid surface will slide without deformation. This study examine
the performance of four friction interfaces. Otherwise, those plates are fixed for specimen without isolation.
Characterization of each interface is presented in table 1, varying in static and dynamic friction coefficient.
TABLE 1. Coefficient of friction for different sliding interfaces [1]

Coefficient of
static friction

Coefficient of
dynamic friction

Marble-HDPE

0.08

0.07

Marble-marble

0.09

0.08

Marble-Geosynthetic

0.11

0.10

Marble-rubber

0.16

0.18

Interface

FIGURE 2. Simplified concrete damage plasticity stress-strain curves adopted in the model

TABLE 2. Values of the mechanical parameters adopted for the numerical simulations

Parameter

Poisson's ratio

Dilatation angle

Eccentricity

b0/c0

Viscocity

Value

0.2

10

1.16

0.666

0.002

Dimension of the FE model is similar to specimen in the experimental study, 2x2x1,5 m of one storey building in half
scale. Also, the thickness of the masonry wall corresponds to half-scale bricks 114 x 57 x 38 mm. An equivalent roof
weight about 15 kg/m2 was loaded to the top of structure. The model was divided into around 400 8-noded bricks (C3D8R)
elements (Fig. 1b). Finally, ground motion with 0.4 g of PGA was applied into base plate (Fig. 3a). At the end of the test,
two indicators of isolation performance, roof acceleration and sliding displacement were observed.

RESULTS
Two indicators of the performance of friction-base isolation were obtained through FE simulation. Looking at the roof
acceleration (Fig. 3), all of specimens gave expected results. Roof acceleration of marble-marble interface was observed
almost 75 % smaller than specimen without isolation (Fig. 3d). Meanwhile, its sliding displacement had a peak at 61 mm
(Fig. 4), which is in the limit of tolerance corresponding to the width of plinth beam 75 mm. However, through FE
simulation, the results of roof acceleration in specimen without isolation was considerably greater than the results in
experimental work. It could be caused by lack of accuracy of masonry brick properties.

FIGURE 3. (a) Ground motion, roof acceleration of (b) specimen without isolation, (c) marble-HDPE
interface, (d) marble-marble interface

FIGURE 4. Comparative relative base sliding displacement responses for all specimens

Damage propagation of masonry wall which is mainly determined by tensile damage is also presented in figure 5. A
severe damage can be observed at the end of the test in specimen without isolation. Meanwhile, there is no noticeable
damage in all specimens with friction isolation. Finally, summary of all isolator performances is shown in table 3.

FIGURE 5. Tensile damage propagation during ground motion, (a) Model without isolation, (b) all
models with base-friction isolation
TABLE 3. Summary of maximum roof accelerations and relative sliding displacements

Interface

Max. roof
acc (g)

Relative Sliding Displacement (mm)

Peak

Residual

Without isolation

1.03

Marble-HDPE

0.37

80

19

Marble-marble

0.28

61

30

Marble-Geosynthetic

0.57

31

11

Marble-rubber

0.73

19

19

CONCLUSIONS
A finite element simulation of friction base-isolation has been performed. This type of isolator is considered as a lowcost base isolator. The results, making a good agreement with previous researches, indicates that the performance of
friction-base isolation is considerably effective to isolate seismic-wave transmission into superstructure. Otherwise,
residual sliding displacement is a disadvantage of this isolation system. The FE model, in general, could represent the
behavior of specimen in the experimental work. However, the accuracy of masonry bricks properties should be improved.

REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]

Moroni, M. O., Astroza, M., & Acevedo, C. Journal of performance of constructed facilities 2004, 18(3), 173-179.
Nanda, R. P., Shrikhande, M., & Agarwal, P.. Low-Cost Base-Isolation System for Seismic Protection of Rural
Buildings. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction 2015, 21(1), 04015001
Moroni, M. O., Astroza, M., & Acevedo, C.. Performance and seismic vulnerability of masonry housing types
used in Chile. Journal of performance of constructed facilities 2004, 18(3), 173-179.
Ali, S. S., & Page, A. W.. Finite element model for masonry subjected to concentrated loads. Journal of structural
engineering 1998, 114(8), 1761-1784.
Rahman, A., & Ueda, T.. Experimental investigation and numerical modeling of peak shear stress of brick masonry
mortar joint under compression. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 2013, 26(9), 04014061.
Kaushik, H. B., Rai, D. C., & Jain, S. K.. Stress-strain characteristics of clay brick masonry under uniaxial
compression. Journal of materials in Civil Engineering 2007, 19(9), 728-739.
Schneemayer, A., Schranz, C., Kolbitsch, A., & Tschegg, E. K. Fracture-Mechanical Properties of Mortar-toBrick Interfaces. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 2013, 26(9), 04014060.
Valente, M., & Milani, G.. Non-linear dynamic and static analyses on eight historical masonry towers in the
North-East of Italy. Engineering Structures 2016, 114, 241-270.