Dissertation2007 Zanaica

University of Patras Erasmus Mundus
Masters Course
MEEES PROGRAMME
DESIGN OF STOREY-ISOLATION SYSTEM

IN MULTI-STOREY BUILDING
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Master Degree in
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
by
LUCA ZANAICA
Supervisor: Prof MICHAEL N. FARDIS
May, 2007
3
The dissertation entitled Design of Storey-Isolation System in Multi-Storey Building, by
Luca Zanaica, has been approved in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Master
Degree in Earthquake Engineering.
Prof . M.N. Fardis _________________

Abstract
ABSTRACT
Non-structural components are sensitive to large floor accelerations, velocities, and

displacements. During an earthquake, the building can amplify its motion, resulting in peak
floor accelerations higher than the peak ground acceleration. The survival of some particular
non-structural components during an earthquake event can be fundamental. The use of base
isolation is, at the moment, the best method to get at the same time interstorey drifts and floor
accelerations reductions. New types of storey-isolation systems are here developed for a
multi-storey reinforced concrete building. Non-linear time-history analyses are carried out in
order to evaluate floor response spectra and real accelerations and displacements evolution
during a ground motion. This work of research intends to demonstrate how an isolation
system can be efficient even if it is localised onto a specific single storey level, evaluating its
effectiveness for the global building in terms of PFAs, PFDs, and interstorey drift ratios
reductions, and for the hypothetic isolated floor facilities in terms of peak accelerations cut.
Keywords: storey isolation, base isolation, lead-rubber bearing, non-linear time-history, reinforced
concrete building, response spectrum, peak floor acceleration, peak floor displacement,
interstorey drift ratio
i
Abstract
ii
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Acknowledgements are not compulsory, but when included should be placed after the Abstract and
before the Table of Contents.
iii
Acknowledgements
iv
Index
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................................................iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................v
LIST OF FIGURES ..............................................................................................................................vii
LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................................xix
LIST OF SYMBOLS ...........................................................................................................................xxi
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Foreword ....................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Objectives ..................................................................................................................................1
1.3 Organisation of the Dissertation ................................................................................................2
2. SEISMIC ISOLATION .....................................................................................................................3
2.1 Seismic Isolation Development .................................................................................................3
2.1.1 Recent Applications .........................................................................................................4
2.2 Seismic Protection Systems .......................................................................................................6
2.2.1 Strengthening ...................................................................................................................6
2.2.2 Passive Control ................................................................................................................6
2.3 Base Isolation.............................................................................................................................9
2.3.1 Comparison between Conventional and Base Isolation Approaches.............................11
2.4 Lead Rubber Bearings..............................................................................................................14
3. STATE OF THE ART.....................................................................................................................17
3.1 Linear Theory of Seismic Isolation..........................................................................................17
3.2 Response Spectrum Concept....................................................................................................20
3.3 Design Criteria for Isolated Buildings .....................................................................................21
3.3.1 Base Isolation in EN 1998-1:2004 [Fardis et al., 2004].................................................22
v
Index
3.4 Modelling State of the Art for LRBs [Grant et al., 2005]........................................................25
3.5 Examples of seismic storey isolation .......................................................................................25
3.5.1 Floor Response of SDF Systems....................................................................................26
3.5.2 Floor Response Spectra Evaluation ...............................................................................26
3.5.3 A Storey-Isolation System .............................................................................................27
4. NUMERICAL TESTING................................................................................................................29
4.1 Process Scheme........................................................................................................................29
4.2 Design of the 4-Storey RC Building ........................................................................................30
4.3 Seismic Isolation System with Lead Rubber Bearings ............................................................37
4.3.1 The Design and Characteristics of LRBs .......................................................................39
4.4 Ground Motion Spectra............................................................................................................41
5. DESING AND ANALYSIS OF STOREY-ISOLATION SYSTEMS ............................................47
5.1 First-Storey-Isolation System ..................................................................................................47
5.2 Second-Storey-Isolation System ..............................................................................................52
5.3 Third-Storey-Isolation System.................................................................................................58
5.4 Fourth-Storey-Isolation System ...............................................................................................63
5.5 Whole-Fourth-Storey-Isolation System ...................................................................................68
6. CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................75
6.1 General.....................................................................................................................................75
6.2 Numerical Testing....................................................................................................................76
6.2.1 First-Storey-Isolation System ........................................................................................78
6.2.2 Second-Storey-Isolation System ....................................................................................78
6.2.3 Third-Storey-Isolation System.......................................................................................79
6.2.4 Fourth-Storey-Isolation System .....................................................................................79
6.2.5 Whole-Fourth-Storey-Isolation System .........................................................................79
6.2.6 Final Deductions ............................................................................................................79
6.3 Recommendations for Further Research..................................................................................80
REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................................81
APPENDIX A...................................................................................................................................... A1
APPENDIX B...................................................................................................................................... B1
APPENDIX C...................................................................................................................................... C1
APPENDIX D...................................................................................................................................... D1
APPENDIX E ...................................................................................................................................... E1
vi
Index
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1. Schematic seismic response of two buildings: conventional and seismic isolation
systems................................................................................................................................4
Figure 2.2. A rubber isolator bearing working and a structural cylindrical PTFE bearing ........7
Figure 2.3. Idealised force-displacement curves of: (a) elastomeric bearings and (b) sliding
isolators [Fardis et al., 2004] ..............................................................................................7
Figure 2.4. A steel hysteretic device and a friction pendulum double concave bearing with
disassembled articulated slider ...........................................................................................8
Figure 2.5. Shape memory alloy devices and oil viscous dampers ............................................8
Figure 2.6. Idealised force-displacement curves of supplementary devices based on (a)
hysteresis of metals, (b) friction, (c) superelasticity of shape memory alloys, (d) fluid
viscosity, (e) viscoelasticity [Fardis et al., 2004] ...............................................................9
Figure 2.7. Effect of increasing the flexibility of a structure: (a) The increased period and
damping lower the seismic acceleration response; (b) The increased period increases the
total displacement of the isolated system, but this is offset to a large extent by the
damping [Skinner et al., 1993] .........................................................................................10
Figure 2.8. Conventional and base isolation approaches..........................................................12
Figure 2.9. Base shear ratio for ground type A [Fardis et al., 2004] ........................................13
Figure 2.10. Base shear ratio for ground type D [Fardis et al., 2004] ......................................13
Figure 2.11. Principle structure of a Maurer Shne LRB .........................................................14
Figure 3.1. Parameters of 2-degree-of-freedom isolated system [Naeim and Kelly, 1999] .....17
Figure 3.2. Relationship between bilinear and linearised viscoelastic models in terms of
dynamic restoring force versus displacement [Grant et al., 2005]. ..................................25
vii
Index
Figure 3.3. 2-D diagram of the high-performance seismic technology [Mar and Tipping, 2002]
...........................................................................................................................................27
Figure 3.4. Slider at interior column [Mar and Tipping, 2002] ................................................27
Figure 4.1. 3D model of the 4-storey building modelled in ANSRuop....................................32
Figure 4.2. Beam depth ( hb ), beam top ( ) and bottom ( ' ) reinforcement ratio and column
total reinforcement ratio ( c ) in 4-storey frames for EC8 DC M; design PGA of 0.4g.;
closed circles: exterior and open circles: interior members [Panagiotakos and Fardis,
2004] .................................................................................................................................33
Figure 4.3. Minimum-maximum range and mean member damage ratio from 7 time-history
analyses of 4-storey frames designed to EC8 DC M; design PGA of 0.4g [Panagiotakos
and Fardis, 2004] ..............................................................................................................33
Figure 4.4. Ratio of sum of column flexural capacities to sum of beam flexural capacities
around joints in frames designed to EC8 DC M; design PGA of 0.4g. Closed circles:
exterior joints; open circles: interior joints [Panagiotakos and Fardis, 2004] ..................33
Figure 4.5. External column characteristics as it is shown by ANSRuop ................................34
Figure 4.6. Internal column characteristics as it is shown by ANSRuop .................................34
Figure 4.7. 1st-floor beam characteristics as it is shown by ANSRuop ....................................35
Figure 4.8. 2nd-floor beam characteristics as it is shown by ANSRuop ...................................35
Figure 4.9. 3rd-floor beam characteristics as it is shown by ANSRuop....................................35
Figure 4.10. 4th-floor beam characteristics as it is shown by ANSRuop ..................................36
Figure 4.11. 1st-floor transverse beam characteristics as it is shown by ANSRuop .................36
Figure 4.12. 2nd-floor transverse beam characteristics as it is shown by ANSRuop ................36
Figure 4.13. 3rd-floor transverse beam characteristics as it is shown by ANSRuop .................37
Figure 4.14. 4th-floor transverse beam characteristics as it is shown by ANSRuop .................37
Figure 4.15. 1st ground motion (Kalamata 1986 Greece) and related acceleration response
spectrum............................................................................................................................43
Figure 4.16. 2nd ground motion (Capitola building Loma Prieta 1989 California, USA) and
related acceleration response spectrum.............................................................................43
Figure 4.17. 3rd ground motion (Bonds Corner Imperial Valley 1979 California, USA) and
Figure 4.18. 4th ground motion (Tolmezzo Friuli 1976 Italy) and related acceleration
response spectrum.............................................................................................................44
viii
Index
Figure 4.19. 5th ground motion (Ulcinj Montenegro 1979) and related acceleration response
spectrum............................................................................................................................44
Figure 4.20. 6th ground motion (Herceg Novi Montenegro 1979) and related acceleration
response spectrum.............................................................................................................44
Figure 4.21. 7th ground motion (El Centro Imperial Valley 1940 California, USA) and
Figure 4.22. Mean acceleration response spectrum of all the 7 ground motions......................45
Figure 5.1. 1st-floor facilities consequences: floor spectra .......................................................47
Figure 5.2. 1st-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 1st ground
motion ...............................................................................................................................49
Figure 5.3. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 1st-floor
facilities during the 1st ground motion ..............................................................................50
Figure 5.4. 1st-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 1st ground motion .......50
Figure 5.5. 1st-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 1st ground motion
...........................................................................................................................................50
Figure 5.6. 1st-floor facilities global effects: mean values of PFA and PFD ............................51
Figure 5.7. 1st-floor facilities global effects: mean values of the interstorey drift ratio ...........51
Figure 5.8. 2nd-floor facilities consequences: floor spectra ......................................................53
Figure 5.9. 2nd-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 1st ground
motion ...............................................................................................................................55
Figure 5.10. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 2nd-
floor facilities during the 1st ground motion .....................................................................55
Figure 5.11. 2nd-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 1st ground motion ....55
Figure 5.12. 2nd-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 1st ground
motion ...............................................................................................................................56
Figure 5.13. 2nd-floor facilities global effects: mean values of PFA and PFD .........................56
Figure 5.14. 2nd-floor facilities global effects: mean values of the interstorey drift ratio ........56
Figure 5.15. 3rd-floor facilities consequences: floor spectra.....................................................58
Figure 5.16. 3rd-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 1st ground
motion ...............................................................................................................................60
Figure 5.17. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 3rd-
floor facilities during the 1st ground motion .....................................................................60
Figure 5.18. 3rd-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 1st ground motion.....61
ix
Index
Figure 5.19. 3rd-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 1st ground
motion ...............................................................................................................................61
Figure 5.20. 3rd-floor facilities global effects: mean values of PFA and PFD..........................61
Figure 5.21. 3rd-floor facilities global effects: mean values of the interstorey drift ratio.........62
Figure 5.22. 4th-floor facilities consequences: floor spectra .....................................................63
Figure 5.23. 4th-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 1st ground
motion ...............................................................................................................................65
Figure 5.24. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 4th-floor
facilities during the 1st ground motion ..............................................................................65
Figure 5.25. 4th-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 1st ground motion.....66
Figure 5.26. 4th-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 1st ground
motion ...............................................................................................................................66
Figure 5.27. 4th-floor facilities global effects: mean values of PFA and PFD..........................66
Figure 5.28. 4th-floor facilities global effects: mean values of the interstorey drift ratio.........67
Figure 5.29. Whole-4th-floor facilities consequences: floor spectra .........................................68
Figure 5.30. Whole-4th-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 1st
ground motion...................................................................................................................71
Figure 5.31. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the whole-
4th-floor facilities during the 1st ground motion................................................................71
Figure 5.32. Whole-4th-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 1st ground
motion ...............................................................................................................................71
Figure 5.33. Whole-4th-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 1st
ground motion...................................................................................................................72
Figure 5.34. Whole-4th-floor facilities global effects: mean values of PFA and PFD..............72
Figure 5.35. Whole-4th-floor facilities global effects: mean values of the interstorey drift ratio
...........................................................................................................................................72
Figure A.1. 1st-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 2nd ground
motion ..............................................................................................................................A1
Figure A.2. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 1st-floor
facilities during the 2nd ground motion ............................................................................A1
Figure A.3. 1st-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 2nd ground motion ....A1
Figure A.4. 1st-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 2nd ground
motion ..............................................................................................................................A2
x
Index
Figure A.5. 1st-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 3rd ground
motion ..............................................................................................................................A2
Figure A.6. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 1st-floor
facilities during the 3rd ground motion.............................................................................A2
Figure A.7. 1st-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 3rd ground motion.....A3
Figure A.8. 1st-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 3rd ground
motion ..............................................................................................................................A3
Figure A.9. 1st-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 4th ground
motion ..............................................................................................................................A3
Figure A.10. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 1st-
floor facilities during the 4th ground motion....................................................................A4
Figure A.11. 1st-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 4th ground motion...A4
Figure A.12. 1st-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 4th ground
motion ..............................................................................................................................A4
motion ..............................................................................................................................A5
motion ..............................................................................................................................A6
motion ..............................................................................................................................A6
motion ..............................................................................................................................A7
motion ..............................................................................................................................A7
xi
Index
motion ..............................................................................................................................A8
Figure B.1. 2nd-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 2nd ground
motion ..............................................................................................................................B1
Figure B.2. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 2nd-floor
facilities during the 2nd ground motion ............................................................................B1
Figure B.3. 2nd-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 2nd ground motion....B1
Figure B.4. 2nd-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 2nd ground
motion ..............................................................................................................................B2
Figure B.5. 2nd-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 3rd ground
motion ..............................................................................................................................B2
Figure B.6. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 2nd-floor
facilities during the 3rd ground motion.............................................................................B2
Figure B.7. 2nd-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 3rd ground motion ....B3
Figure B.8. 2nd-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 3rd ground
motion ..............................................................................................................................B3
Figure B.9. 2nd-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 4th ground
motion ..............................................................................................................................B3
Figure B.10. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 2nd-
floor facilities during the 4th ground motion....................................................................B4
Figure B.11. 2nd-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 4th ground motion ..B4
Figure B.12. 2nd-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 4th ground
motion ..............................................................................................................................B4
motion ..............................................................................................................................B5
motion ..............................................................................................................................B6
motion ..............................................................................................................................B6
xii
Index
motion ..............................................................................................................................B7
motion ..............................................................................................................................B7
motion ..............................................................................................................................B8
Figure C.1. 3rd-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 2nd ground
motion ..............................................................................................................................C1
Figure C.2. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 3rd-floor
facilities during the 2nd ground motion ............................................................................C1
Figure C.3. 3rd-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 2nd ground motion ....C1
Figure C.4. 3rd-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 2nd ground
motion ..............................................................................................................................C2
Figure C.5. 3rd-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 3rd ground
motion ..............................................................................................................................C2
Figure C.6. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 3rd-floor
facilities during the 3rd ground motion.............................................................................C2
Figure C.7. 3rd-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 3rd ground motion ....C3
Figure C.8. 3rd-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 3rd ground
motion ..............................................................................................................................C3
Figure C.9. 3rd-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 4th ground
motion ..............................................................................................................................C3
Figure C.10. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 3rd-
floor facilities during the 4th ground motion....................................................................C4
Figure C.11. 3rd-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 4th ground motion...C4
Figure C.12. 3rd-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 4th ground
motion ..............................................................................................................................C4
xiii
Index
motion ..............................................................................................................................C5
motion ..............................................................................................................................C6
motion ..............................................................................................................................C6
motion ..............................................................................................................................C7
motion ..............................................................................................................................C7
motion ..............................................................................................................................C8
Figure D.1. 4th-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 2nd ground
motion ..............................................................................................................................D1
Figure D.2. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 4th-floor
facilities during the 2nd ground motion ............................................................................D1
Figure D.3. 4th-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 2nd ground motion....D1
Figure D.4. 4th-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 2nd ground
motion ..............................................................................................................................D2
Figure D.5. 4th-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 3rd ground
motion ..............................................................................................................................D2
Figure D.6. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 4th-floor
facilities during the 3rd ground motion.............................................................................D2
Figure D.7. 4th-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 3rd ground motion ....D3
xiv
Index
Figure D.8. 4th-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 3rd ground
motion ..............................................................................................................................D3
Figure D.9. 4th-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 4th ground
motion ..............................................................................................................................D3
Figure D.10. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 4th-
floor facilities during the 4th ground motion....................................................................D4
Figure D.11. 4th-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 4th ground motion...D4
Figure D.12. 4th-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 4th ground
motion ..............................................................................................................................D4
motion ..............................................................................................................................D5
motion ..............................................................................................................................D6
motion ..............................................................................................................................D6
motion ..............................................................................................................................D7
motion ..............................................................................................................................D7
motion ..............................................................................................................................D8
Figure E.1. Whole-4th-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 2nd
ground motion.................................................................................................................. E1
xv
Index
Figure E.2. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the whole-
4th-floor facilities during the 2nd ground motion.............................................................. E1
Figure E.3. Whole-4th-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 2nd ground
motion .............................................................................................................................. E1
Figure E.4. Whole-4th-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 2nd
ground motion.................................................................................................................. E2
Figure E.5. Whole-4th-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 3rd
ground motion.................................................................................................................. E2
4th-floor facilities during the 3rd ground motion .............................................................. E2
Figure E.7. Whole-4th-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 3rd ground
motion .............................................................................................................................. E3
Figure E.8. Whole-4th-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 3rd
ground motion.................................................................................................................. E3
Figure E.9. Whole-4th-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 4th
ground motion.................................................................................................................. E3
4th-floor facilities during the 4th ground motion .............................................................. E4
Figure E.11. Whole-4th-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 4th ground
motion .............................................................................................................................. E4
Figure E.12. Whole-4th-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 4th
ground motion.................................................................................................................. E4
ground motion.................................................................................................................. E5
motion .............................................................................................................................. E5
ground motion.................................................................................................................. E6
ground motion.................................................................................................................. E6
xvi
Index
motion .............................................................................................................................. E7
ground motion.................................................................................................................. E7
ground motion.................................................................................................................. E7
motion .............................................................................................................................. E8
ground motion.................................................................................................................. E8
xvii
Index
xviii
Index
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 3.1. Summary of the types of analyses and conditions to be met for their application
[Fardis et al., 2004]...........................................................................................................22
Table 5.1. 1st-floor LRBs design...............................................................................................48
Table 5.2. 2nd-floor LRBs design..............................................................................................54
Table 5.3. 3rd floor LRBs design...............................................................................................59
Table 5.4. 4th floor LRBs design...............................................................................................65
Table 5.5. Whole-4th-floor 15DLRBs design............................................................................70
Table 5.6. Whole-4th-floor 30DLRBs design............................................................................70
Table 6.1. PFAs for every facilities location ............................................................................76
Table 6.2. PFAs and percentage variation onto the facilities for every isolation case .............76
Table 6.3. PFAs and percentage variation for every isolation case by 15DLRBs....................76
Table 6.4. PFAs and percentage variation for every isolation case by 30DLRBs....................77
Table 6.5. PFDs for every facilities location ............................................................................77
Table 6.6. PFDs and percentage variation for every isolation case by 15DLRBs....................77
Table 6.7. PFDs and percentage variation for every isolation case by 30DLRBs....................77
Table 6.8. Interstorey drift ratios for every facilities location ..................................................78
Table 6.9. Interstorey drift ratios and percentage variation for every isolation case by
15DLRBs ..........................................................................................................................78
Table 6.10. Interstorey drift ratios and percentage variation for every isolation case by
30DLRBs ..........................................................................................................................78
xix
Index
xx
Index
LIST OF SYMBOLS
ag = design ground acceleration on type A ground

bw = Width of the web of a beam
c = Damping coefficient
cb = Bearings damping
cs = Structure damping
cu = Undrained shear strength of soil
dbd = Design displacement of isolator corresponding to the design displacement of the
isolating system d cd
d cd = Design displacement of the isolating system
d dc = Design displacement of the effective stiffness centre in the direction considered
dy = Yield displacement
f cd = Design value of concrete compressive strength
fn = Natural vibration cyclic frequency
h = Plastic deformation work
hc = Cross-sectional depth of column in the direction of interest
hb = Cross-sectional depth of beam
kb = Bearings stiffness
ks = Structure stiffness
m = Mass of the superstructure of a building
mb = Mass of the base floor above the isolation system
q = Behaviour factor
t = Single rubber layer thickness of lead-rubber bearing
tr = Total lead-rubber bearing thickness
ts = Single steel plate thickness of lead-rubber bearing
ts ,ext = Top and bottom steel plates thickness of lead-rubber bearing
u = Displacement response of a SDF system
u& = Velocity response of a SDF system
u&& = Acceleration response of a SDF system
ub = Absolute displacement of the base floor
xxi
Index
ug = Ground displacement
u&&g = Ground acceleration
us = Absolute displacement of the superstructure
u0 = Peak values of u
u&0 = Peak values of u&
u&&0 = Peak values of u&&
v = Velocity
vb = Relative displacement between base floor and ground
vs = Relative displacement between superstructure and base floor (drift)
vs ,30 = Average value of propagation velocity of S waves in the upper 30 m of the soil
profile at shear strain of 105 or less
A = Pseudo-acceleration
Ac = Area of section of concrete member
Ar = Cross sectional area of the rubber of lead-rubber bearing
D = Peak values of u
Dbearing = Diameter of lead-rubber bearing
DPb = Diameter of lead core of lead-rubber bearing
DC = Ductility Class
ED = Dissipated energy per cycle at the design displacement of isolating system d cd
Ee = Elastic energy
Eg = Energy of the ground motion
Eh = Energy dissipated by plastic deformation
Ei = Energy induced into the structure
Ek = Kinetic energy
Es = Structurally stored energy into the structure
Ev = Energy dissipated by viscous phenomena
EDE = Energy Dissipating Element
F = Force
Fd = Viscous damping force
Fs = Elastic spring restoring force
Fy = Yield force under monotonic loading
F0 = Force at zero displacement under cyclic loading
G = Shear modulus of elastomeric bearing
HDRB = High Damping Rubber Bearing
K ; Ke = Elastic stiffness of bilinear hysteretic isolator under monotonic loading
K eff = Effective stiffness of the isolation system in the principal horizontal direction under
consideration, at a displacement equal to the design displacement d dc
Kp = Post elastic stiffness of bilinear hysteretic isolator
K Pb = Stiffness of lead core of lead-rubber bearing
Kr = Stiffness of rubber of lead-rubber bearing
KV = Total stiffness of the isolation system in the vertical direction
xxii
Index
L = Total lateral area of lead-rubber bearing

L1 ; L2 = Participation factors
LDRB = Low Damping Rubber Bearing
LRB = Lead Rubber Bearing
M = Total mass made of superstructure and base-floor masses
N = Axial force
N SPT = Standard Penetration Test blow-count
NSC = Non Structural Component
PFA = Peak Floor Acceleration
PFD = Peak Floor Displacement
PGA = Peak Ground Acceleration
R = Behaviour factor outside of the Eurocode 8 provisions
RULS = Seismic forces ratio for ultimate limit state
RDLS = Seismic forces ratio for damage limit state
RC = Reinforced Concrete
S = Soil factor
S = Shape factor of lead-rubber bearing
S' = Second shape factor of lead-rubber bearing
Sa = Pseudo-acceleration spectrum
Sa, f = Design spectral acceleration for fixed base structure
S a ,i = Design spectral acceleration for isolated base structure
Sd = Pseudo-displacement spectrum
Sv = Pseudo-velocity spectrum
SDF = Single Degree of Freedom
SLS = Service Limit State
TC = Corner period at the upper limit of the constant acceleration region of the elastic
spectrum
Teff = Effective fundamental period of the superstructure corresponding to horizontal
translation, the superstructure assumed as a rigid body
Tf = Fundamental period of the superstructure assumed fixed at the base
Tn = Natural vibration period
TR = Return period for an earthquake
TV = Fundamental period of the superstructure in the vertical direction, the superstructure
assumed as a rigid body
T1 = Fundamental period of the building in the horizontal direction of interest
ULS = Ultimate Limit State
V = Pseudo-velocity
Wi = Weight on the lead-rubber bearing
15DLRB = 15% Damping ratio Lead Rubber Bearing
30DLRB = 30% Damping ratio Lead Rubber Bearing
= Post-yield stiffness ratio
= Shear strain of a lead-rubber bearing
xxiii
Index
m = Mass ratio
= Nominal frequency ratio
= Damping correction factor
= Effective mass ratio
= Curvature ductility factor
d = Axial force due in the seismic design situation, normalised to Ac f cd
= Viscous damping ratio (in percent)
b = Base-floor damping
eff = Effective damping
s = Superstructure damping factor
1 ; 2 = Damping ratios
= Pi
' = Compression steel ratio in beams
Pb = Lead yield stress
1 ; 2 = Mode shapes
b = Base-floor nominal frequency
n = Natural vibration circular frequency
s = Superstructure nominal frequency
wd = Mechanical volumetric ratio of confining reinforcement
1 ; 2 = Characteristic frequencies
xxiv
Chapter 1. Introduction
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Foreword
Non-structural components are objects in a building that are supported by the structure, but do
not form part of the main gravity or lateral load resisting systems. Non-structural components
may consist of furniture, equipment, partitions, curtain wall systems, piping, venting systems,
electrical equipment, bookcases, and many other items. There are mainly three main
categories: architectural components, mechanical and electrical equipment, and building
contents.
Non-structural components are sensitive to large floor accelerations, velocities, and

displacements. When a building is subjected to an earthquake ground motion, the building can
amplify this motion, resulting in Peak Floor Accelerations (PFAs) higher than the Peak
Ground Acceleration (PGA). As a matter of fact, facilities are subjected to these amplified
accelerations, which cause severe damage to non-structural components. The survival of some
particular non-structural components during an earthquake event can be important for
maintaining the continuity of emergency services, for the safety of the public, for mitigating
the financial impact of the resulting damage, or mainly because the facilities constitute some
particular elements that cannot absolutely receive any type of damage due to their
impossibility in repairing, like museum rooms (with statues or similar), or sensible computer
machineries.
Many problems can occur at lower deformation and acceleration demands than the supporting
structure. In view of the importance of protecting the integrity of some special facilities
during seismic events, there is a need to carry out additional research studies to develop
reliable performance-based design criteria.
1.2 Objectives
This work of research deals with a new type of base isolation application. A 4-storey
reinforced concrete building is designed in accordance with Eurocode 8 provisions [EN 1998-
1, 2004]. The building is supposed to have in its interior, at a particular floor level, some
special facilities that must be absolutely protected during an earthquake to prevent any
irreparable damage. These facilities, ideally located in the middle of the considered floor,
must not receive either big accelerations or high relative storey displacements.
1
Chapter 1. Introduction
Lead-Rubber Bearings (LRBs) are designed in order to isolate these facilities from the floor
main frame. Five different facilities locations are studied: on the middle of each floor (from
the 1st to the 4th one), and a whole-4th-floor position, as the last experiment set.
The objective is to see, firstly, the positive effects on the directly isolated facilities through
non-linear time-histories analyses and, secondly, the global effects (positive or negative) onto
the whole structure, taking into account PFAs, Peak Floor Displacements (PFDs) and
interstorey drifts. By this manner it could be possible to decide the effectiveness of this
storey-isolation system, giving advices for future possible applications.
1.3 Organisation of the Dissertation

Chapter two treats the base isolation. A brief story of this design approach is followed by the
last recent applications for bridges and buildings. The seismic protection systems are
generally analyzed, from the isolators to the supplementary devices. The main base isolation
benefits are expressed with a complete analysis of this new earthquake resistance design.
Finally, a comparison between conventional and base-isolation approaches clarifies the two
methodologies.
The third chapter is the state of art. The linear theory for seismic isolation is expressed. The
important response spectrum concept is also treated. The base isolation design process, as in
EN 1998-1, is fully explained and the state of art of the bilinear model for LRBs is explained.
Finally, three examples of seismic storey isolation are synthesized.
On the fourth chapter the numerical testing, core part of the experimental part in this work of
research, is explained: from the test schedule to the building design, from the LRBs design to
the ground motions which are utilised.
On the fifth chapter every isolation case is treated through its results, showing its
consequences both for directed isolated floor mass and for the global building.
The sixth chapter concludes this dissertation by expressing a comment of the results carried
out from the numerical tests of this new storey-isolation system.
2
Chapter 2. Seismic Isolation
2. SEISMIC ISOLATION
2.1 Seismic Isolation Development
<<In August 1909 J. A. Calantarients, a medical doctor from the northern English city of
Scarborough, wrote a letter to the Director of the Seismological Service of Chile in Santiago
calling his attention to a method of building construction that he had developed whereby
substantial buildings can be put up in earthquake countries on this principle with perfect
safety since the degree of severity of an earthquake loses its significance through the
existence of the lubricated free joint. Calantarients had submitted a patent application to the
British patent office for his construction method, which proposed that the building be built on
his free joint and a layer of fine sand, mica, or talc that would allow the building to slide in
an earthquake, thereby reducing the force transmitted to the building itself.>> [Naeim and
Kelly, 1999]. That doctor explained, perhaps, the earliest example of a base isolation or
seismic isolation approach design. Later on, other real examples started to appear worldwide,
like the buildings staying on balls of Sevastopol in Ukraine and of Mexico City in Mexico.
Therefore, the father of Modern Seismology was another English, John Milne, Professor of
Mining Engineering in Tokyo in the last decades of 1800s. He developed and improved
seismoscopes and seismographs. What can be considered very important are his publishing
rules for earthquake-resistant structures that are considered valid still today.
Thanks to the building on balls at the University of Tokyo, the incomplete satisfaction of this
type of seismic isolation started to appear not negligible. As a matter of fact, under a wind
load, that system was creating some behaviour not acceptable in a normal service situation.
In earthquake building design, the main purpose is to have a building with minimized
interstorey drifts and floor accelerations, because the first ones make damages onto non-
structural components and to equipments that interconnects storeys, the second ones and the
accelerations can damage internal equipment. If the structure becomes stiffer, the interstorey
drifts reduce, but floor accelerations increase. If the system becomes more flexible, floor
accelerations reduce but interstorey drifts cannot decrease. The use of base isolation appears
the only method to reduce at the same time interstorey drifts and floor accelerations: there is
the necessary flexibility with the displacements that are almost all concentrated at the
isolation plane.
In 1969 there was the first application of rubber bearings isolated building in the Pestalozzi
School of Skopje, Yugoslavia. Those devices were completely unreinforced, so that they
3
bulge a lot sideways. In addition, some glass blocks were introduced as seismic fuses,
breaking after a certain threshold seismic load. That type of system had the problem of
bouncing and rocking continuously during an earthquake because of the similar horizontal
and vertical rigidities.
During the last 20 years of the last century, with the development of multilayer elastomeric
bearings, which are made by vulcanization bonding of rubber sheets to thin steel reinforcing
plates, a big forward step was made into the concept of seismic isolation. These devices are
very stiff vertically in order the carry the structure load and they are very flexible horizontally
in such a way to allow the building to move laterally while the ground is shaking.
The natural evolution of the rubber bearings became the lead-plug rubber bearings, where
lead cylinders are put into central holes to add damping to the isolation system.
Figure 2.1. Schematic seismic response of two buildings: conventional and seismic isolation systems
2.1.1 Recent Applications

Recently, numerous progresses are going on regarding new devices development and new
applications of old types of isolation systems. Seismic isolation dedicated codes have been
developing constantly. The presence of these new rules for designing structures convinced
designers to take into account this new type of earthquake resistance approach.
In Italy, after the Ordinanza No. 3274 that appeared the 8th of May 2003, base isolation is
finally present in a proper way for a country that is one of the world leader in the field of
seismic research and is one of the most important isolation devices producers too.
Every institution makes different application rules for seismic isolation, so that quite
important differences in costs derive. For example, in the Peoples Republic of China base
isolation makes cheaper structures so that a great increase of application is establishing: in
1999 there were 160 applications while in 2002 they were 458. Japan has a very advanced
code that deals with traction on seismic devices too, as a consequence of that, rubber isolators
4
can be used also in very tall buildings. In USA the overall cost of a seismic isolated building
is not negligible and only big or strategic buildings saw this type of applications.
(a) Bridges and viaducts. In these last years, applications onto bridges and viaducts, new or
retrofitted, augmented significantly in Europe and all around the world too, particularly in
USA, where the code for bridges and viaducts is not as restrictive as for buildings, but a big
increase was noted also in Chile, Japan, China, Taiwan and Korea.
In Japan more than 2000 isolated bridges and viaducts were realized in these last 10 years.
The big input of this boom design was made by Kobe earthquake in 1995: before that, only
hysteretic elastoplastic systems were adopted, but, after that earthquake, HDRBs or LRBs
were hugely employed.
In Europe, 200 new applications were introduced since 2000, and almost 100 of them in Italy.
The most used devices are the high damping rubber bearings and the sliding bearings coupled
with lead-rubber bearings or viscoelastic dampers. Recently, new application were introduced
with the use of memory alloys or particular silicon oils [Dolce et al.,2004].
(b) Buildings. At the end of 2002, in the world there were more than 2700 base isolated
buildings and 1600 of them only in Japan. New applications are present for strategic
buildings, like hospitals, because their integrity is a must to keep the functionality even after
an earthquake. Several applications were made also into schools and public buildings, mainly
for retrofitting or seismic adequacy or improvement. The biggest news is the increasing
applications onto residence buildings, overall in Japan and China.
At the end of 2003, in Italy there were 25 isolated buildings. With the new seismic code
(Ordinanza No. 3274 and next correlated ones) and with the new seismic zones classification
(the seismic territory increased from the 43% to the 70% of the total surface), the base
isolation design has been really booming. Applications are made not only for hospitals, fire
departments, schools, museums, but also for buildings of common and generic use. An
important part is dealing with art elements preservation: monuments, statues, archaeological
objects, etc.
In Japan, after Kobe earthquake, it is practically impossible to know how many applications
were introduced into new buildings. The only sure thing is that high damping rubber devices
have been substituted by the coupling between sliding bearings and re-centring dampers,
basically elastomeric based ones. Often, the target period becomes 4 or 6 seconds, in order to
allow the application for high buildings too. A very interesting new design in Tokyo regards a
big slab of 12349m 2 in reinforced concrete which is supported by isolators. On this slab there
are 21 residential buildings that are between 6 and 14 storeys. This slab is supported by 242
isolators getting a 6.2 second period and a design displacement of 800mm. The isolators are
sliding bearings, rubber bearings and lead-rubber bearings.
In China, an important realization is going to be in Pechino. 50 isolated buildings between 7

and 9 storeys are going to be built onto a big 2-storey structure (3km2 of area) which contains
in its interior every service, such as trains and undergrounds. This type of choice saved a 25%
over the total cost.
5
2.2 Seismic Protection Systems
2.2.1 Strengthening
In earthquake engineering, one of the first way studied to allow seismic resistance into
structures is the strengthening, as explained in 2.3.1. This design can be achieved in a
permanent way with the structural design, better known as capacity design, or it can be
made in a temporary approach, with the installation of shock transmission units. These
devices dont give any reaction during service load effects, because they start to act when the
induced velocity is high, that is the case of a seismic event. They consist in temporary
restrains for structures, in order to put hyperstaticity. With this method isostatic restrains are
kept during the service period with all their benefits, and while an earthquake occurs all
elements tend to work together so that relative displacements are reduced, avoiding any
damage into bearing devices, joints and adjacent structures.
2.2.2 Passive Control

Basically the two most frequently used passive control strategies for buildings are:
1. energy dissipation;
2. seismic isolation.
The energy dissipation strategy consists in the introduction within the structural system of
elements specifically designed to dissipate energy in the dynamic deformation of the
structure. These elements could be dissipative steel bracings separate from the structure and
working in parallel with it, or they could be diagonal elements inserted in the structure
between consecutive floors too. The dissipation can be obtained by the use of friction devices,
viscous dampers or elastoplastic steel components. The type of analysis appropriate for the
energy dissipation strategy, not explicitly present in EN 1998-1, depends on the specific
choice of the dissipative elements and on their coupled behaviour with that of the structure.
Seismic isolation [Skinner et al., 1993; Naeim and Kelly, 1999] essentially uncouples the
structural movement from the ground motion by introducing a strong discontinuity in the
lateral stiffness distribution along the height of the structure (usually at their base in buildings
and between piers and deck in bridges). The structure is thus subdivided into two parts: the
substructure, rigidly connected to the ground, and the superstructure.
(a) Isolators. These devices are the fundamental components of an isolation system: they
carry the load transmitting it to the substructure. Basically, they can be represented by bearing
devices permitting large relative translations, 20 to 40 cm or more.
The most common types are the elastomeric bearings and the sliding ones; their behaviour is
shown in Figure 2.3. Elastomeric bearings have a quasi-elastic behaviour, while they can also
have some energy dissipation due to the rubber itself (LDRBs and HDRBs are the names for
Low Damping Rubber Bearing and High Damping Rubber Bearings) or to some lead-plug
cylinders put into the middle of the devices (LRBs). Another very important aspect is the self-
centring capability with their stability after several shaking cycles.
6
Sliding bearings exploit the low friction characteristics between special materials, such as
polished stainless steel and PTFE. Their theoretical behaviour is called rigid-plastic, even
though velocity and pressure might produce some variations. Moreover, the friction
coefficient is dependent on temperature, humidity, contamination, ageing. Lubricated sliding
bearing can decrease the friction coefficient up to the 10%. They need to be re-centred.
Figure 2.2. A rubber isolator bearing working and a structural cylindrical PTFE bearing
a) b)
Figure 2.3. Idealised force-displacement curves of: (a) elastomeric bearings and (b) sliding isolators
[Fardis et al., 2004]
(b) Supplementary devices. These are installed separately from the isolators, in order to
complete the isolating system. Energy Dissipating Elements (EDEs) are also sometimes put
into the isolators, avoiding the necessity of having two separate devices. The main idealised
force-displacement curves are shown in Figure 2.6.
Metallic hysteretic devices have a high energy dissipation capability, thanks to metals like
steel and lead when stressed beyond the elastic limit. They are very common used because of
their reliability, their invariability in time of their mechanical features. Their main problems
are a limited resistance to low-fatigue cycles, the re-centring necessity after an earthquake and
the need or replacing after a strong ground motion.
7
Figure 2.4. A steel hysteretic device and a friction pendulum double concave bearing with disassembled
articulated slider
Figure 2.5. Shape memory alloy devices and oil viscous dampers
Friction dampers have high potential and low cost. Their main problems deal with friction
coefficients and normal force: the friction static and dynamic coefficients must have values as
near as possible and they should not depend on velocity, on the environment, on the long time
periods when the two touching surfaces do not move; the normal force should not vary in
their lifetime.
Special alloys, such as shape memory alloys, have very nice characteristics and intelligent
behaviour. They can be utilised in both energy dissipation and re-centring, exploiting, in this
way, their superelastic properties and low-fatigue resistances.
Spring fluid viscous dampers exploit the viscosity of some fluids, such as oil or silicon fluids,
in order to get elliptical force-displacement behaviour. Forces of reaction and cycle
displacements depend on velocity ( F = cv n with n 0.15 ): they make no reaction when there
is a low relative movement. Their main problems are their reliability in the long run and their
maintenance.
Elastomeric viscoelastic dampers have a viscous cyclic behaviour that allows a certain
amount of energy dissipation capacity.
8
Isolation systems can be made of more than one type of components, each one assigned to one
or more specific tasks:
i. bearing vertical loads;
ii. providing adequate resistance to horizontal non-seismic actions (wind, traffic, etc.);
iii. assuring high flexibility under seismic actions;
iv. dissipating an adequate amount of energy;
v. re-centring the structure, in order to reduce the residual displacement after the
earthquake.
a) b) c)
d) e)
Figure 2.6. Idealised force-displacement curves of supplementary devices based on (a) hysteresis of metals,
(b) friction, (c) superelasticity of shape memory alloys, (d) fluid viscosity, (e) viscoelasticity
2.3 Base Isolation

A building that is perfectly rigid would have a 0-second natural period. When the ground
moves the acceleration induced in the structure is equal to ground acceleration and there is
zero relative displacement between the structure and ground. A building that is perfectly
flexible has an infinite natural period. For this type of structure, when the ground beneath the
structure moves there is no acceleration induced in the structure and the relative displacement
between the structure and the ground is equal to the ground displacement. Every real structure
is neither perfectly rigid nor perfectly flexible and so the response to the ground motion.
9
Strong ground motions may produce considerable negative effects on constructions, so that
seismic isolation is used to protect both bridges and buildings. The devices are interposed
between the primary mass of the structure and the source of motion. These flexible bearings
isolate a building from its foundations or the superstructure of a bridge from its pier.
Figure 2.7. Effect of increasing the flexibility of a structure: (a) The increased period and damping lower
the seismic acceleration response; (b) The increased period increases the total displacement of
the isolated system, but this is offset to a large extent by the damping [Skinner et al., 1993]
The main consequences of seismically isolating a structure are:
1. the increase of the fundamental period with the consequent decrease of the design
forces for short period structures; on the other side, for long period structures this
effect can be inconsistent or it could also generate bigger design forces;
2. the concentration of the inelastic deformation into the bearings;
3. the dissipation of seismic energy into the isolators, by hysteretic damping in its
components, allowing the decrease of shear force and maximum displacement
demands;
Several factors need to be taken into account by an engineer while designing a seismic
isolated structure. The first of these is the seismic hazard which depends on local geology,
recorded history of earthquakes in the region and any known factors about the probable
features of an earthquake such as severity and period. Therefore, the design earthquake is
specified on the basis of the seismicity of a region, the site conditions and the accepted hazard
level (for example a 400-year return period earthquake). Typically, earthquake accelerations
have dominant periods between 0.1 and 1 second, with a maximum severity between 0.2 and
0.6 seconds. Consequently, structures with natural periods in those particular rages tend to
resonate; they are particularly vulnerable to seismic inputs: the increased fundamental period,
due to an isolation system, is one way to reduce negative seismic effects.
It must also be recognised that rare earthquakes give their strongest excitations at long
periods, like in El Centro earthquake. With this type of motion, an isolation system with
10
moderate damping may cause an increase of the structural response. Increasing the isolation
damping is a good procedure in order to get reduced displacements on the superstructures.
The pros coming from the large reduction of the response acceleration can be summarised as:
i. a reduction of the inertia forces on the structure, such as to eliminate damage to

structural elements, even under strong earthquakes;
ii. a drastic reduction of the interstorey drifts, such as to eliminate damage into non
structural elements and to permit the continued use of a building even after a strong
earthquake;
iii. a high protection of the building contents;
iv. reduced vibrations felt by the people inside the building, resulting in less panic during
an event.
All these aspects represent significant economical and social advantages after an earthquake,
while the additional construction costs (due to the cost of the devices and of their placement
in the structure) are partially or even totally counterbalanced by the savings in the
superstructure and foundation costs. The cost percentage of seismic isolation in a building is a
function of several parameters, such as:
a. the building dimensions and, in particular, the number of stories;
b. the building configuration in order to have an easy arrangement of the isolation

system;
c. the structural layout, in relation to the number of devices necessary to realise the
isolation system;
d. the frequency content of the design action, in relation to the reduction of the effects
obtained by the period elongation;
e. the presence of adjacent buildings, in relation to the need of wide separation joints and
to the relevant architectural and equipment problems.
2.3.1 Comparison between Conventional and Base Isolation Approaches

Numerous concepts of seismic isolation using hysteretic isolators are similar to the
conventional capacity design, which is present in EN 1998-1. In the well conventionally
seismic designed structures, the yielding is forced to occur within some particular selected
locations that are called plastic hinge zones. Even if the yielding is considered as a type of
damage, when it is localised in specific regions, it becomes a synonym of structural integrity.
Moreover, by withstanding an earthquake, the structure itself must sustain big displacements
because of the large deformations.
In seismic isolation, the fundamental purpose is to reduce substantially the ground motion
forces and energy transmission. Installing isolating layers with a considerable horizontal
11
flexibility is a good way to achieve that aim: it reduces the earthquake effects transmission but
it increases the structure displacement relative to the ground, and that could become a
considerable problem. Acceptable displacements coupled with a large degree of isolation may
be obtained by introducing some damping.
Figure 2.8. Conventional and base isolation approaches
(a) Design seismic stresses on fixed base and isolated buildings [Fardis et al., 2004]. The
economical aspect between fixed base and seismic isolation design is often raised. This
problem should take into account the initial cost, the eventual repair cost, the maintenance
cost, casualties cost and social cost. In seismic isolation, savings can be made from the
reduction of the seismic forces acting on the structure: it is interesting to compare the design
stress on a fixed base structure and on a similar isolated one, in order to give also an idea to
the designer to choose between the two design methods. The ratio between the design spectral
accelerations of a fixed base structure S a , f (T f , q ) multiplied by the effective mass ratio and
that of a similar seismic isolated structure S a ,i (Teff ) divided by the stress reduction coefficient
1.5 is calculated, where T f is the period of the fixed base structure and Teff the period of the
isolated structure. The effective mass ratio is taken equal to 0.85, as prescribed for the
equivalent linear static analysis, if the structure has at least 2 stories and its vibration period is
T f < 2Tc . It is taken equal to 1 for the isolated structure.
In a fixed base design, for the ultimate limit states, the design spectral ordinate depends on the
behaviour factor q : Fardis et al. [2004] for a first ideal approach chose value of 5.85.
Reference is made to a typical rubber bearing system, with a viscous damping coefficient of
10%, resulting in a reduction factor of the spectral ordinate = 0.816 . The seismic force ratio
is so given:
Sa , f (T f , q ) 1.5 S a , f (T f ) 1.5625 Sa , f (T f ) S a , f (T f )
RULS = = = 0.267 (2.1)
S a ,i (Teff , eff ) /1.5 q Sa ,i (Teff ) q Sa ,i (Teff ) Sa ,i (Teff )
S a , f (T f ) Sa , f (T f ) S a , f (T f )
RDLS = = 1.0417 (2.2)
Sa ,i (Teff , eff ) Sa ,i (Teff ) Sa ,i (Teff )
12
5.0
Tf<0.4s
Mass Acceleration Ratio

4.0
Tf=1.0s
3.0 Tf=1.5s
2.0
1.0
0.0
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Isolation Period (s)
Figure 2.9. Base shear ratio for ground type A [Fardis et al., 2004]
5.0
Tf<0.8s
Mass Acceleration Ratio
4.0
Tf=1.0s
3.0 Tf=1.5s
2.0
1.0
0.0
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Isolation Period (s)
Figure 2.10. Base shear ratio for ground type D [Fardis et al., 2004]
The advantages of seismic isolation are much stronger for DLS because RDLS / RULS 4 .
Figs. 2.9 and 2.10 show the RULS values in a diagram with the isolated structure period at the
abscissa: they deal with the two extreme possible cases for soil conditions (A and D), which
represent, respectively, the most and the less favourable cases for seismic isolation. This ratio
is the more favourable to seismic isolation as the higher its effective period. Focusing the
attention on the usual range of application of rubber isolation, 2.0s Teff 3.0s , and
considering an isolation ratio of at least 2, it can be seen that the seismic force ratio varies
between 0.63 ( T f = 1.0 s , Teff = 2.0 s ) and 3.00 ( T f 0.4s , Teff = 3.0s ) for ground type A, and
between 0.54 and 1.50 for ground type D. It should be underlined that further savings are
13
implied by the fact that neither capacity design nor seismic detailing is required for structures
protected by seismic isolation.
Damage limit state ratio is ranging from 2.52 to 12.00 and from 2.16 to 6.00 for ground type
A and D respectively. This is strongly emphasising the great advantages provided by seismic
isolation in terms of non structural damage control.
2.4 Lead Rubber Bearings

Rubber bearings are able to supply for large seismic displacements, but by combining them
with lead-plug inserts there is an hysteretic behaviour adding so that the required damping for
an ideal isolation system can be incorporated into the rubber bearings themselves.
The lead-rubber bearings were invented in April 1975 by W.H. Robinson in New Zealand.
The steel plates in the elastomeric bearing became the solution for controlling the lead shape
after large plastic deformations. A glued elastomeric bearing was drilled out in order to take a
lead plug and was tested. Those results forwarded to the New Zealand Ministry of Works and
Development. In the next few months MWD redesigned the isolators for the William Clayton
Building with lead-rubber bearings. At the same period the Bridge Section of the MWD
designed the Toe Toe and Waiotukupuna bridges to take lead-rubber bearings. In a very short
period of time lead-rubber bearings were invented, tested and utilised in practice.
Figure 2.11. Principle structure of a Maurer Shne LRB
Lead yields at low stress, around 10MPa, and behaves like an elastic-plastic solid. Lead is
also hot-worked when plastically deformed at ambient temperature and the mechanical
properties of the lead are being continuously restored by the simultaneous interrelated
processes of recovery, recrystallization and grain growth. As a matter of fact, deforming lead
at 20C is like deforming steel at temperatures higher than 400C. Lead has good fatigue
properties during cycling at plastic strains.
14
The hole for the lead-plug can be machined through the bearing after manufacture, or the hole
can be made in the steel plates and rubber sheets before they are joined together. The lead, in
any case, must fit tightly in the elastomeric bearing and this is achieved by making the lead
plug a little larger (1%) than the hole and forcing it into it. In this way, when the bearing is
deformed horizontally, the led insert is forced by the interlocking steel plates to deform in
shear throughout its whole volume.
For strain rates of 1Hz, the lead-rubber bearing can be treated as a bilinear solid with an initial
shear stiffness of K and a post-yield shear stiffness of around K /10 . The yield force of the
lead insert can be easily determined from the yield stress of the lead in the bearing. The
maximum shear force is the sum of the elastic force with the plastic force required to deform
the lead cylinder.
The lead-rubber bearings represent an economic solution for the seismic isolation problems
because it combines the functions of vertical support, of rigidity at service load levels, and of
horizontal flexibility and hysteretic damping at earthquake load levels into a single compact
unit.
15
16
Chapter 3. State of the Art
3. STATE OF THE ART

3.1 Linear Theory of Seismic Isolation
The linear theory of seismic isolation has been given by Naeim and Kelly [1999]. The basic
concepts of base isolation can be shown with a simple 2-degree-of-freedom system with
concentrated masses, as shown in Figure 3.1.
m us
ks, cs
mb ub
kb, cb
ug
Figure 3.12. Parameters of 2-degree-of-freedom isolated system [Naeim and Kelly, 1999]
The mass m is intended to represent the superstructure of the building and mb the mass of the
base floor above the isolation system. The structure damping and stiffness are represented by
cs , ks and the damping and stiffness of the isolation by cb , kb . Absolute displacement of the
two masses are us and ub , but more convenient is to relate all with relative displacements:
vb = ub u g (3.1)
vs = us u g (3.2)
where u g is the ground displacement. This choice with relative displacement appears to be
efficient because Eq. (3.1) represent the isolation system displacement and Eq. (3.2) is the
interstorey drift.
The equation of motion can be easily expressed by applying dAlamberts principle:
( m + mb ) v&&b + mv&&s + cb v&b + kb vb = ( m + mb ) u&&g (3.3)
17
mv&&b + mv&&s + cs v&s + k s vb = mu&&g (3.4)
If we introduce the total mass
M = m + mb (3.5)
the mass ratio
m m
= = (3.6)
m + mb M
the nominal frequencies
kb ks
b 2 = s 2 = (3.7)
M m
the frequency ratio
b 2
= = O (102 ) (3.8)
s 2
the damping factors
cb cs
b = s = (3.9)
2b M 2s m
the basic equations of motion become, in a matrix notation,
1 v&&b 2bb 0 v&b b 2 0 vb 1

1 1 v&& + 0 + 2 = u&&g
2 ss v&s 0 s vs
(3.10)
s 1
The characteristic equation of the frequencies is
(1 ) 4 (s 2 + b 2 ) 2 + s 2b 2 = 0 (3.11)
the solution of which, to first order in , are given by
s 2
1 = b (1 )
2 2
2 =2
(1 + ) (3.12)
1
and the mode shapes are
18
1
1
1 = 2 = 1 (3.13)
(
1 1 )

The modal analysis of this system yields with the expressing the participation factors as
L1 = 1 L2 = (3.14)
and the damping ratios
3 s + b
1 = b 1 2 = 1 (3.15)
2 1 2
If S d ( , ) and S a ( , ) are the pseudo-displacement and the pseudo-acceleration spectra,

the maximum modal displacement can be calculated and combined using the SRSS rule to
get:
vb ,max = L12 S d (1 , 1 ) + L2 2 Sd (2 , 2 )
2 2
(3.16)
(1 2 ) Sd (1 , 1 ) + 1 2 (1 ) Sd (2 , 2 )
2 2 2 2
vs ,max = (3.17)
The shear coefficient can be defined as:
Cs = S a (1 , 1 ) + 2 S a (2 , 2 )
2 2
(3.18)
Taking into account that, usually, for isolated systems we have 1 and
S d (2 , 2 ) S d (1 , 1 ) , consequently, 1 b , L1 1 and 1 b :
vb ,max = S d (b , b ) (3.19)
vs ,max = S d (b , b ) (3.20)
Cs = S a (b , b ) (3.21)
This result is of great importance for the interpretation of the behaviour of base isolated
buildings [Fardis et al., 2004] and for their preliminary design: for small values of and for
usual spectral shapes the isolation system can be designed for a maximum displacement equal
to S d (b , b ) , and the superstructure for a shear coefficient equal to S a (b , b ) . These values
could have been obtained with reference to a simple oscillator, whose mass is equal to the
19
total mass of the superstructure, and the stiffness and damping are equal to the corresponding
quantities of the isolation system ( kb and b ). The interstorey drift ( vs ,max ) on which the
damage produced by an earthquake depends, is proportional to the frequency ratio and to
the maximum base displacement S d (b , b ) . The single-degree-of-freedom approximation
gives well approximated values of the design parameters that differ from the exact ones of
1 2% .
3.2 Response Spectrum Concept

Nowadays, the response spectrum concept is fundamental in engineering and, particularly, in
earthquake engineering. This spectrum gives a convenient means to summarize the peak
response of all possible linear SDF systems to a particular type of ground motion.
Furthermore, it provides a practical way to apply the knowledge of structural dynamics into
the structures design and development of lateral force requirements in building codes.
A plot of the peak values of a response quantity as a function of the natural vibration period
Tn of the system, or a related parameter such as circular frequency n or cyclic frequency f n ,
is called the response spectrum for that quality [Chopra, 2001]. Each such plot is for SDF
systems having a fixed damping ratio , and several such plots for different values of are
included to cover the damping range encountered in real structures.
A variety of response spectra can be defined, depending on the response quantity that is
plotted. The deformation response spectrum is a plot of u0 against Tn for fixed :
u0 (Tn , ) max u ( t , Tn , ) (3.22)

t
Similar plots for u&0 and u&&t0 , that means having relative velocity response spectrum and
acceleration response spectrum:
u&0 (Tn , ) max u& ( t , Tn , ) (3.23)

t
u&&t0 (Tn , ) max u&&t ( t , Tn , ) (3.24)

t
The response spectrum for a given ground motion u&&g ( t ) can be computed following these
steps:
1. definition of the ground motion in a numerical way; normally, the ground motions are
defined every 0.2 seconds;
2. selection of the natural vibration period Tn and damping ratio of a SDF system;
3. computation of the response u ( t ) of this SDF system due to the ground motion;
20
4. choice of the peak values of the response, u0 , that is the spectral abscissa;
5. calculation of the spectral ordinates: D = u0 , V = ( 2 Tn ) D and A = ( 2 Tn ) D ;

2
6. iteration of the steps from 2 to 5 for a number of Tn and in such a way to cover all
possible systems of engineering interest;
7. plotting the results in order to produce the spectra that are required.
All this process is done with a ground motion input, but something more can be obtained. If
we deal with a multistorey building we can imagine that the main input for that MDF system
is, obviously, the ground motion. By analysing the building behaviour, a remarkable aspect
becomes the different moving such floor has, because of the different accelerations. By
considering, for instance, one storey-level acceleration time-history, it is absolutely allowed to
use it as an input, the input of the first point above. Following all the other next points, the
results coming up from such type of analysis are the floor response spectra.
Floor response spectra give useful information for the type of analysis carried out on this
work of research. They can easily show the typical behaviour of a storey in a building in order
to design the storey-isolation system.
3.3 Design Criteria for Isolated Buildings

The design of the superstructure of base-isolated buildings was a debated point for long,
essentially because of the lack of precise objectives and of the correct ways for achieving
them. At the moment, ideas are clearer, and differences between existing codes represent
different choices on the objectives. At the first stage of seismic-isolation diffusion, a
misconception took space: the idea that isolation could and should, to be competitive, be more
economical in absolute terms than fixed base construction. In order to achieve this objective,
unjustifiably low forces were proposed in early codes for the design of the superstructure
[Fardis and Calvi, 2002].
Now, all codes recognize two performance levels to be checked:
1. a level (SLS) of fully elastic response both for the devices and for all structural parts,
under the intensity of a seismic event of rather frequent occurrence
( TR = 50 150 years );
2. a level (ULS) in which the devices attain their ultimate capacity, in terms of strength
and deformability, while the structural parts (above and below the devices) may
undergo a limited amount of damage, under the intensity of a seismic event with a
TR = 500 years or more.
Codes differ only in the precise definition of the ULS and in the way the non exceedance of
this limit state is controlled. For example, the US code (UBC (1997)) presently requires that
the superstructure be designed for the maximum forces in the isolation system divided by a
21
factor R ranging from 1.8 to 3.0, depending on the structural typology (e.g. R = 2.6 for shear
wall systems). The level of protection this procedure is capable of ensuring remains
unspecified. Other codes, and in particular the Italian guidelines (1998), adopt a more strict
approach. The declared requirement is to preserve the superstructure from yield, and this is
presumed to be fulfilled using a factor R = 1.5 , which is meant as a conservative
compensation for the structures overstrength. The requirement, however, is not expressed in
proper reliability terms, since it should be accompanied by the acceptable probability of
exceedance and, on the other hand, the basis for the factor R = 1.5 is purely heuristic, since no
systematic confirmation studies have ever been carried out.
3.3.1 Base Isolation in EN 1998-1:2004 [Fardis et al., 2004]

The 10.4(6) sentence Although it may be acceptable that, in certain cases, the substructure
has inelastic behaviour, it is considered in the present section that it remains in the elastic
range simplifies a lot modelling because all elements can be assumed to behave linearly.
But, dealing with isolation-system modelling is not banal and it needs a particular attention.
Table 3.1. Summary of the types of analyses and conditions to be met for their application
EQUIVALENT LINEAR (10.9.2) NON LINEAR

Only when conditions in 10.9.2(5) are fulfilled All other cases
Simplified linear Modal analysis (10.9.4) Time-History
(10.9.3) Simplified Complete (10.9.5)
Only when conditions in Only when conditions in All other cases (conditions in
10.9.3(2,3,4) are fulfilled 10.9.3(3,4) are fulfilled 10.9.2(5) fulfilled)
Values of physical and mechanical properties of the isolation system to be used in the
analysis shall be the most unfavourable ones to be attained during the lifetime of the structure
(10.8(1)). They shall reflect, where relevant, the influence of:
rate of loading;
magnitude of the simultaneous vertical load;
magnitude of simultaneous horizontal load in the transverse direction;
temperature;
change of properties over projected service life.
Moreover, modelling of the isolation system should reflect with a sufficient accuracy the
spatial distribution of the isolator units, so that the translation in both horizontal directions,
the corresponding overturning effects and the rotation about the vertical axis are adequately
accounted for. It should reflect adequately the characteristics of the different types of units
used in the isolation system (10.9.1(3)).
22
Generally speaking, the system used for isolation has a behaviour that is more non-linear than
linear. Sometimes, under certain conditions, an equivalent linear viscoelastic force-
deformation relationship can be assumed for the isolation system and a simplified analysis
can be carried out with effective valued of stiffness ( K eff )and damping ( eff ). Eurocode 8
states these conditions in 10.9.2(5):
the behaviour of the isolation system may be considered as being equivalent to linear if all the
following conditions are met:
a) the effective stiffness of the isolation system, , is not less than 50% of the effective
stiffness at a displacement of 0.2d dc (where d dc is evaluated at the stiffness centre of
the isolation system);
b) the effective damping ratio of the isolation system, , does not exceed 30% (in fact
high damping values can cause modal coupling, increasing floor accelerations and
base shears);
c) the force-displacement characteristics of the isolation system do not vary by more

than 10% due to the rate of loading or due to the vertical loads;
d) the increase of the restoring force in the isolation system for displacements between
0.5d dc and d dc is not less than 2.5% of the total gravity load above the isolation
system.
The simplified linear analysis is the simplest approach into seismic effects evaluation. The
structure is assumed to behave like a simple oscillator, whose mass is the superstructure mass
and the isolation stiffness as structural stiffness. This particular analysis can be done only
when conditions 10.9.3(2,3,4) are fulfilled:
The torsional movement about the vertical axis may be neglected in the evaluation of the
effective horizontal stiffness and in the simplified linear analysis if, in each of the two
principal horizontal directions, the total eccentricity (including the accidental eccentricity)
between the stiffness centre of the isolation system and the vertical projection of the centre of
mass of the superstructure does not exceed 7.5% of the length of the superstructure transverse
to the horizontal direction considered.
The simplified method may be applied to isolation systems with equivalent linear damped
behaviour, if they also conform to all of the following conditions:
e) the distance from the site to the nearest potentially active fault with a magnitude
M S 6.5 is greater than 15 km;
f) the largest dimension of the superstructure in plan is not greater than 50 m;
g) the substructure is sufficiently rigid to minimise the effects of differential

displacements of the ground;
23
h) all devices are located above elements of the substructure which support vertical
loads;
i) the effective period Teff satisfies the following condition: 3T f Teff 3s , where T f is
the period of the superstructure assuming a fixed base (estimated through a simplified
expression);
j) the lateral-load resisting system of the superstructure should be regularly and

symmetrically arranged along the two main axes of the structure in plan;
k) the rocking rotation at the base of the substructure should be negligible;
l) the ratio between the vertical and the horizontal stiffness of the isolation system
should satisfy the following expression: KV K eff 150 ;
m) the fundamental period in the vertical direction, TV , should be not longer than 0.1 s,
where TV = 2 M KV .
Isolation displacements and seismic forces are evaluated with:
MSa (Teff , eff )

d dc = (3.25)
K eff ,min
f j = m j Sa (Teff , eff ) (3.26)
where Se (Teff , eff ) is the spectral acceleration and m j the mass at level j . Consequently, the
seismic forces along the height are no more in a linear variation but have a constant
distribution: the structure is supposed to move as a rigid body.
If the isolation system may be modelled as linear, but some of the conditions above are not
met, the structural system shall be analyzed with a modal dynamic analysis, where both the
superstructure and the isolation system are modelled as linear elastic. A simplified model,
with a rigid mass with three horizontal degrees of freedom simulating the superstructure, may
still be used when only the conditions from e) to m) are fulfilled, i.e. when the torsional
displacement can produce significant differences in the displacement of the isolation system.
These differences must be taken into account when evaluating the effective stiffness of the
single isolator units.
A time-history analysis can always be made in any case; it becomes mandatory if it is not
possible to model the mechanical behaviour of the isolation system as equivalent linear. The
only condition is to model non-linearly the isolation system, while a linear model is kept for
the structure. The non-linear model shall represent the actual constitutive law of the isolation
system in the actual range of deformations and velocities related to the seismic design
situation. In the most complete case a full non-linear analysis can also be done, in order to
have a clear response behaviour of the structure which is considered in the analysis.
24
3.4 Modelling State of the Art for LRBs [Grant et al., 2005]
The more used type of modelling isolation systems is based on linearised viscoelastic model.
The nonlinear hysteretic response of a bearing is represented by two parameters: an effective
stiffness, K eff , and an equivalent viscous damping, eff . Usually, equivalent stiffness and
damping values are fixed for a certain design peak displacement, and equivalent viscous
damping is fixed for a single natural frequency of the excitation. Viscoelastic linearised model
is a design tool that can be verified with time-history analyses by a more sophisticated model.
A bilinear force-displacement model represents the next step into modelling these types of
devices. For LRBs this physical interpretation is, as a matter of fact, more apparent. The lead
plug dominates the elastic stiffness, and when lead yields, the post-yield stiffness is basically
the shear stiffness of the rubber. Three parameters are required in order to define the model,
for example initial stiffness, K , post-yield stiffness ratio, , and yield force, Fy .
The relationship between viscoelastic and bilinear models are shown in Figure 3.2, using the
secant stiffness to characterise the equivalent linearization. The total restoring force, that is
the sum of the elastic (spring) restoring force, Fs , with the viscous damping force, Fd , is
shown in the same figure. For the rate-independent bilinear model the viscous force is zero,
while for the viscoelastic model is linearly proportional to the velocity. The equivalent
damping for the linearised model is calculated usually in a way that the energy dissipated in a
cycle at resonant frequency is equal to the energy dissipated in hysteresis by the bilinear
model.
Figure 3.13. Relationship between bilinear and linearised viscoelastic models in terms of dynamic
restoring force versus displacement [Grant et al., 2005].
3.5 Examples of seismic storey isolation

Base isolation is a relative new earthquake resistance design. Many applications were made
up to now, but basically they are strictly base isolation ones. That means using the devices at
the basement of a building or at the superstructure basement of a bridge. Few examples dealt
with a type of floor isolation. Nothing in literature treats the single-floor isolation as it has
25
been carried out in this work of research. There are few literature papers regarding this field
of investigation and they are synthesised in the following paragraphs.
3.5.1 Floor Response of SDF Systems

An important application of studying floor spectra in order to establish if metallic fuses have
positive effects on isolation and/or retrofitting was made by Vargas [2004]. The structural
fuse concept was investigated as a way to protect primary moment frame structures from
experiencing inelastic behaviour of beams and columns, by concentrating all damage on
easily replaceable elements. Furthermore, limiting storey drift indirectly allows mitigation of
damage to non-structural components that are sensitive to lateral deformations (i.e. elements
that are generally attached to consecutive floors). However, many non-structural elements are
only attached to one floor, which makes them vulnerable to shifting or overturning. Damage
to the internal components of sensitive equipment may also occur due to severe floor
vibrations. In order to protect these components, floor acceleration and, in some cases, floor
velocity (e.g., in the case of toppling of furniture) should be kept under certain limits.
Studies were made on SDF systems designed with metallic dampers acting as structural fuses.
In this case study, results obtained from time-history analysis indicate that floor spectral
acceleration, Sa , and floor spectral velocity, Sv , are 0.40 g and 484 mm/s, respectively. Sa
and Sv on the bare frame are respectively 0.32 g and 728 mm/s. In this particular example, it
may be noted that adding unbonded braces to the system result in an increase of 25% in the
floor acceleration, and a reduction of 33% in the floor velocity.
Floor acceleration response histories of SDF systems have been taken as the input signal to
generate elastic floor acceleration and velocity spectra, to analyze the response of non-
structural components attached to the floor of bare frame systems, and structures designed
with metallic fuses. A damping ratio of 5% was selected for this study.
Approximately, the critical period, may be determined as the average between the period of
the bare frame, and the period of the structural fuse system. That is a useful indicator to
identify when using metallic fuses can increase or decrease the dynamic acceleration and
velocity response of non-structural components. It was observed that non-structural elements
having a period shorter than the critical one may be susceptible to greater acceleration (which
would increase their likelihood of sliding on their support if unrestrained, for example), and
greater velocity (which would for example increase their probability of overturning) when
metallic fuses are added. On the other hand, it was found that retrofit works may improve the
seismic behaviour of flexible non-structural components that have a period longer than the
critical period; however, adequate judgement must be exercised in retrofitting these elements.
3.5.2 Floor Response Spectra Evaluation

Kingston [2004] in his work of research, was evaluating the acceleration response of elastic
non-structural components subjected to earthquake-induced supporting motions: a field that is
in a particular way related with the work carried out by this dissertation. The floor
accelerations are deeply investigated in order to predict the non-structural components
behaviour.
Earthquake ground motions can be severely amplified due to the dynamic characteristics of
26
the supporting structures and non-structural components supported on these structures.

Floor response spectra are developed in this study to evaluate the maximum acceleration
response of NSCs and provide significant insight into their dynamic behaviour. The
amplification factor of the ground acceleration is related with the ratio between the non-
structural component and first mode building periods. An increase in the inelastic behaviour
of the supporting structure significantly reduces the component amplification factor. For
elastic frames, especially short period frames, the higher the location of the NSC in the
building, the larger the maximum accelerations it will experience. For inelastic frames, the
higher the location of the NSC in the building, the smaller the maximum accelerations it will
experience.
3.5.3 A Storey-Isolation System

This is a storey-isolation system [Mar and Tipping, 2002] which utilises stiffness control and
passive damping to achieve high performance during earthquakes. The system consists of a
buildings floors and columns (the gravity frame), which are connected to the lateral load
resisting elements (the reaction frames) via a unique assembly of springs and passive dampers
located at each floor. The gravity frame is laterally isolated from the base through slide
bearings. Seismic resistance is gained through spring and damper forces that are developed by
the relative displacement and velocity between the gravity frame and the reaction frames.
Figure 3.14. 2-D diagram of the high-performance seismic technology [Mar and Tipping, 2002]
Figure 3.15. Slider at interior column [Mar and Tipping, 2002]
27
The system is comprised of five components: the gravity frame, the reaction frames, the
isolators, the springs, and the dampers (Figure 3.3). The gravity frame consists of the
structures floors, beams and columns. The gravity frame is isolated from the ground and
allowed to move relative to the reaction frame by means of low friction sliders (Figure 3.4).
The preferred placement of the low friction sliders is at the top of the first floor columns.
Reaction frames are typically three-dimensional core type frames that are self-supporting.
They can be made of reinforced concrete or masonry or with steel braces. The springs are
used to set the period of the structure, resist wind forces, and re-centre the building. If the
gravity frame is relatively soft and the reaction frame is relatively stiff, then KTOT = K spring .
The dampers that proved to provide the most optimal performance are non-linear viscous
dampers. These devices give resisting forces in proportion to the velocity in the form of
F = cv n (the nonlinear exponent used is in the range of 0.3 to 0.5).
Initial analysis included extensive non-linear time-history simulations with DRAIN 2DX and
SAP2000 and earthquake simulator testing of the storey-isolation system was conducted at the
University of California at San Diego. In summary, the storey isolation system gives control
in establishing a buildings seismic response through the independent establishment of the
period and level of damping. Due to the direct coupling of floors to the reaction frame via
springs and dampers, the system can employ large amounts of damping without changing its
modal behaviour or be subject to uplift limitations. As such, the system can be simply
proportioned to control seismic response, and achieve high-performance with essentially no
structural damage during a major earthquake. The system also possesses reserve strength and
ductility through the reaction frames, which can be activated during an overload condition
while protecting the springs and dampers.
28
Chapter 4. Numerical Testing
4. NUMERICAL TESTING
The computational tool is computer program ANSRuop, developed in the Structures
Laboratory, University of Patras, as a development and expansion of the ANSR-I program
developed at UC Berkeley. Programs features are:
1. linear static analysis, under lateral forces proportional to nodal masses and a certain
force pattern (linear or modal);
2. eigenmode and eigenvalue evaluation;
3. nonlinear static, better known as pushover, analysis, under increasing lateral forces
proportional to specified patterns;
4. nonlinear dynamic analysis.
Modelling characteristics involve also the estimation of the effective (secant) stiffness of
columns to yielding. The main developed method of analysis is here the non linear time-
history analysis: while, in a linear time history analysis, all objects behave linearly and only
the linear properties assigned to link elements are considered, in a nonlinear time-history
analysis the nonlinear dynamic properties assigned to link elements are considered.
4.1 Process Scheme

The experiments chronologic schedule can be resumed by the following points:
1. modelling the 4-storey RC building (called original building from now on), as it was
designed to EC8 provisions [Panagiotakos and Fardis, 2004] and running 7 non-linear
time-history analyses;
2. modelling the same building with the facilities mass added on the 1st floor and running
7 non-linear time-history analyses;
3. modelling the LRBs to isolate the 1st-floor facilities mass in two separate cases: with
15% or 30% damping ratio devices (15DLRBs and 30DLRBs) and running 7 non-
linear time-history analyses per device type;
4. modelling the original building of the 1st point with the 2nd-floor facilities mass in the
no isolated case and running 7 non-linear time-history analyses;
29
5. modelling the 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs to isolate the 2nd-floor facilities mass and
running 7 non-linear time-history analyses per device type;
6. modelling the original building with the 3rd-floor facilities mass in the no isolated case
and running 7 non-linear time-history analyses;
7. modelling the 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs to isolate the 3rd-floor facilities mass and
8. modelling the original building with the 4th-floor facilities mass in the no isolated case
and running 7 non-linear time-history analyses
9. modelling the 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs to isolate the 4th-floor facilities mass and
10. modelling the original building with facilities mass all over the 4th floor and running 7
non-linear time-history analyses;
11. modelling the 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs to isolate the whole-4th-floor facilities mass
and running 7 non-linear time-history analyses per device type;
12. data analysis.
4.2 Design of the 4-Storey RC Building

The building, subject of any test done for the achievement of this work of research, is brought
from a study by Panagiotakos and Fardis [2004]. The performance of RC buildings designed
with Eurocode 8 was evaluated through systematic nonlinear analyses. Regular 4-, 8- or 12-
storey RC frames were designed for a PGA of 0.2g or 0.4g and to the three alternative
ductility classes in EC8. The performance of alternative designs under the life-safety (475-
year return period) and the damage limitation (95-year return period) earthquakes was
evaluated through nonlinear seismic response analyses.
For the case in analysis, ductility class (or DC) Medium (or M) and PGA of 0.4 g is taken. In
EC8 (for Medium, and High or H) design is based on energy dissipation and on ductility.
There are some basic rules that are applied in order to have a control all over the inelastic
seismic response in multistorey RC frames. The structural configuration and the relative
sizing of members are chosen to have strong column/weak beam frames, with an overstrength
factor of 1.3 on beam flexural capacities. Detailing of plastic hinge regions, to safely
accommodate the corresponding inelastic deformation demands, is necessary: relating the
quantities of deformation demands (e.g. the curvature ductility factor) in these regions to the
behaviour factor q that reduces the elastic spectrum for design based on linear elastic
analysis. Member verification in terms of forces and resistances for the Ultimate Limit State
(ULS) under the design earthquake (475-year return period), is supposed to be done with the
elastic spectrum reduced by a behaviour factor q equal to 3 times an overstrength factor R
for frame redundancy in DC M, or to 4.5 times the overstrength factor R in DC H.
30
Damage is limited under an occasional earthquake (95-year return period): controlling the
storey drift ratio up to a limit of 0.5% for brittle non-structural infills in contact with the RC
frame, assuming 50% of uncracked gross section rigidities. Capacity design of beams and
columns is made against pre-emptive shear failure.
Detailing rules to control the deformation capacity of plastic hinges in concrete members
through the amount of compression reinforcement ' in beam end sections or of the
confining reinforcement, wd , in columns, are linked analytically to the local curvature
ductility factor, , and through it to the value of q (prior to any reduction due to irregularity
in elevation):
= 2q 1 if T1 TC (4.1)
= 1 + 2 ( q 1) TC / T1 if T1 < TC (4.2)
where T1 the fundamental period of the building and TC the transition period between the
constant acceleration region and the constant pseudovelocity regions of the spectrum. Rules
for confinement of column end regions do not apply uniformly to all column ends, but only
where plastic hinges are meant to develop.
RC frame with 4 storeys of 3 m height were designed to EC2 and EC8, for the Type 1
spectrum recommended in EC8 for soil type C (stiff soil, with transition period between the
acceleration- and velocity-controlled regions of 0.6s) and a PGA of 0.4g. For this type of soil
the PGA at grade level is obtained by multiplying the PGA on rock with an S factor of 1.15;
therefore the frames are designed to a PGA on rock of 0.4/1.15=0.35g.
Concrete of class C30/37 (nominal cylindrical strength of 30 MPa) and class B S500 steel
(relatively ductile tempcore type of steel, with nominal yield stress of 500 MPa) are assumed.
The frames have three 5 m-long bays. A two-way system of beams with a span of 5 m is
considered in both horizontal directions. The slab is 0.15 m thick and in the design is
considered to contribute to the moment of inertia of the beams with an effective flange width
according to EC2.
In addition to the self weight of the beams and the slab, a distributed dead load of 2kN / m2
due to floor finishing and partitions and imposed live load with nominal value of 1.5kN / m 2
are considered. In the combination of gravity loads (persistent design situation) nominal
dead and live loads are multiplied with load factors of 1.35 and 1.5, respectively. Following
EC8, in the seismic design situation, dead and live loads enter with their nominal value and
with 30% of the nominal value, respectively.
Frame columns are square; their side length hc is the same in all storeys but is smaller in the
two exterior columns, so that their uncracked gross-section stiffness is about half that of the
interior ones. In this way elastic seismic chord rotation demands at the two beam ends in the
exterior bays of the frame are approximately equal (and, to the extent the equal displacement
approximation holds at the level of member chord rotations, inelastic chord rotation demands
are about equal at the two ends of exterior beams). Beams have the same web width
( bw = 0.35m ) in all storeys but different depth, hb .
31
Design is based on the results of linear elastic (equivalent) static analysis, for lateral
earthquake forces distributed over the height according to an assumed linear mode shape
(termed lateral force procedure in EC8). Because such a static analysis systematically
overestimates the results of a more representative modal response spectrum analysis, EC8
allows multiplying its results by 0.85. Lateral forces are derived from the design spectrum
(5%-damped elastic spectrum divided by the behaviour factor q ) at the fundamental period of
the building, which is estimated through the Rayleigh quotient on the basis of the storey
elastic horizontal displacements resulting from equivalent lateral forces with (inverted)
triangular distribution. 50% of the uncracked gross section stiffness is considered in the EC8
designs. Design neglects any torsional effects due to accidental eccentricity and simultaneous
action of the two horizontal components of the earthquake (according to the familiar 0.3:1
rule), as the nonlinear analyses of the response of the frames to the design earthquake are
performed in 2D, under only one component of the seismic action and without accidental
eccentricity.
In the analysis the columns of the bottom storey are assumed fixed at grade level. The finite
size of beam-column joints is considered, but joints are assumed rigid. P- effects are
neglected. Beam gravity loads are computed on the basis of beam tributary areas in the two-
way square slab system.
At a preliminary design stage, the (uniform) column depth hc and the beam depths hbi at each
storey are tailored to the interstorey drift ratio limitation of 0.5% (for brittle non-structural
infills) for the damage limitation earthquake (taken as 50% of the design earthquake, i.e. with
a PGA on Type C soil of 0.10g or 0.20g).
Figure 4.16. 3D model of the 4-storey building modelled in ANSRuop
Member sizing takes place iteratively, via a simplified analysis in which inflection points due
to the lateral earthquake loading are assumed at beam mid-span and at column mid-height.
Member depths are rounded up to the nearest 50 mm. Internal forces to be used for the
calculation of member reinforcement for the ULS in bending, are obtained from a linear
32
elastic analysis of the full model of the so-sized frame. During the dimensioning of beam
reinforcement, beam depths in some storeys may increase further, to respect the maximum top
steel ratio at beam supports to columns. In such cases the linear elastic analysis is repeated,
for conformity of the fundamental period and of the analysis results with the final member
depths.
5 5 5 5
Exterior Exterior Exterior
Interior Interior Interior
4 4 4 4
3 3 3 3
Storey
2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1
DC-M
0 0 0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
hb (m) (%) ' (%) c (%)
Figure 4.17. Beam depth ( hb ), beam top ( ) and bottom ( ' ) reinforcement ratio and column total
reinforcement ratio ( c ) in 4-storey frames for EC8 DC M; design PGA of 0.4g.; closed circles:
exterior and open circles: interior members [Panagiotakos and Fardis, 2004]
5 5 5 5
(Beam s - Exterior) (Beam s - Interior) (Colum ns - Exterior) (Colum ns - Interior)
4 4 4 4
3 3 3 3
Storey
Storey
2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1
DC - M DC - M
0 0 0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Figure 4.18. Minimum-maximum range and mean member damage ratio from 7 time-history analyses
of 4-storey frames designed to EC8 DC M; design PGA of 0.4g [Panagiotakos and Fardis, 2004]
5
exterior
interior
3
Storey
DCM
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Figure 4.19. Ratio of sum of column flexural capacities to sum of beam flexural capacities around joints in
frames designed to EC8 DC M; design PGA of 0.4g. Closed circles: exterior joints; open circles:
interior joints [Panagiotakos and Fardis, 2004]
33
Final column depths are of 0.55m and 0.65m for exterior and interior columns respectively.
The resulting axial load ratios, d = N / Ac f cd , are 0.077 and 0.122 (for exterior and interior
columns respectively) at the base of the column under the gravity loads which are considered
to act simultaneously with the design earthquake. Design base shear Vb is of 1152kN. The
concrete volume is of 37.98m3 and the steel weight is of 4.29t per frame.
Figure 4.20. External column characteristics as it is shown by ANSRuop
Figure 4.21. Internal column characteristics as it is shown by ANSRuop
34
Figure 4.22. 1st-floor beam characteristics as it is shown by ANSRuop
Figure 4.23. 2nd-floor beam characteristics as it is shown by ANSRuop
Figure 4.24. 3rd-floor beam characteristics as it is shown by ANSRuop
35
Figure 4.25. 4th-floor beam characteristics as it is shown by ANSRuop
Figure 4.26. 1st-floor transverse beam characteristics as it is shown by ANSRuop
Figure 4.27. 2nd-floor transverse beam characteristics as it is shown by ANSRuop
36
Figure 4.28. 3rd-floor transverse beam characteristics as it is shown by ANSRuop
Figure 4.29. 4th-floor transverse beam characteristics as it is shown by ANSRuop
4.3 Seismic Isolation System with Lead Rubber Bearings

The four fundamental functions of LRBs are, as it is alreadt known:
1. transmission of vertical loads: LRBs act as conventional bearings transferring vertical

loads;
2. allowance of displacements on the horizontal plane providing the horizontal

flexibility: LRBs produce uncoupling between foundation and superstructure reducing
transmitted forces or the amount of mechanical energy. The rubber is providing the
horizontal flexibility;
37
3. dissipation of substantial quantities of energy: this limits the relative displacement of

the isolated structural mass and provides better structural control with bigger safety for
the structure. This dissipation is given by the rubber and the inner lead core;
4. assurance of self-centring: this prevents cumulative displacement during the seismic

event: the recentring effect is based on the natural elasticity of the applied rubber.
In designing LRBs, two methods are simultaneously applied.
(a) Seismic isolation. The superstructure gets de-coupled from the ground. This isolation
limits the energy to a minimum to enter into the structure. Because of that, the natural period
of the structure is increased reducing, by this way, the spectral acceleration in a seismic
attack.
(b) Energy dissipation. By means of passive energy dissipation the seismic rest energy into
the superstructure will be effectively dissipated by additional damping within the lead core of
the LRB relieving the entire structure from additional strain. The concept of the energy
approach reduces effectively the energy induced ( Ei ) into the structure by ground motion
through its foundations. The amount of the structurally stored energy ( Es ) has to be as low as
possible to avoid damages. Therefore the value of the dissipated energy ( ED ) must be great.
The energy part ( Eh ) out of the dissipated energy due to plastic deformation of the structure
has to be kept low, as this way of energy dissipation causes structural yielding and cracks.
The drastic increase of the value of the energy of viscous phenomena ( Ev ) is the final
opportunity to control the energy balance of the structure. In fact, Ev is directly correlated
with the LRB. Therefore this Ev increase is realized by the use of specially developed highly
efficient LRBs. A single degree of freedom system has the following equation:
mu&& + cu& + ku + h ( u ) = mu&&g (4.3)
By integrating with respect to x we find:
du& 1
mudu
&& = m
dt
du = mudu
& & = mu& 2 = Ek
2
(4.4)
Fudu = cudu
& = cu& dt = E 2
v (4.5)
1
kudu = 2 ku = Ee
2
(4.6)
h ( u ) du =E h (4.7)
mu&& du = E
g g (4.8)
38
Following the same order we define kinetic energy, the viscous energy, the elastic energy, the
energy dissipated hysteretic or plastic deformation and the energy of the ground motion. We
are in this situation:
Ei Es + ED = ( Ee + Ek ) + ( Eh + Ev ) = Eg (4.9)
4.3.1 The Design and Characteristics of LRBs

LRBs are consisting of a standard elastomeric laminated rubber bearing. The rubber
compound can be of natural rubber or chloroprene rubber. The shape can be either round or
rectangular. For this testing a round shape is chosen. The LRBs are generally constructed with
low-damping (unfilled) elastomers with shear modules of 0.4 1.2 N / mm 2 and lead cores
with diameters ranging 15% and 33% of the bonded bearing diameter for round bearings. The
minimum 0.4 N / mm 2 is selected for the testing carried out. The elastomer provides the
isolation and recentring, while the lead core offers the necessary energy dissipation or
damping component. The maximum shear strain value is generally between 125% and 200%.
The inner steel shims do not only grant for good load capacity, but also for a proper
confinement of the lead core. The yield stress of lead core is depending on the temperature:
18MPa at 35C, 10MPa at 75C, 7MPa at 125C and 4MPa at 225C. Therefore after one
load cycle it can be assumed that the yield stress is 13MPa and after three it is 11MPa . The
yield stress value of 11MPa is assumed for the testing.
The calculation of a LRB can be carried out like following:
1. deciding the minimum bearing rubber diameter depending on vertical loads: the
maximum admissible stress on LRBs is considered to be 15MPa . Every bearing is
supporting a weight of 75kN which is due to the facilities mass, but in the whole-4th-
floor case there are bearing supporting also 150kN ;
2. setting the target period Teff (2 seconds appears to be the desired one) and the
effective damping , which are related respectively with the structure modes and
with the bearing typology (from 15% to 30%, depending on the lead-core size);
3. Reading the spectral acceleration Sa from the response spectrum graph in relation
with the desired period;
4. Getting the spectral displacement, that is the desig displacement too:
Teff
dbd = Sa (4.10)
2
5. The required stiffness to provide a Teff period is the effective stiffness:

2
2 Wi
K eff = (4.11)
T
eff g
39
where Wi is the weight on the isolator;
6. The global energy dissipated per cycle is:
ED = 2 K eff dbd 2 (4.12)
7. The relationship of these quantities to the two lead-plug bearing parameters F0 and
K r is
F0
K eff = K r + (4.13)
dbd
and
ED = 4 F0 ( dbd d y ) (4.14)
where
F0
dy = (4.15)
Ke K p
and as an approximate rule of thumb K e 10 K p ;
8. Neglecting d y , a first approximation of F0 can be found:
ED
F0 = (4.16)
4dbd
9. The post-elastic tangent stiffness can be found as follows:
F0
K p = K eff (4.17)
dbd
10. A correction can be made on the F0 value with:
F0
dy = (4.18)
9K p
ED
F0 = (4.19)
4 ( dbd d y )
11. The lead yield stress of the is Pb = 11MPa , so that the lead-plug diameter needed is:
40
DPb 2 4 F0
F0 = Pb DPb = (4.20)
4 Pb
12. It can be define the K Pb contribute with:
F0
K Pb = (4.21)
dbd
13. The total rubber thickness can be now defined with:
K r = K eff K Pb (4.22)
Dbearing 2 Dbearing 2
G G
Kr = 4 tr = 4 (4.23)
tr Kr
where G is the shear module (varying from 0.4 to 1.1 MPa);

14. The response force is resulting, with vb as the displacement, in:

F = K p vb + Pb
4
(D
bearing
2
DPb 2 ) (4.24)
15. Some useful parameters are the first and second shape factors and the shear strain:
Dbearing
S= (4.25)
4t
Dbearing
S'= (4.26)
tr
dbd
= (4.27)
tr
where t is the single layer rubber thickness.
4.4 Ground Motion Spectra

Recorded earthquake time histories are the most important information needed in earthquake
engineering. Seismic design procedures are strongly based on response spectrum
representation. When design procedures rely totally on the response spectrum, the response
41
spectrum constitutes all of the ground motion information required for designing. If the design
procedures involve time history analyses in conjunction with a design response spectrum,
then some method is required in order to find the appropriate representative time histories.
The process by which earthquake records are manipulated to produce some level of design
spectrum compatibility is called scaling. Scaling may be made in the time domain or in the
frequency domain as well.
Recorded accelerograms, or accelerograms generated through a physical simulation of source

and travel path mechanisms, may be used, provided that the samples used are adequately
qualified with regard to the seismogenetic features of the sources and to the soil conditions
appropriate to the site, and their values are scaled to the value of ag S for the zone under
consideration.
For the numerical testing carried out in this work of research, seven real ground motions are
manipulated in order to obtain a response spectrum which is compatible with the Eurocode 8
target spectrum, for a C type soil and a 0.35g of PGA. A soil placed in the C-type definition is
made of deep deposits of dense or medium-dense sand, gravel or stiff clay with thickness
from several tens to many hundreds of metres; with an average value of propagation velocity
of S waves in the upper 30 m of the soil profile at shear strain of 105 or less ( vs ,30 ) ranging
between 180 and 360m/s; with a standard penetration test blow-count ( N SPT ) between 15 and
50; with an undrained shear strength of soil ( cu ) between 70 and 250.
If the response is obtained from at least 7 nonlinear time-history analyses with ground
motions in accordance with Eurocode 8 prescriptions, the average of the response quantities
from all of these analyses should be used as the design value of the action effect. Otherwise,
the most unfavourable value of the response quantity among the analyses should be used.
42
Figure 4.30. 1st ground motion (Kalamata 1986 Greece) and related acceleration response spectrum
Figure 4.31. 2nd ground motion (Capitola building Loma Prieta 1989 California, USA) and related
acceleration response spectrum
Figure 4.32. 3rd ground motion (Bonds Corner Imperial Valley 1979 California, USA) and related
43
Figure 4.33. 4th ground motion (Tolmezzo Friuli 1976 Italy) and related acceleration response
spectrum
Figure 4.34. 5th ground motion (Ulcinj Montenegro 1979) and related acceleration response spectrum
Figure 4.35. 6th ground motion (Herceg Novi Montenegro 1979) and related acceleration response
spectrum
44
Figure 4.36. 7th ground motion (El Centro Imperial Valley 1940 California, USA) and related
Figure 4.37. Mean acceleration response spectrum of all the 7 ground motions
45
46
Chapter 5. Design and Analysis of Storey-Isolation Systems
5. DESING AND ANALYSIS OF STOREY-ISOLATION

SYSTEMS
5.1 First-Storey-Isolation System
Having the model of the building, the first modification is regarding the facilities mass
addition. In this first case a mass of 300kN is supposed to be in the middle of the first floor.
Every node of the square central deck is consequently supporting a 75kN weight mass,
representing what is going to be isolated in the next design steps.
At this point the first fundamental check deals with the response spectra, and, in particular,
with floor spectra in order to understand the building behaviour floor by floor under a seismic
action.
Figure 5.38. 1st-floor facilities consequences: floor spectra
Comparing the spectra obtained from the original building with the ones from the w/ 1st-floor
facilities model, there are the following observations:
47
the 1st-floor spectrum has 3 peaks at the first three main modes: adding facilities mass
at the first floor amplifies the spectral floor accelerations for the 2nd and the 3rd modes,
that means at higher frequencies;
the 2nd-floor spectrum has 2 peaks at the first two main modes: adding facilities mass
at the first floor decreases basically the spectral floor acceleration only for the 1st
mode;
the 3rd-floor spectrum has 3 peaks, even if the 2nd- and the 3rd-mode peaks are
negligible if compared with the 1st-mode peak: adding facilities mass at the first floor
decreases the floor spectral acceleration for the 1st mode;
the 4th-floor spectrum has 2 peaks at the first two main modes: adding facilities mass
at the first floor decreases the spectral floor acceleration for the 1st mode.
To design an isolation system, it is suitable a main period for the non-structural component
around 2 seconds in order to be safely away from any mode Peak Floor Acceleration. From
the 1st-floor spectrum in the w/ 1st-floor facilities curve, the absolute spectral acceleration at
2 seconds is 3.35m / s 2 so that the design displacement for LRBs becomes 0.17 m .
To continue through the storey-isolation system design, the damping is set: both 15% and
30% are considered separately, following the design process expressed in 4.3.1. In Table 5.1
there are the 1st-storey-isolation LRBs design final results.
Table 5.2. 1st-floor LRBs design
1 st -floor 15DLRBs 1 st -floor 30DLRBs

Design period [s] T eff 2.00 2.00
Effective damping b 15% 30%
Design displacement [m] d bd 0.170 0.170
Rubber shear modulus [MPa] G 0.40 0.40
Axial load on the LRB [kN] Wi 75 75

Effective stiffness [kN/m] K eff 75.456 75.456
Dissipated energy per cycle [kNm] ED 2.048 4.097
Short term yield force [kN] F0 3.124 6.698
Post-elastic tangent stiffness [kN/m] Kp 57.677 39.898
Elastic estiffness [kN/m] Ke 576.769 398.980
Stiffness ratio K e /K p 0.100 0.100
Yield displacement [m] dy 0.006 0.017
Yield force [kN] Fy 3.353 6.705
Total bearing diameter [mm] D bearing 200 200

Lead-plug diameter [mm] D Pb 20 28
Lead-plug stiffness [kN/m] K Pb 18.409 39.466
Total rubber stiffness [kN/m] Kr 57.046 35.990
Single layer rubber thickness [mm] t 8 8
Number of rubber layers n 27 43
Steel plates thickness [mm] ts 2 2
Top & bottom steel plates thickness [mm] t s.ext 25 25
2
Cross sectional area of the rubber [mm ] Ar 31102 30800
Total rubber thickness [mm] tr 216 344
Total lateral area per rubber layer [mm 2 ] L 5027 5027
Shape factor S 6.25 6.25
Second shape factor S' 0.93 0.58
Shear strain g 79% 49%
48
Successively, non-linear springs, supporting the 75kN weight mass, are modelled always in
ANSRuop and non-linear time histories analyses are carried out for the seven ground motions
treated in 4.4. Looking at the relative floor spectra, the consequences of a 15DLRBs
isolation system are quite similar with the 30DLRBs case, but the facilities get different
behaviours:
the 1st-floor spectra show a spectral acceleration decreasing for the 2nd and the 3rd
modes and a less appreciable decreasing for the 1st mode;
the facilities on the LRBs gain a drastic drop of the 2nd and 3rd mode peaks, while
there is only a significant attenuation of for the 1st-mode spectral acceleration, better in
the 15DLRBs than the 30DLRBs, but at higher periods the behaviour is the opposite;
2nd-, 3rd-, and 4th-floor spectra underline only a little reduction for the spectral
acceleration next to the 2nd and the 3rd structural modes.
It is important to compare the results, ground motion by ground motion, to see if the storey-
isolation system is working properly and to check the global effects into the whole building.
The following graphs are developed:
1. absolute acceleration for the 1st-floor facilities mass;
2. absolute displacement for the 1st-floor facilities mass;
3. force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 1st-floor

facilities;
4. Peak Floor Accelerations per floor;
5. Peak Floor Displacements per floor;
6. peak interstorey drift ratios per floor.
In Appendix A there are all the produced graphs for every ground motion analysis.
Figure 5.39. 1st-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 1st ground motion
49
Figure 5.40. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 1st-floor facilities
during the 1st ground motion
Figure 5.41. 1st-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 1st ground motion
Figure 5.42. 1st-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 1st ground motion
To have more useful results, three more bar plots are produced, making the mean of the seven
values to which they refer:
7. mean PFAs per floor;
8. mean PFDs per floor;
9. mean peak interstorey drift ratios per floor.
50
Figure 5.43. 1st-floor facilities global effects: mean values of PFA and PFD
Figure 5.44. 1st-floor facilities global effects: mean values of the interstorey drift ratio
The most important aspect is getting an efficient isolation for the facilities because of the
many reasons treated in 1.1:
the means of the maximum shear forces are:
o for 15DLRBs: 14.80kN ;
the means of the real maximum displacements are:
o for 15DLRBs: 0.21m ;
the peak absolute acceleration going into the facilities is cut from
4.875m / s 2 ( = 0.50 g ) to:
o for 15DLRBs isolation system: 2.127 m / s 2 ( = 0.22 g ) ;
o for 30DLRBS isolation system: 1.983m / s 2 ( = 0.20 g ) .
51
Global effects are important too, to have the idea of the feasibility of the 1st-storey-isolation
system:
PFAs are influenced by the 1st-floor isolation system in such a way that 1st-, 2nd-, 3rd-,
and 4th-floor PFAs drop respectively from 4.875m / s 2 , 6.033m / s 2 , 6.180m / s 2 ,
8.837m / s 2 to:
o for 15DLRBs isolation system: 4.473m / s 2 , 5.402m / s 2 , 6.044m / s 2 ,

8.436m / s 2 ;

8.379m / s 2 ;
PFDs go down from 74mm , 125mm , 167 mm , 200mm to:
o for 15DLRBs isolation system: 68mm , 118mm , 161mm , 192mm ;
o for 30DLRBs isolation system: 68mm , 117 mm , 160mm , 192mm ;
peak interstorey drift ratios reduces from 1.86% , 1.35% , 1.19% , 0.90% to:
o for 15DLRBs isolation system: 1.69% , 1.31% , 1.17% , 0.88% ;
o for 30DLRBs isolation system: 1.69% , 1.31% , 1.16% , 0.87% .
5.2 Second-Storey-Isolation System

In this second case a mass of 300kN is supposed to be in the middle of the second floor.
Every node of the square central deck is consequently supporting a 75kN weight mass,
representing what is going to be isolated in the next design steps.
At this point the first fundamental check deals again with the response spectra, and, in
particular, with floor spectra in order to understand the building behaviour floor by floor
under a seismic action.
Comparing the spectra obtained from the original building with the ones from the w/ 2nd-
floor facilities model, there are the following observations:
at the second floor amplifies the spectral floor accelerations for the 2nd and the 3rd
modes, that means at higher frequencies, while there is a little decrease for the spectral
acceleration around the first mode frequency;
at the second floor decreases the spectral floor acceleration for both;
52
negligible if compared with the 1st-mode peak: adding facilities mass at the second
floor decreases the floor spectral acceleration for the 1st mode and for the 2nd one too;
at the second floor decreases the spectral floor acceleration for both.
Figure 5.45. 2nd-floor facilities consequences: floor spectra
To design an isolation system, it is chosen again a main period for the non-structural
component of 2 seconds in order to be safely away from any mode peak floor acceleration.
From the 2nd-floor spectrum in the w/ 2nd-floor facilities curve, the absolute spectral
acceleration at 2 seconds is 3.95m / s 2 so that the design displacement for LRBs becomes
0.20m .
To continue through the storey-isolation system design the damping is set, separately, of 15%
and 30%. In Table 5.2 there are the 2nd-storey-isolation LRBs design final results.
Successively, non-linear springs, supporting the 75kN weight mass, are modelled in
ANSRuop and non-linear time-histories analyses are carried out for the seven ground motions
treated in 4.4. Looking at the relative floor spectra, the consequences of a 15DLRBs
isolation system are quite similar with the 30DLRBs case, for the building considered as a
whole and for the facilities too:
the 1st-floor spectra show a spectral acceleration decreasing for the 2nd mode and a less
appreciable increasing for the 1st mode;
53
the 2nd-floor spectra show a spectral acceleration decreasing for the 2nd mode only;
the facilities on the LRBs gain a drastic decrease of the 2nd-mode peak, while there is
only an attenuation of more than the 50% for the 1st-mode spectral acceleration;
2nd-, 3rd-, and 4th-floor spectra underline only a little reduction for the spectral
acceleration next to the 1st and the 2nd structural modes.
It is important to compare the results ground motion by ground motion to see if the storey-
isolation system is working properly and to check the global effects into the whole building:
1. absolute acceleration for the 2nd-floor facilities mass;
2. absolute displacement for the 2nd-floor facilities mass;
3. force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 2nd-floor

facilities;
Table 5.3. 2nd-floor LRBs design
2 nd -floor 15DLRBs 2 nd -floor 30DLRBs



2
54
Figure 5.46. 2nd-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 1st ground motion
Figure 5.47. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 2nd-floor facilities
Figure 5.48. 2nd-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 1st ground motion
55
Figure 5.49. 2nd-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 1st ground motion
In Appendix B there are all the produced graphs for every ground motion analysis.
Figure 5.50. 2nd-floor facilities global effects: mean values of PFA and PFD
Figure 5.51. 2nd-floor facilities global effects: mean values of the interstorey drift ratio
56
The most important aspect is getting an efficient storey-isolation for the facilities because of
the many reasons treated in 1.1:
o for 15DLRBs: 0.27 m ;
5.645m / s 2 ( = 0.58 g ) to:
o for 15DLRBs isolation system: 2.415m / s 2 ( = 0.25 g ) ;
Global effects are important too, to have the idea of the feasibility of the 2nd-storey-isolation
system:
PFAs are influenced by the 2nd-floor isolation system in such a way that 1st-, 2nd-, 3rd-,
and 4th-floor PFAs drop respectively from 4.613m / s 2 , 5.645m / s 2 , 6.109m / s 2 ,
8.547m / s 2 to:

8.267m / s 2 ;

8.241m / s 2 ;
PFDs go down from 77 mm , 134mm , 174mm , 203mm to:
57
5.3 Third-Storey-Isolation System

The first modification in this case study is regarding the facilities mass addition. In this third
case a mass of 300kN is supposed to be in the middle of the third floor. Every node of the
square central deck is consequently supporting a 75kN weight mass, representing what is
going to be isolated in the next design steps.
Floor spectra are developed in order to understand the building behaviour, floor by floor,
under a seismic action.
Figure 5.52. 3rd-floor facilities consequences: floor spectra
Comparing the spectra obtained from the original building with the ones from the w/ 3rd-
at the third floor decreases the spectral floor accelerations for the 1st mode;
at the third floor decreases basically the spectral floor acceleration only for the 1st
mode;
negligible if compared with the 1st-mode peak: adding facilities mass at the third floor
decreases the floor spectral acceleration for the 1st mode;
at the third floor decreases the spectral floor acceleration for the 1st mode.
58
A 2-second main period for the isolation system is set. From the 3rd-floor spectrum in the w/
3rd-floor facilities curve, the absolute spectral acceleration at 2 seconds is 4.48m / s 2 so that
the design displacement for LRBs becomes 0.23m .
Both 15% and 30% damping ratios are considered separately, following the design expressed
in 4.3.1. In Table 5.3 there are the 3rd-storey-isolation LRBs design final results.
Table 5.4. 3rd floor LRBs design

3 rd -floor 15DLRBs 3 rd -floor 30DLRBs


2
Successively, non-linear bilinear springs, supporting the 75kN weight mass, are again
modelled in ANSRuop and non-linear time-histories analyses are carried out for the seven
ground motions treated in 4.4. Looking at the relative floor spectra, the consequences of a
15DLRBs isolation system are quite similar with the 30DLRBs case, but the facilities mass
gets different behaviours:
the 1st-, 2nd-, 3rd-, and 4th-floor spectra show a spectral acceleration decreasing for the
2nd and the 3rd modes, while it is noticed a less appreciable increasing for the 1st mode;
the facilities on the LRBs gain a decrease of the mode peaks, better in the 30DLRBs
than the 15DLRBs for the 1st mode spectral acceleration reduction, but at higher
periods the behaviour is the opposite;
59
1. absolute acceleration for the 3rd-floor facilities mass;
2. absolute displacement for the 3rd-floor facilities mass;
3. force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 3rd-floor

facilities;
In Appendix C there are all the produced graphs for every ground motion analysis.
Figure 5.53. 3rd-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 1st ground motion
Figure 5.54. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 3rd-floor facilities
60
Figure 5.55. 3rd-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 1st ground motion
Figure 5.56. 3rd-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 1st ground motion
To have more useful results, three more bar plots are produced once again, making the mean
of the seven values to which they refer:
Figure 5.57. 3rd-floor facilities global effects: mean values of PFA and PFD
61
Figure 5.58. 3rd-floor facilities global effects: mean values of the interstorey drift ratio
5.867 m / s 2 ( = 0.60 g ) to:
Global effects are important too, to have the idea of the feasibility of the 3rd-storey-isolation
system:
PFAs are influenced by the 3rd-floor isolation system in such a way that 1st-, 2nd-, 3rd-,
and 4th-floor PFAs change respectively from 4.684m / s 2 , 5.851m / s 2 , 5.867 m / s 2 ,
7.863m / s 2 to:

8.436m / s 2 ;
o for 30DLRBs isolation system: 4.386m / s 2 , 5.292m / s 2 , 5.697 m / s 2 ,

8.304m / s 2 ;
PFDs go down from 78mm , 136mm , 181mm , 211mm to:
62
o for 15DLRBs isolation system: 67 mm , 117 mm , 158mm , 188mm ;
peak interstorey drift ratios changes from 1.94% , 1.47% , 1.22% , 0.83% to:
5.4 Fourth-Storey-Isolation System

Facilities mass (75kN weight mass per central deck node) is modelled, representing what is
going to be isolated in the next design steps.
Response floor spectra are obtained in order to understand the building behaviour floor by
floor under a seismic action.
Figure 5.59. 4th-floor facilities consequences: floor spectra
Comparing the spectra obtained from the original building with the ones from the w/ 4th-
at the fourth floor amplifies the spectral floor accelerations for the 2nd and the 3rd
63
modes, that means at higher frequencies, while there is an opposite behaviour near the
1st mode period;
at the fourth floor decreases the spectral floor acceleration only for the 1st mode and it
increases the 2nd one;
negligible if compared with the 1st-mode peak: adding facilities mass at the fourth
floor decreases the floor spectral acceleration for the 1st mode;
at the fourth floor decreases the spectral floor acceleration for both mode.
A 2-second main period for the isolation system is set. From the 4th-floor spectrum in the w/
4th-floor facilities curve, the absolute spectral acceleration at 2 seconds is 4.9m / s 2 so that
the design displacement for LRBs becomes 0.25m .
in 4.3.1. In Table 5.4 there are the 4th-storey-isolation LRBs design final results.
Successively, non-linear bilinear springs, supporting the 75kN weight mass, are again
modelled in ANSRuop and non-linear time-histories analyses are carried out for the seven
ground motions treated in 4.4. Looking at the relative floor spectra, the consequences of a
15DLRBs isolation system are quite similar with the 30DLRBs case:
the 1st-, 2nd-, 3rd-, and 4th-floor spectra show a spectral acceleration decreasing;
than the 15DLRBs for the 1st-mode spectral acceleration reduction, but at higher
periods the behaviour is the opposite;
1. absolute acceleration for the 4th-floor facilities mass;
2. absolute displacement for the 4th-floor facilities mass;
3. force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 4th-floor

facilities;
64
Table 5.5. 4th floor LRBs design

4 th -floor 15DLRBs 4 th -floor 30DLRBs


2
Figure 5.60. 4th-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 1st ground motion
Figure 5.61. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 4th-floor facilities
65
Figure 5.62. 4th-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 1st ground motion
Figure 5.63. 4th-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 1st ground motion
In Appendix D there are all the produced graphs for every ground motion analysis.
Figure 5.64. 4th-floor facilities global effects: mean values of PFA and PFD
66
Figure 5.65. 4th-floor facilities global effects: mean values of the interstorey drift ratio
o for 15DLRBs: 0.37 m ;
7.708m / s 2 ( = 0.79 g ) to:
Global effects are important too, to have the idea of the feasibility of the 4th-storey-isolation
system:
PFAs are influenced by the 4th-floor isolation system in such a way that 1st-, 2nd-, 3rd-,
and 4th-floor PFAs modify respectively from 4.721m / s 2 , 6.112m / s 2 , 6.142m / s 2 ,
7.708m / s 2 to:

8.687m / s 2 ;

8.576m / s 2 ;
67
5.5 Whole-Fourth-Storey-Isolation System

From the same original building model, a new type of isolation is developed always at the top
storey for the 4-storey RC building object of this work of research. Facilities to be isolated are
thought to be present all over the fourth floor so that 900kN are supposed to be distributed on
it. Every node of the 4 ones in the square central deck is consequently supporting a 150kN
weight mass, while the remaining other 4 external nodes of the same floor are getting a 75kN
weight mass each one. In this final storey-isolation system 8 bearings are going to be
modelled.
Response floor spectra are obtained as well in order to understand the building behaviour
floor by floor under a seismic action.
Figure 5.66. Whole-4th-floor facilities consequences: floor spectra
68
Comparing the spectra obtained from the original building with the ones from the w/ 4th-
all over the fourth floor amplifies the spectral floor accelerations for the 2nd and the 3rd
modes, that means at higher frequencies, while there is a complete opposite behaviour
near the 1st mode period;
all over the fourth floor decreases the spectral floor acceleration only for the 2nd mode
and it increases the 1st one;
negligible if compared with the 1st-mode peak: adding facilities mass all over the
fourth floor decreases the floor spectral acceleration for the 1st mode and increases a
little for the 2nd one;
at the fourth floor decreases the spectral floor acceleration for both mode.
A 2-second main period for the non-structural component is set. From the 4th-floor spectrum
in the w/ 4th-floor facilities curve, the absolute spectral acceleration at 2 seconds is
5.62m / s 2 so that the design displacement for LRBs becomes 0.28m .
in 4.3.1. In Tables 5.5 and 5.6 there are the whole-4th-storey-isolation LRBs design final
results.
Successively, non-linear bilinear springs, supporting the 150kN weight mass (Type A) and the
75kN weight mass (Type B), are again modelled in ANSRuop and non-linear time-histories
analyses are carried out for the seven ground motions treated in 4.4. Looking at the relative
floor spectra, the consequences of a 15DLRBs isolation system are quite similar with the
30DLRBs case:
the 1st-, 2nd-, 3rd-, and 4th-floor spectra show a spectral acceleration decreasing for
periods less than 0.5 second, while there is a significant increase near the 1st mode, a
less augment with 30DLRBs is noticeable;
than the 15DLRBs for the 1st-mode spectral acceleration reduction, but at higher
periods the behaviour is the opposite.
1. absolute acceleration for the whole-4th-floor facilities mass;
2. absolute displacement for the whole-4th-floor facilities mass;
69
Table 5.6. Whole-4th-floor 15DLRBs design

whole-4 th -floor 15DLRBs whole-4 th -floor 15DLRBs
Type A Type B


2
Table 5.7. Whole-4th-floor 30DLRBs design

whole-4 th -floor 30DLRBs whole-4 th -floor 30DLRBs
Type A Type B


2
70
3. force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the whole-4th-

floor facilities;
Figure 5.67. Whole-4th-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 1st ground motion
Figure 5.68. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the whole-4th-floor
facilities during the 1st ground motion
Figure 5.69. Whole-4th-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 1st ground motion
71
Figure 5.70. Whole-4th-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 1st ground motion
In Appendix E there are all the produced graphs for every ground motion analysis.
To have more useful results, three more bar plots are produced here again, making the mean
of the seven values to which they refer:
Figure 5.71. Whole-4th-floor facilities global effects: mean values of PFA and PFD
Figure 5.72. Whole-4th-floor facilities global effects: mean values of the interstorey drift ratio
72
o for 15DLRBs
for Type A: 47.42kN ;
for Type B: 23.71kN ;
o for 30DLRBs
for Type A: 44.91kN ;
for Type B: 22.45kN ;
6.366m / s 2 ( = 0.65 g ) to:
Global effects are important too, to have the idea of the feasibility of the whole-4th-storey-
isolation system:
PFAs are influenced by the whole-4th-floor isolation system in such a way that 1st-,
2nd-, 3rd-, and 4th-floor PFAs modify respectively from 4.592m / s 2 , 6.070m / s 2 ,
5.328m / s 2 , 6.366m / s 2 to:

8.616m / s 2 ;

8.001m / s 2 ;
o for 30DLRBs isolation system: 61mm , 96mm , 127 mm , 150mm ;
73
74
Chapter 6. Conclusions
6. CONCLUSIONS
6.1 General
In earthquake building design, the main purpose is to have a building with minimized
interstorey drifts and floor accelerations: damages onto NSCs and to equipments are then
reduced. If the structure becomes stiffer, the interstorey drifts reduce, but floor accelerations
increase. If the system becomes more flexible, floor accelerations reduce but interstorey drifts
cannot decrease. The use of base isolation seems the best method to get at the same time
interstorey drifts and floor accelerations reduction.
During the last 20 years of the last century a big forward step was made into the concept of
seismic isolation. Multilayer elastomeric bearings devices are very stiff vertically in order the
carry the structure load and they are very flexible horizontally in such a way to allow the
building to move laterally while the ground is shaking. The natural evolution of the rubber
bearings became the lead-rubber bearings.
NSCs are sensitive to large floor accelerations and displacements. When a building is
subjected to a ground motion, it amplifies this motion, resulting in PFAs higher than the PGA.
Facilities are then subjected to these amplified accelerations, which cause severe damage to
NSCs. The survival of some particular non-structural components during an earthquake event
can be fundamental, so that an isolation system must be chosen. The problem might consist
only on a particular part of the storey needing to be isolated, a zone with facilities that are
going to be put onto a storey-isolation system. Furthermore, a retrofit action might be
necessary to reduce eventual accelerations onto some delicate floors, because of their
contents; these floors might be in a building impossible to fully redesign by a base-isolation
method. This new system type appears to be more localised and focused directly into the
problem, getting the desired behaviour in the NSCs.
Response spectrum is the most common tool allowing an immediate analysis. Floor response
spectra are broadly used to evaluate the maximum acceleration response of NSCs. The Finite
Element Method program, ANSRuop, allows to model non-linear links so that the choice
between a linearised viscoelastic model and a bilinear one was for the second, which is also
representing the best compromise between practice application and theoretic study at the state
of art.
Storey-isolation systems are a fully new type of applications for the general base isolation. In
literature there is a big lack of tests or papers dealing with a single-storey isolation system.
75
6.2 Numerical Testing

ANSRuop is used for the 4-storey RC building modelling and also for the 112 time-histories
analyses carried out for this work of research. The building is design following the Eurocode
8 provisions, like a fixed base building.
Five isolation cases were treated, that means one per floor plus a last one getting a whole-top-
storey isolation. Lead-rubber bearings are the target devices for isolating the facilities and 12
types of them were design for the purpose of isolating the facilities on the selected floor, case
by case.
To see the real non-linear behaviour of the whole system (building plus facilities plus LRBs),
non-linear time-histories analyses were run with 7 real recorded ground motions which are
made spectrum equivalent with the EC8 design spectrum.
The results are shown schematically in the Tables from 6.1 to 6.10. In Table 6.1 there are
PFAs for the building without isolation system per every facilities location, so that by Tables
6.3 and 6.4 it is easy to see global consequences of each isolation case evaluating that in
percentage. Furthermore, in Table 6.2 the dropping acceleration gain is showed for the
facilities.
Table 6.8. PFAs for every facilities location
PFAs [g] 1 st -floor facilities 2

nd
-floor facilities 3 rd -floor facilities 4 th -floor facilities whole-4 th -floor facilities
1 st -floor 0.50 0.47 0.48 0.48 0.47
2 nd -floor 0.61 0.58 0.60 0.62 0.62
3 rd -floor 0.63 0.62 0.60 0.63 0.55
4 th -floor 0.90 0.87 0.80 0.79 0.65
Table 6.9. PFAs and percentage variation onto the facilities for every isolation case
PFAs [m/s 2 ] 1 st -floor facilities 2

nd
15DLRBs 0.22 0.25 0.32 0.35 0.32
PFA reduction -56.4% -57.2% -46.8% -55.7% -50.5%
30DLRBs 0.20 0.24 0.27 0.30 0.30
PFA reduction -59.3% -58.3% -54.5% -61.5% -53.5%
Table 6.10. PFAs and percentage variation for every isolation case by 15DLRBs
PFAs [g] 1 st -floor 15DLRBs 2

nd
-floor 15DLRBs 3 rd -floor 15DLRBs 4 th -floor 15DLRBs whole-4 th -floor 15DLRBs
1 st -floor 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.46 0.44
PFA difference -8.3% -4.2% -4.8% -5.2% -5.3%
2 nd -floor 0.55 0.54 0.56 0.56 0.54
PFA difference -10.5% -6.9% -6.8% -10.4% -13.2%
3 rd -floor 0.62 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.56
PFA difference -2.2% -4.2% 0.0% -3.7% 3.0%
4 th -floor 0.86 0.84 0.86 0.89 0.88
PFA difference -4.5% -3.3% 7.3% 12.7% 35.3%
76
Table 6.11. PFAs and percentage variation for every isolation case by 30DLRBs
PFAs [g] 1 st -floor 30DLRBs 2

nd
1 st -floor 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.44
PFA difference -9.6% -4.4% -6.4% -6.8% -6.9%
2 nd -floor 0.54 0.53 0.54 0.55 0.52
PFA difference -12.1% -7.2% -9.5% -12.4% -15.7%
3 rd -floor 0.61 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.52
PFA difference -3.0% -4.8% -2.9% -6.6% -4.5%
4 th -floor 0.85 0.84 0.85 0.87 0.82
PFA difference -5.2% -3.6% 5.6% 11.3% 25.7%
Table 6.12. PFDs for every facilities location
PFDs [m] 1 st -floor facilities 2

nd
1 st -floor 0.074 0.077 0.078 0.075 0.071
2 nd -floor 0.125 0.134 0.136 0.133 0.126
3 rd -floor 0.167 0.174 0.181 0.181 0.182
4 th -floor 0.200 0.203 0.211 0.215 0.228
Table 6.13. PFDs and percentage variation for every isolation case by 15DLRBs
PFDs [m] 1 st -floor 15DLRBs 2

nd
1 st -floor 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06
PFD difference -9.2% -9.6% -13.4% -13.2% -13.7%
2 nd -floor 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.10
PFD difference -6.0% -9.8% -14.3% -14.8% -19.4%
3 rd -floor 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.14
PFD difference -4.1% -7.1% -12.6% -14.7% -23.7%
4 th -floor 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.17
PFD difference -3.7% -5.8% -10.8% -14.2% -26.2%
Table 6.14. PFDs and percentage variation for every isolation case by 30DLRBs
PFDs [m] 1 st -floor 30DLRBs 2

nd
1 st -floor 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06
PFD difference -9.0% -10.7% -15.1% -14.9% -15.3%
2 nd -floor 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.10
PFD difference -6.1% -11.1% -16.7% -17.6% -24.3%
3 rd -floor 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.13
PFD difference -4.3% -8.6% -15.4% -17.9% -30.4%
4 th -floor 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.15
PFD difference -3.9% -7.0% -13.5% -17.3% -34.0%
In Table 6.5 there are PFDs for the building without isolation system per every facilities
location, so that by Tables 6.6 and 6.7 it is easy to see global consequences of each isolation
case evaluating that in percentage too.
In Table 6.8 there are interstorey drift ratios for the building without isolation system per
every facilities location, so that by Tables 6.9 and 6.10 it is easy to see global consequences of
each isolation case evaluating that in percentage too.
77
Table 6.15. Interstorey drift ratios for every facilities location
DRIFT RATIO 1 st -floor facilities 2

nd
1 st -floor 1.86 1.93 1.94 1.88 1.79
2 nd -floor 1.35 1.45 1.47 1.47 1.48
3 rd -floor 1.19 1.16 1.22 1.28 1.47
4 th -floor 0.90 0.85 0.83 0.98 1.21
Table 6.16. Interstorey drift ratios and percentage variation for every isolation case by 15DLRBs
DRIFT RATIO 1 st -floor 15DLRBs 2

nd
1 st -floor 1.69 1.74 1.68 1.63 1.54
DR difference -9.2% -9.6% -13.4% -13.2% -13.7%
2 nd -floor 1.31 1.34 1.30 1.27 1.09
DR difference -2.6% -7.8% -11.9% -13.2% -26.5%
3 rd -floor 1.17 1.12 1.15 1.13 1.02
DR difference -1.6% -3.0% -6.1% -11.2% -31.1%
4 th -floor 0.88 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.79
DR difference -3.1% -0.4% 1.8% -14.8% -34.6%
Table 6.17. Interstorey drift ratios and percentage variation for every isolation case by 30DLRBs
DRIFT RATIO 1 st -floor 30DLRBs 2

nd
1 st -floor 1.69 1.72 1.65 1.60 1.51
DR difference -9.1% -10.7% -15.1% -14.9% -15.3%
2 nd -floor 1.31 1.32 1.25 1.22 0.95
DR difference -2.9% -9.4% -15.2% -17.0% -35.7%
3 rd -floor 1.16 1.11 1.11 1.08 0.88
DR difference -2.4% -4.4% -9.4% -15.0% -40.5%
4 th -floor 0.87 0.84 0.83 0.82 0.70
DR difference -3.9% -1.4% -0.5% -16.5% -42.1%
6.2.1 First-Storey-Isolation System

The first analysed case dealt with the isolation of the facilities supposed to be on the first
floor. The design displacement was stated to be at 0.17m while only for 30DLRBs it was
obtained a quite close real displacement of 0.18m. The 30DLRBs work better also if PFA
reduction for the facilities is considered, with a big decrease of 59.3%.
By isolating the first storey of this building, the system as a whole gets benefit because PFAs,
PFDs and interstorey drift ratios go down.
6.2.2 Second-Storey-Isolation System

The second analysed case dealt with the isolation of the facilities supposed to be on the
second floor. The design displacement was stated to be at 0.20m while only for 30DLRBs it
was obtained a quite close real displacement of 0.25m. The 30DLRBs work better also if PFA
By isolating the second storey of this building, the system as a whole gets benefit because
PFAs, PFDs and interstorey drift ratios go down.
78
6.2.3 Third-Storey-Isolation System

The third analysed case dealt with the isolation of the facilities supposed to be on the third
By isolating the third storey of this building, the system as a whole gets partial benefits
because PFAs increase only for the floor, and again 30DLRBs appears to give better response.
PFDs are always less than for the non-isolated case and only the interstorey drift ratio for top
storey in the 15DLRBs isolation system case goes up. Once again having a higher damping is
useful.
6.2.4 Fourth-Storey-Isolation System

The fourth analysed case dealt with the isolation of the facilities supposed to be on the fourth
By isolating the first storey of this building, the system as a whole gets partial benefit because
PFAs increase even if only for the top floor and less for the 30DLRBs case. PFDs and
interstorey drift ratios go down for any storey.
6.2.5 Whole-Fourth-Storey-Isolation System

The last analysed case dealt with the isolation of the facilities supposed to be on all over the
top floor. The design displacement was stated to be at 0.28m while only for 30DLRBs it was
By isolating the fourth storey considered as a whole, the building gets partial benefit because
PFAs increase for 3rd- and 4th-storey level in the 15DLRBs and only for the 4th one in the
30DLRBs; once again 30DLRBs appears to work better. PFDs and interstorey drift ratios go
consistently down for any storey.
6.2.6 Final Deductions

From the ground motions spectra, it is easy to establish that between 5 Hz and 1.67Hz there
is the greatest earthquake power. That means that building modes being in that range are
amplified more than the others outside of that range. For the 4-storey RC building of this
work of research, that means a greater attention on 2nd and 3rd modes, more than on the 1st
one.
With 1st- and 2nd-storey-isolation systems there is always a fully benefit for the facilities
themselves and for the RC building as well. 30DLRBs work better because they reduce more
both PFAs and interstorey drift ratios. In fact, from the floor response spectra it is easy to see
that 2nd- and 3rd-mode peaks reduce while for the 1st one there is not so much difference.
79
With 3rd- and 4th-storey-isolation systems there is a general benefit: facilities receive a 50%
less input acceleration while the RC building gets a very little undesired behaviour. In fact top
floor gets higher PFAs and 30DLRBs work better allowing the lowest increase. Interstorey
drift ratios reduce always but for the 3rd floor in the 15DLRBs case. This is correlated with the
related floor spectra: in these two cases there is a significant increase around the 1st-mode
peak that is more marked with 15DLRBs isolation system. An increase of the 1st-mode peak is
related with the PFAs increase for the top floor.
The best system to isolate facilities (highest acceleration reduction) and to get an optimum
behaviour onto the building too (highest interstorey drift ratios reduction) is obviously the 4th-
floor isolation case, and, more specifically, the 30DLRBs isolation system.
The consequent step, after the 4 treated cases, was a system covering all the top floor
extension, isolating facilities laying there. For this last analysis, floor response spectra show a
more significant augmenting of the 1st-mode peak so that it is more natural to see that also the
3rd floor gets higher PFAs, even if only for 15DLRBs case. However, the peak acceleration
onto the facilities drops down in a way comparable with the 4th-floor isolation case, while
there is a huge interstorey drift ratio decrease. Having a whole-4th-floor-isolation system is
very useful to reduce damage into NSCs all over the building.
6.3 Recommendations for Further Research

After this work of research, it becomes obvious the benefit obtained by isolating a single
floor, part of it or considered as a whole. That benefit is present into both the PFAs reduction
and acceleration input reduction for the facilities and also in a general interstorey drift ratios
decrease. The 30DLRBs isolation system works always better.
The next step should be to try a complete floor isolation system for the other floors and to
extend the testing into 8- and 12-storey RC buildings to better understand the global
behaviours in taller buildings.
New isolation devices can be designed in order to increase the damping ratio, or some
damping addition can be made for the LRBs to increase the benefits appear in the 30DLRBs
more than in the other case.
80
References
REFERENCES
Chopra, A.K. [2001] Dynamic of Structures, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
Dolce, M., Cardone, D., Ponzo, F.C., Di Cesare, A. [2004] Progetto di Edifici con Isolamento Sismico,
IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
EN 1998-1:2004 Eurocode 8 - Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance - Part 1: General
Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings.
Fardis, M.N., Calvi, G.M. [2002] Innovative Seismic Design Concepts, ECOEST/ICONS Rep. 3,
206p., Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil Publications, Lisbon, Portugal.
Fardis, M.N., Carvalho, E., Elnashai, A., Faccioli, E., Pinto, P., Plumier, A. [2004] Designers' Guide
to EN 1998-1 and EN 1998-5: Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance.
General Rules, Seismic Actions, Design Rules for Buildings, Foundations and Retaining Structures,
285p., Thomas Telford Publishers, London, UK.
Grant, D.N., Fenves, G.L., Auricchio, F. [2005] Modelling and Analysis of High-damping Rubber
Bearings for the Seismic Protection of Bridges, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Kingston, K.M. [2004] An Evaluation of Floor Response Spectra for Acceleration-Sensitive Non-
Structural Components Supported on Regular Frame Structures, MSc Thesis, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, University of Maryland, USA.
Mar, D., Tipping, S. [2000] A New High-Performance Seismic Technology. Proceedings of 9th
U.S.-Japan Workshop on the Improvement of Structural Design, Laurel Point Inn in Victoria,
British Columbia, Canada.
Naeim, F., Kelly, J.M. [1999] Design of Seismic Isolated Structures: from Theory to Practice, John
Wiley & Sons Inc.
Panagiotakos, T.B., Fardis, M.N. [2004] Seismic Performance of RC Frames Designed to Eurocode 8
or to the Greek Codes 2000, BEE, Vol. 2, No. 2.
Skinner, R.I., Robinson, W.H., McVerry, G.H. [1993] An Introduction to Seismic Isolation, John
Wiley & Sons Ltd., England.
Vargas, R.E. [2004] Floor Response of Single Degree of Freedom Systems with Metallic Structural
Fuses, Individual study, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering, University of
Buffalo, USA.
81
References
82
Appendix A
APPENDIX A
Figure A.73. 1st-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 2nd ground motion
Figure A.74. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 1st-floor facilities
during the 2nd ground motion
Figure A.75. 1st-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 2nd ground motion
A1
Appendix A
Figure A.76. 1st-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 2nd ground motion
Figure A.77. 1st-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 3rd ground motion
during the 3rd ground motion
A2
Appendix A
Figure A.79. 1st-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 3rd ground motion
Figure A.80. 1st-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 3rd ground motion
Figure A.81. 1st-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 4th ground motion
A3
Appendix A
during the 4th ground motion
Figure A.83. 1st-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 4th ground motion
Figure A.84. 1st-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 4th ground motion
A4
Appendix A
A5
Appendix A
A6
Appendix A
A7
Appendix A
A8
Appendix B
APPENDIX B
Figure B.97. 2nd-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 2nd ground motion
Figure B.98. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 2nd-floor facilities
Figure B.99. 2nd-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 2nd ground motion
B1
Appendix B
Figure B.100. 2nd-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 2nd ground motion
Figure B.101. 2nd-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 3rd ground motion
B2
Appendix B
Figure B.103. 2nd-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 3rd ground motion
Figure B.104. 2nd-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 3rd ground motion
Figure B.105. 2nd-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 4th ground motion
B3
Appendix B
Figure B.107. 2nd-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 4th ground motion
Figure B.108. 2nd-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 4th ground motion
B4
Appendix B
B5
Appendix B
B6
Appendix B
B7
Appendix B
B8
Appendix C
APPENDIX C
Figure C.121. 3rd-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 2nd ground motion
Figure C.122. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 3rd-floor facilities
Figure C.123. 3rd-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 2nd ground motion
C1
Appendix C
Figure C.124. 3rd-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 2nd ground motion
Figure C.125. 3rd-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 3rd ground motion
C2
Appendix C
Figure C.127. 3rd-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 3rd ground motion
Figure C.128. 3rd-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 3rd ground motion
Figure C.129. 3rd-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 4th ground motion
C3
Appendix C
Figure C.131. 3rd-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 4th ground motion
Figure C.132. 3rd-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 4th ground motion
C4
Appendix C
C5
Appendix C
C6
Appendix C
C7
Appendix C
C8
Appendix D
APPENDIX D
Figure D.145. 4th-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 2nd ground motion
Figure D.146. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the 4th-floor facilities
Figure D.147. 4th-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 2nd ground motion
D1
Appendix D
Figure D.148. 4th-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 2nd ground motion
Figure D.149. 4th-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 3rd ground motion
D2
Appendix D
Figure D.151. 4th-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 3rd ground motion
Figure D.152. 4th-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 3rd ground motion
Figure D.153. 4th-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 4th ground motion
D3
Appendix D
Figure D.155. 4th-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 4th ground motion
Figure D.156. 4th-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 4th ground motion
D4
Appendix D
D5
Appendix D
D6
Appendix D
D7
Appendix D
D8
Appendix E
APPENDIX E
Figure E.169. Whole-4th-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 2nd ground
motion
Figure E.170. Force-displacement hystereses for 15DLRBs and 30DLRBs isolating the whole-4th-floor
facilities during the 2nd ground motion
Figure E.171. Whole-4th-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 2nd ground motion
E1
Appendix E
Figure E.172. Whole-4th-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 2nd ground motion
Figure E.173. Whole-4th-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 3rd ground
motion
facilities during the 3rd ground motion
E2
Appendix E
Figure E.175. Whole-4th-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 3rd ground motion
Figure E.176. Whole-4th-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 3rd ground motion
Figure E.177. Whole-4th-floor facilities absolute acceleration and displacement during the 4th ground
motion
E3
Appendix E
facilities during the 4th ground motion
Figure E.1791. Whole-4th-floor facilities global effects: PFA and PFD due to the 4th ground motion
Figure E.1802. Whole-4th-floor facilities global effects: interstorey drift ratio due to the 4th ground motion
E4
Appendix E
motion
E5
Appendix E
motion
E6
Appendix E
motion
E7
Appendix E
E8

Dissertation2007 Zanaica

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Dissertation2007 Zanaica

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

University of Patras Erasmus Mundus

DESIGN OF STOREY-ISOLATION SYSTEM

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

Supervisor: Prof MICHAEL N. FARDIS

Prof . M.N. Fardis _________________

Non-structural components are sensitive to large floor accelerations, velocities, and

ag = design ground acceleration on type A ground

L = Total lateral area of lead-rubber bearing

Non-structural components are sensitive to large floor accelerations, velocities, and

1.3 Organisation of the Dissertation

2.1.1 Recent Applications

In China, an important realization is going to be in Pechino. 50 isolated buildings between 7

2.2 Seismic Protection Systems

2.2.2 Passive Control

i. bearing vertical loads;

iii. assuring high flexibility under seismic actions;

iv. dissipating an adequate amount of energy;

2.3 Base Isolation

The main consequences of seismically isolating a structure are:

2. the concentration of the inelastic deformation into the bearings;

i. a reduction of the inertia forces on the structure, such as to eliminate damage to

iii. a high protection of the building contents;

a. the building dimensions and, in particular, the number of stories;

b. the building configuration in order to have an easy arrangement of the isolation

2.3.1 Comparison between Conventional and Base Isolation Approaches

Figure 2.8. Conventional and base isolation approaches

Mass Acceleration Ratio

2.4 Lead Rubber Bearings

Figure 2.11. Principle structure of a Maurer Shne LRB

3. STATE OF THE ART

The equation of motion can be easily expressed by applying dAlamberts principle:

( m + mb ) v&&b + mv&&s + cb v&b + kb vb = ( m + mb ) u&&g (3.3)

mv&&b + mv&&s + cs v&s + k s vb = mu&&g (3.4)

If we introduce the total mass

the mass ratio

the nominal frequencies

the frequency ratio

the damping factors

the basic equations of motion become, in a matrix notation,

1 v&&b 2bb 0 v&b b 2 0 vb 1

The characteristic equation of the frequencies is

the solution of which, to first order in , are given by

and the mode shapes are

and the damping ratios

If S d ( , ) and S a ( , ) are the pseudo-displacement and the pseudo-acceleration spectra,

The shear coefficient can be defined as:

3.2 Response Spectrum Concept

u0 (Tn , ) max u ( t , Tn , ) (3.22)

u&0 (Tn , ) max u& ( t , Tn , ) (3.23)

u&&t0 (Tn , ) max u&&t ( t , Tn , ) (3.24)

5. calculation of the spectral ordinates: D = u0 , V = ( 2 Tn ) D and A = ( 2 Tn ) D ;

3.3 Design Criteria for Isolated Buildings

Now, all codes recognize two performance levels to be checked:

3.3.1 Base Isolation in EN 1998-1:2004 [Fardis et al., 2004]

EQUIVALENT LINEAR (10.9.2) NON LINEAR

magnitude of the simultaneous vertical load;

magnitude of simultaneous horizontal load in the transverse direction;

change of properties over projected service life.

c) the force-displacement characteristics of the isolation system do not vary by more

f) the largest dimension of the superstructure in plan is not greater than 50 m;

g) the substructure is sufficiently rigid to minimise the effects of differential

j) the lateral-load resisting system of the superstructure should be regularly and

k) the rocking rotation at the base of the substructure should be negligible;