-Project Presentation on 24/5/2018

Modelling and Analysis of Base

Isolation System

Guided By Submitted By
Dr. Govardhan Bhatt Manoj Dhakar
Department of Civil Engineering, M. Tech. (Str.)
NIT Raipur Roll. No. 16243003
Contents
 Introduction to Base isolation
 Literature review
 Objectives
 Methodology and Modeling
 Results and Discussions
 Conclusions
Introduction
 Base isolation system is defined as a flexible or sliding
interface positioned between a structure and its foundation,
for the purpose of decoupling the horizontal motions of the
structure from the horizontal motion of the ground, thereby
reducing earthquake damage to the structure and its
elements.
 Base isolation system absorbs energy released from the
earthquake before it is transferred to the structure.
 The base isolators used in this system to mitigate the effect
of the earthquake by decoupling the components of the
building from direct contact with the ground essentially
isolating the structure from potentially ground motion
 The term isolation refers to
reduce interaction between
structure and the ground.

 The base isolation technique

can be used for seismic
protection of new buildings as
well as for the seismic
retrofitting of existing one.
 General requirement of the Base isolation Device are,

 Isolating the building from the ground

 Supporting the weight of the building
 Damping of response amplitude
 Restoring the original position after earthquake
Concept of Base Isolation System
 Base isolation, as a strategy to protect structure from earthquake,
revolves around a few basic elements of understanding

 Period shifting of structure

 Increasing damping
 Reducing response
Most common types of Isolator
Isolation device

Elastomeric Isolator Sliding Isolator

Natural Rubber Resilient Friction

Bearing bearing

High damping Friction Pendulum

Rubber Bearing Bearing

Lead Rubber Bearing

Introduction of Elastomeric Bearing
 A laminated elastomeric bearing is an elastomeric rubber block
reinforced with steel plates during the process of vulcanization.
This bearing is the connection between structure and its support
and should make the following through elastic deformation.
 Transmission of normal forces
 Horizontal movement
 Transmission horizontal force with in define limits

 Generally two types of bearing used as a elastomeric bearing

 Laminated Rubber Bearing
 Laminated Lead Rubber Bearing
 Behavior of Rubber Bearing
 Vertical direction

 Horizontal direction

Behavior of Laminated Bearing under horizontal and vertical loading

Objectives
 To develop program for the analysis of linear SDOF system
using LABVIEW.
 To develop program for the analysis of non-linear SDOF
system using LABVIEW.
 Prepare program for design of elastomeric bearing.
 To develop program for the analysis of linear base isolation
system.
 Modeling and analysis of elastomeric bearing with and
without lead using ANSYS.
 Analysis of fixed base and base isolated building using
ETABS.
Literature Review

Literature Review
Modeling of SDOF system in LabVIEW

LabVIEW program for SDOF system

Validation of linear SDOF program
 El Centro earthquake records were used to Check the response of
SDOF system. Damping 2 % and unit mass (m=9.81 N) were
provide and a time step 0.02 s. was selected result for different time
periods (t1 = 0.5, t2 = 1 and t3 = 2 s.) as obtained from LABVIEW
and as presented by A.K, Chopra.

(a) Results obtained from LabVIEW Program (b) Taken from A.K. Chopra
Validation of Non-linear SDOF Program
 To validating the results obtained from LabVIEW, three cases
having different yield displacements have been considered from
Chopra (2007). The parameters considered are, Mass = 1kg,
Time Period = 0.5sec, Damping coefficient 5 %, Time step =
0.02sec,yield displacements such as 1) 2.25in, 2)1.125in and 3)
0.562in. El Centro earthquake ground motion time history has
been considered.( Taken from A.K. Chopra)
Validation of non linear SDOF program

Results obtained from LabVIEW at Results obtained from A.K. Chopra at

Yield displacement (1) 2.25 inch Yield displacement (1) 2.25 inch (2)
(2) 1.125 inch (3) 0.562 inch 1.125 inch (3) 0.562 inch
Validation of LabVIEW base Isolation program
 Consider a building having the fundamental time period of the super
structure be 0.5 sec damping 2 percent. LRB system with characteristics
with time period 2 sec and damping 10 percent. Base mass are also
same as a superstructure.

(a) Results obtained from

LabVIEW Program

(b) Results taken from

Jangid R. S., Introduction
to Earthqake Chapter 8
 (a) Results obtained from
LabVIEW Program

(b) Results taken from

Jangid R. S. Introduction
to Earthqake Chapter 8
Design of Elastomeric Bearing

LabVIEW Program for Design of Elastomeric Bearing

Validation of design Program

Design Parameter of Bearing

Time period of Structure 0.875 Sec
Design Vertical Load 850 kN
Damping Ratio 10 %
Design Shear Strain 50 %
Modification Factor 0.57
Allowable Normal Stress 7.84 x 103 kN/m2
Comparison of Design Data Obtain from
LabVIEW and Data takan from T. K. Datta

Geometric Parameter of Bearing

Geometric Parameter From T. K. Datta From Labview
program
No. of Rubber Layer 30 29
Thickness of Rubber layer 12.5 (mm) 14 (mm)
No. of Steel layer 29 28
Thickness of Steel layer 2.5 (mm) 3 (mm)
Diameter of Lead 50 (mm) 50 (mm)
Diameter of Bearing 500 (mm) 560 (mm)
Height of Bearing 490 (mm) 490 (mm)
Modeling of elastomeric bearing in ANSYS

(a) CLRB (b) CLLRB

(c) SLLRB (d) CLLRB

Dimensions of the models

Dimension CLRB CLLRB SLRB SLLRB

Diameter /size of bearing 560 560 500x500 500x500

Total height of bearing 490 490 490 490

Thickness of rubber layer 14 14 14 14

Thickness of steel layer 3 3 3 3

Diameter of lead core 0 50 0 50

Number of rubber layer 29 29 29 29

Number of steel layer 28 28 28 28

 Material properties of models
 Steel
 Young’s modulus 200 GPa,
 Yield Strength 270 MPa
 Poisson’s ratio of 0.3
 Lead
 Young’s modulus 17500 MPa
 Yield Strength 8.82 MPa
 Poisson ratio of 0.44
 Rubber
 Young’s Modulus 4.45 Mpa
 Shear modulus 1.06 Mpa
 Loading and boundary condition
 All the nodes at the bottom are fixed against rotations and
translations. The load is given as constant amplitude cyclic
displacement loading. Maximum displacement of 100 mm at the
top surface of the nodes in X- direction for a duration of 9 seconds
is given as shown in Fig.

Cyclic Shear loading Diagram

Modeling of base Isolated building


(a)Plan of 6 storey Building frame (b) 3 d model of 6 storey Building Frame

Plan dimension 20m x 15 m, Height of Building 18m,

Beam Size 300 x 450 mm, Size of Column 500 x 500
Time history Analysis of building
 6 storey 3d fixed base and base isolated building frames of floor
height 3 m was modeled by ETABS.
 Building has Bays 0f 5 m in X direction and 3 bays of 5 m in Y
direction.
 Time history analysis is carried out for
 El Centro earthquake
 Kobe Earthquake
 Northridge earthquake.
Design Characteristics of Lead Rubber Bearing
used in Modeling of Base Isolated Building

Lead Rubber Bearing Characteristics

Effective Stiffness in (kN/m) 745

Post Yeild Stiffness in (kN/m) 570

Elastic Stiffness in (kN/m) 5700

Charecterstics Strength in (kN) 42.4

Post Yeild Ratio 0.1

Effective Damping in (%) 15

 Result obtained from Linear SDOF Labview Program.

(a) (b)

Response in terms of Displacement (m) for, (a) El Centro (b) Loma Prieta
 Result obtained from Linear SDOF Labview Program.

(a) (b)

Response in terms of Velocity (m/s) for, (a) El Centro (b) Loma Prieta
 Result obtained from Linear SDOF LabVIEW Program.

(a) (b)
Response in terms of Acceleration (m/s^2) for, (a) El Centro (b) Loma Prieta
Responses of linear SDOF System under earthquake

Variation of responses for el Centro earthquake

El Centro PD (m) % variation PV % variation PA % variation
with Newmak (m/s) with Newmak (M/s^2) with Newmak

NBM 0.054 0.67 10.32

CDM 0.055 -1.81 0.63 5.97 10.24 0.77
WTM 0.053 1.85 0.65 2.98 10.22 0.98

Variation of responses for Loma Prieta earthquake

Loma PD (m) % variation PV % variation PA % variation
Prieta with Newmak (m/s) with Newmak (M/s^2) with Newmak

NBM 0.034 0.365 4.38

CDM 0.033 2.94 0.363 0.54 4.36 0.45
WTM 0.033 2.94 0.360 1.36 4.24 3.19
 Result obtained from non Linear SDOF Labview Program.

(a) (b)

Response in terms of Displacement (m) for, (a) El Centro (b) Loma Prieta
 Result obtained from non Linear SDOF Labview Program.

(a) (b)

Response in terms of Velocity (m/s) for, (a) El Centro (b) Loma Prieta
 Result obtained from non Linear SDOF Labview Program

(a) (b)

Response in terms of Acceleration (m/s^2) for, (a) El Centro (b) Loma Prieta
 Result obtained from non Linear SDOF Labview Program

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
 (e) (f)

(a) Force to Displacement graph by Newmark’s Beta Method under El Cento

(b) Force to Displacement graph by Newmark’s Beta Method under Loma Prieta
(c) Force to Displacement graph by Central Difference Method under El Cento
(d) Force to Displacement graph by Central Difference Method under Loma
Prieta
(e) Force to Displacement graph by Wilson Theta Method under El Cento
(f) Force to Displacement graph by Wilson Theta Method under Loma Prieta
Responses of linear SDOF System under earthquake

Variation of responses for el Centro earthquake

El Centro PD (m) % variation PV % variation PA % variation
with Newmak (m/s) with Newmak (M/s^2) with Newmak

NBM 0.048 0.49 5.75

CDM 0.052 -8.33 0.67 -36.73 7.45 -29.56
WTM 0.07 -45.83 0.48 2.04 5.78 -0.53

Variation of responses for Loma Prieta earthquake

Loma PD (m) % variation PV % variation PA % variation
Prieta with Newmak (m/s) with Newmak (M/s^2) with Newmak

NBM 0.036 0.39 4.89

CDM 0.033 8.33 0.36 7.69 4.36 10.3
WTM 0.045 -25 0.38 2.56 4.81 1.63
 Deformed Shape Result Obtained from Analysis of
Elastomeric Bearing in ANSYS

(a) CLRB (b) CLLRB

(c) SLRB (d) SLLRB

 Force to displacement curve obtained from Analysis of
Elastomeric Bearing in ANSYS
CLRB CLLRB

20000 100000

15000

10000 50000

Force (N)
Force (N)

5000
0
0

-5000
-50000
-10000

-15000
-100000
-20000

-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10

Displacement (m) Displacement (m)

(a) CLRB (b) CLLRB

SLRB SLLRB

15000 100000

10000
50000
5000
Force (N)

Force (N)
0
0

-5000

-10000 -50000

-15000
-100000
-20000
-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10
-0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10
Displacement (m)
Displacement (m)

(c) CLLRB (d) SLLRB

Compared stiffness and damping of the
Bearing Models

(a) Stiffness of Bearing Models (b) Damping of Bearing Models

F  F 1 Area of loop
Keff   eff  *
   2 Fmax *  max
 Comparison of Result Obtained From Analysis of
Fixed Base and Base Isolated Building
Time Period Of building
Base Condition Period (sec)
X- Direction Y- Direction
Fixed Base 0.87 1.14
Base isolated 2.28 2.30

Earthquake Max. Acc(m/s^2)

Fixed Base Base Isolation

El Cenrto 9.57 4.97
Kobe 8.29 4.45
Northridge 10.31 5.1

Figure Shown Comparison of Displacement with Fixed base and Base isolated Building
Results obtained from time history analysis of Base Isolated
building
 E

Force to Displacement
Curve under El Centro Force to Displacement
Earthquake Curve under Kobe
Earthquake

Force to Displacement Curve under Northridge Earthquake

 Conclusion
 Results have been compared for a SDOF system in terms of
acceleration, velocity and displacement. Two earthquake ground
motion time histories have been used and the results from three
different method have been compared.
 To validate the program, the results are compared with A.K.
Chopra (2007) and responses obtained are almost matching.
 The responses obtained from Newmark beta method are
compare with Central difference method and Wilson theta
method. Newmark beta and Wilson theta method gives almost
same result and central difference method gives result with small
variation.
 Results have been compared analysis of Base isolated building
with fixed base. Base isolated building gives almost 50 % less
Acceleration compared to fixed base buildings.
Conclusion
 Elastomeric bearings are designed using LABVIEW
programming software. Elastomeric bearings with and without
lead in different shapes are analysed using finite element
software. The following conclusions are drawn based on the
results:
 Effective stiffness, energy dissipation capacity and damping
are increased significantly due to an addition of lead in the
bearings.
 Effective stiffness of CLLRB and SLLRB is nearly four times
the CLRB and SLRB.
 Effective damping of CLLRB and SLLRB is nearly two times
the CLRB and SLRB.
 Shape effect of elastomeric bearings is considerably
negligible. CLRB and CLLRB are having slightly higher
properties in comparison with SLRB and SLLRB respectively.
 References
[1] Bhatt G., Paul D.K., “Effect of elastomeric bearing for structure located in seismic
region”, Procedia Technology, Elsevier, Science direct, 2016.
[2] Tiong P. L., Adnan A., Rehman A. B. A., Mirasa A. K., “Seismic Performance of
Low- Ductility Precast Wall Structure with Base Isolation” International Journal of
Engineering, Vol.26, No.2, 2013, 156-162.
[3] Deb, S. K., “Seismic Base Isolation – an overview” current science science vol.87,
No.10, 2004, PP. 1426-1430.
[4] Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA- 451 “Recommended Provision
for Seismic Regulation for new building and other Structure, Design Examples”
Report Building Seismic Safety council, Washington DC 2003.
[5] IS – 1893 (Part 1)., “Criteria for earthquake resistance design of structure – Part 1”
General provision and building bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi India, 2002.
[6] Datta, T.K., “Seismic Analysis of Structures” ISBN 9780470824610. John Wiley,
2010.
[7] Chopra, A. K., (1995), Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to
Earthquake Engineering, Prentice-Hall. Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
[8]Pankaj Agarwal, Manish Shrikhande Earthquake resistant design of structures
prentice hall.
[9] LabVIEW User Manual, National Instruments, pdf (2003).
[10] Jangid R. S., Introduction to Earthqake, NPTEL, 238-274, (2013).
[11] Rajasekaran S., Structural dynamics of earthquake engineering, Woodhead
Publishing Limited, 224-227,(2009).
[12] Moghadam. S. R., and Konstantinidis D., “Simple Mechanical Model for
Horizontal Behaviour of Elastomeric Bearing including effect of Support Rotation”
Engineering Structures Elsevier, 150, 996- 1012, 2017.
[13] Oanea Fediuc, D., Budescu M., Baetu S., Fediuc V., “Finite Element Modelling of
Elastomeric Bearings” Gheorghe AsachiTechnical University of Iasi,
Fasc.2,Construction Section Architecture,2015.
[14] Kelly, J.M., “Earthquake – Resistant Design with Rubber” 2nd ed, Springer –
Verlag London, 2000.
 Thank you