-
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS, VOL. 19.21-33
(1990)
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PERFORMANCES OF VARIOUS BASE ISOLATION
SYSTEMS, PART 11: SENSITIVITY
ANALYSIS
LIN SU A N D GOODARZ AHMADI Department of Mechanical and
Industrial Engineering, Clarkson University, Potsdam. N Y 13676,
U.S.A.
A N D
IRADJ G. TADJBAKHSH Department of Civil Engineering, Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, Troy. N Y 12181, U.S.A.
SUMMARY A series of numerical experiments on the performance of
different base isolation systems for a non-uniform shear beam
structure is carried out. Several base isolation systems are
considered and the peak relative displacements and the maximum
absolute accelerations of the base-isolated structure and its base
raft under a variety of conditions are evaluated. Several
sensitivity analyses for variations in properties of the base
isolator and the structure are carried out. A number of different
earthquake excitations are also used in the study. The results show
that performances of the base isolation systems are not sensitive
to small variations in their natural period, damping or friction
coefficient. The presence of a frictional element in the isolators
reduces their sensitivity to severe variations in frequency content
and amplitude of the ground acceleration. In particular, the
resilient-friction base isolators with or without sliding upper
plate perform reasonably well under a variety of loading
conditions. The rubber bearing type, however, leads to the lowest
peak transmitted accelerations for moderate intensity
earthquakes.
INTRODUCTION
Using base isolation systems for aseismic design of relatively
stiff structures has attracted considerable interest in the recent
years. The concept is to isolate the structure from ground during
earthquake strong motions. Excellent reviews on the subject were
provided by Kelly.'*2 The base isolation system which has found
wide applications is the laminated rubber bearing (LRB).' - ' The
four-storey Foothill Communities Law and Justice Building in San
Bernardino County, California, which is the largest base-isolated
building in the world, uses laminated rubber bearings. This system
was also used in a number of buildings in Europe, Japan and New
Zealand. A LRB with a lead core (lead-rubber or NZ) was used
extensively in New Zealand.2 - 4 The pure-friction (P-F) or
sliding-joint the resilient-friction base isolator (R-FBIX7 the
French system (EDF)* and the Alexisismon9 system are among the
leading base isolation systems which are considered to have
considerable potential for wide applications. A new base isolator
design was proposed in Reference10 which combines the desirable
features of the EDF and the R-FBI systems. This isolator was
referred to as the sliding resilient-friction (SR-F) base isolation
system.
In spite of numerous studies on base isolation systems, the
advantages and disadvantages of various systems are not fully
understood." In Part I of this work" (from here on referred to as
Part I), a number of comparative studies on performances of various
base isolation devices for non-uniform shear beam structures were
carried out. Several base isolation systems, including the
pure-friction, the laminated rubber bearing with and without lead
core, the EDF system and the resilient-friction base isolator with
and without sliding upper plate were considered. The method of
expansion by normal modes for obtaining the response of the elastic
shear beam structure was used, and the effectiveness of different
base isolation devices under a variety of conditions was
studied.
OO98-8847/90/01OO2 1-1 3$06.50 0 1990 by John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd.
Received 15 July 1988 Revised 6 April 1989
-
22 L. SU, G. AHMADI AND I. G. TADJBAKHSH
In this Part I1 of the study, sensitivities of peak responses to
variations in the properties of the base isolator and the structure
are analysed. The accelerograms of El Centro 1940, Pacoima Dam
1971, Taft 1952, Olympia 1965 and Mexico City 1985 earthquakes are
used. The peak responses of the base-isolated shear beam structure
are evaluated and sensitivities to variations in natural period of
the isolator, damping ratio of the structure and the isolator,
friction coefficient of the isolator, mass ratio, and shape of the
structure are studied. The results show that properly designed base
isolation systems are highly effective in attenuating the
acceleration transmitted to the superstructure and in reducing the
generated column stresses. Furthermore, the friction type isolation
systems are less sensitive to unexpected variations in frequency
content and amplitude of the ground excitation than the
non-friction types. The rubber bearing types, however, transmit the
lowest peak accelerations for moderate intensity earthquakes. The
results also show that the base isolation systems are generally
quite reliable devices and their performances are not sensitive to
small variations in their natural period, damping or friction
coefficient. It is also shown that the velocity-dependence of the
friction coefficient has no noticeable effects on peak responses
for the R-FBI system, and using a constant friction coefficient is
a reasonable approximation.
TECHNIQUE OF ANALYSIS
The equations of motion of a non-uniform shear beam structure
with different base isolation systems subject to an earthquake
excitation were described at length in Part I" and hence need not
be repeated here. As noted in Part I, consideration of the first
ten modes of vibration of the structure is sufficient for an
accurate response analysis. The computer program developed in Part
I for numerical integration of equations of motion is modified and
is used for the present sensitivity analyses. For several major
earthquake excitations, variations of the peak responses of the
base-isolated shear beam structure for a range of values of
structural and isolator parameters are evaluated and discussed.
As in Part I, it is assumed that the cross sectional area of the
shear beam structure varies exponentially as A = A, exp { - 2ax},
where x is the dimensionless height and a is the spatial
non-uniformity coefficient. For sensitivity analysis, one parameter
is varied while the other parameters are kept fixed. The
fundamental natural period for the structure is taken to be Tl. =-
0.4 sec, and the modal damping coefficients of [. = 0.02 and u =
0.1 are usually used. Unless stated otherwise, the recommended
values of parameters for various base isolators as summarized in
Table I are employed. The corrected accelerograms of the NOOW
component of El Centro 1940, the S16E component of Pacoima Dam 1971
and three other major earthquakes are used as seismic excitations.
The peak relative displacements and the maximum absolute
accelerations of the shear beam structure at its base raft and its
roof are evaluated and discussed. Sensitivities of the peak
responses of the structure to variations in different parameters of
the base isolator and the structure are studied in detail.
COMPARATIVE STUDIES FOR DIFFERENT EARTHQUAKES
As indicated in Part I, the intensity of an earthquake can
affect strongly the performances of different base isolation
systems. In this section, five earthquake records, namely, El
Centro 1940 (NOOW, 0*348g), Pacoima
Table I. Values of parameters used for various base
isolators
Natural Damping Friction Friction Mass period coefficient
coefficient coefficient ratio
Isolator To(=) To Pl P R ~ ~
- - - 0 1 0.75 P-F R-FBI 4.0 010 0.04 - 0.7 5 LRB 2.0 0.10 - -
075 EDF 1 .o 0.10 - 0.2 0.75 NZ 2.0 0.10 - - 0.7 5 S-RF 4.0 010
0.04 0.1 075
-
A COMPARISON OF BASE ISOLATION SYSTEMS 23
Dam 1971 (S16E, 1.17g), Taft 1952 (S69E, 0*178g), Olympia 1965
(S86W, 0.198g) and Mexico City 1985 (N90W, 0*17g), are used as
ground excitations. These earthquake records have a variety of peak
ground accelerations ranging from 0.179 to 1.179 and cover various
forms of frequency content. In particular the Mexico City 1985
earthquake had considerable energy at low frequencies of about 0.5
Hz. Maximum relative displacements and peak absolute accelerations
of the structure at its base raft and its roof for various base
isolation systems and different earthquake excitations are
evaluated and the results are summarized in Tables 11-V. The
recommended values of parameters for different base isolation
systems as listed in Table I are used in these analyses. The
corresponding peak responses for the fixed-base structure are also
reproduced in these tables for comparison.
Maximum deflections at the roof of the structure for various
base isolators are listed in Table 11. This table shows that, for
all earthquakes with the exception of the Mexico City 1985
earthquake, the peak deflections of the base-isolated structures
are generally much lower than that of the fixed-base one. It is
also observed that the peak deflections for the R-FBI system and
the SR-F base isolator coincide except for the Pacoima Dam and
Mexico City earthquakes. This is because, for low or moderate
intensity excitations, no sliding in the upper friction plate of
the SR-F isolator occurs and, hence, it behaves exactly as a R-FBI
unit. However, for high intensity earthquakes such as the Pacoima
Dam earthquake or for earthquakes which have considerable energy at
low frequencies such as the Mexico City earthquake, sliding occurs
and the peak responses of the R- FBI and the SR-F base isolators
are somewhat different. Table I1 also shows that the rubber bearing
type isolators (the LRB and the NZ systems) are more effective in
reducing the peak deflection of the shear beam structure for
moderate intensity earthquakes. The friction type isolators, on the
other hand, lead to lower peak deflections when compared to the
rubber bearing type isolators for high intensity earthquakes.
The results for the Mexico City 1985 earthquake show that the N
Z and the LRB systems generate peak deflections which are two to
three times that of the fixed-base structure, while the SR-F, the
R-FBI and the
Table 11. Peak deflection (cm)
Earthquake El Centro Pacoima Dam Taft Olympia Mexico City 1940
1971 1952 1965 1985
Isolator (NOOW) (S16E) (S69E) (S86W) (N90W)
Fixed-base 4.14 20.23 2.45 1.87 1.26 P-F 1.40 2.78 1.38 1.33
1.17 R-FBI 0.84 1.35 0.68 0.70 0.86 LRB 0.80 2.28 037 0.38 3.28 EDF
1.30 1.78 0.79 0.68 1.06 NS 0.74 3.29 0.45 0.37 2.46 SR-F 0.84 1.29
068 0.70 0.77
Table 111. Peak acceleration (9)
Earthquake El Centro 1940
Isolator (NOOW)
Fixed- base 1.330 P-F 0.703 R-FBI 0.4 19 LRB 0.162 EDF 0.32 1 NZ
0.170 SR-F 0.4 19
Pacoima Dam 1971
(S16E)
Taft 1952
(S69E)
0 1 y m p i a 1965
(S86W)
Mexico City 1985
(N90W)
6.07 1 1.381 0585 0.488 0.532 0.718 0.561
0.696 0604 0.331 0.08 1 0.180 0.107 0.33 1
0-642 0.586 0.373 0088 0.172 0.085 0.373
0.276 0.345 0.372 0.665 0.334 0.503 0.378
-
24 L. SU. G . AHMADI A N D I. G. TADJBAKHSH
Table IV. Peak base raft displacement (cm)
Earthquake El Centro Pacoima Dam Taft Olympia Mexico City 1940
1971 1952 1965 1985
Isolator (NWW) (S16E) (S69E) (S86W) (N90W)
P-F 4.73 4027 2.52 1.92 14.68 R-FBI 5.57 40.57 2.24 2.35 33.84
LRB 14.96 41.12 6.10 6.84 63.48 EDF 7.45 3064 3.30 2.70 6.18 NZ
8-16 4040 4.09 3.19 32.80 SR-F 5.57 43.23 2.23 2.35 31.33
Table V. Peak base raft acceleration (9)
Earthquake
Isolator
El Centro 1940
(NOOW)
Pacoima Dam 1971
(S16E)
Taft 1952
(S69E)
Olympia 1965
(S86W)
Fixed-base P-F R-FBI LRB EDF NZ SR-F
0.348 0.368 0-232 0.153 0270 0.131 0.232
1.170 0869 0.413 0.436 0.402 0.590 0.393
0179 0.365 0184 0.062 0128 0.090 0.184
0.198 0.359 0.165 0077 0.117 0.070 0.165
Mexico City 1985
(N90W)
0171 0.255 0.181 0-636 0.263 0463 0.181
EDF systems still provide a certain amount of protection. For
the earthquake excitations considered, Table I1 shows that the peak
deflection for the fixed-base structure varies from 1.26 to 20.23
cm. Peak deflections for the rubber bearing type isolators vary
from 0.37 to 3.29 cm while those of the friction type base
isolators remain between 0.68 and 2.78 cm. In particular, for the
R-FBI and the SR-F systems, the range of variation is only between
0.68 and 1.35 cm. Based on these results it may be concluded that
the peak deflections of friction type base isolators are less
sensitive to substantial variations in the frequency content and
the intensity of earthquake excitations. Since the stresses
generated in the shear beam structure are directly proportional to
the deflection, Table I1 implies that for friction type base
isolation systems, peak stresses in the structure do not vary
significantly even when the intensity of ground acceleration is
increased to a high level or when the ground excitation contains
severe frequency distribution.
Peak absolute accelerations at the roof of the structure for
different base isolation systems are listed in Table 111. It is
observed that peak accelerations for the base-isolated structure
are reduced by a factor of two to eight when compared with the
fixed-base one for the El Centro earthquake. For the Pacoima Dam
earthquake, the reduction is about eight to twelve times except for
the P-F isolator. However, owing to the severe low frequency energy
content of Mexico City earthquake, all base isolation systems
amplify the peak acceleration by a factor of 1.2 to 2.4. Similar to
peak deflection responses, peak acceleration responses for friction
type isolators do not vary to a significant extent with severe
variations in the frequency content and the intensity of the
earthquake excitation. Table I11 also shows that the LRB leads to
the least amount of peak accelerations for all earthquakes except
the Mexico City 1985 earthquake.
Table IV compares the peak relative displacements at the base
raft of the structure produced by different base isolation systems.
It appears that the peak relative displacement of the LRB system is
higher than those of other base isolation systems for all
earthquakes considered. The exception is the Pacoima Dam earthquake
for which the peak base displacements of all isolation systems
become comparable with the SR-F system, leading to a somewhat
larger peak base displacement. Table IV also shows that for the El
Centro, Taft and
-
25 A COMPARISON OF BASE ISOLATION SYSTEMS
Olympia earthquakes, the P-F, the R-FBI and the SR-F systems
lead to the lowest peak base displacement. For the Mexico City and
Pacoima Dam earthquakes, the EDF system produces the least amount
of peak base displacement.
Peak absolute accelerations at the base raft of the structure
are listed in Table V. It is observed that the peak accelerations
are lower than the peak ground accelerations for all the
earthquakes with the exception of the Mexico City earthquake and
for all base isolation systems with the exception of the P-F one.
The P-F system transmits the largest peak acceleration to the base
of the structure and the LRB system generally transmits the lowest
one. For the Pacoima Dam earthquake, the lowest peak acceleration
is transmitted by the SR-F base isolator. All isolators, except for
the P-F one, transmit only about one half to two-third of the peak
ground acceleration to the base raft of the structure for the El
Centro and Pacoima Dam earthquakes.
Comparison of Tables 111 and V shows that the base-isolated
structure, generally, behaves as a rigid body and does not amplify
the transmitted acceleration to an appreciable extent. In contrast,
the fixed-base structure amplifies the ground acceleration by a
factor of 3 to 6.
Based on the results presented in Table 11-V, i t may be
concluded that, under moderate to high intensity earthquake
excitations, all base isolation systems considered here effectively
reduce the structural peak responses. The only exception is the
Mexico City earthquake with considerable energy at low frequencies
for which the isolators do not function properly. These tables also
show that friction type base isolation systems are, generally, less
sensitive to severe variations in the frequency content and the
intensity of earthquake excitations.
VARIATIONS IN NATURAL PERIOD OF ISOLATORS
One important property of most base isolation systems is to
shift the natural period of the structure to higher values and away
from the energy containing range of earthquake ground excitations.
Therefore, the parameters of different base isolation systems must
be selected carefully to achieve this goal. In this section, the
sensitivity of peak responses to variations in natural period of
the isolator, To, is analysed. The accelerogram of the Pacoima Dam
earthquake is used as the ground excitation. A shear beam structure
with a fundamental natural period of TI =04 sec and modal damping
ratio of 002 is used throughout this analysis. The variations of
peak responses of the structure with To for various isolators are
shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 shows the peak responses of the structure with various
base isolation systems subject to the S16E component of the Pacoima
Dam 1971 earthquake. Maximum deflections at the roof of the
structure are shown in Figure l(a). For this high intensity
earthquake, sliding on the upper friction plates of the SR-F and
the EDF systems occurs and their responses are quite different from
those of the R-FBI and the LRB systems, respectively. Figure l(a)
shows that, for To < 3.0 sec, the peak structural deflections
for the LRB, the NZ and the R-FBI systems decrease sharply with
increasing To. It is also observed that the peak deflections for
the SR-F and the EDF base isolators are much lower than those of
the R-FBI and the LRB systems for To < 3.0 sec, respectively.
From Figure l(a), it is noticed that the peak structural
deflections for the SR-F and the EDF systems do not vary
appreciably for the entire range of To considered.
For different base isolation systems, variations of the peak
absolute accelerations at the roof of the structure are shown in
Figure l(b). It is observed that, for the SR-F system, the peak
acceleration remains at the same level for the entire range of To
considered. On the other hand, those for the NZ, the LRB and the
EDF systems decrease as To increases. The peak acceleration for the
R-FBI system varies slightly for To > 2.0 sec. Figure l(b) also
shows that the EDF system leads to the lowest peak acceleration
among the base isolators considered.
Figure l(c) displays peak relative base raft displacements for
different base isolation systems. It is observed that the peak base
displacements for the LRB, the NZ and the R-FBI systems increase
rather sharply with To for To < 2.0 sec. The displacement
response spectrum for the SR-F base isolator shows the opposite
trend and decreases in this range. For To > 2.0 sec, variations
of peak base raft displacements with To are rather mild. Figure
l(c) also shows that the R-FBI system generally leads to the lowest
peak base raft displacement.
Peak absolute accelerations transmitted to the base raft of the
structure for various base isolation systems are compared in Figure
l(d). It is observed that, for the SR-F and the EDF base isolators,
peak transmitted
-
26 L. SU. G. AHMADI A N D I. G. TADJBAKHSH
h
W i l 3 30 PACOIMA DAM
_..- ....... ..
....... '\ EDP R-FBI
( C l . I
20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . I 0.5 1.5 2.5 5.5 4.5
To (sec)
1.0 - '..\'. PACOIMA DAM h
Y M . ..,'\ clo.ll - \.'%\ w . u u 4 0.6 - w . v) 2 0 . 4 -
3 0 . 2 - EDF
R-FBI \'. .. .I! .......
-.,NZ - - - _ _
(4 0.0 ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'rrm
0.5 1.5 2.5 5.5 4 To (sec)
Figure 1. Variations of the peak responses of the structure with
the natural period of isolator for Pacoima Dam 1971 earthquake
accelerations vary slightly with To. This figure shows that the
peak accelerations for the NZ and the LRB systems decrease as To
increases. A similar trend is observed for the R-FBI system for To
-= 2.3 sec. For To > 2.5 sec, the peak transmitted acceleration
for the R-FBI system increases to a maximum then decreases for To
> 3.0 sec. It is also noticed that the EDF system leads to the
lowest peak acceleration transmitted to the base raft of the
structure.
Figure 1 shows that the deflection and acceleration response
spectra usually decrease as the natural periods of base isolators
increase, while the peak base raft displacements generally increase
with To. Furthermore, the peak responses for various base isolation
systems are insensitive to small variations of To in the
neighbourhood of their recommended natural periods. However,
substantial variations in natural periods of base isolation systems
could significantly affect the peak responses of the base-isolated
structure.
VARIATIONS IN DAMPING O F ISOLATORS
For a range of damping ratio of various base isolators, the peak
responses of the base-isolated shear beam structure subject to the
Pacoima Dam earthquake are evaluated and the results are shown in
Figure 2. Maximum deflections at the roof of the structure versus
damping ratio for various base isolation systems are displayed in
Figure 2(a). It is observed that the peak deflections decrease
slightly with an increase in c0 for the NZ, the LRB and the EDF
systems; however, the peak deflections of the R-FBI and the SR-F
systems remain constant and are the lowest among the isolators
considered.
In Figure 2(b), variations of the peak absolute accelerations at
the roof of the structure with T o are shown. It is observed that
the peak accelerations for various base isolation systems remain
almost at the same level of about 0.59 to 069. The peak
acceleration for the NZ system is somewhat higher at small c0 and
decreases with an increase in damping ratio.
Peak relative displacements at the base raft of the structure
produced by different base isolation systems are shown in Figure
2(c). It is noticed that the peak base displacements decrease with
an increase in damping ratio of the isolator for the rubber bearing
type base isolation systems. For the friction type isolation
systems, peak
-
A COMPARISON OF BASE ISOLATION SYSTEMS
( C ) 25 . , , , . , , , , , , , , ~,
27
(d) 0 . 0 , I I I , , 3 . 7 1 I I . . I
SR-F'
E (4 o . o , . . , , 1 1 , , , , , , , , ,
0.04 0.08 0.12 0.10 0.20 ISOLATOR DAMPING -
2 4 5
w m y 35 i41 3 30
-1.0
PACOIU DAM M v
I ~ , o . o ' . . 1 I 1 I I I I I I . I 1 0.64 0.68 0.12 0.16
0.40
ISOLATOR DAMPING
- 2 0 . 6 - I-1 w . V V C0.4 - W v l . C m
PACOIMA DAM - - - - _ _ _ _ _
Figure 2. Variations of the peak responses of the structure with
the damping ratio of isolator for Pacoima Dam 1 9 7 1
earthquake
displacements remain about the same. Furthermore, the EDF system
leads to the lowest base displacement of about 30 cm.
Figure 2(d) displays peak absolute accelerations transmitted to
the base raft of the structure. Similar to the acceleration
response spectra at the roof of the structure, the damping ratio of
the isolator does not affect appreciably the peak transmitted
acceleration, which remains around 0.49. For the NZ system, the
base acceleration is somewhat higher (about 0.69) and decreases
slightly with i0.
Based on the results presented in Figure 2, it may be concluded
that the peak responses are not sensitive to a small variation in
damping ratio of the base isolator. The increase in damping ratio
of the isolator will somewhat reduce the peak responses for the
rubber bearing type isolators. On the other hand, for the friction
type base isolation systems a substantial increase in to only
slightly reduces the peak base raft displacement while the peak
deflection and the maximum acceleration responses remain the
same.
VARIATIONS IN FRICTION COEFFICIENTS
For the friction type base isolation systems, the friction
coefficient is indeed an important parameter. The sensitivity of
peak responses to variations in friction coefficient is studied in
this section. The accelerogram of the El Centro earthquake is used
as the ground excitation. The peak structural responses for a range
of values of friction coefficient are evaluated and discussed. In
most earlier studies a constant coefficient of friction, in
accordance with Coulumb's law, was used. However, recent
experimental data 12* l 3 suggest that the friction coefficient is
not a constant and varies with velocity, normal pressure and other
parameters. In the subsequent section, the effects of
velocity-dependence of friction coefficients on the performance of
frictional base isolation systems will be studied.
Velocity-dependent friction In this section, a shear beam
structure with a R-FBI system subject to the El Centro 1940
earthquake is
considered, and the data for frictional characteristics of
teflon-steel interfaces as obtained by Constantinou
-
28 L. SU, G. AHMADI A N D I. G. TADJBAKHSH
et al .I3 are used. The following two expressions for the
velocity-dependence of the friction coefficient given as
p = 002 + c , (u/n) p = c2(u/n) + ~ ~ ( u / n ) ~ + c4(u/nI3
( 1 )
(2)
are fitted to the data of Constantinou et al. as shown in Figure
3. Here, u is the slip velocity, n is the number of friction plates
used in the R-FBI system (n = 8 is used in the analysis) and the
values of the cs are given by
c1 = 1.0762 x sec/cm, c2 = 2.5086 x sec/cm - c 3 = -3.1316 x lo-
sec2/cm2, c4=2.2545 x lo- sec3/cm3 (3)
Equation (1) assumes a linear relationship between p and the
slip velocity with a static friction coefficient of 0.02.
Constantinou et a l l 3 have also reported that continuous
non-stick sliding occurred in their experiments, which implies that
p=O for u = O . Equation (2) satisfies this condition and leads to
a zero static friction coefficient .
For p given by equations (1) and (2), as well as a constant
value of 002, the peak responses of the structure versus its
natural period T , are shown in Figure 4. It is observed that the
peak responses for p given by equation (1) are almost the same as
those for a constant friction coefficient. That is, the
velocity-dependence of the friction coefficient as given by
equation ( 1 ) does not affect the peak responses. Figure 4 also
shows that peak responses obtained by using equation (2) differ
significantly from those obtained for a constant p. The peak
deflection and the peak acceleration are lower by a factor of 2 to
4 and the peak base displacement is higher by about 10 to 30 per
cent.
From the results presented in Figure 4, it may be concluded that
the response spectra of the structure with the R-FBI system are not
sensitive to the velocity-dependence of p for a non-zero static
friction coefficient. However, should it be proved that continuous
non-stick sliding with zero static friction coefficient occurs for
certain interfaces, then the velocity-dependence of p can
significantly affect the peak responses of the friction type base
isolators. The effects, in this case, are generally favourable and
result in significant reductions in the peak deflection and
acceleration of the structure. At the present time, however, the
available meager data are inconclusive and it is more acceptable to
consider a non-zero friction coefficient at u = 0. That is,
equation (l), perhaps more realistically, describes the
velocity-dependence of p compared to equation (2). Thus, the
results imply that the velocity-dependence of the friction
coefficient does not affect significantly the peak responses of the
friction type base isolators and using a constant friction
coefficient is a reasonable approximation.
Sensit iuit y In this section, the velocity-dependence of the
friction coefficient is neglected and sensitivities of the peak
responses of various friction type base isolation systems to
variation in p are studied. A shear beam structure with a natural
period of 0.4 sec is considered and the NOOW component of the El
Centro 1940 earthquake is used as the base excitation. Two sets of
results for the SR-F system are shown in this figure in order to
display
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 VELOCITY (cm/sec)
Figure 3. Velocity-dependence of frication coefficient
-
A COMPARISON OF BASE ISOLATION SYSTEMS
. v
4 C L -
f i z .
29
EL CENTRO
................... ......................
p=0.02 ,,: ',
....... E4.(2) _.
-0.4
3 1 EL CENTRO
r 0.2 r=O.oz __/- ...<
_.a- ................. E'4.W .........
(bl 0.0 A , L , * , . , ,
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.8 TI (sec)
^M I ELCEhTRO I v
u go.z 4 1 4 0.1 m ...............
/\ E4.W
(4 0.0 1 , I , 1 , 1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.h 1.0 T1 (sec)
Figure 4. Variations of the peak responses of the structure with
its natural period for R-FBI systems with velocity-dependent
friction coefficient
the effects of variations in friction coefficient of the body
friction plates, pl, and the upper friction plate, p. In the
following discussion, SR-F1 and SR-F2 denote the SR-F system with
p=O.l and varying pl, and with pl = 0.04 and varying p,
respectively.
Figure 5(a) shows the maximum deflections at the roof of the
structure versus the friction coefficient for different base
isolators. It is observed that the increase in friction coefficient
of the isolator, generally, leads to an increase of peak
deflections. The exception is the SR-F system for which the peak
deflection remains constant for certain ranges of p and pl . For
the P-F and the R-FBI systems, the peak deflections are almost the
same and increase rapidly with an increase in friction coefficient.
For p < 0.06, the EDF system leads to the lowest deflection
among the friction type base isolators considered. For the SR-F1
system (with constant p=O.l), the peak deflection is identical to
that of the R-FBI system for pl < p and remains a constant for
pl >pL. This is because, when p1 is greater than p, sliding
occurs almost exclusively on the upper friction plate and the SR-F1
system behaves essentially as a P-F system with p=O*l. Likewise, p
> p l , the peak deflection response for the SR-F2 system (with
constant pl =0.04) remains a constant, and the SR-F2 system behaves
essentially as a R-FBI unit. It is also observed from this figure
that the SR-F2 system leads to the lowest peak deflection of only
about 0.8 cm.
Peak absolute accelerations at the roof of the structure are
shown in Figure 5(b). It is observed, similar to the peak
deflection responses, that peak accelerations generally increase as
the friction coefficient increases. Furthermore, the EDF system
provides the lowest peak acceleration response for the entire range
of p considered. This figure shows that, for p>O*O6, the EDF and
the SR-F2 systems generate constant peak accelerations of about 03s
and 049, respectively. Figure 5(b) shows that the peak acceleration
responses for the R-FBI and the P-F system are almost the same. The
peak accelerations for the SR-F base isolators become similar to
the R-FBI and the P-F systems for p>pl and pl >p,
respectively.
Figure 5(c) compares the peak relative displacements at the base
raft of the structure. This figure shows that the peak base
displacements generally decrease with an increase in friction
coefficient. Furthermore, the EDF system leads to the highest base
displacement among the isolators studied here. When friction
coefficients are less than 0.04, all isolators lead to relatively
high base displacements; furthermore, peak displacements
-
30 L. SU, G. AHMADI AND I. G. TADJBAKHSH
-1.0 , I h E L C E N T R O /
-2.0 ,/-
2 1.0 P
(b) 0.0 I I I I 1 1 1 . I , , 1 1 I , , . , ,
(4 0.0 1 1 I I , r 1 1 1 , I I I I , 8 1 1 I
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 FRICTION COEFF
FRICTION COEFF
W v) 4
EL CENTRO I 1 1 a \ u, SR-FZ, SR-PI, I
(C) 0 . . . . , . . . . , . , . . , ~ . . . 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
0.20
FRICTION COEFF
0.6 , I h
a
(4 0.0 . . , I , , , . , , . , , , , , , , ,
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.1s 0.20 FRICTION COEFF
Figure 5. Variations of the peak responses of the structure with
the friction coefficient of isolator for El Centro 1940
earthquake
become sensitive to variations in friction coefficient. When p
(or pl) is greater than 0.05, all isolators, with the exception of
the EDF system, limit the base displacement to under 6.0 cm and
among them the R-FBI system leads to the lowest peak base
displacement.
Figure 5(d) displays the peak transmitted accelerations to the
base raft of the structure. It is observed that the peak base
acceleration increases with friction coefficient. This figure also
shows that the peak base accelerations for the SR-F2 and the EDF
systems are the lowest (about 0.29). The other features of the
variations of the peak base accelerations are quite similar to
those of the peak accelerations at the roof described earlier.
The results presented in Figure 5 show that the peak
accelerations and the peak deflections of frictional base isolators
increase with the friction coefficient while their peak base raft
displacements decrease. It is also observed that the peak responses
are not sensitive to a small variation in the friction
coefficient.
VARIATION IN DAMPING O F STRUCTURE
The accelerograms of the El Centro and Pacoima Dam earthquakes
are used as ground excitations to analyse the sensitivity of the
peak responses to variations in structural damping. The resulting
peak responses for these earthquakes show the same trend;
therefore, only the results for the El Centro earthquake are
presented in Figure 6 and discussed here. Peak responses for the
fixed-base structure are also plotted in Figure 6 for reference.
This figure shows that the peak deflections and the maximum base
raft displacements of the base- isolated structure remain constant
for various base isolation systems. Peak accelerations, however,
decrease with an increase in structural damping for the friction
type base isolation systems. The peak deflection and acceleration
of the fixed-base structure, however, decrease considerably with an
increase in structural damping. These results further show that the
base-isolated structure behaves as a rigid body and the peak
responses do not vary substantially with structural damping.
-
A COMPARISON OF BASE ISOLATION SYSTEMS
(dl
31
. , 0 . 0 ; . I I , 1 I I I 1 I
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 STRUCTURAL DAMPING
h
w 3 \ EL CENTRO M1.S
. . 0 . 0.h 0.62 0.64 0.06 0.08 0.10
STRUCTURAL DAMPING
0
0.5 - Y M EL CENTRO
(4 0 . 0 , r , . , 1 0.00 0.08 0.04 0.61 0.68 0.10
STRUCTURAL DAMPING
Figure 6. Variations of the peak responses of the structure with
its damping ratio for El Centro 1940 earthquake
-6.0 8 EL CENTRO v F-8 .
. I
O ' I I I , 1 I I , ! I 0.b 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
SHAPE FACTOR
-2.0
2 ! E L C E N T R O
h
w M0.4
cl W
U g 0.3 W
m y 0.2
3 0.1
0
1 EL CENTRO 1
Figure 7. Variations of the peak responses of the structure with
its shape non-uniformity factor for El Centro 1940 earthquake
VARIATION IN SHAPE OF STRUCTURE
The effects of variation in non-uniformity of the shear beam
structure on peak responses are studied in this section. Parameter
a identifies the non-uniformity of the shear beam structure (see
Part I), and a zero value of
-
32 L. SU, G. AHMADI A N D 1. G. TADJBAKHSH
I' P-P / I
B I
Figure 8. Amplification of the peak responses along the
structure for El Centro 1940 earthquake
a corresponds to a uniform one. Peak responses of the structure
subject to the El Centro 1940 earthquake versus a for different
base isolators are shown in Figure 7. It is observed that the peak
deflection and the peak acceleration of the fixed-base structure
increase as a increases, while those of the base-isolated structure
with different base isolation systems are almost independent of the
shape of the structure and/or increase slightly with a. Figures
7(c) and (d) show that the peak base displacements and the maximum
base accelerations for various base isolation systems also remain
constant or vary slightly with a.
AMPLIFICATION ALONG THE STRUCTURE
Figure 8 shows variations of the peak deflections and the peak
absolute accelerations along the structure for the base-isolated
and the fixed-base structures. It is observed that the peak
deflections of the structure increase monotonically from the base
to the roof and have the same shape as the first mode of vibration
of a shear beam. Furthermore, the magnitudes of peak deflections
for the base-isolated structure are much lower than that of the
fixed-base one. Figure 8(b) shows that the peak accelerations for
the base-isolated structure remain the same or vary slightly along
the structure. The fixed-base structure, however, amplifies the
base acceleration. These results further show that the
base-isolated structures respond in their rigid body mode.
CONCLUSIONS
Results of several sensitivity analyses of the peak responses of
a base-isolated non-uniform shear beam structure are presented. A
number of base isolation systems are considered, and peak
deflections, maximum absolute accelerations and peak base raft
displacements and accelerations of the structure for several major
earthquakes with various frequency contents and different
intensities are evaluated and discussed. The results are compared
with each other and with those of the fixed-base structure. The
sensitivity of the peak responses to variations in parameters of
the isolation system and the structure is analysed. Based on these
results, the following conclusions may be drawn.
1. Properly designed base isolation systems are highly effective
in attenuating the ground acceleration
2. The base-isolated structures generally respond in their rigid
body modes. 3. The LRB, the NZ, the R-FBI and the SR-F base
isolation systems lead to comparable peak structural
deflections, which are about five times lower than that of the
fixed-base one. The peak accelerations are lowest for the LRB and
the NZ base isolators, while the base raft displacements are lowest
for the frictional systems.
4. For the Pacoima Dam earthquake, the R-FBI and the SR-F
systems generate the lowest peak deflections. The peak
accelerations at the roof of the structure are comparable for the
friction type and the rubber bearing type systems and are about
twelve times less than that of the fixed-base structure.
transmitted to the superstructure and in reducing the structural
deflection.
-
A COMPARISON OF BASE ISOLATION SYSTEMS 33
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1 I .
12.
The response of base-isolated structures is sensitive to severe
variations in the frequency content of earthquakes. Thus, use of
base isolation systems in regions which have the potential of
generating an earthquake with considerable energy in low
frequencies should be avoided. The presence of frictional elements
in base isolators makes their performances less sensitive to
changes in frequency content and intensity of earthquake ground
excitations. The peak responses are, generally, insensitive to
small variations in the natural period of various base isolators in
the neighbourhood of their recommended values. Substantial changes
in the natural period, however, significantly alter the performance
of a base isolation system. The peak responses of the base-isolated
structure are insensitive to variations in damping ratio of the
isolator. The exception is the peak base acceleration for the LRB
which reduces slightly with an increase in the damping. The
response spectra of the structure with a R-FBI system are
insensitive to the velocity-dependence of p for a non-zero static
friction coefficient. Thus, using a constant friction coefficient
for response analysis is a reasonable approximation. Small
variations in the friction coefficient lead only to slight change
in the response spectra for all frictional base isolators.
Substantial variations in firction coefficient will, however,
significantly affect the peak responses of the P-F and the R-FBI
systems. The peak responses of the EDF and the SR-F systems appear
to be insensitive even to significant changes in friction
coefficient. The peak acceleration of the structure with a
frictional base isolation system decreases slightly as structural
damping increases; however, variations in the damping ratio have no
noticeable effects on the peak deflection and the peak base
displacement responses. The deflection of the structure is
dominated by the first mode of vibration. The acceleration along
the structure remains almost a constant for various base isolation
systems. Peak responses for the base-isolated structure are
insensitive to shape non-uniformity of the structure.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Thanks is given to Dr N. Mostaghel for many helpful discussions.
This work is supported by the National Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo under
the Grants No. NCEER 86-3021 F and 872007.
1. 2. 3.
4.
5. 6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12. 13.
REFERENCES
J. M. Kelly, Aseismic base isolation, Shock uib. dig. 14, No. 5,
17-25 (1982). J. M. Kelly, Aseismic base isolation: Review and
bibliography, Soil dyn. earthquake eng. 5, 202-216 (1986). J. M.
Kelly and S. B. Hodder, Experimental study of lead and elastomeric
dampers for base isolation systems in laminated Neoprene bearings,
Bull. New Zealand nat. SOC. eathquake eng. 15, 53-67 (1982). 1. G.
Buckle, New Zealand seismic base isolation concepts and their
application to nuclear engineering, Nucl. eng. des. 84,313-326
(1985). G. Ahmadi, Stochastic earthquake response of structures on
sliding foundation, Int. j. eng. sci. 21,93-102 (1983). G. Ahmadi
and N. Mostaghel, On dynamics of a structure with a frictional
foundation, J . mechanique theorique appliquee 3,
N. Mostaghel and M. Khodaverdian, Dynamics of resilient-friction
base isolator (R-FBI), Earthquake eng. struct. dyn. 15,379-390
(1987). R. Gueraud, J.-P. Noel-Leroux, M. Livolant and A. P.
Michalopoulos, Seismic isolation using sliding-elastomer bearing
pads, Nucl. eng. des. 84, 363-377 (1985). A. S. Ikonomou.
Alexisismon seismic isolation levels for translational and
rotational seismic input, Proc 8th world conJ earthquake
271-285 (1984).
eng. San Francisco, V, 975-982 (1984). L. Su, G. Ahmadi and I.
G. Tadjbakhsh, A comparative study of base isolation systems, J .
eng. mech. diu. ASCE 115, 19761992 (1989). L. Su, G. Ahmadi and I.
G. Tadjbakhsh, A comparative study of performances of various base
isolation systems, Part I: Shear beam structures, Earthquake eng.
struct. dyn. 18, 11-32 (1989). I. V. Kragelskii, Friction and Wear,
Butterworths, London, 1965. M. C. Constantinou, J. Caccese and H.
G. Harris, Frictional characteristics of Teflon-steel interfaces
under dynamic conditions, Earthquake eng. struct. dyn. 15, 751-759
(1987).