Analytical Model of Structures With FPS

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:305332 (DOI: 10.1002/eqe.110)

Analytical model of structures with frictional
pendulum isolators
Jos e L. Almaz an and Juan C. De la Llera
Department of Structural Engineering, Ponticia Universidad Cat olica de Chile, Casilla 306,
Correo 22, Santiago, Chile
SUMMARY
This investigation centres on the development of a mathematically formal description of the dynamic
response of structures isolated with the frictional pendulum system (FPS). It is shown that a theoretically
exact model can be formulated to account for large deformation kinematics and the associated P
eects in the isolators. The problem is of importance in light of the large deformations observed during
impulsive ground motions like those that occurred during the Northridge, Kobe, Turkey, and Taiwan
earthquakes. Besides, the model developed may be easily extended to other devices with kinematic
constraints other than the spherical one corresponding to the FPS. Results of the model are presented for
two building examples. The rst one deals with the seismic response of a rigid superstructure supported
on two FPS isolators and is intended to provide a numerical example of the equations developed in the
text. The second example presents the three-dimensional earthquake response of a nominally symmetric
structure supported on four FPS isolators and subjected to dierent ground motions. Both examples point
out that small deformation kinematics may lead, in the case of impulsive motions, to discrepancies in
global response quantities, relative to the actual response, as large as 30 per cent. These discrepancies
increase up to 50 per cent for local response quantities such as normal isolator forces. Copyright ?
2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS: frictional pendulum system (FPS); analytical model
INTRODUCTION
The frictional pendulum system (FPS) has become a widely accepted device for seismic
isolation of new buildings, bridges, and industrial facilities, as well as for the retrot of
existing structures [1]. The appeal of this device rests on the simplicity of the principles
that govern its behaviour and the built-in self-centring action due to the concavity of the
sliding surface (Figure 1(a)). During ground shaking, the slider moves on the spherical surface
Correspondence to: Juan C. De la Llera, Department of Structural Engineering, Ponticia Universidad Cat olica de
Chile, Casilla 306, Correo 22, Santiago, Chile.
Contract}grant sponsor: Chilean National Fund for Research and Technology, Fondecyt: Contract}grant number:
1000514, 2990069.
Contract}grant sponsor: Funds for Foment and Technology, FONDEF; Contract}grant number: D96I1008.
Received 30 September 2000
Copyright
?
2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 4 May 2001
306 J. L. ALMAZ
AN AND J. C. DE LA LLERA
Figure 1. (a) Components of a typical FPS: (1) spherical surface, (2) slider, and (3) stud. (b) Typical
structural model and co-ordinate systems considered.
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:305332
STRUCTURES WITH FRICTIONAL PENDULUM ISOLATORS 307
lifting the structure and dissipating energy by friction between the spherical surface and the
slider. Usually, the slider is locked on a vertical stud having a spherical hollowed end which
allows free rotation of the slider and a perfect contact with the sliding surface at all times
(Figure 1(a)). To keep frictional forces relatively low, say a friction coecient j =510
per cent, the stainless steel slider is usually covered by a resistant teon layer.
Most of the theoretical [24] and experimental research [2, 5] developed so far with the FPS
has been based on small-deformation constitutive laws of the devices. However, motivated
by the large deformations observed during the recent earthquakes of Northridge (1994), Kobe
(1995), Turkey (1999), and Taiwan (1999), the large-deformation and the associated P
eects may become an issue in the design of the isolators. As a result, coupling between the
lateral and vertical motions, which is not considered in the small-deformation theory and the
currently available structural analysis software [6, 7], needs further evaluation.
Experimental and analytical results suggest that the small-deformation hypothesis is accurate
enough for estimating global building response quantities, such as storey and isolator defor-
mations, or storey shears and torques. However, a recent study [8] showed that one of the
most important aspects in modelling structures with FPS isolators is the correct evaluation of
the normal force N, generated by the kinematic constraint imposed by the spherical surface.
In order to evaluate correctly the normal force N, the vertical acceleration of the ground and
the true coupled lateral-vertical motion of the structure need to be considered. Because the
latter implies large deformations in the isolators, the FPS models available in the literature so
far need to be extended to account for these eects.
Consequently, it is the objective of this research to develop an analytical model for the
analysis of structures supported on FPS isolators considering large deformations and P
eects. In this model each isolator is treated as a kinematic constraint, which can be arbitrary.
The model used is an application of the approach known in rigid body dynamics as augmented
formulation. Besides being a nice tool for the analysis of structures with FPS isolators,
the exact model presented herein helps in understanding the dynamic behaviour of these
structures; in particular, the natural separation between the pendular and frictional components
of the isolator restoring force. Analytical and numerical examples of the earthquake response
of isolated structures are developed and studied in detail in order to evaluate the discrepancies
occurring as a result of the hypothesis of small versus large-deformations. Moreover, the
exact formulation constitutes a benchmark procedure that can be used to validate other
approximate models for dynamic analysis of buildings isolated with FPS isolators.
FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM
As opposed to other isolation devices such as rubber bearings, the FPS denes an isola-
tion interface which is not planar. When the earthquake ground motion is such that sliding
of the structure occurs, each isolator is forced to move according to a nonlinear kinematic
constraint (spherical surface). Otherwise, the slider is xed to the spherical surface and the
constraint becomes a 3D spherical joint that allows the superstructure to rotate freely about that
point.
There exist two approaches that can be followed to establish the equations of motion of
a structure with constrained support motions: (i) the embedding technique, and (ii) the aug-
mented formulation. The embedding technique [9] works with geometric co-ordinates that are
308 J. L. ALMAZ
all independent, i.e. a base for representing the motions of the structure. This requires that
the constrained motions be expressed as a function (usually non-linear) of the independent
co-ordinates. On the other hand, the augmented formulation [9] allows to express the con-
strained motions in terms of co-ordinates that need not be independent. For that purpose an
extended set of co-ordinates is dened, some of them interrelated by the constrained motions
of the structure. As with any constraint, the corresponding reactions are unknowns of the
problem and, hence, the size of the problem using the augmented technique is increased in
twice the number of constraints. Although either formulation may be used to solve the prob-
lem, the latter has been preferred in this case despite the larger dimension because it leads to
a less coupled set of equations of motion, facilitating the numerical integration.
With the intention of clarifying the presentation, the augmented formulation presented next
has been cast into a well known structural engineering analysis format. In spite of that, since
the notation used in the equations may become cumbersome to the reader, an example has
been included in Appendix A to help in their interpretation.
EQUATIONS OF MOTION
The model considered for the superstructure is a conventional one with six degrees of freedom
per node and rigid-in-plane oor diaphragms (Figure 1(b)). The degrees of freedom q of the
structure are measured with respect to frame
1
, xed to the ground. On one hand, the
model assumes small deformations in the structural elements, i.e. linear kinematics; but on
the other, large deformation kinematics are considered for the FPS isolators. Notice that it
only makes sense to talk about large deformations at the FPS interface and not for the
superstructure; otherwise, the whole concept of isolation in building design would be of little
use. The link between the superstructure and the FPS system is through conventional nodes
that include six degrees of freedom, three translations and three rotations (Figure 1(b)). The
model developed includes both possibilities for the isolator placement, denoted hereafter as
upward and downward (Figure 2). Although they are conceptually equivalent in terms of their
isolation eect, they have quite dierent implications for the design of the superstructure and
foundation system.
There exist two assumptions in the equations presented next that need to be stated clearly.
First, the isolators are assumed to be always in a sliding phase, and, second, uplift of the
structure is impaired. Although sticking and uplift eects can be incorporated in the analytical
model presented by changing the sliding constraints by either hinges or releases, the increase
in complexity of the model would opaque the neatness of this formulation. Moreover, for a
large number of cases the structural model developed next based on these assumptions will
lead to earthquake responses that are in excellent agreement with the true response in the
structure. Consequently, the study of these two phenomena, their numerical implementation
and interpretation is left for a sequel paper in which a physical model for the FPS with large
deformations will be introduced.
The most general equations of motion of a linear structure with n degrees of freedom and
supported on FPS isolators may be written as
M q + C q + Kq + Q
(n)
+ Q
(\)
=ML
w
w (1)
Figure 2. FPs bearing in (a) downward and (b) upward position and denition of degrees of freedom.
where q
{n1}
=[q
1
, . . . , q
i
, . . . , q
n
]
T
is the vector of augmented degrees of freedom and in-
cludes the constrained motions of the sliders along the spherical surfaces; M, C and K are the
n n well known mass, damping, and stiness matrices, respectively; w=[ u
gx
u
g,
u
g:
+ q]
T
is the ground motion excitation vector, where u
gi
is the ith component of ground acceleration,
and q represents the gravity; L
w{n3}
the excitation inuence vector; and Q
(n)
and Q
(\)
are
the normal and tangential (frictional) components of the FPS forces, respectively, applied in
the degrees of freedom q of the structure.
310 J. L. ALMAZ
It is convenient to start by expressing the kinematic isolator constraints in terms of the
degrees of freedom q of the structure as
(q) =0 (2a)
where (q)
{1}
=[G
1
(q), . . . , G
k
(q), . . . , G
(q)]
T
is the matrix of isolator constraints.
By tak-
ing the rst and second time derivative of Equation (2a), the following relationships are
obtained between the degrees of freedom q, and their velocities and accelerations, q and q
(Appendix B)
(q, q) =J(q) q =0 (2b)
(q, q, q) =A
(n)
(q, q) + J(q) q =0 (2c)
where

and

are the rst and second derivatives of the matrix of constraints (q) with
respect to time; J(q)
{n}
=c(q)}cq is the Jacobian matrix of the constraints with elements
J(k, i) =cG
k
}cq
i
; and A
(n)
{1}
=(c(J q)}cq) q. Equations (2b) and (2c) imply that: (i) the veloc-
ities q must be orthogonal to the gradients of the constraints, and (ii) the relative accelerations
q projected in the normal direction to each constraint must equal A
(n)
(q, q). After some
algebra (Appendix B), it can be shown that the kth component of this vector has the form
A
(n)
(k) = q
T
H
k
q (3)
where
H
k(nn)
=c
2
G
k
}cqcq
T
(4)
is the Hessian matrix of the kth constraint G
k
with elements H
k
(i, )) =c
2
G
k
}cq
i
cq
)
. As it
will be shown later, each component A
(n)
(k) corresponds to the relative normal acceleration
between the slider and the spherical surface.
The procedure used to integrate Equation (1) while satisfying constraints (2a)(2c) is
similar to that used in conventional structural analysis. Such procedure has the following steps:
(i) dene a local system of co-ordinates for each isolator; (ii) compute the deformations and
deformation velocities of each isolator in terms of the degrees of freedom q of the structure by
considering the non-linear constraints (2a)(2c) (kinematics step); (iii) compute the restoring
forces generated by each isolator in local co-ordinates (actiondeformation step); (iv) apply a
set of virtual displacements to compute the non-linear forces Q
(n)
and Q
(\)
acting along the
global degrees of freedom q of the structure (equilibrium step); and (v) nd the accelerations
q satisfying Equation (1) and the constraints (2a)(2c). Next, this sequence of ve steps is
described in detail.
Local system of co-ordinates
Shown in Figure 2 is a detailed view of the FPS in the downward and upward positions.
Consider a local system of co-ordinates
2
={O
k
: x
k
,
k
:
k
}, which is solidary to the spherical
surface at the origin O
k
. The convention is that the local axis :
k
always points toward the
centre of curvature C
k
, forming with the two other unitary vectors a right-handed triplet,
It is assumed that the isolator constraints are the only non-linear constraints in the structure; other linear constraints
are considered in the assemblage of the structural matrices M, K and C.
such that x
k
,
k
=:
k
. The deformation of the isolator T
k
=
O
k
S
k
=[o
x
k
o
,
k
o
:
k
]
T
denotes the
instantaneous position S
k
of the slider relative to the origin O
k
.
The constraint imposed by the spherical surface on the deformation T
k
of the slider can be
easily written in local co-ordinates at any instant. Indeed, T
k
must satisfy the equation of a
sphere tangent to the origin at point O
k
, i.e.
G
k
(T
k
) =
1
2R
k
[o
2
x
k
+ o
2
,
k
+ (o
:
k
R
k
)
2
R
2
k
] =0 (5a)
and its time derivative
G
k
(T
k
,

T
k
) =
1
R
k
[o
x
k
o
x
k
+ o
,
k
o
,
k
+

o
:
k
(o
:
k
R
k
)] =0 (5b)
where R
k
is the radius of the spherical surface of the isolator. The factor 1}(2R
k
) has been
introduced in Equation (5a) in order to make the gradient of the constraint a unitary vector,
i.e., G
k
=1. Please notice that Equations (5a) and (5b) do not explicitly constrain the
degrees of freedom q and q as required by Equations (2a)(2c). Therefore, the kinematic
steps shown next are required in order to relate the isolator deformations T
k
with the structural
degrees of freedom q.
Kinematics
It is the objective of this section to establish a relationship between the kth isolator defor-
mations T
k
and the degrees of freedom q of the structure. Consider rst the intermediate set
of nodal displacements u
k
=[u
(J)
k
; u
(I )
k
],
with components u
(J)
k
=[u
(J)
x
u
(J)
,
u
(J)
:
r
(J)
x
r
(J)
,
r
(J)
:
]
T
and
u
(I )
k
=[u
(I )
x
u
(I )
,
u
(I )
:
r
(I )
x
r
(I )
,
r
(I )
:
]
T
, dening the motions of nodes J and I connected by the kth FPS
(Figures 1 and 2).
Starting from these displacements, a full non-linear kinematic relationship between u
k
and
T
k
may be established [10]. This relationship may be conveniently simplied by preserving
higher order terms for the displacements but simultaneously assuming small rotations in the
isolator. The latter is motivated by the physical observation that nodal rotations tend to be
small for essentially all practical cases. Based on these kinematic assumptions, it is possible
to construct by simple geometry a quadratic non-linear relationship of the form [10]
T
k
=

L
k
(u
k
)u
k
(6)
where

L
k
(u
k
) represents a rst order approximation for the fully non-linear kinematic trans-
formation between T
k
and q; and

L
k
(u
k
) can be expressed as [10]
L
k
=
_
_
1 0 0 0 !
J
0 1 0 0 0 (u
:
!
I
) u
,
0 1 0 !
J
0 0 0 1 0 u
:
!
I
0 u
x
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 u
,
u
x
0
_
_
(7)
Throughout this paper the semicolon denotes dierent rows of a matrix.

312 J. L. ALMAZ
where u
x
=u
(J)
x
u
(I )
x
, u
,
=u
(J)
,
u
(I )
,
, and u
:
=u
(J)
:
u
(I )
:
, are the relative displacements
between nodes J and I ; and !
I
and !
J
are the vertical distances in the undeformed congu-
ration between the origin O
k
and nodes I and J, respectively. The upper and lower signs in
this equation correspond to the downward and upward position of the isolator, respectively
(Figure 2). Furthermore, since the deformations of the superstructure are small, the nodal
displacements u
k
of the kth isolator may be expressed as a linear function of the degrees of
freedom q of the structure
u
k
=P
k
q (8)
where P
k
is the kinematic transformation matrix between the degrees of freedom of the struc-
ture and the nodal isolator displacements. Hence, the resulting relationship T
k
=

L
k
(u
k
)P
k
q.
Similarly, the deformation velocity of the isolator

T
k
can be obtained by taking the time
derivative of Equation (6), i.e.,

T
k
=

L
k
u
k
, where u
k
=P
k
q are the nodal isolator velocities
and the transformation matrix

L
k
=cT
k
}cu
k
between

T
k
and u
k
. As before, it can be shown
that

L
k
may be approximated by the following expression [10]:
L
k
=
_
_
1 r
(I )
:
r
(I )
,
0 !
J
0 1 r
(I )
:
r
(I )
,
0 (u
:
!
I
) u
,
r
(I )
:
1 r
(I )
x
!
J
0 0 r
(I )
:
1 r
(I )
x
u
:
!
I
0 u
x
r
(I )
,
r
(I )
x
1 0 0 0 r
(I )
,
r
(I )
x
1 u
,
u
x
0
_
_
(9)
By using this result, the nal relationship between the isolator deformation velocities and ve-
locities of the structural degrees of freedom becomes

T
k
=cT
k
}cu
k
cu
k
}cq dq}dt =

L
k
(u
k
)P
k
q =
L
k
q.
Equations (6)(9) enable us to express the constraint Equations (2a)(2c) in terms of the
degrees of freedom q of the structure. Indeed, each row of the Jacobian dened in Equa-
tion (2a) can be expressed as (Appendix B)
J(k, 1 : n) =
cG
k
cq
=G
T
k

L
k
P
k
(10)
where the gradient G
k
=cG
k
}cT
k
of the kth constraint in local co-ordinates is, for the case
of a spherical constraint, equal to (Equation (5))
G
k
=[o
x
k
}R
k
o
,
k
}R
k
(o
:
k
}R
k
1)]
T
(11)
Please notice that the gradient has unitary norm. Analogously, the Hessian matrices intro-
duced in Equation (3) may be computed by the matrix product (Appendix B)
H
k
=P
T
k

L
T
k

H
k
L
k
P
k
(12)
where

H
k
=c
2
G
k
}cT
k
cT
T
k
=1}R
k
I is the Hessian matrix of the constraint G
k
expressed in local
co-ordinates and I the rank 3 identity matrix. As it should, the Hessian

H
k
has a simple
structure in this case, since it is related to the inverse of the radius of curvature of the
kth isolator sliding surface, which is constant. Substituting Equation (12) into the normal
Figure 3. Action of the structure on the isolator in the downward position: (a) normal
and frictional components in the local system of co-ordinates; (b) equivalent nodal forces
and torques in the
1
system of co-ordinates.
acceleration expression (Equation (3)), it can be proven that
A
(n)
(k) = q
T
H
k
q =
T
T
k
..
(
L
k
P
k
q)
T

H
k
T
k
..
(
L
k
P
k
q) =
T
k
2
R
k
(13)
Two comments on Equation (13). First, as one would expect, the normal acceleration
coincides with the centripetal acceleration of a particle moving on a spherical motion (pendular
motion). Second, although Equation (13) has been applied to the case of a spherical sliding
surface, it could be used as well for other functional forms of kinematic constraints. Next,
the solution requires to state the actiondeformation relationship for the FPS.
Actiondeformation
Shown in Figure 3(a) is the resultant isolator force f
k
projected into the normal and frictional
components f
(n)
k
and f
(\)
k
, respectively, generated as a result of the applied deformation T
k
and the corresponding deformation velocity

T
k
of the isolator. Since the motion in the normal
direction is known to be zero, the normal force in the isolator is unknown. However, since
the direction of this normal force is known to be perpendicular to the spherical surface, only
its magnitude is unknown. This can be expressed mathematically by the following constitutive
relationship:
f
(n)
k
=z
k
G
k
=N
k
n
k
(14)
314 J. L. ALMAZ
where z
k
is the Lagrangian multiplier associated with the normal constraint imposed by G
k
and equal in this case to the magnitude of the normal force N
k
. Please notice that in this
denition the unitary normal vector n
k
=G
k
always points outward of the sliding surface
(Figure 3(a)).
On the other hand, the frictional forces may be computed from the constitutive Coulomb
friction relationship
f
(\)
k
=j
k
N
k
t
k
(15)
where j
k
represents the sliding coecient of friction which may or may not be assumed
dependent on velocity and contact pressure [11]; and

t
k
=

T
k
}
T
k
(Figure 3(a)), is the unitary
vector tangent to the trajectory of the isolator, i.e. the direction of the isolator velocity. Next,
the nal step in the formulation is to state the equilibrium conditions.
Equilibrium
In this section the normal and frictional force components in each isolator are projected into
the global system of co-ordinates attached to the ground
1
. By using the principle of virtual
displacements, the projection of these components for the kth isolator are
Q
(n)
k
=
_
cT
k
cq
_
T
f
(n)
k
=L
T
k
f
(n)
k
(16)
and
Q
(\)
k
=
_
cT
k
cq
_
T
f
(\)
k
=L
T
k
f
(\)
k
(17)
where L
k
=

L
k
P
k
is the whole kinematic transformation matrix for the kth isolator. Substituting
L
k
into Equations (16) and (17) and adding vectorially both force components, the total FPS
force f
k
projected in global co-ordinates is
Q
k
=P
T
k

L
k
T
f
k
=P
T
k
F
k
(18)
where f
k
=[[
x
k
[
,
k
[
:
k
]
T
=f
(n)
k
+ f
(\)
k
; and F
k{121}
=

L
k
T
f
k
=[F
(J)
k
; F
(I )
k
] is the force vector for
nodes J and I expressed in the co-ordinate system
1
. By using Equation (9) the force
F
k
=

L
k
T
f
k
may be computed as
F
(J)
k
=[([
x
k
[
,
k
r
(I )
:
[
:
k
r
(I )
,
), ([
,
k
[
x
k
r
(I )
:
[
:
k
r
(I )
x
), ([
:
k
[
x
k
r
(I )
,
+ [
,
k
r
(I )
x
),
, . . . ([
,
k
!
J
), ([
x
k
!
J
), 0]
T
(19)
F
(I )
k
=[([
x
k
+ [
,
k
r
(I )
:
[
:
k
r
(I )
,
), ([
,
k
[
x
k
r
(I )
:
[
:
k
r
(I )
x
), ([
:
k
[
x
k
r
(I )
,
[
,
k
r
(I )
x
)
, . . . ([
,
k
(u
:
!
I
) [
:
k
u
,
), ([
x
k
(u
:
!
I
) [
:
k
u
x
), ([
x
k
u
,
[
,
k
u
x
)]
T
(20)
in which, as before, the upper and lower signs correspond to the upward and downward
position of the isolator, respectively. Shown in Figure 3(b) are the force components in
local and global co-ordinates for the downward position of the isolator. Notice that since
the deformations between the slider and node J are small, the P eect (equilibrium in the
deformed position) is included only in the bending and torsional moments transmitted to node
I (components 4 through 6 of F
(I )
k
). Thus, in the downward position of the isolator, the P
eect is transmitted to the portion of the structure below the isolation system, which in the
case of a building usually coincides with the foundation of the structure. On the other hand,
if the FPS isolator is positioned upward, the same P eect is transmitted to the resisting
elements of the superstructure. Either solution may be possible, but the designer must be
aware of the dierence between both cases, which is sometimes overlooked as a consequence
of the essentially identical isolation eects in both situations.
By adding the FPS forces for all isolators in the structure, the restoring force components
in global co-ordinates Q
(n)
and Q
(\)
introduced earlier in Equation (1) end up being
Q
(n)
=
k=1
Q
(n)
k
=
k=1
L
T
k
f
(n)
k
=L
T
F
(n)
(21)
Q
(\)
=
k=1
Q
(\)
k
=
k=1
L
T
k
f
(\)
k
=L
T
F
(\)
(22)
where F
(n)
=[f
(n)
1
; . . . ; f
(n)
k
; . . . ; f
(n)
] and F
(\)
=[f
(\)
1
; . . . ; f
(\)
k
; . . . ; f
(\)
] are the column vectors of

normal and frictional forces in the isolators; and L=[L
1
; . . . ; L
k
; . . . ; L
] is the composite
kinematic transformation matrix for the whole system.
An interesting result can be obtained for the normal force component by means of introduc-
ing the expression for f
(n)
k
(Equation (14)) and L
k
into Equation (21), leading to (Appendix B)
Q
(n)
=J
T
(23)
where J is the Jacobian matrix of the constraints and =[N
1
, . . . , N
k
, . . . , N
]
T
is the column
vector of normal forces (Lagrangian multipliers). Although Equation (23) is a well known
result in Lagrangian dynamics that could have been stated directly [9], it seemed useful to
recast it by using a conventional structural analysis approach. The setup is now complete in
order to integrate the exact large deformation equations of motion of structures supported
on FPS isolators.
INTEGRATION OF EQUATIONS OF MOTION
This section describes some interesting aspects of the time integration of the dierential equa-
tions of motion of a structure supported on FPS isolators (Equations (1) and (2)). Let us
start by recasting these equations into a single system of second order coupled dierential
equations, i.e.
_
M J
T
J 0
__
q
_
=
_
Q
e
()
A
(n)
(q, q)
_
(24)
316 J. L. ALMAZ
where Q
e
() =ML
w
w (Kq + C q + Q
(\)
()) is the resultant of all external forces acting
on the structure with exception of the normal restoring force vector Q
(n)
=J
T
. Before
attempting an integration algorithm, it is important to notice from Equation (24) that the
accelerations q and the normal forces may be computed once q and q are known. Since
the total force Q
e
is a function of , such computation corresponds to the solution at each step
of a system of n+ non-linear equations. This can be accomplished by using any algorithm to
solve non-linear equations, such as xed-point iteration or Newton Raphson. It turns out that
for the integration procedure used, less than three xed-point iterations are required to achieve
convergence. The procedure assumes in the rst iteration that Q
(\)
=0, and determines q and
from Equation (24). Such is used to compute Q
(\)
() in the second iteration and so
forth; the iteration converges swiftly.
The integration in time of Equation (24) may be performed more eciently by writing the
equations of motion of the structure as a rst order system of dierential equations. In order
to do so, the state of the system z =[q q]
T
is dened. Consequently, the rst order system
of equations can be written as
z =
_
q
q
_
=g(z, t) (25)
where g(z, t) is a non-linear function of q and q only. Equation (25) seems simple to compute,
but it must be recognized that the last n equations are precisely those dened by the solution
of q from Equation (24). In this format, Equation (25) may be integrated by any of the
well known rst order integration strategies such as the explicit fourth order RungeKutta
procedure used in this investigation. To better understand the integration of Equation (25),
let us start considering that z, q, and are known at instant t. To compute these variables
at instant t + t, Equation (25) is written as
z(t + t) =z(t) +
_
t+t
t
g(z, t) dt (26)
where the integral is evaluated in this investigation by using the RungeKutta algorithm.
Such algorithm uses predictors of z at four intermediate instants in the interval (t, t + t)
and requires evaluations of g(z, t) at these points. Since the last n equations of g(z, t) are q,
each of these evaluations requires the solution of Equation (24) for q. Such solution is better
explained in Figure 4 where a pseudo code version of the implemented procedure is presented.
By looking at Equation (24) it is apparent that the FPS constraints are satised in terms
of the accelerations q as stated by Equation (2c). It is an important numerical aspect of
the integration procedure developed to guarantee that the constraints as stated by Equations
(2a) and (2b) are also satised [9]; otherwise the solution may drift away from the true
solution. Indeed, Equation (2c) is also satised by a perturbed solution q(t) of the form
q(t) =q(t) + b
1
t + b
2
, where q(t) is the true solution, and b
1
, b
2
are constants that depend
on the initial conditions (t =0) of the integration interval (t, t + t). A plausible numerical
solution to this problem is presented next.
Let us assume rst that the response of the structure at instant t is known and that the values
q(t) and q(t) at that time satisfy the kinematic constraints given by Equations (2a) and (2b).
Because the values q(t+t) and q(t+t) are computed from a numerical integration of Equa-
tion (25) for the interval (t, t +t), they will fail in general to satisfy Equations (2a) and (2b).
Figure 4. Pseudo code algorithm used to solve Equation (24).
As said before, they do satisfy Equation (24), i.e. the dynamic equilibrium and the second
derivative of the constraints, but not the actual constraints. Therefore, as said before, any so-
lution of Equation (1) diering from the true solution in a constant or linear term will equally
satisfy Equation (24)other sources of this compatibility error are the second order approxi-
mation of the true non-linear kinematic transformation (Equation (6)), and the accuracy of the
integration procedure used. The error in satisfying Equations (2a) and (2b) for the kth isolator
may be dened as the dierence between the deformation in the :
k
-direction, o
:
k
, computed
from Equation (6), and the deformation, o
:
k
, computed from the true equation of the constraint
(5a). This compatibility error in the local vertical deformation, c
k
, may be evaluated as
c
k
=o
:
k
o
:
k
=(u
:
r
(I )
,
u
x
r
(I )
x
u
,
) (R
k

_
R
2
k
(o
2
x
k
+ o
2
,
k
)) (27)
318 J. L. ALMAZ
and its velocity as
c
k
=

o
:
k

o
:
k
=( u
:
r
(I )
,
u
x
r
(I )
,
u
x
r
(I )
x
u
,
r
(I )
x
u
,
)
_
o
x
k
o
x
k
+ o
,
k
o
,
k
(R
k
o
:
k
)
_
(28)
In order to avoid that these integration errors accumulate in the response of the structure,
the vertical nodal displacements and velocities of the dierent isolators are corrected using
Equations (27) and (28), so as to guarantee that c
k
and c
k
are equal to zero at every time step.
Then, for isolators in downward position (Figure 2(a)), node-J displacements are corrected
as u
(J)
: corr
=u
(J)
: unc
c
k
and u
(J)
: corr
= u
(J)
: unc
c
k
, while for the upward position (Figure 2(b)) the
same correction is imposed to node-I displacements. This correction will force the slider to
remain in contact at all times with the sliding surface.
A nal aspect related to the integration of the Equation (24) in how to deal with the initial
condition of the system. Such condition correspond to the deformations of the structure due
to gravitational loads. One possible solution to the initial condition corresponds to q(0) =0
and q(0) evaluated as
q(0) =K
1
0
P
0
(29)
where P
0
=ML
w
[0 0 q]
T
is the vector of gravitational loads; and K
0
is the stiness matrix
of the structure with de FPS isolators modelled as 3D hinges. This assumption implies that
sliding of the structure does not occur as a result of the application of the gravitational loads,
which is true in most cases. It is important to emphasize that the initial normal load vector
(0) need not be computed since it depends on q(0) and q(0) as stated by Equation (24).
Finally, if sliding occurs under gravitational loads, the initial condition may be computed by
applying gravitational loads w(t) =[0, 0, q r(t)]
T
through a ramp function r(t) dened as
r(t) =
_
t}1
r
if t61
r
1 if t1
r
(30)
where 1
r
is an arbitrary and suciently long time so as to achieve a stationary condition in
the system ( q(1
r
) 0).
EXAMPLES
A convenient vehicle to better understand the previous equations will be the two building
examples developed in this section. The results presented next are intended also to show
the expected discrepancies between the responses obtained from large (LDM) and small-
deformation (SDM) models [6, 7]. The latter model is derived from the same exact solution
by replacing the spherical sliding surface by a planar surface and an elastic horizontal spring
with variable stiness k
eq
(t) =N(t)}R (Figure 5(b)). Moreover, for the SDM the kinematic
transformation matrices

L
k
(Equation (7)) and

L
k
(Equation (9)) are identical matrices since
de P eect is not included in such model.
Let us consider rst the planar motion of a rigid superstructure (Figure 5) supported on two
FPS isolators of radii R=100cm and constant friction coecient j. Because of the simplicity
of the example, it is possible to construct an analytical solution that helps interpreting the
Figure 5. System considered for example 1: (a) large deformation model (LDM), and
(b) small deformation model (SDM).
dierent steps and matrices that participate in the solution. The rigid body motion of the
superstructure is dened by three degrees of freedom q =[q
x
q
:
q
0
]
T
, two translations and
one rotation, and two kinematic constraints imposed by the isolators. In this problem, the
system is subjected to two excitations, a velocity impulse and a ground motion corresponding
to the NS and vertical components of the Sylmar record (Northridge, 1994). It can be shown
that the mass matrix M of the system is diagonal with translational mass m and polar moment
of inertia mj
2
; the stiness K as well as the damping matrix C are both equal to zero. The
rigid superstructure is dened with a height to base aspect ratio H}B.
Details of the closed-form analytical solution of this problem may be found in Appendix A; the
solution is actually a very interesting exercise since it clearly states the dierences between
the LDM and SDM. In order to state more clearly these discrepancies, shown in Table I are
the relevant matrices for both models, assuming j =0 (pendular action only) and weight W
for the superstructure. In this example, Equation (24) may be solved explicitly for the normal
forces N
k
as a function of the degrees of freedom q. Notice that for the SDM the external
loads Q
e
include both, the horizontal force (W}R)q
x
and the torque H(W}R)q
x
caused by
the horizontal isolator springs. It is apparent from this table that the solution for the SDM may
be obtained by making R in the exact LDM. Moreover, Table I shows the proportional
and antisymmetric eect created by the aspect ratio of the superstructure H}B on the normal
isolator forces as a result of the overturning of the structure. It is this antisymmetry in the
normal forces of the isolators the one that creates a plan asymmetry in the FPS isolation
interface, leading to accidental torsion in structures subjected to real earthquakes motions
[12].
320 J. L. ALMAZ
T
a
b
l
e
I
.
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
m
a
t
r
i
x
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
l
a
r
g
e
(
L
D
M
)
a
n
d
s
m
a
l
l
d
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
m
o
d
e
l
(
S
D
M
)
f
o
r
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
1
(
j
=
0
)
.
M
a
t
r
i
c
e
s
L
a
r
g
e
d
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
S
m
a
l
l
d
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
m
o
d
e
l
m
o
d
e
l
N
o
d
a
l
m
a
t
r
i
c
e
s
P
1
__
1
0
H
0
1
B
0
0
0
__
__
1
0
H
0
1
B
0
0
0
__
P
2
__
1
0
H
0
1
B
0
0
0
__
__
1
0
H
0
1
B
0
0
0
__
K
i
n
e
m
a
t
i
c
t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
m
a
t
r
i
c
e
s
L
1
=
L
2
_
1
0
0
0
1
0
_
_
1
0
0
0
1
0
_
C
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
G
1
(
o
1
)
1
2
R
1
(
o
2x
1
+
(
o
:
1
R
1
)
2
)
=
0
o
:
1
=
0
G
2
(
o
2
)
1
2
R
2
(
o
2x
2
+
(
o
:
2
R
2
)
2
)
=
0
o
:
2
=
0
G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
s
G
1
(
o
1
)
1
R
1
[
o
x
1
(
o
:
1
R
1
)
]
T
[
0
1
]
T
G
2
(
o
2
)
1
R
2
[
o
x
2
(
o
:
2
R
2
)
]
T
[
0
1
]
T
J
a
c
o
b
i
a
n
m
a
t
r
i
x
J
1R
_
q
x
|
(
q
:
R
)
|
H
q
x
+
B
(
R
q
:
)
q
x
|
(
q
:
R
)
|
H
q
x
B
(
R
q
:
)
_
_
0
1
B
0
B
_
H
e
s
s
i
a
n
m
a
t
r
i
c
e
s
H
1
=
H
2
1R
I
{
3
3
}
0
{
3
3
}
F
o
r
c
e
Q
e
[
0
,
W
,
0
]
T
_
W
R
q
x
,
W
,
H
W
R
q
x
_
T
N
o
r
m
a
l
a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
A
(
n
)
=
_
a
n
1
a
n
2
_
1R
[
o
1
2
,
o
2
2
]
T
0
{
2
1
}
N
o
r
m
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
v
e
c
t
o
r
=
_
N
1
N
2
_
W
2
__
c
o
s
(
:
)
H
B
s
i
n
(
:
)
c
o
s
(
:
)
+
H
B
s
i
n
(
:
)
__
+
m
a
n
2
__
1
H
B
t
a
n
(
:
)
1
+
H
B
t
a
n
(
:
)
__
W
2
_
11
_
+
H
2
B
W
R
q
x
_
1
1
_
T
o
t
a
l
n
o
r
m
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
N
t
W
c
o
s
(
:
)
+
a
n
q
1
Figure 6. Impulse velocity response of the structure of example 1 for friction
coecient j =0 (left) and 0.07 (right).
Shown in Figure 6 is a comparison between the LDM and SDM response of the structure
of Figure 5 subjected to an initial velocity of the centre of mass (CM) of 200 cm}s in the
X-direction. Two frictional coecients are considered in the analysis, j =0 (left) and 0.07
(right). The rst row of plots presents the displacement history of q
x
, the second row, the
normal force over the weight of the structure W, and the third row, the total normal force
(N
t
=N
1
+ N
2
) over the weight W. It is interesting to notice that the assumption of small
deformations produces a slight shortening of the apparent nominal isolated vibration period
of the structure dened at 2 seconds, i.e. the SDM tends to overestimate the stiness of
the isolation system. Further, as it has been shown previously [8], the small deformation
assumption leads to a conservative displacement demand which is within 10 per cent relative
to the exact response. However, the normal force in isolator #1 is underestimated at several
instants by the response of the SDM. This eect is also apparent in the resultant of the
normal forces of both isolators, which diers considerably from 1 as obtained from the SDM.
Finally, results of Figure 6 show that although the frictional coecient j aects considerably
the traces of the response, the maxima remains relatively the same.
The hysteresis loops for the initial velocity response of the structure and j =0.07 are
presented in the rst row of plots of Figure 7. From left to right, the plots show in columns the
normalized total pendular force ([
(n)
1
+ [
(n)
2
)}W, the normalized total frictional force ([
(\)
1
+
[
(\)
2
)}W, and the normalized total force ([
1
+ [
2
)}W. As shown in the gure, the SDM
overestimates the FPS displacements as well as the peak total forces [8]. This is explained by
the counteraction of both terms of the normal force, i.e., N
t
}W = cos(:)+a
n
}q. While the rst
geometric term leads to a predominant softening of the isolator force as the angle : increases
for large deformations (Figure 5), the second term leads to a stiening of the isolator that
322 J. L. ALMAZ
Figure 7. Comparison of the forcedeformation hysteresis loop for the structure of example 1(j =0.07)
subjected to: (a) velocity impulse of 200 cm}s, and (b) the horizontal (NS) and vertical components
of Sylmar record (Northridge, 1994).
predominates the response for small isolator deformations; their combined eect is presented
in Figure 7 and shows that smaller peak deformations and forces are obtained relative to the
SDM. Finally, the second row of plots of Figure 7 shows the earthquake response of the same
rigid superstructure system subjected to the horizontal and vertical components of the Sylmar
record (Northridge, 1994). Although, considerably more complex, the earthquake response of
the structure shows the same trends as stated above for the initial velocity. As shown by
this example, the discrepancies between the LDM and SDM is bounded by, say 10 per cent
error, which is rather small. Unfortunately, this is not always the case as shown by the next
example.
Figure 8. Structural system considered in example 2: (a) rst storey planview, (b) lateral view of
resisting plane 1, and (c) 3D structural model.
The second example considered is a three-dimensional nominally symmetric two-storey R}C
frame structure (Figure 8). Four isolators of radii R=150cm are installed in upward position
on top of four identical columns in the rst storey. The fundamental apparent periods of
vibration of the isolated structure are 2.53, 2.52, and 1.51 s in the X, Y, and -directions,
respectively; the periods of the structure before sliding occurs are 0.36 s, 0.35 s, and 0.21 s in
these directions, respectively.
324 J. L. ALMAZ
Figure 9. Earthquake response of the structure of example 2 subjected to the
Newhall record (Northridge, 1994).
The damping matrix of the system has been dened in block-diagonal form as
C=
_
C
1
0
0 C
2
_
(31)
where C
1
and C
2
are the damping matrices of the sub- and super-structure, respectively.
Sub-matrix C
1
corresponds to the classical damping matrix of the structure below the isolation
level (nodes 18, Figure 8), working as an independent structure. In computing matrix C
2
for
the superstructure, it has been assumed that nodes 913 (Figure 8) are completely restrained.
Rigid body modes are then incorporated into the resulting damping matrix C
2
, so that there is
zero damping associated with them [10]. Such denition of the damping matrix also ensures
that there is no coupling between the two parts of the structure. In this example both matrices
were computed assuming a constant damping ratio of =0.05.
In this example the response of the structure subjected to the three components of increas-
ingly stronger ground motions Newhall, Sylmar (Northridge, 1994), and TCU052 (Taiwan,
1999) was studied. The earthquake response of the structure for the dierent ground motions
is compared in Figures 912. The rst three gures show three response quantities for the X-
and Y-direction of analysis; say for the X-direction, the roof displacement at the CM q
(r)
x
(t),
the deformation of the superstructure relative to the isolation level q
(r}i)
x
(t) =q
(r)
x
(t) q
(i)
x
(t),
Sylmar record (Northridge, 1994).
and the normalized base shear J
x
}W. The trends of the response with increasing intensity of
the ground motion are apparent from the gures. The peak responses and trends dier sub-
stantially from earthquake to earthquake and discrepancies between the SDM and the LDM
increase with increasing ground motion intensity.
As before, roof displacements are overestimated by 1020 per cent by the SDM. Also,
due to the P eect, the superstructure deformations predicted by the SDM underesti-
mate the true deformations for the three ground motions in approximately 35, 40, and 48
per cent, respectively. Furthermore, base shears are usually overestimated by the SDM in less
than 36 per cent. Moreover, the normal forces in the isolators are poorly predicted by the
SDM (Figure 12), leading to underestimations in the three cases of 10, 19, and 32 per cent,
respectively. In summary, the results show that although global structural responses such as
base shear and oor displacements are reasonably predicted by a SDM, local responses such
as the superstructure deformations and the normal isolator forces, need to be computed from
a more accurate model.
CONCLUSIONS
An analytical model for the analysis of structures supported on FPS isolators experiencing
large deformations has been developed and implemented. The model presented can be readily
326 J. L. ALMAZ
TCU052 record (Taiwan, 1999).
implemented in a format similar to that present in currently available software packages
such as SAP2000 [7] and, hence, become available to the engineering profession. Results
obtained from the application of the model in the study of the earthquake response of structures
subjected to impulsive ground motions show that the SDM may lead to discrepancies up to
20 per cent in global response quantities and over 50 per cent in local response quantities
such as the normal force in the isolators or the interstorey deformations. Although shown
only for two examples in this study, these results are representative of more general trends,
also presented in an earlier publication [8].Therefore, it is concluded that a LDM, like the one
presented here, should be used in the design of structures prone to undergo large deformations
in the isolation system as a result of impulsive ground motions. Particularly important is the
correct estimation of normal forces in the isolators that may lead to accidental torsion eects
not accounted for in the current design procedures.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This investigation has been supported by the Chilean National Fund for Research and Technology,
FONDECYT under Grants # 1000514 and # 2990069 (doctoral dissertations). Part of the research was
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
2
.
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
n
o
r
m
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
f
o
u
r
i
s
o
l
a
t
o
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
o
f
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
2
,
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
N
e
w
h
a
l
l
,
S
y
l
m
a
r
,
a
n
d
T
C
U
0
5
2
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
.
328 J. L. ALMAZ
also supported by the Fund for Foment and Technology, FONDEF under Grant #D96I1008. The authors
are grateful for this support.
APPENDIX A
The structure considered in this example was introduced earlier in Figure 5 and consists of
a rigid superstructure of base dimension 2B and height 2H supported on two FPS isolators
identied hereafter by indices 1 and 2. Although the system considered is simple, its solution is
illustrative and incorporates the most relevant aspects associated with the behavior of structures
supported on FPS isolators.
The motion of the superstructure is dened by three degrees of freedom q =[q
x
q
:
q
0
]
T
.
Because the displacements of the superstructure are considered to be small, a linear trans-
formation will exist between the degrees of freedom q and the displacement of any point
in the superstructure, in particular the nodes of the isolators. Thus, by Equation (8) the dis-
placements u
1
and u
2
of the isolator nodes are u
1
=P
1
q and u
2
=P
2
q, where the kinematic
transformation matrices P
1
and P
2
are
P
1
=
_
_
1 0 H
0 1 B
0 0 1
_
_
and P
2
=
_
_
1 0 H
0 1 B
0 0 1
_
_
(A1)
On the other hand, since the problem is planar, only two deformations are dened for the
isolators, namely the horizontal and vertical motion of each slider. By using Equation (9),
the deformations for isolator 1 are T
1
=

L
1
P
1
q = [o
x1
o
:1
]
T
=[q
x
+ Hq
0
q
:
Bq
0
]
T
; and for
isolator 2, T
2
=

L
2
P
2
q =[o
x2
o
:2
]
T
=[q
x
+ Hq
0
q
:
+ Bq
0
]
T
, where
L
1
=

L
2
=
_
1 0 0
0 1 0
_
(A2)
are the kinematic transformation matrices for the two isolators relating the nodal displacements
u
k
of the kth isolator and its deformations. Finally, the diagonal mass matrix for the system
is M=diag([m m mj
2
]), where the mass m has been adopted as 1 and j is the radius of
gyration of the superstructure relative to an axis perpendicular to the XZ plane passing
through the CM. Notice also that by the symmetry of the problem q
0
=0.
The non-linear kinematic constraints (large deformations) imposed by isolators 1 and 2 may
be stated in this case as (Equation (5a))
G
1
(T
1
) =
1
2R
1
[o
2
x1
+ (o
:1
R
1
)
2
] =0
G
2
(T
2
) =
1
2R
2
[o
2
x2
+ (o
:2
R
2
)
2
] =0
(A3)
where R
1
and R
2
are the radii of curvature of isolators 1 and 2, respectivelyassumed
equal to R from now on. By using Equation (11), the gradients of the constraints (A3)
are G
1
(T
1
) =1}R
1
[o
x1
(o
:1
R
1
)]
T
and G
2
(T
2
) =1}R
2
[o
x2
(o
:2
R
2
)]
T
. These gradients are
now used to compute the Jacobian matrix of the constraints using Equation (10), i.e.
J =
_
G
T
1

L
1
P
1
G
T
2

L
2
P
2
_
=
1
R
_
q
x
(q
:
R) Hq
x
+ B(R q
:
)
q
x
(q
:
R) Hq
x
B(R q
:
)
_
(A4)
Similarly, the Hessians may be computed in the local system of coordinates as

H
1
=c
2
G
1
}
cT
1
cT
T
1
=(1}R)I and

H
2
=

H
1
.
At this point it becomes interesting to compare these matrices with their small-deformation
counterparts. In the case of small deformations, the spherical constraints reduce to that of a
sliding joint (planar surface)
F
1
(T
1
) = o
:1
=0
F
2
(T
2
) = o
:2
=0
(A5)
having gradients F
1
(T
1
) =[0, 1]
T
and F
2
(T
2
) =[0, 1]
T
. Analogously the Jacobian of the
constraints will look much simpler
J =
_
F
T
1

L
1
P
1
F
T
2

L
2
P
2
_
=
_
0 1 B
0 1 B
_
(A6)
and the Hessian matrices in local coordinates

H
1
=

H
2
= 0.
Back to large deformations, the next step in the solution is the computation of the normal
forces in the isolators. The only external force acting on the system is the weight of the
structure, i.e. Q
e
=[0, W, 0]
T
(Equation (24)). Replacing the Hessians in Equation (13), the
normal accelerations A
(n)
=[a
n1
, a
n2
]
T
are
A
(n)
=
_
T
T
1

H
1
T
1
T
T
2

H
2
T
2
_
=
1
R
_
T
1
T
2
2
_
(A7)
Now, from Equation (24) it is possible to see that the normal forces in the isolators are:
=H
zq
Q
e
+ H
z
A
(n)
, where H
z
= (JM
1
J
T
)
1
and H
zq
=(M
1
J
T
H
z
)
T
[9]. Expanding
this result it is possible to obtain the normal forces as
=
_
N
1
N
2
_
=
W
2
_
_
cos(:)
H
B
sin(:)
cos(:) +
H
B
sin(:)
_
_
+
ma
n
2
_
_
1
H
B
tan(:)
1 +
H
B
tan(:)
_
_
(A8)
where sin(:) =o
x
}R=q
x
}R (Figure 5) and N
t
}W =(N
1
+ N
2
)}W = cos(:) + a
n
}G.
330 J. L. ALMAZ
The same analysis may be performed under the assumption of small deformations. For that
case, the external load vector is redened as Q
e
=[Wq
x
}R, W, HWq
x
}R]
T
and the normal
acceleration vector is the zero vector, A
(n)
=0. By using the general equation =H
zq
Q
e
+
H
z
A
(n)
[9] it can be proven that
=
_
N
1
N
2
_
=
W
2
_
1
1
_
+
W
2
H
B
q
x
R
_
1
1
_
(A9)
where the total normal force N
t
}W =1.
APPENDIX B
This appendix summarizes the basic denitions of the dierential operators used in demon-
strating the most relevant results of Equations (2) through (26). Included are also the demon-
strations of these equations.
Denition 1. The partial derivative of a scalar function F with respect to each component
of a column vector X=[x
1
, x
2
, . . . , x
n
]
T
of dimension n 1, is dened for convenience as the
1 n row vector (transpose of the gradient):
F
, X
=
cF
cX
=
_
cF
cx
1
cF
cx
2

cF
cx
n
_
(B1)
Denition 2. The partial derivatives of each component of a vector function F of dimension
m1 with respect to each of the components of the column vector X of dimension n 1,
dene the mn Jacobian matrix:
F
, X
=
cF
cX
=
_
cF
1
cX
;
cF
2
cX
; . . . ;
cF
m
cX
_
(B2)
In the proofs that follow the matrix (q)
{1}
=[G
1
q, . . . , G
k
(q), . . . , G
(q)]
T
represents the
matrix of constraints for the isolators and q is the n 1 vector of augmented degrees of
freedom of the structure which also includes the constrained motions of the sliders along the
spherical surfaces.
By using Equations (B1) and (B2) all results stated previously may be proven. Let us
consider rst Equations (2b) and (2c)
(q, q) =
d
dt
=
c
cq
dq
dt
=J(q) q (B3)
which coincides with Equation (2b) and
(q, q, q) =
d

(q, q)
dt
=
d[J(q) q]
dt
=
c[J(q) q]
cq
dq
dt
+
J(q)
c[
..
J(q) q]
c q
d q
dt
=
c[J(q) q]
cq
q + J(q) q =A
(n)
(q, q) + J(q) q (B4)
with Equation (2c). In these equations, J(q) represents the Jacobian of the vector of constraints
with respect to q. Furthermore, A
(n)
(q, q) =(c[J q]}cq) q represents the 1 dimension vector
of normal accelerations. According to Equation (B2), the matrix c[J q]}cq has dimension
n, with rows of the form c[J
k
q]}cq, where J
k
=J(k, :) =cG
k
}cq is the kth row component
of the Jacobian matrix. Thus, each element of the matrix A
(n)
can be obtained as
A
(n)
(k) =
c[J
k
q]
cq
q =
c[ q
T
J
T
k
]
cq
q = q
T
cJ
T
k
cq
q = q
T
c
cq
_
cG
k
cq
_
T
q = q
T
H
k
q (B5)
which coincides with Equation (3) and where
H
k
=
c
cq
_
cG
k
cq
_
T
=
c
2
G
k
cqcq
T
(B6)
was dened earlier in Equation (4) as the Hessian matrix of the constraint G
k
.
These results may be obtained alternatively by relating the structural degrees of freedom q
with the FPS deformations T
k
(Equations (6) and (8)). By using the chain rule, the following
relationships may be proven
J
k
=J(k, :) =
cG
k
cq
=
_
_
1 3
cG
k
cT
k
_
_
_
_
3 12
cT
k
cu
k
_
_
_
_
12 n
cu
k
cq
_
_
=
1 n
G
T
k

L
k
P
k
(B7)
which corresponds to Equation (12). Similarly, Equation (14) for the Hessian H
k
may be
computed by
H
k
=
c
cq
_
_
n n
cG
k
cq
_
_
T
=
_
_
_
c
cT
k
_
_
n 3
cG
k
cq
_
_
T
_
_
_
_
_
3 12
cT
k
cu
k
_
_
_
_
12 n
cu
k
cq
_
_
=
_
_
n 3
cJ
T
k
cT
k
_
_
_
_
3 12
cT
k
cu
k
_
_
_
_
12 n
cu
k
cq
_
_
= . . .
=
_
_
n 12
cu
k
cq
_
_
T _
_
12 3
cT
k
cu
k
_
_
T
_
_
3 3
c
2
G
k
cT
k
cT
T
k
_
_
_
_
3 12
cT
k
cu
k
_
_
_
_
12 n
cu
k
cq
_
_
=P
T
k

L
T
k

H
k

L
k
P
k
(B8)
Finally, the restoring force Q
(n)
, resulting from the normal constraints and using Equations
(14) and (18) is
Q
(n)
=
k=1
Q
(n)
k
=
k=1
L
T
k
f
(n)
k
=
k=1
L
T
k
..
[P
T
k

L
T
k
]
f
(n)
k
..
G
k
N
k
=. . .
=
k=1
[P
T
k

L
T
k
G
k
]
. .
J
T
k
N
k
=J
T
1
N
1
+ J
T
2
N
2
+ + J
T
=J
T
(B9)
332 J. L. ALMAZ
which coincides with Equation (23) and indicates that the global normal restoring force may
be computed as the product of the transpose of the Jacobian of the constraint matrix and
the vector of Lagrangian multipliers corresponding in this case to the normal forces in the
isolators.
REFERENCES
1. Mokha A, Amin N, Constantinou M, Zayas V. Seismic Isolation Retrot of Large Historic Buildings. Journal
of Structural Engineering ASCE 1996; 122:298308.
2. Zayas V, Low S, Mahin S, The FPS Earthquake resisting system. Report UCB}EERC-87}01, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley.
3. Zayas V, Low S, Bozzo L, Mahin S, Feasibility and performance studies on improving the earthquakes resistance
of new and existing buildings using the frictional pendulum system. Report UCB}EERC-89}09, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley.
4. Zayas V. Low S, Mahin S. A simple pendulum technique for achieving seismic isolation. Earthquake Spectra
1990; 6:317334.
5. Al-Hussaini T, Zayas V, Constantinou M. Seismic isolation of multi-storey frame structures using spherical
sliding isolation system. Report NCEER-94-0007. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State
University of New York at Bualo.
6. Tsopelas P, Constantinou M, Reinhorn A. 3D-BASIS-ME: computer program for nonlinear dynamic analysis of
seismically isolated single and multiple structures and liquid storage tanks. Report NCEER-94-0010. National
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Bualo.
7. SAP 2000. Computers and Structures Inc.: Berkeley, CA, 1999.
8. Almaz an J, De la Llera J, Inaudi J. Modeling aspects of structures isolated with the frictional pendulum system.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1998; 27:845867.
9. Shabana A. Computational Dynamics. Wiley: New York, 1994.
10. Almaz an J. Accidental and natural torsion in structures isolated with frictional pendulum system. Doctoral thesis
dissertation, May 2001. In Spanish.
11. Constantinou M, Mokha A, Reinhorn A, Teon bearings in base isolation, Part II: modeling. Journal of
Structural Engineering ASCE 1990; 116:455474.
12. Almaz an J, De la Llera J. Lateral torsional coupling in structures isolated with the frictional pendulum system.
Proceedings, of the 12
a
World Conference of Earthquake Engineering (12WCEE), Auckland, New Zealand,
January 30February 4, 2000, paper 1534}6}A.

Analytical Model of Structures With FPS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analytical Model of Structures With FPS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2002; 31:305332 (DOI: 10.1002/eqe.110)

(q, q) =J(q) q =0 (2b)

Throughout this paper the semicolon denotes dierent rows of a matrix.

] are the column vectors of

You might also like