Evaluation of Fixed Base vs.

Base Isolated Building Systems

By Sarah A. Smith
In partial fulfillment of special topics course CVEN 485 under the supervision of
Dr. Joseph M. Bracci,

Abstract
As part of a National Science Foundation project, the cost and performance
effects of a building with and without a sliding friction pendulum base isolation system
were compared. Inelastic time history dynamic analysis using a series of earthquake
ground motions of varying seismic intensity were performed on the fixed base building.
The same ground motions were also run on the isolated building using elastic
superstructure with nonlinear isolator elements. From the data retrieved from the design
of the members it was determined that the isolators reduced the amount of lateral load
taken by the structure and therefore member sizes were decreased. Through time history
dynamic analysis accurate drift ratios were retrieved for the fixed base building, but due
to errors that could not be resolved, comparable data was not found for the isolated
building.

Table of Contents
Introduction

Fixed Base Building

Design Calculations Fixed Base Building

Base Isolated Building

Design Calculations Base Isolated Building

Cost Comparison

Ground Motions Fixed Base Building

Ground Motions Base Isolated Building

10

Conclusion

11

References

13

Introduction
As part of a National Science Foundation project, the cost and performance
effects of a building with and without a sliding friction pendulum base isolation system
were compared. A base isolation system works as a damper to decrease the seismic
lateral forces on a structure by inserting a Teflon-steel sliding system at the structures
foundation. This system isolates the shaking of the ground from the shaking of the
structure

and

minimizes

damage

(http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/n97-06.htm).

to
The

the
first

structure
step

in

the

development of a comparison was to design a three-story steel special moment resisting

frame building with a fixed base.

Following the design of the fixed base building,

another steel special moment resisting frame building was designed that took into account
the reduction of lateral forces due to the isolation system. Inelastic time history dynamic
analysis using a series of earthquake ground motions of varying seismic intensity were
performed on the fixed base building using a program called IDASS (Inelastic Damage
Analysis of Structural Systems, Kunnath 1995). The same ground motions were also run
on the isolated building using elastic superstructure with nonlinear isolator elements in
ETABS (1997). The output from IDASS gave story drifts which were averaged for the
series of varying seismic intensities. ETABS was supposed to have given similar results,
but do to errors that could not be resolved, accurate drift data was not retrieved. The
following paragraphs examine the design of the buildings, their costs, and performance
comparisons.

Fixed-Base Building
The fixed-base building was designed to use as the control building to
compare with the isolated building. Using ETABS, the three-story building was modeled
and the lateral and gravity loads were applied per the International Building Code (2000).
From the output, axial loads, bending moments, and story drift were used as design
criteria and it was determined that story drift was the controlling factor. A trial and error
process was used until members were found that satisfied the axial, shear, moment, and
story drift demands. The shape used for the columns was a modified W21x201 that had
another W21x201 split along the web and welded to the web of the intact W21x201 such
that the stiffness in both directions was the same. An adequate beam was determined to
be a W30x108 section and floor beams used were W14x22.

Design Calculations Fixed Base Building (IBC, 2000)

Seismic Use Group: I
Occupancy Importance Factor, Ie: 1.00
Site Class: B
From Maps:
SS = 2.5g
S1 = 1.24g
Values of site coefficient:
Fa = 1.0
Fv = 1.0
Spectral Response Acceleration:
SMS = FaSs = 2.5g
SM1 = FvS1 = 1.24 g
5% Damped Design Spectral Response:
2

SDS =

2
SMS = 1.67g
3

SD1 =

2
SM1 = 0.827g
3

Seismic Design Category: D

Natural Period:
Ta = CThn

3/4

where:

CT = 0.035
hn = 13 x 3 stories = 39
Ta = 0.56 sec
Calculations to Determine Base Shear
Response Modification Coefficient, R = 8 (Steel Special Moment
Resisting Frame)
CS =

S DS
1.67
=
= 0.21
R 8

1.00
IE

CSmax =

CSmin =

S D1
0.827
=
= 0.18
R
8
Ta
0.56
1
IE
0.5 S1
0.5 1.24
=
= 0.0775
R
8

1
I
E

Therefore use CS = 0.18.

Assume:
Floor Beams:
Main Framing Beams:
Columns:

W14x22
W27x84
W24x131

Weight of Each Floor:

W1 =

First floor loads = 1438.66 kips

3

W2 =
W3 =

Second floor loads = 1438.66 kips

Third floor loads = 1421.6 kips

Total Weight = W1+W2+W3 = 4298.95 kips

Base Shear
V = CS x W = (0.18)x(4298.95) = 773.8 kips
V = 773.8 k

Calculations to Determine Story Shear Forces

CVX =

Wxhx k
n

wihi k
i =1

2 1
(0.56 0.5) + 1 = 1.03 (linear interpolation)
k=
2 .5 0 .5

w1h1k = (1438.66)(13)1.03 = 20198.5

w2h2k = (1438.66)(26)1.03 = 41245.9
w3h3k = (1421.6)(39)1.03 = 61883.4
n

wihi k = 123327.8

i =1

FX = CVX V
F1 =

20198.5
773.8 = 126.7 kips
123327.8

F2 =

41245.9
773.8 = 258.8 kips
123327.8

F3 =

61883.4
773.8 = 388.3 kips
123327.8

Seismic Load Effect, E:

E = Qe + 0.2SDSD

20
20
= 2
1.0
1
r , max i Ai
90 120
10
i = 0.75 so use = 1.0
i = 2 -

E = Qe + 0.2D

Base Isolated Building

To design the isolated building, response spectra analysis was used for
seismically isolated structures as detailed in section 1623 of the International Building
Code (2000).

Assumptions regarding effective damping and effective period were

determined in order to carry out the design process. Lateral story forces were determined
to be much less than those applied to the fixed-base building due to the isolation system,
as expected. The building was modeled in ETABS and the gravity and reduced lateral
loads were applied. A trial and error approach was used to find steel sections that
satisfied axial, shear, moment, and drift demands. It was determined that modified
W21x101 columns and W24x68 beams were adequate. Again, W14x22 sections were
used for floor beams.

Design Calculations Base Isolated Building (IBC, 2000)

Response Spectra Analysis (S1 > 0.60g)
Seismic Use Group: I
Occupancy Importance Factor, Ie: 1.00
Site Class: B
From Maps:
SS = 2.5g
S1 = 1.24g
5

Values of site coefficient:

Fa = 1.0
Fv = 1.0
Spectral Response Acceleration:
SMS = FaSs = 2.5g
SM1 = FvS1 = 1.24 g
5% Damped Design Spectral Response:
2
SDS = SMS = 1.67g
3
SD1 =

2
SM1 = 0.827g
3

Seismic Design Category: D

Total Dead Load of Structure, W = 4298.95

Find R1:
R1 =

3
R, where R = 8 (Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame)
8

R1 = 3, but Rmax = 2
Therefore R1 = 2
Assume Effective Damping:
BD = 15%
BD factor = 1.35
Assume Effective Period at Design Displacement:
TD = 2.5 sec
TM = 3.0 sec
Maximum Effective Stiffness, Kdmax

W 4 2 4298.95(4)( 2 )
=
= 70.3 kips/in
Kd,max =
2
(2.52 )(386.4)
TD g

Design Displacement, DD:

g S T
386.4 0.827 2.5
DD = 2 D1 D =
= 15.0 in.
2
1.35
BD
4
4
Maximum Displacement, DM:
g
2 S M 1TM
4
DM =
=
BM

386.4
1.24 3.0

2
4
= 27.0 in.
1.35

Real Damping Value for Sliding System:

Radius of curvature:
r = TD
2

g
386.4
= 2 .5 2
= 61.2
2
4
4 2

Damping:

MU
2
Damping =
where MU = 0.06
( M + DD
U
r

0.06
2
Damping =
= 12.5%
(0.06 + 15

61.2

Use liner interpolation and continued iterations:

BM = 1.25
DD = 16.14
DM = 29.0

Structural Elements Above the Isolation System:

VS =

kd max DD 70.3 16.14

=
R1
2

VS = 567.3 kips
Calculation of Story Shear Forces:
CVX =

Wxhx k
n

wihi k
i =1

2 1
(0.56 0.5) + 1 = 1.03 (linear interpolation)
k=
2 .5 0 .5

w1h1k = (1438.66)(13)1.03 = 20198.5

w2h2k = (1438.66)(26)1.03 = 41245.9
w3h3k = (1421.6)(39)1.03 = 61883.4
n

wihi k = 123327.8

i =1

FX = CVX V
F1 =

20198.5
567.3 = 86.0 kips
123327.8

F2 =

41245.9
567.3 = 172.1 kips
123327.8

F3 =

61883.4
567.3 = 255.0 kips
123327.8

Cost Comparison
Cost comparisons were conducted based on the weight of structural steel. Table
1 shows the breakdown of weight in pounds per square foot on each floor of the
buildings. The numbers take into account the weight of the floor beams, main framing
beams, and columns.
TABLE 1 Weight of Steel Comparison
Fixed-Base Building
15.6 psf
First Floor
15.6 psf
Second Floor
13.2 psf
Third Floor

Isolated Building
9.8 psf
9.8 psf
8.5 psf

From these results, it is clear that there is a significant reduction in lateral loads due to the
isolation system which allows members to be smaller and still meet the demands. This
reduction in member size equates to a reduction in steel weight. Therefore the cost of the
building, taking into account only the steel framing, is much less.

Ground motions Fixed Base Building

The next step was to compare the building performance, namely a comparison
of maximum story drift during the same intensity earthquakes. The program IDASS
(Kunnath, 1995) was used to run a series of earthquake ground motions on the fixed-base
building. Twenty ground motions of an earthquake intensity with a 2% probability of
exceedance in 50 years , twenty with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years, and
twenty with a 50% probability of exceedance in 50 years were used. From the output of
these runs, an average maximum story drift was determined and assembled in Tables 2, 3,
and 4. The drifts are rather small, but this can be attributed to the additional stiffness
required in the building to keep the drift within acceptable limits during the design phase.
9

Table 2 - 2% Ground motions

Story 1 Story 2 Story 3
Mean (in.)
2.481 1.421 1.014
Standard deviation (in.)
1.470 0.447 0.276
Coefficient of variation (in.) 0.593 0.315 0.272
Minimum (in.)
0.826 1.029 0.738
Maximum (in.)
6.331 2.886 1.967

Table 3 - 10% Ground motions

Story 1 Story 2 Story 3
Mean (in.)
1.334 1.097 0.816
Standard deviation (in.)
1.158 0.331 0.222
Coefficient of variation (in.) 0.868 0.302 0.273
Minimum (in.)
0.345 0.521 0.424
Maximum (in.)
5.643 1.979 1.272

Table 4 - 50% Ground motions

Story 1 Story 2 Story 3
Mean (in.)
0.723 0.802 0.619
Standard deviation (in.)
0.607 0.324 0.240
Coefficient of variation (in.) 0.840 0.403 0.388
Minimum (in.)
0.164 0.248 0.202
Maximum (in.)
2.622 1.310 0.992

Ground motions Base Isolated Building

The performance of the isolated building was determined by time history
dynamic analysis in ETABS. ETABS has an isolator element that was placed at the base
of the columns of the structure. The same ground motions that were used on the fixed
base building were used on this building. Tables 5, 6, and 7 show the results from these
runs. This information is not what was expected. The drift at the base level should have
been much larger than the drifts at stories one, two, and three. All drifts are also much

10

lower than expected. The entries in the tables are in percent drift, but it could not be
determined what the units were or what they were relative to.

Table 5 - 2% Ground motions

Base
Mean
0.1092
Standard deviation
0.0317
Coefficient of variation
0.2906
Minimum
0.0479
Maximum
0.1544

Story 1
0.0882
0.0258
0.2926
0.0386
0.1255

Story 2
0.0466
0.0134
0.2886
0.0209
0.0671

Story 3
0.0276
0.0073
0.2630
0.0125
0.0368

Table 6 - 10% Ground motions

Base
Mean
0.0666
Standard deviation
0.0282
Coefficient of variation
0.4228
Minimum
0.0203
Maximum
0.1208

Story 1
0.0537
0.0226
0.4211
0.0163
0.0967

Story 2
0.0284
0.0119
0.4175
0.0089
0.0511

Story 3
0.0176
0.0077
0.4393
0.0062
0.0338

Table 7 - 50% Ground motions

Base
Mean
0.0494
Standard deviation
0.0285
Coefficient of variation
0.5772
Minimum
0.0097
Maximum
0.0969

Story 1
0.0398
0.0231
0.5807
0.0078
0.0784

Story 2
0.0211
0.0121
0.5731
0.0043
0.0414

Story 3
0.0129
0.0067
0.5180
0.0029
0.0234

Conclusion
Two steel special moment resisting frame buildings, a fixed-base and a base
isolated, were designed. Comparisons of the weight of structural steel were used to relate
the cost of the two buildings. Series of varying earthquake intensities were used to
compare the performance of the two structures. General knowledge of how isolation
11

systems work lead to the expectation that the isolated building would weigh less and
therefore cost less due to the reduction in lateral loads being applied to the structure. It
was also expected that the drift of the isolated building would be less than that of the
fixed-base building. The drift was found to be less, but do to program errors or human
errors the ETABS results are not correct and a comparison with this data would be
inaccurate.

12

References
ETABS Version 6.20 (1997), Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, California.
International Code Council, Inc. (2000). International Building Code, Country Club
Hills, Illinois.
Kunnath, S.K. (1995). Enhancements to Program IDARC: Modeling Inelastic Behavior
of Welded Connections in Special Moment Resisting Frames, Report NIST
GCR-95-673, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg,
Maryland.

13