TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY

INSTITUDE OF ENGINEERING
THAPATHALI CAMPUS

RESEARCH THESIS

ON

RESPONSE OF RC FRAMED BUILDING WITH

DIFFERENT ISOLATOR SYSTEMS
BY

BIBEK SIKARMI (073/MSEQ/02)

SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING IN PARTIAL

FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER
OF SCIENCE IN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

MAY, 2019

i.
 COPYRIGHT
The author has agreed that the library, Department of Civil Engineering Thapathali Campus,
Institute of Engineering may take the thesis freely available for inspection. Moreover, the
author has agreed that the permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purpose
may be granted by the professor(s), who supervised the thesis work recorded herein or, in their
absence, by the Head of the Department or concerning M.Sc. Program Coordinator or Dean of
the Institute wherein the thesis was done. It is understood that the recognition will be given to
the author of this thesis and to the Department of Civil Engineering, Thapathali Campus and
Institute of Engineering in any use of the materials of the thesis. Copying, publication or other
use of the material of this thesis for financial gain without approval of Department of Civil
Engineering, Thapathali Campus, Institute of Engineering and author’s written permission is
prohibited.
Request for permission to copy or to make any use of the material in this thesis in whole or
part should be addressed to:

……………………………………
Head of the Department
Department of Civil Engineering
Thapathali Campus, Institute of Engineering
Kathmandu, Nepal

i.
 TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
THAPATHALI CAMPUS
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

CERTIFICATE
The undersigned certify that they have read, and recommended to the Institute of Engineering
for acceptance, a thesis entitled “Response of RC Framed Building with Different Isolator
Systems” submitted by Mr. Bibek Sikarmi in partial fulfillment of the requirements for degree
of Master of Science in Earthquake Engineering.

______________________________
Supervisor
Prof. Dr. Gokarna Bahadur Motra
Department of Civil Engineering
Institute of Engineering
__________________________________
External Examiner
Prof. Dr. Prem Nath Maskey
Department of Civil Engineering
Institute of Engineering

__________________________________
Program Coordinator
Er. Ramesh Karki
Department of Civil Engineering
Institute of Engineering
Thapathali Campus

Date: May, 2019

ii
 ABSTRACT

Base isolation is one of the most powerful tools of earthquake engineering pertaining to
the passive structural vibration control technologies. It is a collection of structural
elements which should substantially decouple a superstructure from its substructure
resting on a shaking ground thus protecting a building or non-building structure’s integrity.

This research evaluates the applicability of base isolation system for reinforced concrete
structure using Lead Plug Bearing (LPB), Friction Pendulum Bearing and High Damping
Rubber Bearing. The linear model Time History Analysis of a real RC framed building
was performed by using ETABS software for fixed base and isolated base system.
Analysis illustrated that the building responses like base shear and relative displacement
between base and roof of the structure decreased significantly while the fundamental time
period of the structure was found to have been increased by at least 2.5 times.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my thesis supervisor, Prof. Dr. Gokarna Bahadur
Motra for his continuous guidance, encouragement and indispensable advice during the course
of this thesis study.
I extend my gratitude to all the respected professors in Earthquake Engineering, Thapathali
Campus, especially Prof. Dr. Prem Nath Maskey and Dr. Hari Ram Parajuli. I am thankful to
course coordinator of the program, Er. Ramesh Karki, Civil department and all respected staffs
of M.Sc. in Earthquake Engineering for their continuous support and suggestions during the
course of study.
In addition, I would like to thank all respected teachers, friends and staffs for their cooperation
and support during my thesis work.

Bibek Sikarmi
073/MSEQ/02
May, 2019

iv
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1 General ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Objectives of the Study ........................................................................................................ 3
1.3 Scope of the Study ............................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Need of Study ...................................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Distribution of Chapters ....................................................................................................... 4
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 5
3 THEORETICAL FORMULATION............................................................................... 8
3.1 Linear Theory of Two-degrees-of-freedom Isolation System ............................................. 8
3.2 Seismic response analysis approaches and mathematical formulation ................................ 9
3.3 Analysis of Base Isolated Buildings with Isolated Footings ............................................. 13
3.4 Mechanical properties of Lead Plug Bearing..................................................................... 13
3.5 Analysis of a SDOF Building Frame on Sliding (FPS) Isolators ...................................... 14
3.6 Equations of Motion in Different Phases ........................................................................... 14
3.7 Mathematical Model of FPB .............................................................................................. 16
4 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 20
4.1 Modeling of Building in ETABS 16.2.1 ............................................................................ 22
4.2 Design of Lead Plug Bearing and assigning to the model ................................................. 24
4.3 Design of Friction Pendulum Bearing and assigning to the model ................................... 28
4.4 Defining Time History Functions ...................................................................................... 30
4.5 Spectral Matching Methods ............................................................................................... 32
4.6 Linear Model Time History Analysis ................................................................................ 33
5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS................................................................................... 35
5.1 Comparison of Base Shear ................................................................................................. 35
5.2 Comparison of Isolator Displacement ............................................................................... 38
5.3 Comparison of Relative Roof Displacement ..................................................................... 40
6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................... 42
6.1 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 42
6.2 Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 42
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 43
ANNEX ................................................................................................................................... 45

v
List of figures
Figure 1 Components of Lead Plug Bearing........................................................................ 1
Figure 2 Friction Pendulum Bearing.................................................................................... 2
Figure 3 High Damping Rubber Bearing ............................................................................. 2
Figure 4 Stable Bilinear behaviour of HDR Bearing ........................................................... 2
Figure 5 Parameters of 2-DOF Isolation Model .................................................................. 9
Figure 6 Idealization of earthquake excitation as a sum of series of impulses .................. 10
Figure 7 Free Body Diagram of Various forces applied in 3DOF system......................... 12
Figure 8 Hystersis Loop for LPB ....................................................................................... 14
Figure 9 Model of FPS ....................................................................................................... 17
Figure 10 Hysteresis Behavior of Single Friction Pendulum ............................................ 17
Figure 11 Research Methodology Flowchart ..................................................................... 22
Figure 12 Plan and 3D Model of Building 1 (ETABS) ..................................................... 23
Figure 13 Plan and 3D Model of Building 2 (ETABS) ..................................................... 23
Figure 14 Architectural Plan of Building 1........................................................................ 34
Figure 15 Architectural Plan of Building 2........................................................................ 24
Figure 16 Assigning Link Properties ................................................................................. 26
Figure 17 Properties of LPB .............................................................................................. 27
Figure 18 Properties of HDRB .......................................................................................... 28
Figure 19 Properties of FPB .............................................................................................. 30
Figure 20 Time History Record of 1940 El Centro Earthquake ........................................ 31
Figure 21 Time History Record of 2015-Gorkha Earthquake ........................................... 32
Figure 22 Time History of El Centro earthquake matched to Response Spectrum ........... 33
Figure 23 Defining Linear Modal Time History................................................................ 34

List of Tables
Table 1 Damping Coefficient at Design Displacement ..................................................... 19
Table 2 Base Shear............................................................................................................. 35
Table 3 Isolator Displacement ........................................................................................... 37
Table 4 Relative Roof Displacement ................................................................................. 39

vi
List of abbreviations and symbol

LPB Lead Plug Bearing

FPB Friction Pendulum Bearing
HDR High Damping Rubber Bearing
RC Reinforced Concrete
ETABS Extended 3D Analysis of Building System
FNA Fast Nonlinear Analysis
TR Transmissibility Ratio
PEER Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Sign Signum function
 Damping Coefficient
 Poisson’s Ratio
M Mass
K Stiffness
C Damping Value
g Acceleration due to gravity
FR Restoring Force
Keff Effective Stiffness
Kd Post Yield Stiffness
Ku Yield Stiffness
I Unit Matrix
0 Zero Matrix

vii
 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Base isolation is one of the most powerful tools of earthquake engineering pertaining to the
passive structural vibration control technologies. It is a collection of structural elements which
should substantially decouple a superstructure from its substructure resting on a shaking ground
thus protecting a building or non-building structure’s integrity.

Base isolation is one of the most popular means of protecting a structure against seismic forces.
It is meant to enable a building to survive a potentially devastating seismic impact. It can, in
some cases, raise both a structure’s seismic performance and its seismic sustainability
considerably. Base isolation system involves the additional of a flexible layer (isolator) in
between the structure and its foundation with permission for relative deformation at this level.
The flexibility of the isolator layer results in the modification of the time period of the
superstructure (increase in time period), which results in significant reduction in acceleration
and forces transmitted to the structure.

The lead plug bearing (LPB) was first introduced and used in New Zealand in the late 1970s.
LPB system provides the combined features of vertical load support, horizontal flexibility,
restoring force and damping in a single unit. To provide an additional means of energy
dissipation, a central lead core is added which deforms plastically under shear deformation,
enhancing the energy dissipation capabilities compared to low damping natural rubber
bearings.

Figure 1 Components of a Lead Plug Bearing (source: bridgestone.com)

Friction Pendulum Bearings (FPB) essentially detach the structures from the ground to help
stabilize the building from unstable ground motion. FPBs allow superstructures to rest at the
top of two concave surfaces with a ball bearing as a buffer between the two surfaces. During
an earthquake, the bearings shift against the direction of earthquake keeping the building stable
as a result.

i.
 Figure 2 Friction Pendulum Bearing (source: researchgate.net)

A high-damping rubber bearing, also known as HDR, has very similar appearance to lead
rubber bearings, but they are totally different in nature. HDR bearing is composed of special
rubber with excellent damping attributes, sandwiched together with layers of steel without any
lead plugs. HDR bearings are very stiff in nature, however, during earthquake, it becomes very
flexible in the horizontal direction so that they can reduce the earthquake force upon the
structures by changing its own shape. Most of all, it can spring back to its original shape post-
earthquake owing to its high elastomeric property.

Figure 3 High Damping Rubber Bearing (source: bridgebearings.org)

Figure 4 Stable Bilinear behavior of HDR Bearing (source: bridgebearings.org)

2
Stable bilinear behavior of the bearing makes the structural analysis results closer to the real
movements of the structures. The smooth hysteresis curves show that the HDR bearing is
reliable in long-term durability and performance safety.

1.2 Objectives of the Study

The objectives of this research are as follows
i. To determine the response of the structure with Lead Rubber, Friction
Pendulum and High Damping Rubber bearings.
ii. To determine the effectiveness of different bearing types under various
earthquake time histories. (El Centro (1940) and Gorkha (2015))
iii. To compare the response of structure with and without the isolator
system.

1.3 Scope of the Study

The present scope of the study includes:
i. Modelling of a multi-storied RC building in a structural analysis software
(ETABS) with fixed base system using non-linear time history analysis of
various earthquakes.
ii. Design of different base isolators, HRD bearings, for the building.
iii. Modelling of the structure with the designed isolators and perform time history
analysis.
iv. Comparative study of the responses of the building with fixed base and isolators.
v. Analysis of results obtained and recommendations for further study.

1.4 Need of Study

The Gorkha Earthquake in 2015 resulted in damage of a large number of buildings. All kinds
of buildings ranging from RC to masonry were damaged. The repair and maintenance cost of
damaged buildings can be too high. So, there is a need to study and adopt alternative techniques
to increase building safety and hence reduce losses. Hospital and other public buildings in
particular should be fully functional and operational immediately after an earthquake. Base
isolation is one of such techniques which helps in reduction of damage to buildings.

Base isolation can be an effective method in reducing possible damages and losses due to
earthquake hazards. Seismic isolators work to dampen the effect of seismic forces acting on a
building in the event of an earthquake. Such technology, if in use, can be used to maintain the
operational functionality of the building even during the event of an earthquake, which is
especially true for hospital buildings. So, it is necessary to study the possible alternatives to
seismic protection systems and as such, the most effect isolator system in terms of cost and
general effectiveness needs to be studied.

3
1.5 Distribution of Chapters
The work has been presented in six chapters with appendices. A brief review of each
chapter is given below:
Chapter 1 of the thesis work includes the introduction of the subject matter with brief
discussion on the concept of isolation, building geometry, historical background,
objectives and scope of the study.
Chapter 2 explains the literature review done for the thesis work. The literature related
to Base isolation, building geometry, Modelling and analysis along with related theories
is discussed in brief in this chapter.
Chapter 3 describes the theoretical formulation of the model and generation of equation
of motion and designing isolators.
Chapter 4 consists of the methodology for 3D modelling in ETABS with time history
analysis for fixed base and with application of isolators in the structure.
Chapter 5 comprises of the results obtained from the analysis performed in the previous
chapter.
Chapter 6 provides major findings, sums up the results, and conclusions extracted from
the results. This chapter also includes the recommendations for future works.

4
 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Chopra (1995) states that the damping decreases the transmitted force only if w/wn <√2 and for
the transmitted force to be less than the applied force, the stiffness of the support system and
hence the natural frequency should be small enough so that w/wn <√2. This implies a soft spring
is needed between the ground and the structure to reduce the transmitted force and static
displacement.

The analysis of a five storied fixed base structure and isolated structure has been done to
understand the effects of base isolation on dynamic properties by Chopra (1995). In the study,
a rigid frame structure was supported on a base isolation system with lateral stiffness kb and
linear viscous damping cb, natural vibration period Tb and damping ratio ξ b for isolator.

The study observed that the isolation system has large effect on the first natural period mode
while small effect on the higher mode periods and the modal static shears at the base of the
structure has significant values in first two modes in fixed base while it is small in all modes
in isolated structure.

Bouc (1967) introduced the non-linear hysteretic system for the isolators and was then extended
by Wen (1976). The equation of motion for a single degree of freedom system is given by
mü(t) + c (t) + ku(t) + F(t) = f(t)
According to the Bouc-Wen model, the restoring foce is expressed as:
F(t) = cb ü(t) + a ki u(t) + (1-a) ki z(t)
Where, a = kf / ki is the ratio of post to pre yield stiffness
ki = Fy/uy is the pre yielding stiffness, Fy is the yield force and uy is the yield
displacement
z(t) is a non-observable hysteric parameter (hysteric displacement) that obeys the following
non-linear differential equation with zero initial condition ((z(0)=0):
(t) = (t){A-[βsign(z(t) (t)+γ] |z(t)|n
Where, sign denotes the signum function and A,β>0,γ and n are dimensionless quantities
controlling the behavior of the model.

Jangid (2007) studied the analytical seismic response of multi-storey buildings isolated by lead
rubber bearings under near fault motions. The force deformation behavior of LPB is modeled
as bilinear with viscous damping. The variation of top floor absolute acceleration and bearing
displacement of the isolated system was plotted under different parameters such as
superstructure flexibility, isolation period and bearing yield strength. The optimum yield
strength of the LPB was found to be in the range of 10% to 15% of the total weight of the
building. The increase in the bearing yield strength reduced the bearing displacement
significantly without much altering to the superstructure acceleration.

Nagarajaiah and Sun (2000) evaluated the seismic performance of the base isolated USC
hospital building during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. A non-linear analytical model was
developed and verified using system identification. It was found that the base isolated USC
hospital building performed well and reduced the response when compared to a fixed base
structure. Lead rubber bearings were used at exterior columns and elastomeric bearings support
the interior columns. The combined analytical model comprising the superstructure and

5
isolation system was developed and the response to the Northridge earthquake was computed
using the computer program 3D-BASIS.

Kulkarni and Jangid (2002) studied the effect of superstructure flexibility on the response of
base isolated structures under lead plug bearing and sliding systems. The hysteresis loop of
LBP was modeled by bi-linear force-deformation behavior expressed by Bouc-Wen’s equation
and the equation of motion was numerically solved by using fourth order Runge-Kutta Method.
The study observed that the structure floor acceleration of base isolated structure will be
underestimated if the flexibility of the structure is ignored.

Thakare and Jaiswal (2011) studied experimentally a three storey RC building with elastomeric
lead rubber bearing having bilinear force deformation behavior. The performance of fixed-base
and base-isolated building was compared through seismic analysis method. Based upon the
obtained results, it was found that base isolation reduced the design parameters (i.e. base shear
and bending moment) in the structural members above the isolation interface by around 4-5
times. It had been found that the base shear reduced 55%-60% in response spectrum analysis,
whereas base shear reduced by 70%-80% in time history analysis. In general, the peak
displacements obtained by the time history analysis were less than those from the response
spectrum analysis.

Mavronicola and Komodromos (2012) presented a paper on the discrepancies on the responses
of six-storey shear frame isolated buildings using bilinear inelastic and equivalent linear elastic
analysis procedures instead of nonlinear Bouc-Wen model. The equation of motion was solved
by Newmark’s method and the solution of differential equation governing the behavior of
Bouc-Wen model using implicit Runge-Kutta method. SAP 2000 software was used for the
verification of the models. The analysis observed that the bilinear inelastic analysis seems to
be more appropriate to use for design and analysis of seismically isolated buildings than a linear
model.

Subedi (2000) studied the effectiveness of base isolation in masonry buildings. The friction
type of base isolation was used in a traditional temple and time history analysis using Elcentro
and Kobe earthquake records were performed. Newmark’s β method was applied to solve the
equation of motion. The study found that the response of the structure reduced sharply with the
use of sliding type of base isolation. In addition, the response decreased with the decrease in
friction coefficient.

Anilduke and Khedikar (2015) performed a comparative study of seven story building for
isolated and fixed bas using SAP 2000 Software. By conducting the nonlinear time history
analysis, it was shown that base isolation increases the flexibility at the base of the structure
which helps in the energy dissipation and hence superstructure seismic demand drastically
reduced as compared to the conventional fixed base structure.
Raj and Sabu (2017) modelled a symmetric and an asymmetric structure (L shaped) with
varying height in SAP2000 and did equivalent static analysis and Time history analysis for
fixed base and base isolation (Friction Pendulum System). Displacement, Acceleration, Base
Shear and Time Period were compared and concluded that a non-isolated building showed
more displacement than isolated buildings in both symmetric and asymmetric case. It was also
concluded that acceleration and base shear for building (both symmetric and asymmetric) with
base isolator decreased whereas time period increased in comparison with fixed base one.

6
Patel and Jamani (2017) analyzed irregular shaped six models with fixed base, rubber isolation
and friction isolation using ETABS software using equivalent lateral force method and
response spectrum method. A seismic evaluation of the building, isolated with the LPB and
FPS, was performed using a nonlinear 3D analytical model. The study showed that the story
shear reduced for base isolated structure compared with fixed base structure. Story
displacement value was high in base isolated structures and as the height increased,
displacement value increased more in FPS isolated structures compared with LRB isolated
structure. The study concluded that LRB isolated structure gave good results for structures with
less height while more height building response was good in FPS isolated structure.

Tiong et al. (2017) studied the design approach involved in the use of High Damping Rubber
Bearings (HDRB) in structural control through seismic isolation in new buildings in earthquake
zones. The study found that the present design approach applied in normal practice often
resulted in dissimilar HDRB dimension requirements between bearing manufacturers and
structural designers. This study presented a formula, which was derived and extended from the
current design approach in order to offer a simple guideline for engineers to estimate the
required HDRB size and hence minimize the discrepancies.

Mazza. (2015) studied the effect of strong near-fault ground motion on the response of R.C
structure and isolation system. The study found that long-duration horizontal pulses generated
by strong near-fault ground motion may induce failure of isolation system. The study was
carried out to determine the effectiveness of different isolation systems for retrofitting of R.C.
framed building with elastomeric bearing acting alone, elastomeric bearings in parallel
combination with friction bearings and friction bearings acting alone. The study found that the
near fault ground motions resulted in unexpected high values of ductility demand at lower
floors of all base isolated structures while re-centering problems of the isolation system was
expected for friction bearings.

7
 3 THEORETICAL FORMULATION
3.1 Linear Theory of Two-degrees-of-freedom Isolation System
By introducing a flexible layer between the foundation and the superstructure, the upper
structure will act as a rigid body and the behaviours can be predicted by linear theory for 2-
degrees of freedom system. In order to obtain the behaviour of isolation system, linear spring
and linear viscous damping will be implemented to this simple 2-DOF system model.

Figure 5 Parameters of 2-DOF Isolation model (source: Tai-Cheih Wu: 2001)

Where
MS, US = the mass and the shear displacement of the superstructure, respectively
Mb, Ub = the mass and the shear displacement of the base floor above the isolation layer
KS, CS = structure stiffness and damping, respectively
Kb, Cb = stiffness and damping of the isolation
Ug = ground displacement

+ + = − ( + )
The governing equation of motion for the two degree of freedom is given by:
(1)
For fixed based building, the frequency, fundamental period and damping ratio is given as:
2
= =  =
2
(2)

By introducing the stiffness and damping of an isolation layer into fixed base building, a new
frequency, period of the isolated structure and damping ratio is obtained as follows:

2
= =  =
+ 2( + )
(3)

As a result of much lower value of stiffness, the new much longer period Tb with respect to
fundamental period Tf is obtained. The longer period of vibration is effective factor that reduces
the force impacts to the structure (Naeim and Kelly 1999).

8
3.2 Seismic response analysis approaches and mathematical formulation

The equation of motion can be formulated by using free body diagram for required degree of
freedom of the structure. In free body diagram, different forces are applied in different possible
directions. The fundamental equations of mechanics (equilibrium, force displacement and
compatibility) conditions must be satisfied. The equation generated from these conditions will
be solved by using various mathematical techniques to get the required solution of the problem.
Depending upon the available input information, methods for seismic response analysis of
structures may be classified under:
i. Time History Analysis (Time Domain Analysis)
ii. Fourier method of analysis (Frequency Domain Analysis)
The time history analysis is applicable for both elastic and inelastic ranges of response while
Fourier method of analysis is essentially valid within the elastic range. For linear and single
degree of freedom (SDOF) structures, the numerical integration methods used in time domain
analysis that are popular in earthquake engineering to find the responses of the structure are
Duhamel integration and Newmark integration method. (Dutta 2010)

Figure 6 Idealization of earthquake excitation as a sum of series of impulses (source:

T.K. Datta, 2010)

 Time Domain Analysis using Duhamel Integration

In this method, the excitation force produced by the earthquake is treated as a series of
impulses of short duration.
For damped SDOF system, the response is calculated by:

9
 1 !
( )= ( ) (! ") #$%& ( − )(
'
(4)

!
( )= ( )ℎ( − ) ( (5)
'

 Time domain analysis using Newmark’s -Method

In this method, the equation of motion at the k+1th time is solved using the known
displacement, velocity and acceleration at time k and the excitation Fk+1 at k+1th time.

*+, = * + (1 − -) *+, -∆ (6)

*+, = * + *∆ + (0.5 − 2)(∆ )3 *+, (7)

The parameter  and  define the variation of acceleration over a time step and determine the
stability and accuracy characteristics of the method. Typical selection for  is ½ and 1/6 ≤  ≤
¼ is satisfactory from all points of view, including that of accuracy (Chopra 1995).
 Time Domain Analysis in state space
The state space equation for the SDOF system for earthquake excitation can be written
as:
4 = 54 + 67 (8)

In which,
0 1 0
5=8 : 6 = ;− < 4== >
− / − /

Time History Response analysis for multi-degree of freedom (MDOF) systems is performed
by direct analysis and modal analysis. Duhamel integration is not used because it is complicated
and therefore Newmark’s -method is popular for both direct analysis and modal analysis in
time domain (Dutta 2010).
In modal analysis, the equation of motion is decoupled into set of n uncoupled equations xof
motion using normal mode theory. Each uncoupled equation of motion represents an SDOF
system, the equation of motion is given as,
? *+, + @ *+, + A *+, = −?B *+, (9)
In which r is the influence coefficient matrix or vector and M, C and K are mass matrix,
damping matrix and stiffness matrix respectively; *+, is a time history of ground motion.
The displacement response of the given equation of motion is:
C= 4 (10)
Where, X is the vector of displacement of size nx1

10
 is the mode shape matrix of size nxm
Z is the vector of generalized co-ordinates
For MDOF system, the time domain analysis in state space can be performed to find the
responses of the structures as follows:

Figure 7 Free Body Diagram of Various forces applied in 3DOF system

The equation of motion:

,D , − E+ , , − 3( 3 − ,) + , , − 3( 3 − ,) + FG( ) = 0 (11)

3D 3 − E+ 3( 3 − ,) − H( H − 3) + 3( 3 − , )− H ( H − 3) + FG( ) = 0 (12)

HD H − E+ H( H − 3) + H( H − 3) + FG( ) = 0 (13)
In matrix form:
, 0 0 , ,+ 3 − 3 0 ,
I0 3 0 J K 3L + I − 3 3 + H − H J K 3L
0 0 H H 0 − H H H
,+ 3 − 3 0 , F 0 0
+I − 3 3 + H − HJ K 3L + I 0 F 0J
0 − H 0 0 F
(14)
H H
, 0 0
=I 0 3 0 JM N
0 0 H

11
 ?C + @C + AC + FD E = ? (15)
C = −? , AC − ? , @C − ? , FD E + ( ) (16)

Now converting above equation into state space form as:

C= ,, C= , = 3 P%( C = , = 3

0 R 0 0
; ,< = Q , S = > + 8−? , F( ): + ;( ) <
,
−? , A −? @
(17)
3 3

Therefore,
4 = 54 + TF + U (18)

FG( ) = ( ) + P V ( ) + (1 − P) V ( )
Where, FR(t) is a restoring force given by Bouc-Wen analysis,
(19)
A=kf/ki is a ratio of post to pre yield stiffness

( ) = ( ){5 − [2#$7%( ( ) ( ) + -Y| ( )|[ }

Z(t) is a non-observable hysteretic parameter of hysteretic displacement given by
(20)
Using Runge-Kutta fourth order method to solve equation of motion for time t with the interval

{F, } = ( ∗ ? , [F( ) − A ∗ C( ) − @ ∗ C( )Y
of dt,
(21)

( ( F1
{F3 } = ( ∗ ? , [F 8 + : − A ∗ ;C( ) + 8 : ∗ C( )< − @ ∗ ;C( ) + <Y (22)
2 2 2

( ( (
{FH } = ( ∗ ? , [F 8 + : − A ∗ ;C( ) + 8 : ∗ C( ) + 8 : ∗ F1< − @
2 2 4
( F2
∗ ;C( ) + 8 : ∗ <Y
(23)
2 2

(
{F_ } = ( ∗ ? , [F( + ( ) − A ∗ ;C( ) + ( ∗ C( ) + 8 : ∗ F2< − @
2
∗ `C( ) + F3bY
(24)

C( + ( ) = C( ) + ( ∗ C( ) + ( ∗ (F, + F3 + FH + F_ )/6 (25)

C( + ( ) = C( ) + (F, + 2F3 + 2FH + F_ )/6 (26)

Last two equations give the displacement and velocity response of structure.

12
3.3 Analysis of Base Isolated Buildings with Isolated Footings

The equation of motion for a multi-story 2D frame with base flexibility can be written in
incremental form as:
∆ ! ∆ ∆ ! 0 0 ∆ 0
Q S; <+Q S ; !< + 8 :; < + 80 :; <== >
∆ ! ∆ ! ∆ ! ∆ 0
(27)

3.4 Mechanical properties of Lead Plug Bearing

Lead Plug Bearings (LPB) are always modeled as bilinear element with their characteristics
based on three parameters; Post elastic Stiffness (Kd), Elastic Stiffness (Ku) and Characteristic
Strength (Q). The Elastic Stiffness Ku is usually taken to be an empirical multiple of the post
yield stiffness Kd which can be accurately estimated from the shear modulus of the rubber and
the bearing design. The characteristic strength Q is the intercept if the hysteresis loop and the
force axis and is accurately estimated from the yield stress of the lead and the lead plug area.
The effective stiffness of the lead plug bearing defined on the basis of peak to peak load steadily
reduces with displacement.

Figure 8 Hysteresis Loop for LPB (source: researchgate.net)

e
Ad =A + ; f ≥ fi
f
(28)
Where Dy is the yield displacement.
The natural frequency  is given by

13
 Ad 7
&= = k&'3 + l
j f
(29)

Where =Q/W 0=mA3 7/j and the effective time period T is given by
2 2
= =
& 7
k&'3 + l
(30)
f
The effective damping eff for D≥Dy is defined to be
5B P n6 ℎo# B #$# pnn
2d =
2 Ad f3
(31)
The area of hysteresis loop is given by 4Q (D-Dy); to put eff in term of these basic parameter
Fi
fi = P%( Fi = e + A fi
Aq
(32)
So that Dy=Q/(Ku-Kd)
Using the definition of eff and the result of Keff, we have
4e(f − fi )
2d =
2 (A f + e)f
(33)
As a general rule of thumb, elastic stiffness Ku is taken as 10Kd, so that Dy=Q/9Kd
So,
4e(f − e/9A )
2d =
2 (A f + e)f
(34)

3.5 Analysis of a SDOF Building Frame on Sliding (FPS) Isolators

A sliding isolation device, in its simplest form, consists of a friction device that can slide over
a low friction concave spherical surface. An advantage of this form of isolator over the P-F
system is that a self-centering force reduces the residual deflection after a seismic event. The
isolator increases a structure’s natural period and filters out the primary input earthquake forces
(Scheaua 2011) through a frictional interface that also provides damping.

3.6 Equations of Motion in Different Phases

Consider a SDOF systems supported on a concave isolator surface. Its motion is governed by
different equations of motion depending on the phase of motion it is in. There are essentially
two phases: a non-sliding phase (when the structure does not displace relative to the slider
surface) and a sliding phase.

Phase I: Non-Sliding Phase (or Stick Phase)

14
A structure is at rest prior to an earthquake, so the sliding motion always commences from a
non-sliding phase. During this phase, the superstructure does not move relative to the isolator
surface and can be considered as a fixed base structure. The equations of motion governing this
phase are:

For Superstructure: üs + 2ξωs s + ωs2us = - g (35)

For Isolator: üb = 0; b =0; and ub = constant

Phase II: Transition Condition

The structure will remain in Phase I as long as the sum of tangential components of inertia and
restoring forces do not exceed the absolute value of interface friction force (Murnal and Sinha
2000).
As slider starts to move, the equation can be written as

| + ?! + ?! 7 tan y| ≥ μ?! 7 (36)

{
Substituting, ω2= z
|}
u ≈ R and γ= ; the equation for sliding can be written as:

|- + + &3 | ≥ μ?! 7 (37)

Phase III: Sliding Phase

During the sliding phase, the equation can be written as:

γ üs + üb + ωb2ub = - g– μg sgn( b) (38)

The function sgn( b) decides the direction in which the force of friction acts, which in turn
depends on the direction of the velocity of excitation.

15
3.7 Mathematical Model of FPB

Figure 9 Model of FPS (source: Springer, 2015)

Figure 10 Hysteresis Behavior of Single Friction Pendulum (source: researchgate.net)

16
R= Radius supporting a vertical load W

U= horizontal displacement

θ = Subtended angle

Fr= Self centering force

N = Reaction normal to the disk surface

μ= Coefficient of dynamic friction (constant for preliminary analysis)

Ff= Frictional force= μNsgn

F= Lateral Force

Where, Sgn is a signum function whose value is +1 or -1 depending upon the direction of
motion.

δv = Vertical displacement

Inertia Force

Resolving forces vertically and horizontally including inertia force F, the equilibrium equations
are
W- N cosθ + Ff sinθ=0 (39)
And,
F- N sinθ + Ff cosθ=0 (40)

•€
Solving,

cosθ
F = Wtan θ + (41)

q
For small values of θ,

z
sinθ = , cosθ = 1 and Ff = μW (42)

F = W Qz + lS
q
(43)

Effective Stiffness
Keff = q = q Qz + lS= z Q1 + S≈
• „ q „ …z „
q z
(44)

Time Period of Vibration

ω=k
†‡€€ {
= k{z =kz
{
(45)
and,

17
Target Time period (Hamidi et al. 2003) of motion
z
TD = 2πk (46)

Curvature of Sliding Surface

The radius of curvature of the spherical surface can be readily determined as

3
R = gQ 3Š‰S
ˆ
(47)

Vertical Displacement
δv = R(1-cosθ) (48)
‹Œ
Expanding, cosθ=1- 3! (ignoring balance terms) and introducing this value in the above
equation and for small values of θ
qŒ
δv = 3z (49)

Re-centering Capacity

Assuming that for small values of θ, the inertia force does not affect the normal force at the
sliding surface, for the slider to re-center, the centering force should be greater than frictional
resistance,
i.e., Fr > Ff
or, Wsinθ > μWcosθ
in which for small value of θ, will lead to
q
z
>μ
⸫ u > μR (50)
If the above condition is satisfied, the isolator will re-center.

Effective Damping Ratio

The effective damping ratio is given by (Chen and Scawthorn 2003)

Ž•d• ‘ !’d ’i !d•d V “‘‘” _•„q 3…z

_•('.–†‡€€ qŒ )
= 3•('.–†
‡€€ q )
ξ= Œ
= •(…z+q) (51)

Table 1: Damping Coefficient at Design Displacement

% of Critical damping (ξ) Damping Coefficient (BD)

10 1.2
20 1.5
Extract from FEMA 450-1 2003

18
Isolator Displacement

The isolator design displacement can be obtained from (Chen and Scawthron 2003)
ΔD = Q Œ S ‰ ‰
—
_• ˜
(52)
‰
Where,
SD = maximum considered 5% damped spectral acceleration at 1s period
TD = period at target displacement of isolator
BD = damping factor to reflect the effective damping βD at maximum displacement

19
 4 METHODOLOGY
In this thesis, two real hospital buildings (RC Frame) have been selected and comparative study
of time history analysis was carried out for fixed base and isolated building. The 3-D modeling
of the building was carried out in ETABS 2016 (version 16.2.1) software considering medium
soil condition. The effect of ground motion for both the cases was carried out statically as well
as dynamically. Static coefficient method was carried out as per IS 1893:2002. The
combination of dead loads and live loads as base force thus obtained was used in the design of
the isolators. The type of isolators considered in this research were Lead Plug Bearing, Friction
Pendulum Bearing and High Damping Rubber Bearing. The dynamic response of the building
was evaluated with the help of linear modal time history analysis which was achieved by
matching the time history with the response spectrum from IS 1893:2002 for 5% damping,

The target period for isolator was taken such that it is considerably greater than the fundamental
time period of the building with fixed base. Linear modal time history analysis was performed
in the time domain using Newmark’s β method for numerical integration to achieve responses
in the building under different excitation of earthquake data.

Two different history earthquake data; Imperial Valley-01 (El centro, 1940) and Gorkha
Earthquake (2015) were collected to perform the analysis. After time history analysis was
performed for both cases, comparative study of responses of both structures was done in
different parameters such as story displacement, maximum roof displacement, base shear and
story drift.

Methodology Steps:
To accomplish the objectives of the research work, following procedure will be
adopted:
i. Preliminary Study
 Comprehensive study of previous work and literature review
 Selection of Building
 Collection of required data
ii. Analysis Stage
 Preparation of 3D models of building in ETABS with fixed base and
isolation system
 Perform linear static analysis and time history analysis
iii. Evaluation Stage
 Identification of Base Shear, Story Drift and story displacement after linear
and time history analysis.
 Comparison and evaluation of the result.
The overall methodology of the research has been presented in the flowchart below:

20
 Literature Review

Selection of Building

Modelling of Building in
ETABS

Design of Different Bearing

Systems

Assign the Building with

designed isolator system

Define Time History Function

Match Response Spectrum to time history and perform non-linear

modal time history analysis

Obtain the results

Comparision of results for

various bearing types
Figure 11 Research Methodology Flowchart

21
 4.1 Modeling of Building in ETABS 16.2.1
The 3D model of the RC Framed building was built for both cases i.e., fixed base and isolated
system in ETABS software.

Figure 12 Plan and 3D Model of Building 1 (ETABS)

Figure 13 Plan and 3D Model of Building 2 (ETABS)

22
Figure 14 Architectural Plan of Building 1

Figure 15 Architectural Plan of Building 2

23
Defining load cases and load combination
The design was based on the limit state method and the load calculation was based on the Indian
standard code IS 875:1987 (part 1 & 2) for dead load and live load respectively. In dead load
case, self-weight of RC beam, column, slab and stair, floor finish and wall load was considered
while Live Load was applied as per IS 875:1987 part 2. The earthquake load was assigned as
auto seismic load and different load combination was assigned as per IS1893 (part1):2002.
Mass source was defined by considering multiplier of 1 for dead load and 0.25 for live load as
per IS 1893 (part 1):2002. The earthquake load in X-direction and Y-direction was assigned
and response spectrum analysis was also performed.

4.2 Design of Lead Plug Bearing and assigning to the model

Dutta (2010) presented the design of LPB to find out the design parameters and the size of the
isolator based on vertical load, fundamental time period and design displacement.
For the design of LPB, base isolated time period of 2.24 sec was taken. The design parameter
of LPB like effective stiffness, post yield stiffness, yield strength and yield displacement were
calculated for the building. The geometric properties of were calculated.

The calculated hysteretic properties of LPB were assigned in the model by using rubber isolator
option as a link type. Hysteretic (Rubber) isolator property is a biaxial hysteretic isolator that
has coupled plasticity properties for the two shear deformations, and linear effective-stiffness
properties for the remaining four deformations. The plasticity model is based on the hysteretic
behaviour proposed by Wen (1976) and Park, Wen and Ang (1986), and recommended for base
isolation analysis by Nagarajaiah, Reinhorn and Constantinou (1991).
In the model, the rubber isolator has been assigned by selecting the rubber isolator as link type
and its properties like effective stiffness, effective damping and nonlinear properties has been
assigned. The boundary condition of the isolator has been selected in such a way that the
isolator is fixed in vertical direction since it has very high vertical stiffness whereas the isolator
has degree of freedom in two horizontal directions.

24
Figure 16 Assigning Link Properties

25
Figure 17 Properties of LPB

26
Figure 18 Properties of HDRB

27
4.3 Design of Friction Pendulum Bearing and assigning to the model
S. Manohar and S. Madhekar (2000) presented the method of friction pendulum bearing to find
out the design parameters and the size of the isolator based on vertical load, fundamental time
period and radius of curvature.

FPB designed and assigned to a link is a single friction pendulum system and is a biaxial
friction pendulum isolator hat has coupled friction properties for the two shear deformations,
post-slip stiffness in the shear direction due to the pendulum radii of the slipping surfaces, gap
behavior in the axial direction and linear effective stiffness properties for the three moment
deformations.

28
Figure 19 Properties of FPB

29
4.4 Defining Time History Functions
The time history records of Imperial Valley-02 (EL Centro, array-09), Gorkha
earthquake and Northridge earthquake has been applied as an excitation force in the
model.
The 1940 El Centro earthquake (or 1940 Imperial Valley earthquake) occurred on May
19) in the Imperial Valley in southeastern Southern California near the international
border of the United States and Mexico. It had a moment magnitude of 6.9 and a
maximum perceived intensity of X (Extreme) on the Mercalli intensity scale. It was the
first major earthquake to be recorded by a strong-motion seismograph located next to a
fault rupture.

Figure 20 Time History record and Fourier amplitude of 1940 El Centro Earthquake
(source: ASCE Library)

30
The April 2015 Nepal earthquake (also known as the Gorkha earthquake) occurred
at 11:56 Nepal Standard Time on 25 April 2015, with a moment magnitude of
7.8Mw and a maximum Mercalli Intensity of VIII (Severe). Its epicenter was east
of Gorkha District at Barpak, Gorkha, and its hypocenter was at a depth of
approximately 8.2 km.

Figure 21 Time History and Fourier amplitude record of 2015-Gorkha Earthquake

(source: strongmotioncenter.org)

31
4.5 Spectral Matching Methods
Various methods have been developed to modify a reference time series so that its response
spectrum is compatible with a specified target spectrum. Two of the most widely used methods,
namely frequency domain method and Time domain method, are available in ETABS 2015.

The Time domain method was first introduced Lilhanand and Tseng (19877, 1988). Lilhanand
proposed an algorithm that uses reverse impulse wavelet functions to modify the initial time
histories such that its response spectrum is compatible with a target spectrum. A fundamental
assumption of this methodology is that the time of the peak response does not change as a result
of the wavelet adjustment. This assumption was not always valid as the time of peak response
may be shifted by adding the wavelet adjustments to the acceleration time history.

The algorithm for time domain matching used is based on the program developed by N. A.
Abrahamson (1993) to implement the Lilhanand and Tseng (1987, 1988) algorithm and
modified in 1999 to preserve the non-stationary character of the initial ground motion at long
period.
The time domain method is generally considered a better approach for spectral matching since
this method adjusts the acceleration time histories in the time domain by adding wavelets.

Time domain method was chosen for spectral matching, target response spectrum was set to
Indian Standard and reference acceleration time history was chosen as per required time history
functions. The uniform unit was set for both functions and the time history was matched.
Typical matching method is shown in figure below:

32
 Figure 22 Time History of El Centro earthquake matched to Response Spectrum

4.6 Linear Model Time History Analysis

The Linear modal time history analysis or mode superposition method is often preferred over
direct integration approach because it has more flexibility and a better control over the step-
by-step time integration of each modal equation, Singh and Ghafory Ashtiany (1986). The
models used were computed in a load-dependent Ritz-vector mode. Linear modal time history
analysis was performed to analyse the modal.

33
Figure 23 Defining Linear Modal Time History Analysis

34
 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
In the present study, Time History Analysis of two RC Framed Buildings was carried out for
two different earthquake motions. The results of time history analysis were interpreted to
investigate the effectiveness of different bearing types to minimize the base shear, story drift
and displacement. The isolators were designed for the absolute maximum vertical load under
the column and the isolators were placed under all columns. The results obtained have been
tabulated, charted and discussed in detail below:

5.1 Comparison of Base Shear

Table 2 Base Shear

Building Base
Earthquake Bearing Fixed Base
Number Isolated % Decrease
Time History Type (KN)
(KN)
Lead Plug
1254.02 50.22
Friction
El-Centro 1249.54 50.40
Pendulum
High
Damping 1049.43 58.34
Building Rubber
2519.13
1 Lead Plug
1661.67 34.03
Friction
Gorkha 1665.48 33.89
Pendulum
High
Damping 1499.61 40.47
Rubber
Lead Plug
1503 16.96
Friction
El-Centro 1510 16.57
Pendulum
High
Damping 1259 30.44
Building Rubber
1810
2 Lead Plug
1354 25.19
Friction
Gorkha 1350 25.41
Pendulum
High
Damping 1296 28.40
Rubber

35
 BASE SHEAR COMPARISON-1
3000

2500
BASE SHEAR (KN)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
Fixed Base Isolated

LPB-EL LPB-g FPB-EL FPB-G HDRB-EL HDRB-G

BASE SHEAR COMPARISON-2

2000

1800

1600

1400
BASE SHEAR (KN)

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
Fixed Base Isolated

LPB-EL LPB-g FPB-EL FPB-G HDRB-EL HDRB-G

36
The table and charts above show the values of base shear obtained for different bearing types
for two different buildings. Two different earthquake excitations i.e., El Centro and Gorkha
were used in time history analysis. As evidenced by the values from the table, the base shear
for the fixed base condition is much higher than the base shear for the building with different
isolator systems. The base shear was reduced by as much as 40% in the case of El Centro time
history with HDR bearings while the reduction in base shear for both FPB and LPB were
similar but were higher than that of the HDR bearings. Similar trend can be observed for
Gorkha earthquake as well.

The base shear for Building 1 under EL Centro time history was reduced by 50.22% and
50.40% in the case of Lead Plug bearing and Friction pendulum bearing respectively, while the
decrease for HDR bearing was found to be 58.34%. The damping values of both LPB and FPS
were very similar (10% and 11%), hence resulting in similar results in base shear reduction.
The damping value for HDR bearing was 20% and hence it yielded higher reduction in base
shear. In the case of Gorkha earthquake, the base shear for LPB and FPB were reduced by
34.03% and 33.89% respectively. Meanwhile for HDR bearing, it was 40.47%. So, in case of
building 1, isolator systems proved to be more effective under El-Centro earthquake than
Gorkha earthquake with HDR bearing system resulting in highest reduction of base shear in
the building.

In the case of Building 2, the reduction in base shear for LPB (16.96%) and FPB (16.57%)
were once again very similar while HDR (30.44%) yielded higher reduction in base shear. In
case of Gorkha earthquake however, the reduction in base shear for LPB, FPB and HDR were
found to be 25.19%, 25.41% and 28.40% respectively.

The comparison chart shows that base isolation results in decrement of the base shear of the
building. Furthermore, the results obtained from LPB and FPB systems are fairly similar while
HDRB system shows the most decrease in base shear of the building attributed to the higher
damping value of the HDRB bearing. The reduction in base shear under El Centro and Gorkha
Earthquakes were found to be vastly difference. One major reason for this discrepancy could
be attributed to the difference in frequency content of the different earthquake time histories.
El-Centro was an earthquake time history with high peak ground acceleration while Gorkha
earthquake was a long time period earthquake. Meanwhile, the reduction in base in Building 1
was found to be much more significant than that of Building 2 as Building 2 is only 3 stories
tall compared to building 1’s five stories.
From this a conclusion that can be drawn is that base isolation is more effective for buildings
with higher time period in terms of reduction in base shear of the building. Meanwhile, base
isolation in the case of El-Centro earthquake was found to be much more effective than in the
case of Gorkha earthquake.

37
5.2 Comparison of Isolator Displacement
Table 3 Isolator Displacement

Building Earthquake Fixed Base

Bearing Type Displacement(mm)
Number Time History (KN)
Lead Plug
18.65
El-Centro Friction
18.75
Pendulum
High Damping
19.76
Rubber N/A
Building 1
Lead Plug
36.74
Gorkha Friction
37.02
Pendulum
High Damping
38.58
Rubber
Lead Plug
7.52
El-Centro Friction
7.23
Pendulum
High Damping
12.78
Rubber N/A
Building 2
Lead Plug
2.43
Gorkha Friction
2.36
Pendulum
High Damping
2.90
Rubber

Isolator displacement refers to the maximum displacement of the isolator from its original
position after the application of lateral forces (seismic forces). From the table, for El Centro
earthquake, it can be seen that the isolator displacement values are largely similar for the taller
building while for the smaller building, HDR bearing resulted in the highest displacement of
isolator. The values of isolator displacement for LPB, FPB and HDR bearings were found to
be 18.65mm, 18.75mm and 19.76mm respectively. From here, it can be concluded that, while
HDR bearing reduces the seismic forces in the building significantly, it also results in large
lateral displacement upon the action of seismic forces.
Similarly, for Gorkha earthquake, the isolator displacement for building 1, while mostly similar
for all three bearing types (36.74mm, 37.02mm and 38.58mm), the actual value of
displacement was much higher than that of El Centro earthquake. A possible conclusion that
can be drawn from these values is that base isolation may not be very practicable for Gorkha
time history due to the large value of isolator displacement obtained.

38
Conversely, in the case of Building-2, the isolator displacement for EL-Centro was found to be
7.52mm, 7.23mm and 12.78mm respectively for LPB, FPB and HDR bearings while for
Gorkha it was found to be 2.43mm, 2.36 mm and 2.90 mm respectively. Since, Gorkha was an
high time period earthquake, it can be reasonably inferred that its effect on structures with low
time period is much less severe than that in the case of buildings with higher time period.

ISOLATOR DISPLACEMENT COMPARISON-1

45

40

35
DISPLACEMENT (MM)

30

25

20

15

10

0
Isolated

LPB-EL LPB-G FPB-EL FPB-G HDRB-EL HDRB-G

ISOLATOR DISPLACEMENT COMPARISON-2

14

12
DISPLACEMENT (MM)

10

0
Isolated

LPB-EL LPB-G FPB-EL FPB-G HDRB-EL HDRB-G

The above charts show the comparative isolator displacements for the two different buildings.
From the results obtained, it can be reasonably inferred, that for taller buildings, the isolator
displacement for Gorkha earthquake is much larger and hence base isolation may be difficult
with regards to displacement control of the building.

39
5.3 Comparison of Relative Roof Displacement
Table 4 Relative Roof Displacement

Building Base
Earthquake Bearing Fixed Base
Number Isolated % Decrease
Time History Type (mm)
(mm)
Lead Plug
21.17 25.80
Friction
El-Centro 21.12 25.97
Pendulum
High
Damping 18.60 34.80
Rubber
Building 1 28.53
Lead Plug
14.89 47.81
Friction
Gorkha 15.28 46.44
Pendulum
High
Damping 13.96 51.07
Rubber
Lead Plug
4.21 70.31
Friction
El-Centro 4.09 71.15
Pendulum
High
Damping 8.48 40.19
Rubber
Building 2 14.18
Lead Plug
1.30 90.83
Friction
Gorkha 1.26 91.11
Pendulum
High
Damping 1.46 89.70
Rubber

The table shows the reduction in the relative roof displacement of the structure. While the base
displacement of the building is increased due to the displacement of isolators, the roof
displacements themselves in comparison were found to have been reduced significantly. This
is particularly true incase of the smaller building where the relative roof displacement was
found to have been decreased by as much as 90%.

The values of roof displacement were found to have been decreased by 25.80% for LPB,
25.97% for FPB and 34.80% for HDRB for El-Centro time history in Building-1. While for
Gorkha earthquake, the displacements were, in respective order, decreased by 47.81%, 46.44%
and 51.07%. Once again, the isolation system proved more effective in case of deflection
control under Gorkha earthquake than in the case of El-Centro earthquake.

40
Similarly, for building-2, the reduction in roof displacements were found to be much for
significant than in building-1 with 70.31%, 71.15% and 40.19% reduction in case of El-Centro
to 90.83%, 91.11% and 89.70% reduction in case of Gorkha earthquake.
ROOF DISPLACEMENT COMPARISON-1
30

25
ROOF DISPLACEMENT (MM)

20

15

10

0
Fixed Base Isolated

LPB-EL LPB-G FPB-EL FPB-G HDRB-EL HDRB-G

ROOF DISPLACEMENT COMPARISON-2

16

14
ROOF DISPLACEMENT (MM)

12

10

0
Fixed Base Isolated

LPB-EL LPB-G FPB-EL FPB-G HDRB-EL HDRB-G

In the case of El Centro time history, the results show that high damping rubber bearings are
more effective in reducing the roof displacement of the structure while FPB and LPB yield
almost identical results.
But in the case of Gorkha time history, the isolators yielded similar results for smaller building.

41
 6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusion
The analysis of two RC framed buildings with fixed base and three different base isolation was
been carried out. The effectiveness of LPB, FPB and HDRB in the buildings using different
earthquake excitation was discussed. The following conclusions can be drawn from the
analysis;
1. The base shear and, relative roof displacement of the structure reduces significantly
while the time period increases with the introduction of a base isolation system as
compared to fixed base. The response of the structure to FPB and LPB bearings were
found to be largely similar while HDR bearings yielded slightly different results (more
reduction in base shear)
2. The results showed that the response of building to various earthquake excitations can
vary significantly. For the taller building, the isolators responses were similar in
comparison to one another but saw a significant difference in magnitude in between the
two-earthquake time history considered which can be attributed to the varying
frequency content of the time histories under consideration.
3. The isolator system’s effectiveness is dependent upon the height of the building. The
reduction in response of the smaller building was much for significant than that of the
taller building.

From the above analysis, it can be concluded that the isolation system performs well in the
sense of reducing structural responses as compared to the fixed base system. The roof
accelerations, base shear as well as relative roof displacement were all effectively reduced by
adoption of isolator systems with High Damping Rubber Bearings being the most effective.

6.2 Recommendations

1. In the present study, linear modal time history analysis was carried out. Non-linear time
history analysis may be carried out.
2. Analysis maybe carried out for time histories other than the ones considered in the
research.
3. Effect of infill masonry walls may be incorporated in the analysis.
4. Effect of soil structure interaction needs to be incorporated in the analysis.

42
REFERENCES

1. Mohod, Milind V. September 2015, Effect of Shape and Plan Configuration on Seismic
Response of Structure, Vol. 4.
2. Anilduke, Sonali and Khedikar, Amay. June 2015, Comparison of Building for Seismic
Response by using Base Isolation, Vol. 4.
3.Hacheem, Zuhair Abd and AL-Shimmari, Israa Khudair. September 2010, Finite Element
Analysis of a Friction Pendulum Bearing Base Isolation System for Earthquake Loads, Vol.
16.
4. Chopra, A. K. Dynamics of Structure Theory and Applications Earthquake Engineering.
First. New Jersey : Prentice Hall International, 1995.
5. Ambasta, Swapnil, Sahu, Dushyant and Khare, G. P. January 2018, Analysis of The Base
Isolated Building (Lead Plug Bearing) in ETABS, Vol. 5.
6. Bhujel, Bhisan. Effectiveness of Friction Pendulum Bearing on Reinforced Concrete Frame
Structure. Civil Engineering, Institute of Enginering. s.l. : Thapathali Campus, 2017.
7. Paudel, Mani. Effectiveness of Lead Plug Bearing (LPB) in Historic Masonry Building. Civil
Engineering, Institute of Engineering. s.l. : Thapathali Campus, 2018.
8. Computers and Structure Inc. Structural and Earthquake Engineering Software. [Online]
ETABS 2015. https://www.csiamerica.com.
9. Datta, T. K. Seismic Analysis of Structures. s.l. : John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd, 2010.
10. Jain, A. K. Reinforced Concrete: Limit State Design. 7. Jaipur : Nem Chand & Bros.,
Roorkee, 2012.
11. Ravi, Veena S. and Lekshmi, Sreedevi. Kollam : s.n., July 2016, Vol. 5.
12. Torunbalci, N. and Ozpalanlar, G. October 2008, Earthquake Response Analysis of Mid-
Story Buildings isolated with various seismic isolation Techniques.
13.Faraaz, Mohammed Irfaan and Patil, Amaresh S. 06, Karnataka : s.n., 2016, Comparative
Seismic Analysis of Base Isolated and Fixed Base RC Frame Building, Vol. 4. 2321-0613.
14. Clough, R.W. and Penzien, J. Dynamics of Structure. Second. New York : McGraw Hill
Publication, 1993.
15. Bureau of Indian Standard. Criteria for Earthquake Resistnat Design of Structures. New
Delhi : Indian Standard Code (2002), IS 1893 (part 1), 2002.
16. Tiong et al. (2017). Design approach of high damping rubber bearing for seismic isolation.
Smart Structures and Systems.

17. Mazza, Mirko. (2015). Nonlinear analysis of R.C. framed buildings retrofitted with
elastomeric and friction bearings under near-fault earthquakes.

18. Farissi et al.. (2013). Design And Analysis of Base Isolated Structures.

43
19. Manohar and Madhekar. Seismic Design of RC Building Theory and Practice. Springer
Transactions in Civil and Environmental Engineering. Springer New Delhi Heidelberg New
York Dordrecht London.

20. Nagarajaiah, Reinhorn, M.C. Constantinou (1991). 3D-Basis: Nonlinear dynamic analysis
of three-dimensional base isolated structures: part II. Technical Report NCEER-91-0005.

21. Arathy and Manju. Analysis of Friction Pendulum Bearing Isolated Structure. International
Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, Volume 03, 2016.

44
ANNEX
Sample calculations

1. Rubber Bearing:

1 INPUT DATA
Fixed Base Time Period 0.749 seconds
Damping Modification factor for 10% damping 0.8
Peak Ground Acceleration 0.36 g
Maximum Vertical Load 2325.53 KN

Target Time
2 Period 2.247 seconds

Effective
3 Stiffness 1853.559 KN/m

Maximum Design Displacement of Isolated

4 Structure 1.518732 m

5 Short term yield force 442.1887 KN

6 Post yield horizontal stiffness K2 1562.403 KN/m

Yield
7 Displacement Dy 0.031446 m

Geometric Design

Material Properties
E= 4450 KN/m2
eb= 500 %
G= 1060 KN/m2
Modification Factor (k)= 0.57

Design Shear Strain gmax = 50 %

Effective Damping Ratio xeff = 10 %
Yield Strength of Lead Core fpy = 8820 KN/m2
Allowable Normal Stress sc = 7840 KN/m2
Yield Strength of Steel Plates Fy = 274000 KN/m2
Shear Yield Strength of Steel Plates Fs = 164400 KN/m2

Lead Plug Area Ap = QD/fpy

= 0.0501 m2
Diameter of Lead Plug dP = 0.253 m
Assume Diameter as dP = 0.050 m

45
Total Height of Rubber Layer H = Sd/gmax
= 3.036 m
2
Select Shape Factor such that E(1+2kS )/G>400
S> 9.0940938
Use S= 10
Compression Modulus of Rubber-Steel Composite (EC) = 511750 KN/m2
Effective Area A0 of the bearing based on the allowable normal stress under vertical load case:
›‰œ•œœ
™š = Žž
≤
7840

A0= 0.30 m2

Effective area A1 from the shear strain condition for the vertical
load case

A1= 0.16 m2
Kd is related to Kr by
Kd = Kr(1+12Ap/A0)
Kr = 516.11 KN/m
Area of the rubber layer, A = 1.478 m2
Diameter, d = 1.37 m
 = 2 n# , ( Ÿ ) =
2.00

Are = 0.513 m2
A = max (A0,A1,A2) = 0.51 m2
d= 0.81 m
Adopt d = 0.90 m
A= 0.636 m2
Single Layer Rubber thickness: t = 0.0225 m
= 2.25 cm
Number of Layers: N = 134.93333
Use N = 135 Nos.
Steel Plate Thickness, ts > 2 mm
> 0.22 mm
Use ts = 2.5 mm
Total height of the isolator, h = 342.35 cm
Cover Plate Thickness = 0.025 m
Diameter of Cover Plate, D = 60 cm

46
 2. Friction Bearing
1 INPUT DATA
Fixed Base Time Period 0.749 seconds
Damping Modification factor for 10% damping 0.8
Peak Ground Acceleration 0.36 g
Maximum Vertical Load 2325.53 KN

Target Time
2 Period 2.247 seconds

3 Radius of Curvature 1.25 m

4 Horizontal Displacement(u) 0.25 m

5 Size of Isolator 99.63 mm

6 Depth of Disc 120 mm

7 K2 1853.559 KN/m

8 K1 1167071 KN/m

9 Linear effective stiffness 11670712 KN/m

10 Isolator Displacement 0.06 m

11 Re-centering Capacity 0.12>.06 (ok)

12 Damping Ratio 0.11

13 Slider rate 0.05 mm/s

14 Fast Frictional Coefficient 0.05

15 Slow Frictional Coefficient 0.025

47