See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233988069

BUILDING WITH BASE ISOLATION TECHNIQUES

Article ​· December
2012

CITATI
ON ​1
READ
S
1,95
3

1
author:

Mahmoud Shaaban Sayed

Ahmed ​Ryerson University

27 ​PUBLICATIONS ​36
CITATIONS

All in-text references ​underlined in blue ​are linked to publications on

SEE ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
PROFILE Available from: Mahmoud Shaaban Sayed
Ahmed Retrieved on: 25 June 2016

Code: C12 ​BUILDING WITH BASE ISOLATION

TECHNIQUES
 Mahmoud Sayed-Ahmed​1 ​Civil Engineering Department, Ryerson
University, Toronto, ON, Canada

ABSTRACT ​Base isolation (BI) system for buildings is introduced to decouple the
building structure from potentially damaging induced by earthquake motion, preventing
the building superstructures from absorbing the earthquake energy. The mechanism of
the base isolator increases the natural period of the overall structure, and decreases its
acceleration response to earthquake / seismic motion. A steel building with structural
rubber bearing is introduced throughout this study. The study analysis performed to
check for the adequacy of the base isolation against building lateral drift and inter-story
drift as per allowance in National Building Code of Canada 2010. Two buildings were
analyzed using the nonlinear time history response analysis using the dynamic MODAL
analysis for fixed base (FB) building, and Isolated base (IB) building with rubber bearing.
The analysis represents a case study for symmetric steel building to show the ultimate
capacity of the selected structural bearing, and to make a comparison for the difference
between the isolated base and the fixed base buildings. Initial results show that the
presence of the structural rubber bearing reduces significantly the vertical displacement,
moment and shear generated for the same mode.

Keywords​: building, base isolation, rubber bearing, earthquake, dynamics, time history
response

INTRODUCTION
Base isolation (BI) is a mechanism that provides earthquake resistance to the new
structure. The BI system decouple the building from the horizontal ground motion
induced by earthquake, and offer a very stiff vertical components to the base level of the
superstructure in connection to substructure (foundation). It shifts the fundamental

lateral period, T​a​, dissipates the energy

​ in damping, and reduces the amount of the
lateral forces that transferred to the inter-story drift, and the floor acceleration. The
Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEONC) published a simple
regulation titled “Tentative Isolation Design Requirements” in 1986, which later was
added as provisions in the Uniform Building Code 1997, FEMA 273 with exception of
permit to pushover, and International Building Code IBC2000. The structural bearing
criteria include vertical and horizontal loads, lateral motion, and lateral rotation that
transferred from the superstructure into the bearing and from the bearing to

1​
PhD. Candidate, Civil Engineering Department, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON,

Canada. Email: m.sayedahmed@alumni.ryerson.ca

​
 Al-Azhar University Engineering
Journal, JAUES Vol. 7, No. 1, Dec. 2012
147
substructure. Bearing allows for stress-free support of the structure in terms of (1)
rotation in all directions, (2) deformation in all directions, (3) take horizontal forces (wind,
earthquake). Reducing the effect of the horizontal forces generated from wind pressure
or earthquake load is of great concern to designers. The structural bearing technique is
one of those tools to reduce the lateral displacement of the building, to increase the
structural safety, and to increase the human comfort during the occurrence of such
event. This study tries of clarify the advantage of the base isolation technique with
respect to buildings since only few researches were done into this area. Figure 1 shows
the schematic diagram for the design process for building against earthquake loading as
governed by the National Building Code of Canada 2010 part 4. Clause 4.1.1.4 in NBCC
2010 specifies that buildings and their structural members shall be designed by one of
the following methods (i) analysis based on generally established theory, (ii) evaluation
of a given full-scale structure or a prototype by loading tester or (iii) studies of model
analogues. Throughout this model analogue study the selected building height will be
less than 60 m for regular shape building.
For earthquake resistant construction using base isolation [Raufaste, 1992] it was
found that more attention should be paid to four points: 1. preparation of guidelines for
evaluation and approval of base isolation structures; 2. preparation of guidelines related
to the performance of base isolation devices; 3. facilities to encourage exchange,
collection and dissemination of technical information on the response-control structure;
and 4. study of methods of evaluation of performance of response-control structures. A
study run by Sener and Utku for the active-passive base-isolation systems used for the
seismic response control of structures appears to be effective for small to medium
strength earthquakes. Hybrid base isolation systems, which use an active system
together with the passive base isolation system, may be used to control the response of
structures subjected to larger ground motions created by larger magnitude earthquakes.
The hybrid base isolation system using passive base isolation pads together with
hydraulic type actuators is proposed. The system, placed between the foundation of the
building and its superstructure, is used to minimize the forces imposed on the
superstructure by the earthquake induced ground motion [Sener and Utku, 1995, 1996,
1998; Pozo et al., 2005]. In application for the base-isolation system, the Historical
buildings have relatively low height, are usually massive and their natural vibration
period is rather low. Hence if such buildings are located in a seismically active region,
using base isolation systems will be a very effective way for improving their dynamic
response. In some cases the displacements at the base isolation level are rather big
and exceed the allowed limits. In such cases it is recommended to add dampers to the
base isolation system [Iskhakov and Ribakov, 2007]. Analytical seismic responses of
structures retrofitted using base isolation devices are investigated by Matsagar and
Jangid for the retrofitting of various important structures as historical buildings, bridges,
and liquid storage tanks are selected to investigate the effectiveness of the base
isolation in seismic retrofitting. It is observed that the seismic response of the retrofitted
structures reduces significantly in comparison with the conventional structures depicting
effectiveness of the retrofitting done through the base isolation technique [Matsagar,
and Jangid 2008]. Chia-Ming and Spencer presented development and experimental
verification of an active base isolation system for a seismically excited building and
modeling the complex nature of control-structure interaction (CSI) [Chia-Ming and
Spencer, 2010]. Jung et al. investigated a smart base-isolation system using
magnetorheological (MR) elastomers, which are

Vol. 7, No. 1, Dec.

2012 ​148
a new class of smart materials whose elastic modulus or stiffness can be adjusted
depending on the magnitude of the applied magnetic field. The results further suggest
that the feasibility of using MR elastomers as variable stiffness elements for enhancing
the performance of conventional base-isolation systems [Jung et al. 2011]. Zhang et al.
studied the influence of the action of coupling earthquake to sliding base-isolation
structure for 6 story building. The results by exemplification show that the peak values of
relative acceleration, relative displacement and inter-storey shear force of sliding
base-isolation structure increase in different degree under the action of coupling
earthquake [Zhang et al., 2011]. Regarding the slide-limited friction base isolation
technology, Zhao and Ma studied the total restoring force model of isolation device.
They analyzed the influential factors such as friction coefficient, elastic stiffness and
yield displacement of displacement-constraint device on base isolation system [Zhao
and Ma 2011]. Spyrakos et al. investigated and developed 2-DOF (degree-of-freedom)
for the effect of soil- structure interaction (SSI) on the response of the base isolated
multistory building founded on elastic soil layer overlaying rigid bedrock and subjected to
harmonic ground motion [Spyrakos et al. 2009]. Li & Wu investigated the limitation of
height-to-width ration (HWR) for base-isolated building with elastomeric rubber bearing.
It was found that the isolated building with longer period may have a relatively HWR
value: and the stiffness of the superstructure affects HWR limit value little [Li and Wu
2006]. The main two key conditions, which determine the HWR limit for an isolated
structure, are: (1) the outermost rubber pads of the isolated layer cannot bear tensile
force; (2) the compressive force that the outermost rubber pads bear cannot exceed
their ultimate antipressure strength.
The main objectives of this study work can be stated as follow: (1) To contribute to
the efficient design of structural base isolated techniques for buildings, (2) To model and
investigate a behavior of building with base isolation.

BUILDING DESCRIPTION
A two story building made of steel structure [SAP2000 Help, Example O], as shown
in Figure 2, with 3 bays of 30 feet in each direction; the story height is 12 feet, as shown
in Figure 3.1. The structural steel has the following spec; the modulus of elasticity E =
29000 ksi (A992Fy50), Poisson ratio equals to 0.3, the beam section is W24x55, the
column section is W14x90. The horizontal slabs are reinforced concrete of 4000 psi and
6 in, 10 in of thickness for the roof and the floor respectively. The vertical loads for roof
is 75 psf for the dead load (DL) and 20 psf for live load (LL), while for the floor is 125 psf
for DL, and 100 psf for LL.

Table 1. High damping bearing

Properties

Vertical (axial) stiffness 10,000 k/in (linear) Initial shear stiffness in each direction 10
K/in Shear yield force in each direction 5 kips Ratio of post yield shear stiffness to
initial shear stiffness 0.2

Diaphragm constraints at each level are assigned to make all diaphragm rigid. This
project was subjected to nonlinear time history analysis, where seismic load
(Multi-Modal Pushover) is applied by SAP2000 for lacc_nor-1 file data in the X-direction
and lacc_nor-2 file data in the Y- direction simultaneously. Each time history is given in
units of cm/sec​2​, where there are 3000
Vol. 7, No. 1, Dec.
2012 ​149
time steps, at equal spacing of 0.02 sec, for total of 60 sec. There are 8 acceleration
points per line. This building is analyzed under two cases; case 1 with fixed base, and
case 2 with isolated base. The rubber isolator has specification listed in Table 1.

ISOLATED BASE BUILDING

The base isolation extends the fundamental lateral period resulting in reducing the
base shear forces, enhancing the total building drift to the total height and the inter-story
drift if compared with the conventional foundations [Chopra, 2001; Tedesco et al., 1998;
Eggert and Kauschke, 2002]. Figure 3.a depicts the time response history for column
B.1 with its three joints; Joint 13-15, the figure shows that the column from the base to
the roof level moves laterally in a same rate, thus no deflection occurs at the joint 14,
Figure 3.b depicts the B.1 column movement with respect to the base, and shows that to
great extent the column move with base in same direction. It is worth mention that the
change in the fundamental period changes the moment, and consequently changes the
building deformation shape. It was observed that with the decrease of the natural period,
the structure laterally deforms more. The plastic hinge showed up at the fourth and fifth
period.

FIXED BASE BUILDING

The fixed base for the steel columns relies on the steel plate and anchored bolts
connection, where the reduce of the fundamental lateral period resulted into increase of
the base shear forces, increase of the total building drift to the total height and the
 inter-story drift if compared with the base-isolated foundations. Figure 4.a depicts the
time response history for column B.1 with its three joints; Joint 13-15, the figure shows
that the column from the base to the roof level moves laterally in an independent rate,
thus deflection occurs at the joint 14, Figure 4.b depicts the B.1 column movement with
respect to the base, and shows that Joint 13 move the base while joint 14, and 15 move
independently. It is worth mention that the change in the fundamental period changes
the moment values, and consequently changes the building deformation shapes. It was
observed that with the decrease of the period, the structure laterally deforms more, with
higher rate than that of the base isolated building. The plastic hinge location appeared
from the first mode and change by the change in MODAL period. It can be located at
any point along the span of member as well as the end of the member.

COMPARISON OF EVALUATION RESULTS

The fundamental lateral period was solved using the finite element analysis (FEA)
software, SAP2000 Ver. 14.1. Table 2 shows that the fundamental period (T) and the
corresponding frequency (ƒ=1/T) for the Modal participating mass ratio (MPMR) solved
for Ritz Vector Analysis for the steel building under investigation in this study which has
two scenarios; (a) fixed base, and (b) the isolated base. It was found that the natural
period for the isolated base is higher than that of the fixed base by 5.699, 6.337, 6.895,
1.64, 1.766 times for Modal 1 through 5 respectively. The first three modes were
significantly higher, where they absorb more than 95% of the earthquake-induced load
[Taranath, 2005]. Figure 5, shows the natural vibration modes for the isolated base and
fixed base building against the lateral displacement.

Vol. 7, No. 1, Dec.

2012 ​150
Moment and shear forces generated from each mode are of great concern to designers, to
predict the failure modes, progressive collapse of the building, or to add extra bracing to resist
such lateral loading.
Table 2. Modal participating mass ratio (MPMR) for fixed and isolated base building
Modal Mode
Period, T [seconds] Frequency, ƒ [Hz] Fixed Base Isolated Base Fixed Base Isolated Base 1
0.49310 2.81065 2.0279 0.35578 2 0.35973 2.79750 2.7799 0.35746 3 0.35117 2.42137
2.8476 0.41298 4 0.19916 0.32664 5.0211 3.06147 5 0.14006 0.24728 7.1397 4.04399
Where ƒ ≥ 1 Hz for rigid building, ƒ < 1 Hz for flexible building
Table 3 analyzes the moment (M) and shear (V) values for column B.1 and its 3 joints under
five different MODAL periods (modes) for minor (V3, M2) and major (V2, M3). Selection the
moment and shear values for the roof, it was found that the moment for the fixed base building
is higher than that of the isolated base building by 51.38, 20455, 0.31, 2.34 and 2.23 for mode 1
through 5 respectively for the minor (M2), and 70, 106, 66, 13.7, and 2.289 for mode 1 through
5 respectively for the major (M3). Hence the base isolation enhances the building capacity to
resist the earthquake-induced load, and that reduction in moment could be used towards
reducing the selection members sizes, reducing the total building weight and cost, after
considering the new mass of the building.
Drift is another point of interest to designers and must conform to code requirements. Table 4
shows the deflections in x, y, z directions for the edge column B.1 under the different 5 MODAL
(periods) for the fixed base and the isolated base building. The major observation to this table is
that the deflection for the base isolated building doesn’t start from zero, thus reduces
significantly the drift index for the building. For example in studying the drift index (DI) for
MODAL mode 1, the drift index for the isolated base = (0.46999” – 0.4518”)/288” = 0.063159E-
3 in, while for the fixed base building DI = (0.7459” – 0”)/288” = 2.589E-3 in, which means that
the deflection in base isolated building is less by 40.99 times than that of the conventional fixed
structure. It worth mention that the building efficiency is measured by four factors; the shear
rigidity index (SRI), bending rigidity index (BRI), the drift index (DI) and the inter-story drift (ISD)
[Taranath, 2005], where the last two criterions can be expressed as following:
[1] ⁄
[2] ⁄

Where Δ​n ​is the deflection at the floor; H​i ​is the total height of the building, h​i ​is the floor height.
The joint reactions in Table 5 are obtained using modal combination applied individually to each
joint. The joint reactions are represented as R​i,m where
​ is (i) is for the direction, and (m) for
mode. The total reaction follows this equation
Vol. 7, No. 1, Dec. 2012 ​151

[3] √∑

For example the joint reaction, for the isolated base building in X-direction equals to
SQRT (0.684​2​+0.748​2​+0.867​2​) = 1.33 kips, while for the fixed base building it is equal to
SQRT (3.134E-2​2​+37.054​2​+34.076​2​+8.258E-3​2​+66.903​2​) = 83.727 kips. Apparently, the
joint reaction in fixed base building for column B.1 in X-direction is higher by 62.95 times
than that of the base isolated building. While the base reactions for response spectrum
are computed for each mode and then the modes are combined using complete
quadratic combination (CQC) or square root of sum of squares (SRSS) modal
combination rule:

[4] ∑

[5] √∑

Where for the base reaction, all joint reactions from all columns must be computed
[CSI, 2012].
 Alternative simplified analysis simulating the dynamic response of multi-story
building can be done by converting the multi-degree of freedom (MDOF) system to
Single-degree of freedom (SDOF) system once the equivalent mass and stiffness is
obtained [Taranath, 2005].

CONCLUSIONS ​Based on the theoretical and modeling findings, the following

conclusions can be drawn:
• The main observation from the modeling study on the accuracy of seismic effect
and lateral load patterns utilized in the Multi-Modal Pushover analysis (MPA) in
predicting earthquake effect showed that the accuracy of the pushover results
depends strongly on the earthquake load path, properties of the structure and the
characteristics of the ground motion.
• The lateral deflection for MDOF for multi-story building can be represented as
SDOF once the equivalent mass and stiffness is obtained.
• The plastic hinge location varies by the type of loading, and the change in MODAL
period. It can be located at any point along the span of member as well as the end of
the member.
• Drift index and inter-story drift should be predicted using the multi-modal (SRSS)
and the elastic first mode with long period for the lateral load pattern which
corresponds to the average in most cases.
• Base-isolated structure exhibit less lateral deflection, as the lateral displacement at
the base never equals to zero, and less moment values than the fixed base
structure.
• The base isolation decouples the building from the earthquake-induced load, and
maintain longer fundamental lateral period than that of the fixed base.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Vol. 7, No. 1, Dec.

2012 ​152
The author would like to thank Prof. Dr. K.M. Anwar Hossain, P.Eng. for his helpful
directions during the course of this research. The author also appreciate the support
from Ryerson University, ON, Canada; library for support and making the available
database for literature review and civil engineering department for offering the SAP2000
(Ver. 14) to run the modal analysis.

REFERENCES ​Chia-Ming, C. and Spencer Jr., B. F. (2010). "An Experimental Study of

Active Base Isolation Control for Seismic Protection," in Sensors and Smart Structures
Technologies for Civil, Mechanical, and Aerospace Systems, 8-11 March, USA, p.
76473V (12 pp.). Chopra, A.R. (2001). “Dynamics of structures.” Prentice-Hall, New
Jersy, USA. CSI. (accessed March 2012). “Base reactions for response spectrum,”
website:
https://wiki.csiberkeley.com/display/kb/Base+reactions+for+response+spectrum+analysi
s . Eggert, H., Kauschke, W. (2002). “Structural Bearings,” Ernst & Sohn, Germany.
FEMA. (1997). “NEHRP Guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA
273.”
Federal Emergency Management Agency, California, USA Jung, H.-J.: Seung-Hyun,
E.: Dong-Doo, J.: Jeong-Hoi, K. (2011). "Seismic performance analysis of a smart
base-isolation system considering dynamics of MR elastomers." 55 City Road, London,
EC1Y 1SP, United Kingdom, pp. 1439-1450. International Code Council. (2000).
“International Building Code.” ICC Inc., Country Club Hills,
IL, USA. International Conference of Building Officials. (1997). “Uniform Building
Code.” ICBO,
Whittier, California, USA. Iskhakov, I. and Ribakov, Y. (2007). "Modern trends in base
isolation applications for seismic protection of historic buildings." in 10th International
Conference on Studies, Repairs and Maintenance of Heritage Architecture, STREMAH
2007, June 4, 2007 - June 6, 2007, Prague, Czech republic, pp. 623-632. Li, H.-N, and
Wu, X.-X. (2006). “Limitation of height-to-width ration for base-isolated buildings
under earthquake.” Structural Design of Tall Special Building, vol. 15, pp. 277-287.
Matsagar, V. A. and Jangid, R. S. (2008). "Base isolation for seismic retrofitting of
structures."
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, Vol. 13, pp. 175-185.
National Research Council of Canada. (2010). “National Building Code of Canada.”
NRCC,
Ottawa, Canada. Pozo, F., Ikhouane, F., and Pujol, G. (2006). “Adaptive backstepping
control of hysteretic based-
isolated structures.” Journal of Vibration and Control, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 373-394.
Raufast, N.J. (1992). “Earthquake resistant construction using base isolation.” U.S.
Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Institute of Standards
and Technology, USA. Sener, M. and Utku, S. (1995). "Active-passive base isolation
system for seismic response controlled structures." in Proceedings of the 36th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference and AIAA/ASME Adaptive Structures Forum. Part 1 (of 5), April 10- 13, New
Orleans, LA, USA, pp. 2350-2359. Sener, M. and Utku, S. (1996). "Control of torsional
modes in buildings under seismic excitation by adaptive base isolation." Smart
Structures and Materials 1996: Passive Damping and Isolation, Febrary 26-27, San
Diego, CA, USA, pp. 145-156. Sener, M. and Utku, S. (1998). "Adaptive base isolation
system for the control of seismic energy flow into buildings." Journal of Intelligent
Material Systems and Structures, vol. 9, pp. 104-15.

Vol. 7, No. 1, Dec.

 2012 ​153
Spyrakos, C.C.: Koutromanos, I.A.: Maniatakis, Ch.A. (2008). “Seismic response of
base-isolated buildings including soil-structure interaction.” Soil dynamics and
earthquake engineering, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 658-668. Structural Engineers Association
of Northern California. (1986). “Tentative Isolation Design
Requirements, Blue book.” SEONC, California, USA. Taranath, B.S. (2005). “Wind
and Earthquake Resistant Buildings: structural analysis and
design.” Marcel Dekker, New York, USA. Tedesco, J.W., McDougal, W.G., and Ross
C.A. (1998). “Structural dynamics: Theory and
applications.” Prentice Hall, USA. Zhang Y.: Yuanging, W: Yongjiu, S. (2011).
"Parameters optimization of sliding base-isolation structure under the action of coupling
earthquake." 1st International Conference on Civil Engineering, Architecture and
Building Materials, CEABM, June 18- 20, Haikou, China, pp. 4021-4027. Zhao, G.-F.
and Ma, Y.-H. (2011). "Parameters study of rural buildings structures supported on
slide-limited friction base isolation system." Journal of Vibration and Shock, vol. 30, pp.
148-152.
 Vol. 7, No. 1, Dec.
2012 ​154
Table 3. Modal moment and shear values for edge column B.1
Modal 1 Modal 2 Modal 3 Modal 4 Modal 5
H​
Moment Shear Moment Shear Moment Shear Moment Shear Moment Shear
solated-Base ​ inor (V3 ,
I​ M​
2) ​288 10.95 -0.146 -0.012 2.4E-4 -3.452 0.047 1104.155 -15.399 -423.458 5.990 ​
M​ 144 -10.06
-0.146 0.022 2.4E-4 3.375 0.047 -1110.116 -15.399 437.875 5.990 144 29.27 -0.411 -0.035
5.2E-4 -8.186 0.115 1431.488 -20.376 -536.685 7.627 0 -29.27 -0.411 0.040 5.2E-4 8.403
0.115 -1502.657 -20.376 561.644 7.627
 ajor (V2, M3)
M​
288 4.5E-3 2.3E-4 14.804 -0.19 22.168 -0.28 -0.246 0.022 2765.094 -37.176 144 0.038 2.3E-4
-12.55 -0.19 -18.120 -0.28 2.864 0.022 -2588.261 -37.176 144 -0.086 1.4E-3 32.193 -0.457
49.083 -0.698 -4.993 0.072 3107.763 -45.283 0 0.112 1.4E-3 -33.644 -0.457 -51.388 -0.698
5.389 0.072 -3413.022 -45.283
ixed-Base ​ inor (V3 ,
F​ M​
2) ​288 562.661 -7.645 245.464 -3.435 1.067 -0.023 -2586.53 38.47 944.549 -13.976 ​
M​ 144
-538.23 -7.645 -249.23 -3.435 -2.209 -0.023 2921.005 38.47 -1068.03 -13.976 144 1133.21
-16.52 403.782 -5.849 2.217 -0.023 1862.977 -25.378 -691.367 9.451 0 -1245.9 -16.52
-438.537 -5.849 -1.082 -0.023 -1791.469 -25.378 669.645 9.451
ajor (V2, M3)
M​
288 -0.315 0.021 -1569.76 20.652 -1477.367 19.656 3.372 -0.038 -6329.895 94.133 144 2.776
0.021 1404.129 20.652 1353.073 19.656 -2.092 -0.038 7225.272 94.133 144 -3.192 0.031
-2430.91 37.054 -2251.606 34.076 0.841 -8.2E-3 4966.383 -66.903 0 1.321 0.031 2904.872
37.054 2655.291 34.076 -0.348 -8.2E-3 -4667.693 -66.903
H is the building height in [in], M is the moment in [kip-in], V is the shear force in [kip
Vol. 7, No. 1, Dec. 2012 ​155
Table 4. Joint displacement in column B.1
Modal Mode
Joint Fixed Base Isolated Base [Height] U1 U2 U3 U1 U2 U3 15 [288] ​-9.2E-14 -0.7459 -0.0032
-2.2E-11 -0.4699 -0.0001 ​1 14 [144] -​ 5.4E-14 -0.4597 -0.0025 -2.2E-11 -0.4642 -0.0001 ​13 [0.00] 0
​ .00
0.00 0.00 ​-2.2E-11 -0.4518 -4.8E-5
​ .8412 -0.2804 -0.0026 -0.4659 1.9E-11 2.3E-5 ​2 14 [144] ​0.4806 -0.1602 0.0021 -0.4625
15 [288] 0
1.8E-11 2.1E-5 ​13 [0.00] ​0.00 0.00 0.00 ​-0.456 1.8E-11 1.1E-5
15 [288] ​0.7684 1.6E-13 -0.0013 -0.5141 0.1714 6.7E-5 ​3 14 [144] ​0.4362 9.0E-14 -0.001 -0.5088
0.1696 6.0E-5 ​13 [0.00] 0 ​ .00 0.00 0.00 ​-0.4987 0.1662 2.9E-5
15 [288] 1 ​ .19E-14 0.5858 0.0073 -3.3E-14 -0.6543 -0.0086 ​4 14 [144] -​ 1.03E-14 0.5853 0.0043
​ .00 0.00 0.00 ​2.6E-14 0.5306 -0.0031
-1.8E-15 -0.1044 -0.0073 ​13 [0.00] 0
15 [288] 0​ .6114 -0.2038 -0.0062 -0.727 0.2423 0.0066 ​5 14 [144] -​ 0.6612 0.2204 -0.0034 -0.1064
0.0355 0.0056 ​13 [0.00] 0​ .00 0.00 0.00 ​0.0025 -0.1926 0.5778
Where U1, U2, U3 are displacement in x, y, z directions respectively in [in]; Height in [in]
Table 5. Joint reactions for column B.1 at the base (Joint 13)
Joint reaction [kip]
Structure Type Type ​
123
Isolated Base
Modal1 0.000 0.678 0.480 Modal 2 0.684 0.000 -0.108 Modal 3 0.748 -0.249 -0.291 Modal 4
0.000 -0.796 31.454 Modal 5 -0.867 0.289 -24.722 Gravity 0.000 0.000 361.487
Fixed Base
Modal 1 -3.134E-2 16.522 13.514 Modal 2 37.054 5.849 10.948 Modal 3 -34.076 2.291E-2
5.603 Modal 4 8.258E-3 25.378 -22.900 Modal 5 66.903 -9.451 18.251 Gravity 0.179 0.404
360.799 Directions 1, 2, 3 represent X, Y, Z axis respectively; Gravity load equals to dead and
live load
Al-Azhar University Engineering Journal, JAUES Vol. 7, No. 1, Dec. 2012 156

Figure 1. Design procedure for Base Isolation buildings according to

NBCC 2005
 Vol. 7, No. 1, Dec.
2012 ​157
Joint
15

Joint
13
Figure 2. 3D Finite element model
a. displacement of column (joint 15, 13) b. displacement of column w.r.t. base
Figure 3. Isolated base building response histories
a. displacement of column (joint 15, 13) b. displacement of column w.r.t. base
Figure 4. Fixed base building ​r​esponse histories
350
350
300
300
250
250
200
200 Mode 1
Mode 2
150
150
Mode 3
100
100
Mode 4
50

n
50 Mode 5 0-1 -0.5 0 ​
i, thgie​
H​0​Displacment, in
0.5 1
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
a. Isolated base building b. Fixed base building
Figure 5. Natural vibration modes
Vol. 7, No. 1, Dec. 2012 ​158
eight, in
H​
Displacement, in
Mode 1
Mode 2
Mode 3
Mode 4
Mode 5
Vol. 7, No. 1, Dec.
2012 ​159