Sustainability 08 00109 PDF

sustainability
Article
Seismic Response and Performance Evaluation of
Self-Centering LRB Isolators Installed on the CBF
Building under NF Ground Motions
Junwon Seo 1 and Jong Wan Hu 2,3, *
1 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007,
USA; junwon.seo@sdstate.edu
2 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Incheon National University, 12-1 Songdo-dong,
Yeonsu-gu, Incheon 22012, Korea
3 Head of Center, Incheon Disaster Prevention Research Center, Incheon National University,
12-1 Songdo-dong, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon 22012, Korea
* Correspondence: jongp24@incheon.ac.kr; Tel.:+82-32-835-8463; Fax: +82-32-835-0775
Academic Editor: Marc A. Rosen

Received: 2 December 2015; Accepted: 19 January 2016; Published: 26 January 2016
Abstract: This paper mainly treats the seismic behavior of lead-rubber bearing (LRB) isolation systems
with superealstic shape memory alloy (SMA) bending bars functioning as damper and self-centering
devices. The conventional LRB isolators that are usually installed at the column bases supply extra
flexibility to the centrically braced frame (CBF) building with a view to elongate its vibration period,
and thus make a contribution to mitigating seismic acceleration transferred from ground to structure.
However, these base isolation systems are somehow susceptible to shear failure due to the lack of
lateral resistance. In the construction site, they have been used to be integrated with displacement
control dampers additionally withstanding lateral seismic forces. For this motivation, LRB isolation
systems equipped with superelastic SMA bending bars, which possess not only excellent energy
dissipation but also outstanding recentering capability, are proposed in this study. These reinforced
and recentering LRB base isolators are modeled as nonlinear component springs, and then assigned
into the bases of 2D frame models used for numerical simulation. Their seismic performance and
capacity in the base-isolated frame building can be evaluated through nonlinear dynamic analyses
conducted with historic ground motion data. After comparative study with analyses results, it is
clearly shown that 2D frame models with proposed LRB isolators generally have smaller maximum
displacements than those with conventional LRB isolators. Furthermore, the LRB isolation systems
with superelastic SMA bending bars effectively reduce residual displacement as compared to those
with steel bending bars because they provide more flexibility and recentering force to the entire
building structure.
Keywords: recentering capability; energy dissipation; Shape Memory Alloy (SMA); Lead-rubber
Bearing (LRB); base-isolated frame
1. Introduction
Base isolation systems have been early introduced in the construction field so as to reduce
structural damage caused by strong earthquake events, and typically represented by lead-rubber
bearing (LRB) isolators [1–3]. These LRB isolators are installed with an intention to separate main
structures from below ground, and accordingly can appease seismic force by supplying extra flexibility
to base columns [3–5]. They prevent entire member damage from severe ground motion as decreasing
transferred accelerations with an intention to extend the vibration period of the supporting structure.
Sustainability 2016, 8, 109; doi:10.3390/su8020109 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2016, 8, 109 2 of 22
The base isolation systems passively cope with seismic motion because they can allow displacement
along the direction of the earthquake event. In spite of many advantages, the use of base isolation
systems has been restricted to low-to-midrise buildings rather than high-rise buildings in2 of 24
Sustainability 2016, 8, 109
that base
isolators installed have to uphold entire gravity loads at the sub-parts [6–9]. Contrarily, bracing
members utilized as active vibration control devices act properly even in the high-rise building. It is
can allow displacement along the direction of the earthquake event. In spite of many advantages, the
use of base isolation
possible to repair the frame systems has been
building restricted
subjected to low‐to‐midrise
to severe seismic loadingbuildings
when rather
onlythan high‐rise
damaged bracing
buildings
members in that base
are replaced with isolators
new onesinstalled have
[10–12]. to uphold once
However, entire gravity
shear loads
failure at the at
occurs sub‐parts
the base[6–9].
isolators,
Contrarily, bracing members utilized as active vibration control devices act properly even in the high‐
we will have no choice but to rebuild entire buildings due to rapid degradation in serviceability [13–16].
rise building. It is possible to repair the frame building subjected to severe seismic loading when only
As modern civil structures become gradually more massive and larger and with increasing occurrence
damaged bracing members are replaced with new ones [10–12]. However, once shear failure occurs
of earthquake events, scientists and engineers have been progressively increasing recognition about
at the base isolators, we will have no choice but to rebuild entire buildings due to rapid degradation
the improvement of the base isolation system for wide application.
in serviceability [13–16]. As modern civil structures become gradually more massive and larger and
Figure 1a shows shear failure that occurs at the LRB isolator exceeding allowable lateral
with increasing occurrence of earthquake events, scientists and engineers have been progressively
displacement while Figure 1b presents the LRB isolator that is combined in parallel with the damper
increasing recognition about the improvement of the base isolation system for wide application.
device usedFigure to protect
1a shows itsshear
shearfailure
failure.
that This
occurs damper
at the device avoids
LRB isolator the failure
exceeding of thelateral
allowable base LRB
displacement while Figure 1b presents the LRB isolator that is combined in parallel with the damper
isolator by adding additional resistance against lateral loading as well as by generating supplemental
device used to protect its shear failure. This damper device avoids the failure of the base LRB isolator
damping [13,15,16]. Although damper devices used for reinforcing are impaired by strong excitation,
by
damaged adding additional
base isolation resistance
systems canagainst
be easilylateral loading
repaired as well them
to replace as by with
generating
new ones. supplemental
Owing to the
damping [13,15,16]. Although damper devices used for reinforcing are impaired by strong excitation,
characteristics of the replaceable structural fuse, the damper devices assembled to the base isolation
damaged base isolation systems can be easily repaired to replace them with new ones. Owing to the
system are encouraged to possess both energy dissipation capacity attributed to large hysteretic loop
characteristics of the replaceable structural fuse, the damper devices assembled to the base isolation
area and recentering capability attributed to small permanent deformation. Superelastic shape memory
system are encouraged to possess both energy dissipation capacity attributed to large hysteretic loop
alloysarea
(SMAs) that satisfycapability
and recentering these requirement
attributed conditions have been
to small permanent recently receiving
deformation. moreshape
Superelastic attention
to their application to the damper systems [17–20]. Figure 2 shows the typical stress-strain curve for
memory alloys (SMAs) that satisfy these requirement conditions have been recently receiving more
superelastic SMA materials. The most commonly used SMAs referred to as Nitinol (nickel-titanium)
attention to their application to the damper systems [17–20]. Figure 2 shows the typical stress‐strain
curve for superelastic SMA materials. The most commonly used SMAs referred to as Nitinol (nickel‐
alloys are composed of 56% nickel by weight and 44% titanium [21]. Above the austenite finishing
titanium) alloys are composed of 56% nickel by weight and 44% titanium [21]. Above the austenite
temperature (Af), SMA materials exhibit superelasticity which goes back to their original configuration
finishing temperature (Af), SMA materials exhibit superelasticity which goes back to their original
upon unloading without any heat treatment [19–21]. The flag-shaped hysteresis loop with a stress
configuration upon unloading without any heat treatment [19–21]. The flag‐shaped hysteresis loop
plateau is able to dissipate a considerable amount of energy during cyclic loads, meaning that it takes
with a stress plateau is able to dissipate a considerable amount of energy during cyclic loads, meaning
advantage of absorbing vibrations. Furthermore, this behavior displays nearly zero residual strain
that it takes advantage of absorbing vibrations. Furthermore, this behavior displays nearly zero
only residual strain only after stress removal.
after stress removal.

Figure 1. Failure configuration and existing protection methodology of base LRB isolators.
Figure 1. Failure configuration and existing protection methodology of base LRB isolators.
For these reasons, new base isolation systems that consist of the LRB isolator and the damper
For these
devices are reasons,
proposed new base
in this isolation
study. systems
In other that
words, consist ofSMA
superelastic the bending
LRB isolator and the
bars acting as damper
the
reinforced and recentering damper are placed around the LRB isolator. Thereafter,
devices are proposed in this study. In other words, superelastic SMA bending bars acting as the concentrically
braced and
reinforced frame (CBF) buildings
recentering damper are are
designed
placed by around
installing
thethese
LRBnew base isolation
isolator. systems
Thereafter, at the
concentrically
column bases. The proposed LRB isolation systems with superelastic SMA bending bars are modeled
braced frame (CBF) buildings are designed by installing these new base isolation systems at the
as nonlinear component springs, and assigned to 2D frame models used for reproducing their seismic
column bases. The proposed LRB isolation systems with superelastic SMA bending bars are modeled
responses in the CBF building. The nonlinear dynamic time‐history analyses are performed by
as nonlinear component springs, and assigned to 2D frame models used for reproducing their seismic
directly imposing near‐fault (NF) ground motions, which contain a narrow‐banded pulse of the strong
responses in the
spectral CBF building.
acceleration The nonlinear
at the short dynamic
vibration period, on time-history
the 2D frame analyses are performed
models [22,23]. The LRB by directly
base
imposing near-fault (NF) ground motions, which contain a narrow-banded pulse of the strong spectral
isolator systems with and without steel bending bars are also designed to conduct comparative study.
acceleration at the short vibration period, on the 2D frame models [22,23]. The LRB base isolator
systems with and without steel bending bars are also designed to conduct comparative study. Based
on theBased
analysis results,
on the seismic
analysis responses
results, seismic inresponses
terms of in
maximum
terms of displacements, residual deformations,
maximum displacements, residual
and recentering ratios are compared to each other for the purpose of verifying a high-performance
deformations, and recentering ratios are compared to each other for the purpose of verifying a high‐
Sustainability 2016, 8, 109 3 of 24 of
the proposed isolation systems.
performance of the proposed isolation systems.
Based on the analysis results, seismic responses in terms of maximum displacements, residual
deformations, and recentering ratios are compared to each other for the purpose of verifying a high‐
performance of the proposed isolation systems.

Figure 2. Behavior of superelastic SMA materials.
Figure 2. Behavior of superelastic SMA materials.
2. Modeling of Base Isolation Systems
2. Modeling of Base Isolation Figure 2. Behavior of superelastic SMA materials.
Systems
The typical LRB isolator consists of an elastomer made by laminated rubber layers with steel
The typical
plates, cover LRB isolator
plates, and a consists
lead core of an elastomer
placed made
on its center. As by laminated
shown rubber
in Figure 3, the layers with steel
LRB isolator
2. Modeling of Base Isolation Systems
plates,presented herein was designed with 120 mm lead core diameter (d), 550 mm elastomer diameter (D),
cover plates, and a lead core placed on its center. As shown in Figure 3, the LRB isolator
presented The typical LRB isolator consists of an elastomer made by laminated rubber layers with steel
197 mm elastomer height (h), and 247 mm total height (H). It can withstand the maximum vertical
herein was designed with 120 mm lead core diameter (d), 550 mm elastomer diameter (D),
plates,
load (V cover
max) of plates, and
4170 kN and a lead
the core placed
allowable on its
lateral center. As shown
displacement in
(Δall) of Figure
208 mm. 3, the LRB
This LRB isolator
isolator
197 mm elastomer height (h), and 247 mm total height (H). It can withstand the maximum vertical load
presented herein was designed with 120 mm lead core diameter (d), 550 mm elastomer diameter (D),
simply regulates the amount of supplemental damping attributed by energy dissipation capacity by
(Vmax ) of 4170 kN and the allowable lateral displacement (∆all ) of 208 mm. This LRB isolator simply
197 mm elastomer height (h), and 247 mm total height (H). It can withstand the maximum vertical
adjusting the diameter of the lead core. The energy dissipation provided by the yielding of the lead
regulates
load the amount
(Vmax of supplemental
) of 4170 damping
kN and the allowable attributed
lateral by energy
displacement (Δall) dissipation
of 208 mm. capacity
This LRB byisolator
adjusting
core allows to achieve an equivalent viscous damping coefficient up to about 30%, thereby reducing
the diameter of the lead core. The energy dissipation provided by the yielding
simply regulates the amount of supplemental damping attributed by energy dissipation capacity by
the horizontal isolator displacement effectively [1,2,24]. However, the supplemental damping at the of the lead core allows
to achieve an equivalent viscous damping coefficient up to about 30%, thereby
adjusting the diameter of the lead core. The energy dissipation provided by the yielding of the lead
base reducing
isolation system does not guarantee a better performance of the superstructure, which can the horizontal
isolator displacement
inter‐story effectively
drifts in all [1,2,24]. However, for the
the supplemental damping
core allows to achieve an equivalent viscous damping coefficient up to about 30%, thereby reducing
reduce cases, especially low‐rise building at with
structures the base isolation
relatively
system the horizontal isolator displacement effectively [1,2,24]. However, the supplemental damping at the
does not guarantee a better performance of the superstructure, which can reduce inter-story
short periods [25]. In addition to damping, high vertical stiffness is obtained by thin layers of rubber
base
in allisolation system does fornot
theguarantee
low-rise a building
better performance
structures of the relatively
superstructure,
drifts reinforced with steel shim plates. These characteristics permit the LRB isolator to move laterally with
cases, especially with shortwhich
periodscan [25].
reduce inter‐story drifts in all cases, especially for the low‐rise building structures
relative lower stiffness than other isolation system, but carry significant axial load owing to its high
In addition to damping, high vertical stiffness is obtained by thin layers of rubber reinforced with with relatively
short periods [25]. In addition to damping, high vertical stiffness is obtained by thin layers of rubber
vertical stiffness. The LRB isolators are usually circular in shape.
steel shim plates. These characteristics permit the LRB isolator to move laterally with relative lower
reinforced with steel shim plates. These characteristics permit the LRB isolator to move laterally with
stiffness than other isolation system, but carry significant axial load owing to its high vertical stiffness.
relative lower stiffness than other isolation system, but carry significant axial load owing to its high
Cover Plate Lead Core Vmax=4170kN Δall =208mm
The LRB isolators are usually circular in shape.
vertical stiffness. The LRB isolators are usually circular in shape.
Rubber Plate
Cover Plate Lead Core Vmax=4170kN Δall =208mm
h=197mm h=197mm
H=247mmH=247mm
Rubber Plate
Steel Plate
d=120mm
D=550mm

Steel Plate
Figure 3. Typical lead‐rubber bearing (LRB) model.
d=120mm
D=550mm

The typical hysteresis loop of the LRB isolator can be modelled as the bilinear curve. As shown
Figure 3. Typical lead‐rubber bearing (LRB) model.
Figure 3. Typical lead-rubber bearing (LRB) model.
in Figure 4, the bilinear curve for the LRB isolator used in this study is simulated using four design
parameters such as F1, Δ1, F2, and Δ2. The elastic stiffness (Ke) and the post‐yield stiffness (Kp) are
also expressed using these design parameters as follows:
in Figure 4, the bilinear curve for the LRB isolator used in this study is simulated using four design
in Figure 4, the bilinear curve for the LRB isolator used in thise) and the post‐yield stiffness (K
parameters such as F1, Δ1, F2, and Δ2. The elastic stiffness (K study is simulated using four design
p) are
parameters such as F1, ∆1, F2, and ∆2. The elastic stiffness (Ke ) and the post-yield stiffness (Kp ) are

Figure 4. Hysteretic behavior of the LRB model.
Figure 4. Hysteretic behavior of the LRB model.
F1
K  F1 (1)
Ke e “ 1 (1)
∆1
F 2
F2 ´FF11
KKp p“  2  1 (2) (2)
∆2 ´ ∆1
The effective stiffness of the hysteresis loop (K
The effective stiffness of the hysteresis loop (Keefff ) is defined as the secant line indicating the ratio
f ) is defined as the secant line indicating the ratio
of force to displacement as follows:
of force to displacement as follows:
FF22

KKe fefff “ (3) (3)
∆22
The characteristic strength located on a force-axis intercept at the zero displacement (Q) can be
The characteristic strength located on a force‐axis intercept at the zero displacement (Q) can be
represented by the equation with the post-yield stiffness as follows:
represented by the equation with the post‐yield stiffness as follows:
Q  F 1  K P  1 (4)
Q “ F1 ´ K P ˆ ∆1 (4)
The amount of energy dissipation, which can be characterized by the area of the hysteresis loop,
The amount of energy dissipation, which can be characterized by the area of the hysteresis loop,
is defined as the following equation.
is defined as the following equation. E iso  4 Q  (  2   1) (5)

The effective viscous damping coefficient is derived using the amount of energy dissipation and
Eiso “ 4Q ˆ p∆2 ´ ∆1q
the effective stiffness, and defined as the following equation. This damping coefficient can be rewrote (5)
as the equation expressed with four parameters.
The effective viscous damping coefficient is derived using the amount of energy dissipation and
E iso 2  F 1 1 
effas the following
the effective stiffness, and defined   This
equation.  damping
 coefficient can (6)
be rewrote
   F 2 2 
2
2 
as the equation expressed with four parameters.  K eff   2 
As can be seen in Equation 6, the effective viscous damping coefficient is proportional to the
2 F1 ∆1
ˆ ˙
Eiso
amount of energy dissipation, but inversely related to the effective stiffness and the square of the
λe f f “ “ ´ (6)
specific displacement. 2π ˆ Ke f f ˆ p∆2q2 π F2 ∆2
As3. Concept of Recentering Base Isolation Devices
can be seen in Equation 6, the effective viscous damping coefficient is proportional to the
amount of energy dissipation,
The superelastic SMA but inversely
bending related
bars are to the
equipped effective
to the stiffness
LRB isolators for and
the the square
purpose of of the
specificproviding more resistance against shear force and recentering capability to the base isolation system.
displacement.
Figure 5 shows the LRB isolators with superelastic SMA (i.e., LRB+8SMA and LRB+16SMA models)
bending
3. Concept bars, which are
of Recentering Basesuggested
Isolationin Devices
this study. The integrated SMA bending bars make a
contribution to decreasing permanent deformation. The LRB isolators combined with steel bending
The superelastic SMA bending bars are equipped to the LRB isolators for the purpose of providing
more resistance against shear force and recentering capability to the base isolation system. Figure 5
shows the LRB isolators with superelastic SMA (i.e., LRB+8SMA and LRB+16SMA models) bending
bars, which are suggested in this study. The integrated SMA bending bars make a contribution
to decreasing permanent deformation. The LRB isolators combined with steel bending bars (i.e.,
LRB+8STE and LRB+16STE models) are also presented so as to compare each seismic performance. 5 of 24
The steel or SMA bending bars are constructed in circular shape with 28.6 mm diameter. Although these
bars (i.e., LRB+8STE and LRB+16STE models) are also presented so as to compare each
Sustainability 2016, 8, 109 seismic
5 of 24
bending bars can effectively
performance. decrease
The steel or maximum
SMA bending bars displacement occurring
are constructed at the
in circular basewith
shape isolator, they may
28.6 mm
cause to(i.e.,
shorten the vibration
LRB+8STE period models)
and LRB+16STE of the entire structure
are also due
presented so to
as reinforcing
to compare effect.
diameter. Although these bending bars can effectively decrease maximum displacement occurring at
bars The superelastic
each seismic
SMAperformance. The steel or SMA bending bars are constructed in circular shape with 28.6 mm due vibration
materials
the base are more
isolator, flexible
they may than
cause the
to steel materials,
shorten the and
vibration so diminish
period of slightly
the entire structure’s
structure to
period as compared to the usage of only LRB isolator. Furthermore, their flag-shaped hysteresis
reinforcing effect. The superelastic SMA materials are more flexible than the steel materials, and so
diameter. Although these bending bars can effectively decrease maximum displacement occurring at
the diminish
behaviorbase notisolator,
only they
slightly may cause
structure’s
dissipates to shorten
vibration
considerable the
period vibration
amount period to
as compared
of kinetic of the usage
the
energy entire
butstructure
of only
also due to
LRB
reduces isolator.
permanent
reinforcing effect. The superelastic SMA materials are more flexible than the steel materials, and so
Furthermore, their flag‐shaped hysteresis behavior not only dissipates considerable amount of kinetic
deformation attributed to recentering force. In this study, their unique characteristics are taken into
diminish slightly structure’s vibration period as compared to the usage of only LRB isolator.
energy but also reduces permanent deformation attributed to recentering force. In this study, their
consideration for the design of smart base isolation systems. The superelastic SMA bending bars are
Furthermore, their flag‐shaped hysteresis behavior not only dissipates considerable amount of kinetic
unique characteristics are taken into consideration for the design of smart base isolation systems. The
connected to the LRB isolator by using nuts instead of welding in order to avoid phase transformation
energy but also reduces permanent deformation attributed to recentering force. In this study, their
superelastic SMA bending bars are connected to the LRB isolator by using nuts instead of welding in
caused by heat treatment.
unique characteristics are taken into consideration for the design of smart base isolation systems. The
order to avoid phase transformation caused by heat treatment.
superelastic SMA bending bars are connected to the LRB isolator by using nuts instead of welding in
order to avoid phase transformation caused by heat treatment.
8 SMA or 8 Steel Bending Bars
16 SMA or 16 Steel Bending Bars
(28.6mm Diameter) (28.6mm Diameter)
8 SMA or 8 Steel Bending Bars 16 SMA or 16 Steel Bending Bars
(28.6mm Diameter) (28.6mm Diameter)
(a) LRB+8STE or LRB+8SMA (b) LRB+16STE or LRB+16SMA

(a) LRB+8STEModel Case
or LRB+8SMA (b) LRB+16STE or Model Case
LRB+16SMA
Model Case Model Case
Figure 5. LRB models with bending bars used for seismic restrainers.
FLRB FSMA F
FLRB FSMA F
∆ ∆ ∆
∆ ∆ ∆
(a) LRB Isolators for Energy (b) SMA Bending Bars for (c) Total Behavior for the Self‐

(a) LRB Isolators for Energy (b) SMA Bending Bars for (c) Total Behavior for the Self‐
Dissipation Recentering Behavior centering LRB Isolator
Dissipation Recentering Behavior centering LRB Isolator
Figure 6. Response mechanism of the self‐centering LRB isolator.
Figure 6. Response mechanism of the self‐centering LRB isolator.
Figure 6. Response mechanism of the self-centering LRB isolator.
The behavioral mechanism of the recentering base isolation system, which is simulated by
assembling individual components (i.e., LRB base isolator and superelastic SMA bending bars), is
presented in Figure 6. Stable energy dissipation can be obtained from the behavior of the LRB isolator,
which is characterized by the hysteresis loop with hardening as shown in Figure 6a. In spite of
having excellent damping capacity attributed to this energy dissipation, it is prone to generating
residual displacement during cyclic loads. The behavior of the superelastic bending bars, which
stands for the flag-shaped hysteresis loop, compensates this problem with recentering force generated
upon unloading (see Figure 6b). The mechanism of the recentering LRB base isolation system can be
formulated by assembling two component mechanisms in parallel, and therefore reinforcing as well as
recentering is simultaneously expected in this system as presented in Figure 6c. The force-displacement
mechanism for simulating the behavior of the assembled system is defined as follows:
F “ FLRB ` FSMA (7)
∆ “ ∆LRB “ ∆SMA (8)
These mechanisms are modelled as a series of lines for stiffness models used for simulating the
behavior of the base isolation system.
4. Prototype Frame Buildings

All frame models were designed according to the current design codes [26,27] in an effort to
investigate the performance of the base isolation system equipped in the concentrically braced frame
(CBF) building subjected to earthquake loading. They were assumed to be 2D frame structures because
of symmetric configuration. The basic conditions for design, including dead and live load (DL and
LL), are summarized in Table 1. The prototype frame buildings were constructed to satisfy design
limits under the design-based earthquake (DBE) level. The 2D nonlinear pushover analyses with
equivalent lateral loads were conducted to verify the adequacy of initial frame design. The sizes of
brace, beam, and column members were designed in accordance with the AISC-LRFD steel design
manual [28]. The sizes of the individual members were adjusted until maximum inter-story drift ratios
meet less than 2% allowable limit. These prototype frame buildings are assumed to be located on the
high-seismicity LA area. The stability check was also conducted with stability limits.
Table 1. Basic design conditions.
Located Area Loads (Other) Loads (Roof) SDC Site Condition Occupancy Category
DL: 4.12 kPa DL: 4.50 kPa
LA Area D Class Stiff Soil (Class D) Ordinary Structures
LL: 2.39 kPa LL: 0.96 kPa
The prototype frame buildings were constructed as 6-story steel frame structures with perimeter
moment-resisting CBFs to resist wind and earthquake loads as shown in Figure 7. Owing to
a symmetric plan with 9.25 m square bays (see Figure 7a), essentially regular condition without
in-plane torsional effect can be taken into consideration for design and analysis. Masses and stiffnesses
are uniformly distributed over each floor. All of the CBF buildings have 3.96m story heights (see
Figure 7b). The inverted V-braced frame systems were accepted among several CBF types, and
symmetrically installed on each side. The perimeter bays with braced frame systems are denoted as
dashed lines in the plan view. In the plan view, the moment-resisting frames illustrated as the thick
lines were constructed with the welded connections that can mostly transfer moment from beam to
column. On the other hand, the gravity load-resisting frames in the building inside were built with the
pinned connections that only transfer shear force. Uniform column sections were applied to frame
design throughout all floors while smaller beam sections were assigned to higher floors. The assigned
member sizes are summarized in Table 2.

Figure 7. Design of the concentrically braced frame (CBF) building.
Figure 7. Design of the concentrically braced frame (CBF) building.
Table 2. Details of the member sizes.
Table 2. Details of the member sizes.
Column* Beam* Int. Column* Int. Beam*

Int. Beam*
Story
Story Column* (C1) Beam* (B1) CBF** Int. Column* (C2)
CBF** (B2)
(C1) (B1) (C2) (B2)
1 W14 ˆ 109 W24 ˆ 84 HSS6 ˆ 6 ˆ 3/8 W12 ˆ 87 W24 ˆ 68
12 W14 × 109
W14 ˆ 109
W24 × 84
W24 ˆ 84
HSS6 × 6 × 3/8 W12 ˆ
HSS6 ˆ 6 ˆ 3/8
W12
87
× 87 W24 × 68
W24 ˆ 68
22 W14
W14 ×
ˆ 109
109 W24 × 84
W24 ˆ 68 HSS6 ×
HSS6 ˆ 6 ˆ 3/8 6 × 3/8 W12
W12 ˆ 87 × 87 W24 W24
ˆ 68× 68
23 W14
W14 ˆ 109
× 109 W24 × 68
W24 ˆ 68 HSS6 ×
HSS6 ˆ 6 ˆ 3/8 6 × 3/8 W12
W12 ˆ 87 × 87 W24 ˆ 68× 68
W24
34 W14
W14 ×
ˆ 109
109 W24 × 68
W18 ˆ 50 HSS6 ×
HSS6 ˆ 6 ˆ 1/4 6 × 3/8 W12
W12 ˆ 87 × 87 W24 W24
ˆ 68× 68
45 W14
W14 ×
ˆ 109
109 W18
W18 ˆ× 50
50 HSS6HSS6
ˆ 6 ˆ×1/4
6 × 1/4 W12 ˆ W12
87 × 87 W24 W24
ˆ 68× 68
5 W14 × 109 W18 × 50 HSS6 × 6 × 1/4 W12
* Gr.50 Carbon Steel ** Gr.B Carbon Steel for Rectangular Shape.× 87 W24 × 68
* Gr.50 Carbon Steel ** Gr.B Carbon Steel for Rectangular Shape.

5. Analytical Modeling and Tests

5. Analytical Modeling and Tests
Including nonlinear component springs used for reproducing the behavior of the base isolation
Including nonlinear component springs used for reproducing the behavior of the base isolation
system, detailed procedures for creating analytical frame models are mainly described in this section.
system, detailed procedures for creating analytical frame models are mainly described in this section.
The OpenSEES program developed by Mazzoni et al. [29] was used to create analytical models as
The OpenSEES program developed by Mazzoni et al. [29] was used to create analytical models as
well as to conduct nonlinear time-history dynamic analyses. The nonlinear material properties were
well as to conduct nonlinear time‐history dynamic analyses. The nonlinear material properties were
modelled as a series of the lines referred as to the stiffness models, and assigned to the corresponding
modelled as a series of the lines referred as to the stiffness models, and assigned to the corresponding
components composing the base isolation system. The behavior of the steel bending bars fabricated
components composing the base isolation system. The behavior of the steel bending bars fabricated
with Gr. 50 carbon steel was reproduced by using the uniaxial steel material model provided in the
with Gr. 50 carbon steel was reproduced by using the uniaxial steel material model provided in the
OpenSEES program. The stress and strain curve for Gr. 50 carbon steel was composed of a yield stress
OpenSEES program. The stress and strain curve for Gr. 50 carbon steel was composed of a yield stress
(Fyy) of 345 MPa, an elastic modulus (E) of 200GPa, and a hardening ratio of 1.5%. Due to absence of
(F ) of 345 MPa, an elastic modulus (E) of 200 GPa, and a hardening ratio of 1.5%. Due to absence
of adequate
adequate default default materials
materials models
models provided
provided in inthe
theOpenSEES
OpenSEESprogram,
program, user‐defined
user-defined material
material
(UMAT) models based on Aurrichio’s subroutine codes were employed to simulate the behavior of
(UMAT) models based on Aurrichio’s subroutine codes were employed to simulate the behavior of
the superelastic SMA materials [30]. The phase transformations are expressed in this UMAT model
the superelastic SMA materials [30]. The phase transformations are expressed in this UMAT model
by using martensitic volume fractions during cyclic loading. The necessary parameters used as the
by using martensitic volume fractions during cyclic loading. The necessary parameters used as the
input values for formulating the flag-shaped hysteresis loop in the UMAT model are obtained from
input values for formulating the flag‐shaped hysteresis loop in the UMAT model are obtained from
the uniaxial pull-out tests under isothermal conditions. As seen in Figure 8, the simulated stress and
the uniaxial pull‐out tests under isothermal conditions. As seen in Figure 8, the simulated stress and
strain curve
strain curve for
for the
the superelastic
superelastic SMA
SMA was
was calibrated to the
calibrated experimental
to the test result.
experimental The required
test result. input
The required
parameters
input such as
parameters elastic
such modulus (40 GPa), Poisson’s ratio (0.33), martensite start stress (440 MPa),
as elastic modulus (40 GPa), Poisson’s ratio (0.33), martensite start stress (440
martensite finish stress (540 MPa), austenite start stress (250 MPa), austenite finish stress (140 MPa),
MPa), martensite finish stress (540 MPa), austenite start stress (250 MPa), austenite finish stress (140 MPa),
and transformation
transformation strain
strain (0.042),
(0.042), phase
phase transformation
transformationtemperature
temperature(22 ˝ C)) were acquired from
(22 °C))
and were acquired from
uniaxial pull-out tests conducted by DesRoches et al. [19], and used for this numerical
uniaxial pull‐out tests conducted by DesRoches et al. [19], and used for this numerical simulation. simulation.
Figure 8. Stress and strain curves for superelastic Nitinol SMA materials.
Figure 8. Stress and strain curves for superelastic Nitinol SMA materials.
The steel and SMA bending bars are assumed to be fixed‐end supported beams subjected to
The steel and SMA bending bars are assumed to be fixed-end supported beams subjected to
transverse shear force. The force and displacement curves for the fixed‐end supported bending bars
transverse shear force. The force and displacement curves for the fixed-end supported bending bars
are simulated by numerical analyses conducted on component springs with the material models
are simulated by numerical analyses conducted on component springs with the material models
mentioned above, and presented in Figure 9. It can be shown that these force and displacement curves
mentioned above, and presented in Figure 9. It can be shown that these force and displacement
are directly affected by the behavior of the used materials. The cyclic behavior of the steel bending
curves are directly affected by the behavior of the used materials. The cyclic behavior of the steel
bars can be represented by the isotropic hardening material while that of the superelastic SMA
bending bars can be represented by the isotropic hardening material while that of the superelastic SMA
bending bars coincides with the flag‐shaped hysteresis loop. The post‐yield strength of the
bending bars coincides with the flag-shaped hysteresis loop. The post-yield strength of the superelastic
superelastic SMA bending bars is larger than that of the steel bending bars owing to their material
SMA bending bars is larger than that of the steel bending bars owing to their material properties.
properties. The adequacy of the UMAT model to simulate the behavior of superelastic SMA materials
The adequacy of the UMAT model to simulate the behavior of superelastic SMA materials was verified
was verified by previous research [30,31]. These steel and SMA bending bars in the LRB base isolation
by previous research [30,31]. These steel and SMA bending bars in the LRB base isolation system are
system are modeled as nonlinear component springs combined with corresponding uniaxial material
modeled as nonlinear component springs combined with corresponding uniaxial material properties.
properties.

Figure 9. Simulated force and displacement curves for fixed‐end supported bars under bending.
Figure 9. Simulated force and displacement curves for fixed-end supported bars under bending.
The assemblage of individual component springs with their hysteresis behavior is illustrated in
Figure 10. They can
The assemblage be assembled
of individual in parallel according
component springs with to the consideration
their hysteresis of behavior
force transfer (see
is illustrated
Figure 9. Simulated force and displacement curves for fixed‐end supported bars under bending.
Figure 10a). The force and displacement hysteresis curves that stand for the behavior of individual
in Figure 10. They can be assembled in parallel according to the consideration of force transfer
component springs were simulated by multi‐linear stiffness models as shown in Figure 10b,c. Initial
The assemblage of individual component springs with their hysteresis behavior is illustrated in
(see Figure 10a). eThe
stiffness (i.e., K and K
force and displacement hysteresis curves that stand for the behavior of
STE), yield force (i.e., F1 and Fy), and tangential stiffness (i.e., Kp and αKSTE) result
Figure 10. They can be assembled in parallel according to the consideration of force transfer (see
individual component springs were simulated by multi-linear stiffness models as shown in Figure 10b,c.
in three main parameters required to simulate the behavior of LRB isolators and steel bending bars.
Figure 10a). The force and displacement hysteresis curves that stand for the behavior of individual
Initial These
stiffness (i.e., K and K
hysteresis e curves STE ), yield forceby
were activated (i.e., F1 and
using Fy ), and
hardening tangential
material stiffness
commands (i.e., Kp in
provided and αKSTE )
the
component springs were simulated by multi‐linear stiffness models as shown in Figure 10b,c. Initial
result OpenSEES
in three main parameters
program.
stiffness (i.e., K required
In contrast, initial tostiffness
simulate the), behavior
(KSMA martensite ofphase
LRB isolators and steel
transformation
e and KSTE), yield force (i.e., F1 and Fy), and tangential stiffness (i.e., Kp and αKSTE) result
bending
starting
force (F
bars. These SMA,MS), martensite phase transformation ending force (F
activated by using hardening ), austenite phase transformation
in three main parameters required to simulate the behavior of LRB isolators and steel bending bars. in the
hysteresis curves were material
SMA,MF commands provided
OpenSEESstarting force (F
These program.
hysteresis SMA,AS), austenite phase transformation ending force (FSMA,AF), strain hardening ratio
Incurves
contrast,
were initial stiffness
activated (KSMA
by using ), martensite
hardening phase
material transformation
commands provided starting
in the force
(α), and
OpenSEES phase transformation
program. distance
In contrast, (Δ L) are necessary to simulate the behavior of superelastic
initial stiffness
(FSMA,MS ), martensite phase transformation ending(Kforce
SMA), (F
martensite
SMA,MF ),phase transformation
austenite starting
phase transformation
SMA bending bars by using UMAT subroutine codes. In addition to material properties, effective
startingforce (F
force SMA,MS ), martensite phase transformation ending force (F
(FSMA,AS ), austenite phase transformation endingSMA,MF ), austenite phase transformation
force (FSMA,AF ), strain hardening ratio
viscous damping
starting force (F coefficients were assigned to LRB component springs by utilizing the Rayleigh
SMA,AS), austenite phase transformation ending force (FSMA,AF), strain hardening ratio
(α), and phase transformation distance (∆L ) are necessary to simulate the behavior of superelastic SMA
damping command given in the OpenSEES program.
(α), and phase transformation distance (ΔL) are necessary to simulate the behavior of superelastic
bending bars by using UMAT subroutine codes. In addition to material properties, effective viscous
SMA bending bars by using UMAT subroutine codes. In addition to material properties, effective
damping coefficients Bending Bars for springs by utilizing the Rayleigh damping
viscous damping were assigned
coefficients toassigned
were LRB component
to Restrainers
Seismic LRB component springs by utilizing the Rayleigh
command given in the OpenSEES program.
damping command given in the OpenSEES program.
F (∆)
Bending Bars for
Seismic Restrainers F = F +F
LRB STE or FLRB+FSMA
LRB Isolator Parallel

Systems Connection
F (∆)
(a) Component Spring Model
F=F LRB+FSTE or FLRB+FSMA
Parallel Spring Connection (ParallelParallel

LRB Isolator Material)
Systems Connection
FLRB (a) Component Spring Model FSTE
LRB Base Steel Bending Bars
Isolator Combined
Parallel Spring Connection (Parallel in Parallel
Material)
αKSTE
Kp
F1FLRB FyFSTE
LRB Base Steel Bending Bars
Isolator Ke Combined in Parallel KSTE
Δ Δ
αKSTE
Kp
F1 Fy
Ke KSTE
Δ Δ
Isotropic Hardening Hysteresis Behavior Isotropic Steel Hardening Behavior

(Hardening Material) (Steel Hardening Material)
(b) Stiffness Models for Individual Component Springs (LRB+Steel Bar Case)
Figure 10. Cont. Isotropic Steel Hardening Behavior
Isotropic Hardening Hysteresis Behavior
(Hardening Material) (Steel Hardening Material)
(b) Stiffness Models for Individual Component Springs (LRB+Steel Bar Case)
Figure 10. Cont.
Figure 10. Cont.
Parallel Spring Connection (Parallel Material)

FLRBParallel Spring Connection (Parallel Material) FSMA

LRB Base SMA Bending Bars
Isolator Combined in Parallel
αK
FLRB FSMA
LRB Base SMA Bending FBars ,
Kp K
Isolator F1 Combined in Parallel
αK
Ke
Δ FF ,
,
∆
Kp K
F1
Ke F ,
Δ ∆
Isotropic Hardening Hysteresis Behavior Flag-shape Hysteresis SMA Behavior

(Hardening Material) (UMAT Material)
(c) Stiffness Models for Individual Component Springs (LRB+SMA Bar Case)
Isotropic Hardening Hysteresis Behavior Flag-shape Hysteresis SMA Behavior
(UMAT Material)
Figure 10. Assemblage of component springs used for numerical analyses.
(Hardening Material)
Figure 10. Assemblage of component springs used for numerical analyses.
(c) Stiffness
The behaviors Models
of LRB for Individual
isolators Componentbars,
and bending Springs (LRB+SMA
which Bar Case) by corresponding
are simulated
The behaviors Figure 10. Assemblage of component springs used for numerical analyses.
of LRB isolators and bending bars, which are simulated by corresponding
component springs, are presented in Figures 11 and 12. As we expected, all of component behaviors
coincide with stiffness models assigned to component springs. Isotropic hardening idealized by the
coincide bilinear curve is observed at the behavior of LRB isolators and steel bending bars cyclically simulated.
The behaviors
with of LRB assigned
stiffness models isolators to
and bending bars,
component which
springs. are simulated
Isotropic by corresponding
hardening idealized by the
The flag‐shaped hysteresis curves which display symmetric shape in tension and compression are
bilinear curve is observed at the behavior of LRB isolators and steel bending bars cyclically simulated.
founded at the behavior of the superelastic SMA bending bars. The component springs for the LRB
coincide with stiffness models assigned to component springs. Isotropic hardening idealized by the
The flag-shaped hysteresis curves which display symmetric shape in tension and compression are
isolators reach 169.8 kN at the displacement of 58 mm. They can only recover elastic deformation
bilinear curve is observed at the behavior of LRB isolators and steel bending bars cyclically simulated.
founded at the behavior
upon unloading, and of the
thus superelastic SMA
remain residual bending bars.
displacement The
such component
as 47.5 mm from springs for the LRB
the maximum
The flag‐shaped hysteresis curves which display symmetric shape in tension and compression are
isolatorsdisplacement of 58 mm. Similarly, component springs for the assembled steel bending bars behave upon
reach 169.8 kN at the displacement of 58 mm. They can only recover elastic
founded at the behavior of the superelastic SMA bending bars. The component springs for the LRB
deformation
unloading, and thus remain residual displacement such as 47.5 mm from the maximum displacement of
as the same manner, and remains a lot of residual displacement as well. It can be shown in Figure 11c
isolators reach 169.8 kN at the displacement of 58 mm. They can only recover elastic deformation
58 mm. that the behavior of the LRB isolation system with steel bending bars can meet the force‐displacement
Similarly,
upon unloading, component springs
and thus remain forresidual
the assembled steel bending
displacement such as bars
47.5 behave as the
mm from the same manner,
maximum
mechanism for the parallel assemblage given to Equations (7) and (8). In addition to reinforcing effect,
and remains a lot of residual displacement as well. It can be shown in Figure 11c that the behavior of
displacement of 58 mm. Similarly, component springs for the assembled steel bending bars behave
the superelastic SMA bending bars provide recentering force to the assembled LRB isolation system.
the LRB isolation system with steel bending bars can meet the force-displacement mechanism for the
as the same manner, and remains a lot of residual displacement as well. It can be shown in Figure 11c
As the number of SMA bars installed increase, the occurrence of residual displacement gradually
that the behavior of the LRB isolation system with steel bending bars can meet the force‐displacement
parallel assemblage given to Equations (7) and (8). In addition to reinforcing effect, the superelastic
decrease owing to augmenting recentering force ratios (i.e., FSMA,AF/F1). For instance, the LRB+8SMA
mechanism for the parallel assemblage given to Equations (7) and (8). In addition to reinforcing effect,
SMA bending bars provide recentering force to the assembled LRB isolation system. As the number
frame model with eight SMA bending bars exhibits 28.5 mm residual displacement at the last loading
of SMAthe superelastic SMA bending bars provide recentering force to the assembled LRB isolation system.
bars installed increase, the occurrence of residual displacement gradually decrease owing to
step while the LRB+16SMA frame model with sixteen SMA bending bars has only 5.4 mm residual
As the number of SMA bars installed increase, the occurrence of residual displacement gradually
augmenting recentering force ratios (i.e., FSMA,AF /F1). For instance, the LRB+8SMA frame model with
displacement under the same loading step. The assembled component springs were installed to 2D
decrease owing to augmenting recentering force ratios (i.e., FSMA,AF/F1). For instance, the LRB+8SMA
eight SMAframe models used for nonlinear dynamic time‐history analyses.
bending bars exhibits 28.5 mm residual displacement at the last loading step while the
frame model with eight SMA bending bars exhibits 28.5 mm residual displacement at the last loading
LRB+16SMA frame model with sixteen SMA bending bars has only 5.4 mm residual displacement
step while the LRB+16SMA frame model with sixteen SMA bending bars has only 5.4 mm residual
underdisplacement under the same loading step. The assembled component springs were installed to 2D
the same loading step. The assembled component springs were installed to 2D frame models
used frame models used for nonlinear dynamic time‐history analyses.
for nonlinear dynamic time-history analyses.

Figure 11. Cont.

Figure 11. Cont.
Figure 11. Cont.
11 of 22

Figure 11. Simulated behaviors for the LRB isolator system and steel bending bars.

Figure 12. Cont.

Figure 12. Cont.
Figure 12. Cont.

Figure 12. Simulated behaviors for the LRB isolator system and SMA bending bars.

Figure 13. Modeling attributes for 2D nonlinear frame models with base isolator devices.
The
The modeling
modeling attributes
attributes for
for 2D
2D frame models
models with
with base
base isolator
isolator devices
devices modelled
modelled as as the
the
The modeling attributes for 2D frame models with base isolator devices modelled as the
component springs are presented in Figure 13. The column bases are considered to be flexible rather
component springs are presented in Figure 13. The column bases are considered to be flexible rather
component
than
than fixed springs
fixed because are
because of presented
of the
the installed in
installed Figure
base
base 13. The
isolation column
systems.
systems. The bases
The are
main frame
main considered
frame to(e.g.,
bebeam,
members (e.g.,
members flexible
beam,
rather than fixed because of the installed base isolation systems. The main frame members (e.g.,
column, and brace members) were constructed with nonlinear beam‐column elements with 2D fiber
column, and brace members) were constructed with nonlinear beam‐column elements with 2D fiber
beam, column,
sections
sections able and
able to brace stress
to collect
collect members) and were
stress and strain
strain constructed
data. For with
For the nonlinear
the brace
brace beam-column
members
members allowed elements
allowed to buckle with
to buckle in in
2D fiber sections able to collect stress and strain data. For the brace members allowed to buckle in
compression, initial imperfection was generated by offsetting the nodal points at the mid‐length of
compression, initial imperfection was generated by offsetting the nodal points at the mid‐length of
the brace member. All of main frame members fabricated with Gr. 50 carbon steel were assigned to
compression, initial imperfection was generated by offsetting the nodal points at the mid-length of the
the brace member. All of main frame members fabricated with Gr. 50 carbon steel were assigned to
1.5% strain hardening and 5% Rayleigh damping coefficient. The lumped masses assigned to all of
brace member. All of main frame members fabricated with Gr. 50 carbon steel were assigned to 1.5%
1.5% strain hardening and 5% Rayleigh damping coefficient. The lumped masses assigned to all of
nodal points were converted from dead loads plus partial live loads in order to generate seismic shear
strain hardening and 5% Rayleigh damping coefficient. The lumped masses assigned to all of nodal
nodal points were converted from dead loads plus partial live loads in order to generate seismic shear
force. The transient equilibrium based on the Newmark method was applied to the time dependent
force. The transient equilibrium based on the Newmark method was applied to the time dependent
points were converted from dead loads plus partial live loads in order to generate seismic shear force.
Thedynamic analyses. The rigid links with hinge connections were constructed with an aim to activate
dynamic analyses. The rigid links with hinge connections were constructed with an aim to activate
transient equilibrium based on the Newmark method was applied to the time dependent dynamic
diaphragm constraints between two frame systems, and accordingly each floor can translate as a rigid
diaphragm constraints between two frame systems, and accordingly each floor can translate as a rigid
analyses. The rigid links with hinge connections were constructed with an aim to activate diaphragm
body motion.
motion. The
The P‐delta
P‐delta coordinate
coordinate transformations
transformations were assigned
body
constraints between two frame systems, and accordingly were
each floor to
assigned to column
can column members
members
translate for
as a rigidfor the
the
body
purpose of simulating geometric nonlinearity associated with second‐order behavior. The beam‐to‐
purpose of simulating geometric nonlinearity associated with second‐order behavior. The beam‐to‐
motion. The P-delta coordinate transformations were assigned to column members for the purpose
column connections are assumed to be rigidly welded, thereby applying rigid offsets to every beam
column connections are assumed to be rigidly welded, thereby applying rigid offsets to every beam
of simulating geometric nonlinearity associated with second-order behavior. The beam-to-column
members. For initial loading condition, the factored dead and live loads as presented in Figure 13
members. For initial loading condition, the factored dead and live loads as presented in Figure 13
connections are assumed to be rigidly welded, thereby applying rigid offsets to every beam members.
were applied to 2D frame models. Finally, primary response data were collected by using recorder
were applied to 2D frame models. Finally, primary response data were collected by using recorder
For initial loading condition, the factored dead and live loads as presented in Figure 13 were applied
commands provided in the program.
commands provided in the program.
to 2D frame models. Finally, primary response data were collected by using recorder commands

provided in the program.
6. Ground Motions
The ground motion data resulting from historic earthquake records were used for nonlinear
time-history dynamic analyses. They were developed by the FEMA/SAC project [32]. The near-fault
(NF) ground motions generated from earthquake records including strike, rupture, oblique, and
thrust. The magnitudes of these NF ground motions coincide with UBC Seismic Hazard Zone 4
corresponding to a seismic hazard level of 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. The details of
the used NF ground motions are given to Table 3 including magnitude (Richter scale ranging from
6.7 to 7.4), distance from epicenter, duration time, and peak ground accelerations (PGAs). Statistical
evaluations in terms of base shear forces, maximum base displacements, and residual displacements
can be conducted after observing several analysis results.
Table 3. Near-fault ground motion data used for nonlinear dynamic analyses.
Ground Richter Distance Duration Max Min

EQ Record
Motion ID Scale (km) (sec) PGA (g) PGA (g)
NF01 1978 Tabes 7.4 1.2 50 0.90 ´0.86
NF02 1979 Tabes 7.4 1.2 50 0.98 ´0.75
NF03 1989 Loma Prieta (Los Gatos) 7 3.5 25 0.72 ´0.64
NF04 1989 Loma Prieta (Los Gatos) 7 3.5 25 0.46 ´0.44
NF05 1989 Loma Prieta (Lex Dam) 7 6.3 40 0.59 ´0.69
NF06 1989 Loma Prieta (Lex Dam) 7 6.3 40 0.37 ´0.28
NF07 1992 Mendocino 7.1 8.5 60 0.64 ´0.62
NF08 1992 Mendocino 7.1 8.5 60 0.60 ´0.66
NF09 1992 Erizincan 6.7 2.0 21 0.43 ´0.31
NF10 1992 Erizincan 6.7 2.0 21 0.46 ´0.27
NF11 1992 Landers 7.3 1.1 50 0.71 ´0.71
NF12 1992 Landers 7.3 1.1 50 0.61 ´0.80
NF13 1994 Northridge (Rinaldi) 6.7 7.5 15 0.62 ´0.89
NF14 1994 Northridge (Rinaldi) 6.7 7.5 15 0.38 ´0.39
NF15 1994 Northridge (Olive View) 6.7 6.4 60 0.51 ´0.73
NF16 1994 Northridge (Olive View) 6.7 6.4 60 0.60 ´0.56
NF17 1995 Kobe 6.9 3.4 60 1.09 ´0.73
NF18 1995 Kobe 6.9 3.4 60 0.58 ´0.57
NF19 1995 Kobe (Takatori) 6.9 4.3 40 0.749 ´0.51
NF20 1995 Kobe (Takatori) 6.9 4.3 40 0.38 ´0.42
Response spectral accelerations for individual NF ground motions with 5% damping and their
average spectral acceleration with 1.0 scale factor (SF) are presented in Figure 14. In addition, vibration
periods for 2D frame models, which are estimated by using the computational commend provided
in the OpenSEES program, are also given to this figure. The frame structures are considered to be
single degree of freedom (SDOF) systems under independent ground motions, and then the design
base shear forces are simply estimated by using these spectral accelerations on their vibration periods.
The vibration periods for 2D frame models are affected by the stiffness of the used LRB isolation
system. Therefore, LRB isolation systems with bending bars have shorter vibration periods than
as-built LRB isolation systems without bending bars. The frame models with shorter vibration periods
are subjected to larger response spectral accelerations. The mean response spectral acceleration for
LRB+16STE model is taken as approximately 1.18 g for 0.91 s vibration period while that for as-built
LRB model is taken as about 0.89 g for 1.38 s vibration period (see Figure 14). The LRB isolation
systems with superelastic SMA bending bars are more flexible than those with steel bending bars, and
thus display longer vibration periods. Although superelastic SMA bending bars acting as reinforcing
and recentering devices have a tendency to increase response accelerations transferred from ground,
they can effectively control maximum displacement as well as reduce residual deformation. It will be
confirmed though the observation of analyses results in the next section.

Figure 14.
Figure 14. Spectral accelerations
Spectralaccelerations for
accelerationsfor near‐fault
fornear‐fault ground
near-faultground motions
ground motions and
motions and vibration time
and vibration
vibration time periods
periods for
for
Figure 14. Spectral time periods for
individual model cases (SF = 1.0).
7. Seismic Responses
The nonlinear dynamic time‐history analyses were conducted on 2D frame models subjected to
The nonlinear dynamic time-history analyses were conducted on 2D frame models subjected
The nonlinear dynamic time‐history analyses were conducted on 2D frame models subjected to
20 NF ground motion data in an effort to investigate the efficiency of different LRB base isolation
to 20 NF ground motion data in an effort to investigate the efficiency of different LRB base isolation
20 NF ground motion data in an effort to investigate the efficiency of different LRB base isolation
systems equipped
systems equipped in in the
the CBF
CBF building.
building. The seismic
Theseismic responses
seismicresponses of
responsesof the 2D
of the
the 2D frame
frame models
models (e.g.,
(e.g., roof
roof
systems equipped in the CBF building. The 2D frame models (e.g., roof
displacement, base shear force, and residual deformation) are compared to each other. The resulting
curves from dynamic analyses conducted with the NF11 ground motion are presented in Figure 15.
The NF11 ground motion possesses 50 s duration time with 0.71 g peak ground acceleration (PGA)
which occurs around 10 s. The As‐built LRB frame model exhibits larger maximum roof displacement
which occurs around 10 s. The As-built LRB frame model exhibits larger maximum roof displacement
which occurs around 10 s. The As‐built LRB frame model exhibits larger maximum roof displacement
than other frame model with bending bars because of more flexible isolation system. The maximum
roof displacements
displacements for LRB+8STE and LRB+8SMA frame models subjected to the NF11 ground
roof displacements for
roof for LRB+8STE
LRB+8STE and LRB+8SMA
and LRB+8SMA frame models
frame subjected
models to theto
subjected NF11 the ground motion
NF11 ground
motion with 1.0 SF are approximately 550 mm and 350 mm, respectively while the maximum roof
with 1.0 SF are approximately 550 mm and 350 mm, respectively while the maximum roof displacement
motion with 1.0 SF are approximately 550 mm and 350 mm, respectively while the maximum roof
displacement of As‐built LRB frame model is as much as 900 mm. The maximum roof displacement
of As-built LRB frame model is as much as 900 mm. The maximum roof displacement of each frame
displacement of As‐built LRB frame model is as much as 900 mm. The maximum roof displacement
of each frame model occurs at the same time (about 12 s), and generally follows the generation time
model occurs at the same time (about 12 s), and generally follows the generation time of PGA by
of each frame model occurs at the same time (about 12 s), and generally follows the generation time
of PGA by 1.5 s. As can be seen in the figure, superelastic SMA bending bars effectively decrease
1.5 s. As can be seen in the figure, superelastic SMA bending bars effectively decrease vibration,
of PGA by 1.5 s. As can be seen in the figure, superelastic SMA bending bars effectively decrease
vibration, amplitude,
amplitude, and maximum and maximum roof displacement. The frame model with the LRB+16SMA
vibration, amplitude, and roof displacement.
maximum The frame model
roof displacement. The with
frame themodel
LRB+16SMA
with the isolation system
LRB+16SMA
isolation system has the smallest maximum roof displacement among other frame models. However,
has the smallest maximum roof displacement among other frame models. However, there is a little
isolation system has the smallest maximum roof displacement among other frame models. However,
there is a little discrepancy between two frame models with SMA bending bars.
discrepancy between two frame models with SMA bending bars.
there is a little discrepancy between two frame models with SMA bending bars.

Figure 15. Cont.
Figure 15. Cont.
Figure 15. Cont.

Figure 15. NF11 ground motion data used for nonlinear dynamic analyses and time vs. roof
Figure 15. NF11 ground motion data used for nonlinear dynamic analyses and time vs. roof
displacement curves for individual model cases.
displacement curves for individual model cases.
The behavior of base isolation systems in the frame model is also necessary to investigate the
The behavior
effectiveness of base
of these isolation systems
displacement control in the frame
devices. The modeldynamic is also necessary
responses for toindividual
investigatebase the
effectiveness of these displacement control devices. The dynamic responses for
isolation systems subjected to the NF11 ground motion with 1.0 SF are presented in Figure 16. In individual base
isolation systems subjected to the NF11 ground motion with 1.0 SF are presented in Figure 16.
addition to time versus displacement curves, shear force versus displacement curves are shown in this
In addition to time versus displacement curves, shear force versus displacement curves are shown in
figure. All of the frame models exhibit the almost same maximum base shear force reaching at about
this kN,
600 figure.
but All of the
have frame models
different maximum exhibit the almost same
displacements arising maximum basediscrepancy
due to the shear force of reaching at
stiffness
about 600 kN, but have different maximum displacements arising due to the discrepancy
capacity. The superiority of the superelastic SMA bending bars with respect to vibration mitigation of stiffness
capacity. The superiority of the superelastic SMA bending bars with respect to vibration mitigation
and recentering capability can be clearly identified when investigating the behavior of the isolation
and recentering
systems installed capability can be
in the frame clearly The
models. identified
As‐built whenLRB investigating
frame model theexceeds
behavior of limit
the the isolation
for the
systems installed in the frame models. The As-built LRB frame model exceeds
allowable lateral displacement of the used LRB isolator (Δall = 208 mm) firstly after PGA occurrence the limit for the
allowable lateral displacement of the used LRB isolator (∆ all = 208 mm) firstly
time, meaning that this frame model undergoes the shear failure. The maximum base displacement after PGA occurrence
time, meaning that this frame model undergoes the shear failure. The maximum base displacement
of the LRB+8STE frame model closely approaches the allowable lateral displacement. In case of the
of the LRB+8STE frame model closely approaches the allowable
LRB+8SMA frame model, it is shown that the superelastic SMA lateral displacement.
bending bars make In case of the
a significant
LRB+8SMA frame
contribution model, it
to reducing is shownamplitude
vibration that the superelastic
and maximum SMA base
bending bars make aRecentering
displacement. significant
contribution to reducing vibration amplitude and maximum base displacement.
behavior which augments recoverable displacement (i.e., Δ − Δrec) begins to be displayed at the base Recentering behavior
which augments recoverable displacement (i.e., ∆ ´ ∆ rec ) begins to be displayed
shear force versus displacement curve in the LRB+8SMA frame model. Furthermore, the LRB+16SMA at the base shear
force versus displacement curve in the LRB+8SMA frame model. Furthermore, the LRB+16SMA
frame model completely recovers original position without residual deformation (Δ frame
res). On the other
model completely recovers original position without residual deformation (∆
hand, the LRB+16STE frame model generates a lot of residual deformation at the end of the analysis res ). On the other hand,
the LRB+16STE frame model generates a lot of residual deformation at the end of the analysis due to
due to the yielding of the steel bending bars. It is thus verified that superelastic SMA bending bars
the yielding of the steel bending bars. It is thus verified that superelastic SMA bending bars damp
damp vibration quickly, reduce maximum base displacement, and foster recentering capability.
vibration quickly, reduce maximum base displacement, and foster recentering capability.

Figure 16. Dynamic responses for individual models under the NF11 ground motion (SF = 1.0).
Figure 16. Dynamic responses for individual models under the NF11 ground motion (SF = 1.0).
8. Performance Evaluation
8. Performance Evaluation
As increasing the scale factor of the ground motion (SF = 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, and 1.00), more nonlinear
dynamicAs increasing the
time-history scale factor
analyses were of the ground
conducted motion
with 20 NF (SF = 0.25, motions
ground 0.50, 0.75, inand
order1.00),
to more
perform
nonlinear dynamic time‐history analyses were conducted with 20 NF ground motions in order to
statistical investigation with respect to maximum base displacement and recentering capability in the
perform statistical investigation with respect to maximum base displacement and recentering
base isolation system. The maximum base displacements for individual frame models subjected to
capability in the base isolation system. The maximum base displacements for individual frame
20 NF ground motions with difference SFs are presented in Figure 17. For statistical evaluation, the
models subjected to 20 NF ground motions with difference SFs are presented in Figure 17. For
solidstatistical
lines representing
evaluation, 15.9th, 50.0th
the solid (orrepresenting
lines median), and 84.1th
15.9th, percentile
50.0th ranks are
(or median), and also presented
84.1th in the
percentile
graph with the individual data points obtained from all analyses. These solid lines gradually
ranks are also presented in the graph with the individual data points obtained from all analyses. ascend
according to increasing SFs. The As-built LRB frame model starts to exceed the allowable displacement
These solid lines gradually ascend according to increasing SFs. The As‐built LRB frame model starts
limitto exceed the allowable displacement limit for the shear failure of the used LRB isolators even at the
for the shear failure of the used LRB isolators even at the time of 0.25 SF. The statistical line for
time of 0.25 SF. The statistical line for 50.0th
50.0th percentile rank (median line) goes over percentile rank (median line) goes over the allowable
the allowable displacement limit when NF ground
displacement limit when NF ground motions are applied to 0.5 SF. Except for three cases, the As‐
motions are applied to 0.5 SF. Except for three cases, the As-built LRB frame model experiences the
shearbuilt LRB offrame
failure model
the LRB experiences
isolators the shear
subjected to NF failure
ground of the LRB isolators
motions with 1.0subjected to NF ground
SF. The LRB+8STE frame
motions with 1.0 SF. The LRB+8STE frame model begins to
model begins to undergo the shear failure of the LRB isolators when SF exceeds theof value
undergo the shear failure the LRB
of 0.5.
isolators when SF exceeds the value of 0.5. On the contrary, base isolation systems with superelastic
On the contrary, base isolation systems with superelastic SMA bending bars are safe against NF ground
SMA bending bars are safe against NF ground motions when considering maximum base
motions when considering maximum base displacements less than allowable displacement limits.
displacements less than allowable displacement limits. As the magnitude of ground motions
As the magnitude of ground motions increases, the range of data scatter indicating the extent of
increases, the range of data scatter indicating the extent of uncertainty decreases. The data points
uncertainty
converge decreases. Thelevel
to the certain dataaround
pointsat converge to thereby
the 1.0 SF, the certain level around
guaranteeing at the 1.0
the reliability of SF, thereby
seismic
guaranteeing the reliability of seismic
performance under strong earthquake events. performance under strong earthquake events.

Figure 17. Maximum base shear displacements (Δ
max
) under seismic ground motions.
Figure 17. Maximum base shear displacements (∆max ) under seismic ground motions.
Except for the As-built LRB frame model, residual displacements that may happen due to the
Except for the As‐built LRB frame model, residual displacements that may happen due to the
yielding of bending bars are necessary to investigate the effectiveness of the recentering device in
yielding of bending bars are necessary to investigate the effectiveness of the recentering device in the
the proposed base isolation system. The residual base shear displacements (∆res ) under seismic
proposed base isolation system. The residual base shear displacements (Δres) under seismic ground
ground motions are measured at the end of the analyses, and presented in Figure 18. In general, base
motions are measured at the end of the analyses, and presented in Figure 18. In general, base isolation
isolation systems with steel bending bars exhibit ten times larger residual displacements than those
systems with steel
with superelastic SMAbending
bendingbars exhibit
bars. ten times
For 50th larger
percentile residual rank,
(median) displacements than those
the LRB+16STE frame with
model
superelastic SMA bending bars. For 50th percentile (median) rank, the LRB+16STE frame model
possesses approximately 15 mm residual displacement while the LRB+16SMA frame model generates
possesses approximately 15 mm residual displacement while the LRB+16SMA frame model generates
about 1.5 mm residual displacement at most. The LRB+16STE frame model has the statistical lines
about 1.5 mm residual displacement at most. The LRB+16STE frame model has the statistical lines
placed to slightly higher levels as compared to the LRB+8STE frame model under the same percentile
placed to slightly higher levels as compared to the LRB+8STE frame model under the same percentile
rank. On the contrary, the LRB+16SMA frame model occupies the lower level of the statistical lines
rank. On the contrary, the LRB+16SMA frame model occupies the lower level of the statistical lines
under the same percentile rank than the LRB+8SMA frame model. It is, therefore, concluded that
under the same percentile rank than the LRB+8SMA frame model. It is, therefore, concluded that
superelastic SMA bending bars help base isolation systems to reduce residual displacement.
superelastic SMA bending bars help base isolation systems to reduce residual displacement.

Figure 18. Residual base shear displacements (Δ ) under seismic ground motions.
Figure 18. Residual base shear displacements (∆resres ) under seismic ground motions.
For another examination, recentering ratios (RRs) are needed to be investigated so as to evaluate
For another examination, recentering ratios (RRs) are needed to be investigated so as to evaluate
the recentering capability of individual base isolation systems. They are defined as the ratio of the
the recentering capability of individual base isolation systems. They are defined as the ratio of the
maximum recoverable displacement to the maximum displacement, and expressed as the percentile
maximum recoverable displacement to the maximum displacement, and expressed as the percentile
index as follows:
index as follows:
RR p%q “ Δ max  Δ rec  ˆ 100
p∆max ´ ∆rec q
(9)
RR (%)   100
Δ max  (9)
p∆max q
The recentering ratios (RRs) under seismic ground motions with increasing SFs are presented in
The recentering ratios (RRs) under seismic ground motions with increasing SFs are presented in
Figure 19. The RRs of the LRB+16STE frame model are mostly distributed below 25%. As compared to
Figure 19. The RRs of the LRB+16STE frame model are mostly distributed below 25%. As compared
the RRs of the LRB+8STE frame model, the usage of more steel bending bars deteriorates all the more
to the RRs of the LRB+8STE frame model, the usage of more steel bending bars deteriorates all the
recentering capability in spite of reducing maximum displacement. Although more kinematic energy
more recentering capability in spite of reducing maximum displacement. Although more kinematic
can be dissipated by the yielding of the steel bending bars, this mechanism give rise to the decrease
energy can be dissipated by the yielding of the steel bending bars, this mechanism give rise to the
of recoverable displacement during earthquake loading. The median line of the LRB+8SMA frame
decrease of recoverable displacement during earthquake loading. The median line of the LRB+8SMA
model
frame maintains the constant
model maintains level above
the constant theabove
level RR of the
60%RR
regardless
of 60% of increasing
regardless of SFs. In particular,
increasing the
SFs. In
LRB+16 frame model displays the median line placed to the level greater than the RR of approximately
particular, the LRB+16 frame model displays the median line placed to the level greater than the RR
90%, meaning that 90%,
of approximately this model perfectly
meaning recovers
that this itsperfectly
model original configuration. The analysis
recovers its original results such
configuration. The as
maximum displacements, residual displacements, and RRs are summarized in Table
analysis results such as maximum displacements, residual displacements, and RRs are summarized 4. It can be finally
shown that superelastic SMA bending bars play a role in recentering as well as reinforcing very well in
in Table 4. It can be finally shown that superelastic SMA bending bars play a role in recentering as
the base isolation system.
well as reinforcing very well in the base isolation system.

Figure 19. Recentering ratios (RRs) under seismic ground motions.
Figure 19. Recentering ratios (RRs) under seismic ground motions.
Table 4. Summary of nonlinear dynamic analysis results.
Evaluation SF=0.25 SF=0.50 SF=0.75 SF=1.00

Model ID
Item 15.9% 50.0% 84.1% Mean SD 15.9% 50.0% 84.1% Mean SD 15.9% 50.0% 84.1% Mean SD 15.9% 50.0% 84.1% Mean SD
LRB 31.6 89.2 138.9 90.3 55.1 89.3 248.4 323.1 224.9 115.9 156.6 409.9 489.3 354.7 151.4 235.2 503.0 566.4 429.3 152.7
LRB+8STE 20.3 39.5 90.1 50.9 36.9 51.6 126.6 179.9 120.3 58.1 91.5 177.8 206.2 166.8 50.0 144.2 202.8 222.4 190.9 39.9
∆max (mm) LRB+8SMA 14.3 47.1 64.8 41.4 22.2 57.3 69.1 73.3 64.4 10.8 67.7 73.1 74.4 70.4 4.8 70.7 73.8 74.8 72.9 3.1
LRB+16STE 4.3 28.0 57.5 30.4 25.7 43.63 74.8 98.5 70.1 29.4 72.1 98.9 112.0 90.6 22.4 84.4 104.5 118.6 101.1 16.7
LRB+16SMA 5.8 30.9 48.9 26.4 18.1 27.8 50.6 57.4 44.8 13.4 42.8 56.6 58.3 52.4 7.6 52.2 57.4 58.6 55.8 3.8
LRB+8STE 2.8 7.3 14.1 8.7 6.4 3.2 6.2 22.0 10.3 9.6 5.6 18.5 26.0 20.1 15.2 4.2 19.4 31.7 21.5 18.0
LRB+8SMA 0.4 1.5 2.7 1.6 1.3 0.8 2.1 6.9 3.2 3.1 0.8 3.9 6.2 3.7 2.9 1.3 2.9 5.9 3.7 3.0
∆res (mm)
LRB+16STE 1.6 4.9 11.2 5.8 4.4 7.0 11.3 21.3 14.9 11.4 7.1 15.4 31.6 18.0 13.3 4.2 17.8 28.2 19.4 15.5
LRB+16SMA 0.2 0.9 1.9 1.1 1.0 0.6 1.0 2.5 1.5 1.0 0.2 1.1 2.5 1.5 1.5 0.3 1.7 3.8 2.2 2.1
LRB+8STE 14.6 17.3 26.5 20.2 6.7 14.7 24.5 43.7 28.5 13.9 14.9 43.0 50.9 39.6 15.4 31.2 50.7 55.5 45.8 13.3
LRB+8SMA 48.4 57.3 77.4 62.6 15.9 51.3 59.7 61.5 56.9 5.9 58.2 60.7 62.3 59.9 2.8 56.4 61.7 63.6 61.5 1.7
RR (%)
LRB+16STE 8.8 14.0 65.5 31.7 31.9 11.9 13.8 15.0 13.4 1.7 12.9 14.6 19.0 15.0 4.0 13.7 15.2 22.8 17.1 3.8
LRB+16SMA 85.7 90.5 100.0 91.7 5.6 84.3 89.3 91.3 87.9 3.5 88.6 89.9 91.1 89.9 1.3 88.9 90.7 92.4 90.6 1.6
9. Conclusions
The seismic response and performance of self-centering LRB base isolation systems installed on
the CBF building are mainly investigated through nonlinear dynamic time-history analyses conducted
using NF ground motions. In this study, superelastic SMA bending bars are completely integrated
with LRB base isolators in an effort to reduce residual and maximum displacement in the structure.
The additional base isolation systems with steel bending bars are also designed to conduct comparative
investigation to the proposed self-centering base isolation systems in terms of reinforcing effect
and recentering capability. The base isolation systems were modeled as component springs with
nonlinear material behavior, and then aligned to the bases of 2D frame models used for dynamic
analyses. Although the LRB isolators with bending bars make vibration periods shorten, they can
effectively control displacement and vibration. The As-built LRB frame model without bending bars
was susceptible to shear failure under general NF ground motions. On the other hand, the LRB
isolation systems equipped with bending bars restrict maximum displacement within the allowable
lateral displacement limit, and so prevent the failure of the entire structure from strong ground motions
presented herein. In spite of more flexibility, superelastic SMA bending bars acting as supplemental
damping devices offer better reinforcing effect than the steel bending bars. Most of all, they provide
excellent recentering capability attributed to completely recoverable displacement to the base isolation
system. Therefore, it is concluded in this study that the proposed LRB isolators combined with
superelastic SMA devices are considered to be very suitably used as seismic retrofitting systems.
Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the Incheon National University (INU) Research Grant in 2014.
The authors gratefully acknowledge this support.
Author Contributions: The authors contributed equally to this paper. Junwon Seo helped to make numerical
models and write the paper. Jong Wan Hu conducted numerical analyses and analyzed the results. All authors
made a contribution to writing, revising, and proofreading the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Providakis, C.P. Efeect of LRB isolators and supplemental viscous dampers on seismic isolated buildings
under near-fault excitations. Eng. Struct. 2008, 30, 1187–1198. [CrossRef]
2. Providakis, C.P. Efeect of supplemental damping on LRB and FPS seismic isolators under near-fault ground
motions. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2009, 29, 80–90. [CrossRef]
3. Hu, J.W. Response of Seismically Isolated Steel Frame Buildings with Sustainable Lead-Rubber Bearing (LRB)
Isolator Devices Subjected to Near-Fault (NF) Ground Motions. Sustainability 2015, 7, 111–137. [CrossRef]
4. Chopra, A.K.; Chintanapakdee, C. Comparing response of SDF systems to near-fault and far-fault earthquake
motions in the context of spectral regions. Earthq. Eng. Stract. Dynam. 2001, 30, 1769–1789. [CrossRef]
5. Saiful Islam, A.B.M.; Jammel, M.; Jummat, M.Z. Study on optimal isolation system and dynamic structural
responses in multi-storey building. Int. J. Phys. Sci. 2011, 6, 2219–2228.
6. Naeim, F.; Kelly, J. Design of Seismic Isolated Structures: From Theory to Practice; Wiley: New York, NY,
USA, 1999.
7. Chang, K.C.; Tsai, M.H.; Hwang, J.S.; Tsai, K.C. Recent application and development of base isolation and
passive energy dissipation systems in Taiwan. In Proceedings of the international Post-SMiRT conference
on seismic isolation, passive energy dissipation and active control of vibrations of structures, Cheju, Korea,
23–25 August 1999.
8. Braga, F.; Laterza, M.; Gigliotti, R. Seismic isolation using slide and rubber bearing: Large amplitude
vibration tests on Rapolla Residenence Building. In Proceedings of the 7th international symposium on
seismic isolation, passive energy dissipation and active control of vibrations of structures, Assisi, Italy, 2–5
October 2001; pp. 1–31.
9. Hu, J.W.; Leon, R.T. Analysis and evaluations for composite-moment frames with SMA PR-CFT connections.
Nonlinear Dyn. 2011. [CrossRef]
10. Sabelli, R.; Mahin, S.A.; Chang, C. Seismic demands on steel braced-frame buildings with buckling-restrained
braces. Eng. Struct. 2003, 25, 655–666. [CrossRef]
11. Hu, J.W. Seismic analysis and evaluation of several recentering braced frame structures. Proc. Inst. Mech.
Eng. Part C 2014, 228, 781–798. [CrossRef]
12. Hu, J.W.; Kim, D.K.; Choi, E. Numerical investigation on the cyclic behavior of smart recentering clip-angle
connections with superelastic shape memory alloy fasteners. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Park. C 2013, 227, 806–818.
[CrossRef]
13. Moussa, L. Combined systems for seismic protection of buildings. In Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Strong Vrancea Earthquakes and Risk Mitigation, Bucharest, Romania, 4–6 October 2007.
14. Lewangamage, C.S.; Abe, M.; Fujino, Y.; Yoshida, J. Design criteria for seismic isolation rubber bearings.
In Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1–6
August 2004; p. 183.
15. Lee-Glauser, G.J.; Ahmadi, G.; Horta, L.G. Integrated passive/active vibration absorber for multistory
buildings. ASCE J. Struct. Eng. 1997, 123, 499–504. [CrossRef]
16. Ahmadi, S.L.; Tadjbakhsh, I.G. A comparative study of performances of various base isolation systems,
Part 1: Shear beam structures. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1989, 18, 11–32.
17. Dolce, M.; Cardone, D.; Marnetto, R. Implementation and testing of passive control devices based on
shape-memory alloys. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2000, 29, 945–968. [CrossRef]
18. Dolce, M.; Cardone, D. Mechanical behavior of shape memory alloys for seismic applications 2: Austenite
NiTi wires subjected to tension. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2001, 43, 2657–2677. [CrossRef]
19. McCormick, J.; DesRoches, R.; Fugazza, D.; Auricchio, F. Seismic assessment of concentrically braced steel
frames with shape memory alloy braces. ASCE J. Struct. Eng. 2007, 133, 862–870. [CrossRef]
20. Hu, J.W.; Choi, E.; Leon, R.T. Design, analysis, and application of innovative composite PR connections
between steel beams and CFT columns. Smart Mater. Struct. 2011. [CrossRef]
21. Song, G.; Ma, N.; Li, H. Applications of shape memory alloys in civil structures. Eng. Struct. 2006, 28,
1266–1274. [CrossRef]
22. Mazza, F.; Vulcano, A.; Mazza, F. Nonlinear dynamic response of RC buildings with different base isolation
systems subjected to horizontal and vertical components of near-fault ground motions. Open Constr. Build.
Technol. J. 2012, 6, 373–383. [CrossRef]
23. Mazza, F. Nonlinear incremental analysis of fire-damaged r.c. base-isolated structures subjected to near-fault
ground motions. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2015, 77, 192–202. [CrossRef]
24. Kaab, M.Z.; Ounis, A. Influence of the damping of the seismic base isolation system LRB on the dynamic
response of the isolated structures. Int. J. Civil Struct. Eng. 2011, 1, 817–826.
25. Mazza, F.; Vulcano, A. Nonlinear response of RC framed buildings with isolation and supplemental damping
at the base subjected to near-fault earthquakes. J. Earthq. Eng. 2009, 13, 690–715. [CrossRef]
26. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures; ASCE:
Reston, VA, USA, 2005.
27. International Code Council (ICC). International Building Code 2006 (IBC2006); ICC: Falls Church, VA,
USA, 2006.
28. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Manual of Steel Construction, Load and Resistance Factor Design
(LRFD); AISC: Chicago, IL, USA, 2001.
29. Mazzoni, S.; Mckenna, F.; Fenves, G.L. Open SEES Command Language Manual v. 1.7.3; University of California:
Berkeley, CA, USA, 2006.
30. Auricchio, F.; Sacco, E. A one-dimensional model for superelastic shape-memory alloys with different
properties between martensite and austenite. Int. J. Non-Linear Mech. 1997, 32, 1101–1114. [CrossRef]
31. Hu, J.W. Numerical simulation for the behavior of superelastic shape memory alloys. J. Mech. Sci. Tech.
2013, 27, 381–386. [CrossRef]
32. Somerville, P.G.; Smith, N.; Punyamurthula, S.; Sun, J. Development of Ground Motion Time Histories for Phase 2
of the FEMA/SAC Steel Project; SAC Joint Venture: Sacramento, CA, USA, 1997.
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Sustainability 08 00109 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 08 00109 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Academic Editor: Marc A. Rosen

Sustainability 2016, 8, 109; doi:10.3390/su8020109 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

is defined as the following equation. E iso  4 Q  (  2   1) (5)

(a) LRB+8STE or LRB+8SMA (b) LRB+16STE or LRB+16SMA

(a) LRB Isolators for Energy (b) SMA Bending Bars for (c) Total Behavior for the Self‐

F “ FLRB ` FSMA (7)

∆ “ ∆LRB “ ∆SMA (8)

4. Prototype Frame Buildings

Table 1. Basic design conditions.

Column* Beam* Int. Column* Int. Beam*

5. Analytical Modeling and Tests

LRB Isolator Parallel

Parallel Spring Connection (ParallelParallel

Isotropic Hardening Hysteresis Behavior Isotropic Steel Hardening Behavior

Parallel Spring Connection (Parallel Material)

FLRBParallel Spring Connection (Parallel Material) FSMA

Isotropic Hardening Hysteresis Behavior Flag-shape Hysteresis SMA Behavior

Ground Richter Distance Duration Max Min

Table 4. Summary of nonlinear dynamic analysis results.

Evaluation SF=0.25 SF=0.50 SF=0.75 SF=1.00

You might also like