Low-Cost Base-Isolation System for Seismic Protection of

Rural Buildings
Radhikesh P. Nanda1; Manish Shrikhande2; and Pankaj Agarwal3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 11/24/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: A simple low-cost friction base-isolation system is examined for its applicability in reducing seismic vulnerability of rural
buildings. Four friction isolation interfaces, namely, marble–marble, marble–high-density polyethylene, marble–rubber sheet, and marble–
geosynthetic, were studied. The friction properties of these interfaces were studied under static and dynamic conditions for a range of
normal loads from 10 to 50 kN. The average coefficients of friction for all of these interfaces except marble–rubber were found to be in the
range of 0.05–0.15. The effectiveness of these isolation systems was investigated both analytically and experimentally for a spectrum-
compatible ground motion corresponding to the maximum credible earthquake for the most severe earthquake zone according to Indian
standards for earthquake-resistant design. The analytical prediction of seismic response of buildings with such isolation was found to be in
good agreement (within 19%) with the experimental observation. It was found that for marble–marble and marble–geosynthetic interfaces,
more than 50% reduction in absolute response acceleration at the roof level could be achieved in comparison with the response of the fixed-
base structure at the cost of increasing relative sliding displacements at the friction interface. However, these relative displacements were
well within the commonly adopted plinth projection (75 mm). DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000254. © 2015 American Society of
Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Friction base isolation; Masonry buildings; Seismic protection; Shake table test.

Introduction countries are expensive and bulky with an individual isolator

Masonry is one of the most popular building types in rural India
and several other developing countries. This type of construction
is preferred over other contemporary construction types, namely,
framed structures (either reinforced concrete or steel), with respect
to thermal and acoustic comfort, reduced formwork, easy and in-
expensive repair, use of locally available materials, need for less
skilled labor, etc. However, poor seismic withstand capacity is a
major hindrance for its use in seismically active regions such as
the Himalayas. Traditional methods of improving the seismic
behavior of masonry constructions with the provision of seismic
bands at different levels primarily aim at preventing collapse while
sustaining some repairable structural damage (Agarwal and
Shrikhande 2006). The cost of these postearthquake repairs can
be substantial, and repairs often require a skilled handling that may
not be readily available in rural regions. A practical solution to
avoid structural damage during earthquakes involves the use of
base isolation, which consists of decoupling the superstructure
from its foundation to reduce transmission of seismic waves from
the ground into the structure. Conventional isolators used in many
1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, NIT Durgapur,
Durgapur 713209, India (corresponding author). E-mail: rpnanda2002
@yahoo.co.in
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute
of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee 247667, India. E-mail: mshrifeq@iitr
.ernet.in
3
Associate Professor, Dept. of Earthquake Engineering, Indian Institute
of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee 247667, India. E-mail: panagfeq@iitr
.ernet.in
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 17, 2014; approved on
December 19, 2014; published online on April 16, 2015. Discussion
period open until September 16, 2015; separate discussions must be
submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Practice Peri-
odical on Structural Design and Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-
0680/04015001(8)/$25.00.
bearing weighing approximately a ton or more. The currently
commercially available isolator bearings are either circular or
square-shaped. Distributed isolators (Sassu 2006) in the form of
long strips would have distinct advantages over square or circular
isolators when applied to structures where the lateral-resisting
system comprises walls, such as in masonry buildings. The
simplest way to isolate the superstructure from the substructure is
to decouple them by providing a sliding interface in between. The
relative movement across this interface during an earthquake
would restrict transmission of seismic waves to the superstructure
by dissipating some part of the input seismic energy in friction. It
is easy to provide a distributed isolation system arranged
uniformly around the structure’s base in the form of continuous
layer at plinth level (instead of a number of friction bearings at
discrete locations) during normal construction. The most attractive
features of friction base-isolation systems are their effectiveness
over a wide range of frequency input, and that the maximum
acceleration transmissibility is limited by the maximum limiting
frictional force (Jangid 2005). This simplicity of design, however,
comes at the cost of permanent residual drift after an earthquake,
which can be acceptable considering the rare occurrence of strong
earthquakes.
Qamaruddin et al. (1986) proposed a sliding joint concept that
consists of decoupling the building at the plinth level, by
providing a smooth finished layer of cement sand mortar over
the lower plinth wall and applying engine oil over the finished
layer. The sliding interface between the prepared plinth surface
and bond beam was provided with a layer of some durable
material to facilitate sliding along the interface. The feasibility of
this concept had been tested for sliding brick building models with
different sliding layer materials, namely, graphite powder, dry
sand, and wet sand. The friction coefficient values of these
materials were obtained by sinusoidal shake table testing of
models with the sliding joint. The coefficients of friction (μ) of
different sliding materials were reported as 0.25 for graphite

© ASCE 04015001-1 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 04015001

 powder, 0.34 for dry sand, and 0.41 for wet sand. The cracks in the
specimens with sliding interface were observed to be much less
than those in conventionally strengthened specimens. The
effectiveness of the friction isolation system was supported by
Zongjin et al. (1989) with three different sliding materials, viz
Delrin (μ = 0:2), asphalt felt (μ = 0:6), and vinyl flooring (μ = 0:7).
Song et al. (1990) carried out tests for two 6-story base-isolated
brick masonry models on a shake table. The isolation system
comprised of upper and lower reinforced concrete ring beams
filled with two layers of asphalt felt interposed with graphite
powder. The models were tested on a shake table with input peak
acceleration varying from 0.1 to 0.5 g. The sliding initiated at
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 11/24/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0.25 g, and no cracking in models was noticed even up to peak
base acceleration of 0.5 g. Nikolic-Brzev and Arya (1996) reported
an experimental study of seismic isolation of 2-storied masonry
buildings. Multilevel isolation in the form of friction pads of
Teflon and stainless steel at a number of discrete locations at the
base level and continuous isolation in the form of sliding joint at
the upper floor were explored. An average reduction in maximum
response accelerations and maximum base shear by approximately
30 and 40%, respectively, was obtained in the isolated structure as
compared with the structure without base isolation. Lou et al.
(1992) experimented with low-friction materials as sliding joints
to ensure building safety during strong earthquakes. Several brick
walls with and without sliding joints were tested under lateral
loads with simulated dead load. The walls with sliding joints were
observed to slide at half of the lateral force amplitude, which
caused cracking in the wall without sliding joint. Shaking table
tests were also carried out with various sliding surfaces, namely,
graphite, screened gravel, and paraffin wax. Sliding was reported
to start on the graphite–concrete interface (μ = 0:23) at peak
acceleration 0.2–0.3 g, and a higher peak acceleration of 0.3–0.6 g
was reported to initiate slide on screened gravel–concrete interface
(μ = 0:4). Paraffin wax was not found suitable for the purpose
because its condensation cohesiveness led to rocking vibration
before sliding. Tehrani and Hasani (1996) conducted experimental
studies with dune sand and lightweight expanded clay as sliding
layers in adobe buildings in Iran. The coefficient of friction was
reported as 0.25 for dune sand, 0.16 for clay, and 0.2–0.3 for light
expanded clay. They concluded that dune sand and lightweight
expanded clay may be good materials for creating a sliding layer in
adobe buildings. Ahmad et al. (2009) experimented on P–F base-
isolated masonry housing using demolished waste as recycled
mortar with coarse dry sand (μ = 0:36) as friction material. It was
concluded that 20% replacement of cement by demolished waste
could be safely adopted with 70% energy dissipated through the
friction isolation system. Nanda et al. (2010) experimented with a
sliding interface of geotextiles and smooth marble at the plinth level
of a brick masonry building. A 65% reduction in absolute response
acceleration at the roof level in comparison with the response of the
fixed-base structure was reported at the cost of 25-mm peak sliding
displacement.
There has been significant amount of numerical investigation
on the performance of pure-friction sliding systems under har-
monic and earthquake type excitation in the past by Jangid (2005),
Qamaruddin and Ahmad (2007), Ozbulut and Hurlebaus (2010),
Nanda et al. (2012a, b), and so on.
A low coefficient of friction at the sliding interface leads to a
reduced roof acceleration and base shear as the superstructure
slides across the plinth beam during the earthquake. A too-small
coefficient of friction, however, leads to large sliding displacement,
and lack of restoring force causes residual displacement. Therefore,
a usable range of friction coefficient has been recommended as
(0.05, 0.15) (Nikolic-Brzev 1993). Previous investigations reveal
© ASCE 04015001-2
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 04015001
that Teflon (polytetrafluoroethylene) sliding against stainless steel
gives a very low friction value in the most desirable range, i.e.,
0.05–0.15. Hence, Teflon has been used widely for more than
30 years in seismic isolators for bridges. However, a continuous
bonding of steel sheet over concrete course is very expensive and
leads to construction difficulties. Graphite, grease, screened sand,
and dry and wet sand are economical alternatives but they cannot
be used long term because grease can be contaminated by debris,
dirt, etc.; graphite can be affected by chemical reaction; and
a sand layer is difficult to maintain in position. Thus, there is a need
to search for alternative interface materials that may be easily
available and economically viable, and that can be readily adopted
in construction. The present investigation is to explore alternative
sliding interface materials for distributed friction base isolation
through an experimental and analytical study. Four interfaces,
namely, (1) marble–marble, (2) marble–high-density polyethylene
(HDPE) (2 mm thick), (3) marble–rubber sheet (4 mm thick), and
(4) marble–geosynthetic (nonwoven spun-bonded 1.5-mm-thick
geotextile of brand Polyfelt TS-50, TenCate Geosynthetics Asia
Sdb Bhd, India), have been studied in an experimental program to
test their efficiency for use as a friction isolation system. These
materials are inexpensive, easily available in the market, and can be
easily bonded to building materials.
Experimental Study
The dynamic characteristics of the friction interface for seismic
protection of masonry buildings were investigated via friction and
shake table tests.
Friction Test
The setup, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2, mainly consists of three
units: shear box unit, normal load unit and shear load unit. The
shear box unit is circular in shape and consists of two halves
of 50 mm depth each. It has been designed to accommodate
samples of 200 mm diameter. The upper half of the shear box
is restrained against lateral movement, whereas the lower half
of the shear box is free to move laterally. The lower half of the
shear box rests on a base plate, and the whole assembly again
rests on two trains of roller bearings. The normal loading unit
consists of a hydraulic jack and a reaction beam. The shear
load unit consists of a servocontrolled actuator of maximum shear
load capacity of 100 kN with stroke length of 300 mm. The
actuator applies the shear force or the horizontal load on the test
specimens.
Specimens of 200 mm diameter and 50 mm height (Fig. 3) were
prepared in 1:1.5:3 concrete cast with smooth marble on one side.
For different sliding interfaces, i.e., marble–HDPE, marble–geo-
synthetic, and marble–rubber, a HDPE sheet of 2 mm thickness,
natural rubber sheet of 4 mm thickness, and geosynthetic sheet of
1.5 mm thickness, respectively, were pasted to smooth-machined
ground marble by an epoxy-based adhesive. The specimens were
kept in the lower and upper shear box to permit sliding along the
different sliding interfaces. The static tests were conducted under
controlled displacement. The ramp rate had been kept constant at
0.5 mm/s with ramp limit of 25 mm, and the normal load was
varied from 10 to 50 kN. Dynamic tests were carried out under
displacement-controlled conditions at frequencies ranging from
0.25 to 1 Hz with a ramp limit of 25 mm to give a velocity of
12.5–50 mm/s. Dynamic tests were conducted on the same test
setup with a small modification. Here, the top box was restrained
in both directions, and the bottom shear box attached to the
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
 Reaction
beam
180
Reaction Curved grip of
Ball bearing of 32 Ф
column 200 Ф for the 155
155 50 shear box
200
40
Actuator 155
20
325 50 150
Roller bearing Reaction support
155 for the shear box
of 20 Ф
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 11/24/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

300 300 300

Fig. 1. Experimental setup for friction test with shear box (all dimensions in mm)

(a)

Fig. 2. Experimental setup for friction test with shear box (photo-
graphic view)

(b)

Fig. 4. Load–displacement graphs for (a) static; (b) dynamic test with
a normal load of 50 kN for the marble–marble interface

Fig. 3. Samples for friction test
actuator was allowed to move in both directions. Load and dis-
placement data were obtained from the load cell and displacement
transducer embedded in the actuator system. All of the tests were
carried out at 35°C, and each test was repeated thrice to get the
average value.
Fig. 4 shows the load–displacement plots for static and dy-
namic tests for a normal load of 50 kN for the marble–marble
interface. The coefficient of static friction from the static test was
obtained as the ratio of the maximum shear force just before
sliding to the normal load. The force–displacement hysteretic
loops of the sliding models in the dynamic test, as shown in
Fig. 4(b), are quite well formed and the dynamic friction coeffi-
cient was obtained as the ratio of the constant shear force sustained
during the slip along the sliding interface to the normal force.
From these tests, the average values of coefficient of static fric-
tion and dynamic friction for different interfaces are shown in
Table 1. No significant variation was observed in the coefficient
of static friction for the range of normal loads considered, and
the coefficient of dynamic friction was found to be insensitive
to the velocity in the range considered (12.5–50 mm/s). The
observed dynamic coefficient of friction is marginally smaller
than the static coefficient of friction and may be assumed
identical for all practical purposes. The shear box tests reveal that
sliding couples made up of marble–marble, marble–HDPE, and

© ASCE 04015001-3 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 04015001

 Table 1. Coefficient of Friction for Different Sliding Interfaces
Coefficient of Coefficient of
S. number Interface static friction dynamic friction
1 Marble–marble 0.09 0.08
2 Marble–HDPE 0.08 0.07
3 Marble–rubber 0.16 0.18
4 Marble–geosynthetic 0.11 0.10

marble–geosynthetic provide coefficient of friction values in the

desirable range.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 11/24/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Shake Table Test

The performance of these sliding interfaces in reducing the seismic
response of a half-scale single-story brick masonry building during
earthquakes was investigated on a 3:5 × 3:5 m biaxial servocon-
trolled shake table. An artificial accelerogram compatible with the
design spectrum of Indian standard (IS) 1893 (Part 1) (2002)
and corresponding to the level of maximum considered earthquake
in the most severe seismic zone in India (with effective peak
ground acceleration of 0.36 g) was used as the base excitation in
the horizontal direction. The vertical motion was considered as
two-thirds of the horizontal motion.
A typical single-room residential building was considered,
with one door opening in the longitudinal wall and two windows
in opposite crosswalls, as is commonly adopted in traditional
construction practice in India. The layout plan of the building is Fig. 5. Plan and elevation of the model (all dimensions in mm)
shown in Fig. 5. The half-scale model was constructed with
specially manufactured half-scale bricks (114 × 57 × 38 mm) in
1:6 cement sand mortar. The model was constructed on a steel
base plate to facilitate mounting of the specimen on the shake
table platform. The reinforced cement concrete plinth beam
was directly cast on this base plate. A smooth machine-polished
marble strip of the same width as that of the plinth beam was
pasted on top of the smooth plinth beam. The smooth surface
of the marble on the plinth beam is kept exposed facing
upwards. Another strip of marble of the same width as that of the
bond beam is kept above the marble top on the plinth beam with
the smooth surface downward so that both smooth surfaces are
in contact with each other. A bond beam was laid on top of the
smooth marble strip with adequate precautions to prevent leak-
age of cement slurry into the sliding interface. Subsequently, a
bond beam was provided at the lintel level to ensure the
integral box action of the building unit. The natural frequency of
the superstructure was obtained as 25.5 Hz from the free
vibration test.
The second isolator system was formed by separating the roof
and superstructure part of the model, keeping the plinth beam part
attached to shake table plate. A 2-mm-thick HDPE sheet was
pasted by an epoxy-based adhesive on the smooth marble surface
of the plinth beam. Then the upper part comprising of bond beam
with marble surfaces and superstructure was placed on the plinth Fig. 6. Mounting of super structure above the HDPE isolator
beam part as shown in Fig. 6 to form the marble–HDPE interface.
After the completion of the second test, the third and fourth test
setups were prepared by replacing the HDPE sheet first with a was also mounted on the shake table platform for recording the
4-mm-thick rubber sheet to get a marble–rubber interface. The relative displacement between the plinth beam and bond beam
rubber sheet was subsequently replaced by 2-mm-thick nonwoven across the sliding interface. The signals from these sensors were
spun-bonded geotextile of brand Polyfelt TS-50 (Fig. 7) to form acquired on a digital data acquisition system through a signal
the marble–geosynthetic interface. conditioner at a sampling rate of 200 samples per second. All
The structural response to the combined horizontal and ver- accelerometer data were passed through digital filters with pass
tical excitation was recorded by a set of force balance accel- band of 0.1–30 Hz, which corresponds to the frequency content
erometers at roof level, lintel level, and just above the sliding of earthquake ground motion and also accounts for the baseline
interface, as shown in Fig. 8. A LVDT displacement transducer correction (Boore 2005).

© ASCE 04015001-4 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 04015001

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 11/24/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Fixing geotextile sheet on plinth beam
Fig. 8. Building model and instrumentation
Analytical Modeling
The results of shake table tests were used to validate the analytical
model for seismic response of friction base-isolated systems.
A two-mass model, as shown in Fig. 9, is used to describe the
seismic behavior of a single-story building with a sliding interface.
The structure above the sliding joint is assumed to remain elastic
as the purpose of base isolation is to reduce the earthquake forces
in such a way that the system remains within elastic limit. The
mass of the roof in addition to half the mass of the wall is lumped
at the roof (Mt ), and the rest is lumped at the base with the mass of
the bond beam (Mb ). The base mass is assumed to rest on a plane
with dry friction damping of coulomb type to permit sliding of the
system.
Let the ground acceleration be denoted by €x g ; xt and xb
represent the relative displacement of top mass with respect to
bottom mass, and relative displacement of the bottom mass with
respect to ground, respectively; and θ( = Mt / Mb ) = mass ratio
© ASCE 04015001-5
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 04015001
Fig. 9. Analytical model for system with a sliding interface
(MR). The natural frequency of the nonsliding system (ωn ) is
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
related to the stiffness K and the top mass as ωn = K / Mt , and
ε( = C / 2ωn Mt ) is the fraction of critical damping, where C =
damping coefficient. The natural frequency of the superstructure is
considered as 25.5 Hz in the analytical model, which corresponds
to the natural frequency of the specimen used in the shake table
test. The MR is taken as 2.2, which is consistent with the mass
properties of the specimen. The damping ratio is assumed as 8%
for the analytical model, which is the average damping level for
masonry constructions (Booth and Key 2006). The coefficient of
friction (μ), assumed the same for both static and dynamic friction,
is considered as 0.09, which corresponds to the friction coefficient
between the marble–marble sliding interface determined through
the friction test. The effect of vertical component of earthquake
ground motion can be easily accounted for by considering an effe-
ctive coefficient of friction μ′ = μ(1 + €z g / g), where €z g = vertical
component of ground acceleration and g = acceleration due to
gravity. The effect of vertical component on the acceleration
response, however, has been reported to be negligible (Tsopelas
et al. 1996) and hence has not been considered in this formulation.
Nonsliding Condition
The governing differential equation for nonsliding condition can
be obtained from equilibrium considerations as
Mt (€x g + €x t ) + C x_ t + Kxt = 0
which may be rearranged as
€x t + 2εωn x_ t + ωn2 xt = − €x g (1)
The above equation governing the dynamic response of the
system to base excitation during nonsliding condition is exactly
the same as that for a fixed-base system.
Sliding Condition
The sliding of the bottom mass begins when the sliding force
overcomes the frictional resistance at the plinth level. The building
now acts as a two-degree-of-freedom system and the governing
differential equation of motion of the top mass can be derived from
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
 1.0 1.0

Absolute Acceleration (g)

Absolute Acceleration (g)

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0

-0.5 -0.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 11/24/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-1.0 -1.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) Time (s) (b) Time (s)

1.0 1.0
Absolute Acceleration (g)

Absolute Acceleration (g)

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0

-0.5 -0.5

-1.0 -1.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
(c) Time (s) (d) Time (s)

Fig. 10. Table motion and absolute acceleration response at roof level for marble–marble sliding and fixed base structure: (a) table motion,
horizontal component; (b) experimental roof acceleration response of sliding model; (c) analytical roof acceleration response of fixed base model;
(d) analytical roof acceleration response of sliding model

Table 2. Comparison of the Absolute Acceleration Amplification at Roof Level

Sliding-base response (in g)
Interfaces Maximum horizontal table acceleration (in g) Fixed-base response (in g) (analytical) Analytical Experimental
Marble–marble 0.51 0.86 0.32 0.27
Marble–HDPE 0.58 1.0 0.28 0.24
Marble–rubber 0.47 0.76 0.46 0.41
Marble–geosynthetic 0.48 0.82 0.38 0.29

60 Table 3. Relative Sliding Displacements for Different Interfaces (mm)

Experimental Analytical
Relative Sliding Displacement (mm)

experimental Sliding interface Peak Residual Peak Residual

40 Marble–marble 50 41 30 27
Marble–HDPE 94 82 58 57
analytical
Marble–rubber 2.5 2 4 2
Marble–geosynthetic 25 24.5 13 8

20
equilibrium considerations

Mt (€x g + €x b + €x t ) + C x_ t + Kxt = 0
0
Fixed
which can be simplified as

0 10 20 30 40 50 €x t + €x b + 2εωn x_ t + ωn2 xt = − €x g (2)

Time (s)

Fig. 11. Comparative relative base sliding displacement responses for and the motion of the bottom mass may be described by
marble–marble sliding and fixed-base structure
Mb (€x g + €x b ) − C x_ t − Kxt + μ(Mt + Mb )g sgnð€x b Þ = 0

© ASCE 04015001-6 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 04015001

 which may be rearranged as
€x b − 2εωn θx_ t − ωn2 θxt + μð1 + θÞg sgnðx_ b Þ = − €x g
8
< 1, x>0
where sgn(x) = denotes the signum function.
: − 1, x < 0
The nonsliding condition prevails when the horizontal inertia
force of the bottom mass does not exceed the opposing friction
force at plinth level, i.e.,

C x_ t + Kxt − Mb ð€x g + €x b Þj < μ(Mt + Mb )g
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 11/24/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
or   
 
2εωn θ_xt + ω2 xt − €x g + €x b  < μ 1 + 1 g
 n
θ  θ
(4)
As long as the dynamic lateral force does not exceed the fric-
tional resistance at the sliding interface, there is no relative
movement between the bottom mass and the base/ground, i.e.,
xb = 0. The sliding initiates whenever the force acting at the base
exceeds the frictional resistance and stops whenever the nonslip
condition [Eq. (4)] holds. Thus, at any time, instant response of the
building can be obtained by solving either Eq. (1) when the
nonsliding condition [Eq. (4)] holds, or two coupled differential
equations [Eqs. (2) and (3)] during the sliding phase. These
equations are solved using Runge–Kutta fourth-order solver in the
MATLAB-SIMULINK environment. It may be noted that this
analytical model describes both possible ways of implementing
frictional isolation, namely, base isolation and foundation
isolation. The parameter of the analytical model that captures the
difference between these two possible isolation systems is the MR
(θ). For a typical building on a sliding interface, the base isolation
at plinth level corresponds to a higher MR, whereas the MR
decreases for foundation isolation systems (where the sliding
interface occurs between the bottom of foundation and the
prepared ground surface) as the weight of the sliding base
increases substantially. It has been reported that for a given sliding
interface, the energy dissipation at the frictional interface is greater
for systems with higher MR. Moreover, the response of sliding
system can sometimes exceed that of fixed-base systems for small
MR. Therefore, it appears that friction isolation at the plinth level
should be the preferred mode of implementing sliding interfaces,
at least for rural dwellings that do not have many service pipelines
vulnerable to the sliding displacements during an earthquake.
Results and Discussion
Because absolute acceleration of the roof mass is directly pro-
portional to the shear force and bending moment exerted at the
base of superstructure, it is the primary response quantity of in-
terest for assessing the performance of frictional isolation system.
Figs. 10(a and b), respectively, show the time histories of the table
motion and roof acceleration recorded during the shake table test.
The analytical predictions for the absolute acceleration response at
the roof level for a fixed-base model and the sliding model for the
recorded horizontal table motion as input excitation is shown in
Figs. 10(c and d), respectively. A quantitative comparison of the
reduction in absolute acceleration response with vis-à-vis the
fixed-base structure is shown in Table 2.
In the case of the fixed-base building, the maximum roof ac-
celeration is amplified by 168% with respect to the maximum base
acceleration, whereas for the marble–marble interface, the max-
imum roof acceleration is approximately 53% (experimental
© ASCE
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 04015001
observation) and 62% (analytical estimate) of the maximum base
acceleration. Similarly, the reduced peak roof acceleration is 41%
(3) (experimental) and 48% (analytical), 87% (experimental) and 97%
(analytical), and 60% (experimental) and 79% (analytical) of the
peak base acceleration for the marble–HDPE, marble–rubber, and
marble–geosynthetic interfaces, respectively. Thus, the analytical
predictions are in good agreement (within 19%) with the experi-
mental observations. The reduction in maximum roof acceleration
for the sliding-base model with marble–marble, marble–HDPE,
marble–rubber, and marble–geosynthetic interfaces is 68, 75, 48,
and 64%, respectively, of the maximum roof acceleration of the
fixed-base model obtained analytically for the same spectrum-
compatible ground motion. The reduction in the roof acceleration
response of the sliding-base system comes at the cost of relative
displacement between the superstructure and the substructure. The
relative displacement between the foundation (plinth beam) and
bond beam are recorded for the sliding interfaces through the
LVDT attached to the shake table platform in the direction of
horizontal motion. Relative sliding displacement of the bottom
mass has also been calculated analytically for the sliding-base
model subjected to the recorded table motion. A comparison of the
analytical response for relative base sliding displacement with the
experimentally observed displacement response for the marble–
marble sliding model is shown in Fig. 11. The peak relative sliding
displacement and the residual sliding displacements for different
sliding interfaces are also presented in Table 3. It is observed that
the peak relative sliding displacement is maximum (94 mm) for
sliding interface marble–HDPE, whereas it is 50, 25, and 2.5 mm
in case of marble–marble, marble–rubber, and marble–geosyn-
thetic interfaces, respectively. The experimental peak sliding dis-
placement for marble–marble (50 mm) and marble–geosynthetic
(25 mm) are well within the plinth projection of 75 mm (3 in.) and
approximate cost is 250 INR ($US6) and 200 INR ($US5) per
meter run, respectively, and can be used as a low-cost distributed
friction base-isolation system for masonry buildings.
Conclusions
The friction test reveals that sliding interfaces made of marble–
marble, marble–HDPE, and marble–geosynthetic exhibit coeffi-
cient of friction values in the desirable range, i.e., 0.05–0.15. The
shake table tests confirm the reduction of roof acceleration due to
the friction base-isolation system, and the analytical predictions
are in good agreement (within 19%) with the experimental ob-
servations. Further, it is observed that the reduction in maximum
roof acceleration for the sliding-base model with marble–marble,
marble–HDPE, marble–rubber, and marble–geosynthetic inter-
faces is 68, 75, 48, and 64%, respectively, of the maximum roof
acceleration of the fixed-base model obtained analytically. This
suggests that with lower friction coefficient, the reduction in
maximum roof acceleration is greater; however, the spectral dis-
placement response increases. The peak relative sliding displace-
ment is the largest (94 mm) for the marble–HDPE interface,
whereas it is 50, 25, and 2.5 mm in the cases of marble–marble,
marble–geosynthetic, and marble–rubber interfaces, respectively.
The experimental peak sliding displacement for marble–marble
(50 mm) and marble–geosynthetic (25 mm) are well within the
plinth projection of 75 mm (3 in.) and approximate cost is 250 INR
($US6) and 200 INR ($US5) per meter run, respectively, and can
be used as a low-cost distributed friction base-isolation system for
masonry buildings. It may be concluded that the low-friction sliding
material allows the superstructure to slide with equal effectiveness
to previously recommended materials such as graphite; screened
04015001-7 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
 gravel; dune sand; Teflon–steel; clay; fine sand–terrazzo plates, the
use of which has been restricted because of their high cost, con-
struction complications, and poor durability. The proposed sliding
couples marble–marble and marble–geosynthetic can be easily
bonded with building materials and can be easily used by the rural
population for limiting the earthquake energy transmission to super-
structures during strong earthquakes, which leads to a low-cost
durable solution for earthquake protection of masonry buildings.
References
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Swinburne University of Technology on 11/24/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Agarwal, P., and Shrikhande, M. (2006). Earthquake resistant design of
structures, PHI Learning, New Delhi, India.
Ahmad, S., Ghani, F., and Adil, R. (2009). “Seismic friction base isolation
performance using demolished waste in masonry housing.” Constr.
Build. Mater., 23(1), 146–152.
Boore, D. M. (2005). “On pads and filters: Processing strong motion data.”
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 95(2), 745–750.
Booth, E., and Key, D. (2006). Earthquake design practice for buildings,
2nd Ed., Thomas Telford, London.
Bureau of Indian Standards. (2002). “Criteria for earthquake resistant
design of structures.” IS 1893 (Part 1), New Delhi.
Jangid, R. S. (2005). “Computational numerical models for seismic re-
sponse of structures isolated by sliding systems.” Struct. Control
Health Monit., 12(1), 117–137.
Lou, Y., Wang, M., and Su, J. (1992). “A research of sliding shock
absorbing multi-storey brick building.” Proc., 10th World Conf. on
Earthquake Engineering, A. Bemal, ed., Vol. 4, A. A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, Netherlands, 2499–2503.
MATLAB 2014 a-8.3.0532. [Computer software] ELMAX Projects and
Services, NIT Durgapur, Durgapur, India.
Nanda, R. P., Agarwal, P., and Shrikhande, M. (2010). “Frictional base
isolation by geotextiles for brick masonry buildings.” Geosynth. Int.,
17(1), 48–55.
Nanda, R. P., Agarwal, P., and Shrikhande, M. (2012a). “Base isolation by
geosynthetic for brick masonry buildings.” J. Vib. Control, 18(6),
903–910.
© ASCE 04015001-8
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 04015001
Nanda, R. P., Shrikhande, M., and Agarwal, P. (2012b). “Effect of ground
motion characteristics on the pure friction isolation system.” Earth-
quakes Struct.,3(2), 169–180.
Nikolic-Brzev, S. (1993). “Seismic protection of multi-storey brick
buildings by seismic isolation technique.” Ph.D thesis, Dept. of
Earthquake Engineering, Univ. of Roorkee, Dharun, Uttarakhand,
India.
Nikolic-Brzev, S., and Arya, A. S. (1996). “Seismic isolation of
masonry buildings-An experimental study.” Proc., 11th World
Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 1338, Elsevier,
Abingdon, U.K.
Ozbulut, O. E., and Hurlebaus, S. (2010). “Evaluation of the perfor-
mance of a sliding-type base isolation system with a NiTi shape
memory alloy device considering temperature effects.” Eng. Struct.,
32(1), 238–249.
Qamaruddin, M., and Ahmad, S. (2007). “Seismic response of pure-fric-
tion base isolation masonry building with restricted base sliding.”
J. Eng. Res., 4(1), 82–94.
Qamaruddin, M., Rasheeduzzafar, Arya, A. S., and Chandra, B. (1986).
“Seismic response of masonry buildings with sliding substruc-
ture.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1986)112:9(2001),
2001–2011.
Sassu, M. (2006). “The reinforced cut wall (RCW): A low-cost base
dissipator for masonry buildings.” Earthquake Spectra, 22(2),
533–554.
Song, B., Yin, C., Zhang X., and Tao, S. (1990). “Experimental study and
seismic response analysis of multi-storeyed brick buildings with fric-
tion base isolation.” Proc., 5th North America Masonry Conf., National
Science Foundation (U.S.), Univ. of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign, IL,
77–787.
Tehrani, F. M., and Hasani, A. (1996). “Behaviour of Iranian low rise
buildings on sliding base to earthquake excitation.” Proc., 11th World
Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 1433, International
Association for Earthquake Engineering (IAEE), Mexico City.
Tsopelas, P., Constantinou, M. C., Kim, Y. S., and Okamoto, S. (1996).
“Experimental study of FPS system in bridge seismic isolation.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 25(1), 65–78.
Zongjin, L., Rossow, E. C., and Shah, S. P. (1989). “Sinusoidal forced
vibration of sliding masonry system.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9445(1989)115:7(1741), 1741–1755.
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.