Dissertation2008 Marinini PDF

ISOLATIO
ON SY
YSTEM
M FOR
R PRE
ECAS
ST
CON
NCRE
ETE BU
UILD
DINGS
S
(
(numeric
cal modeling and structuraal responnse)
A Dissertation Suubmitted inn Partial Fulfilment

F of the Reequirementts
for thee Master Degree
D in
Earthquuake En
ngineerinng
By
L
Luca Mariinini
Supeervisors: Prof. Rob

berto Nasccimbene
Prof. Pao
olo Riva
08
May, 200
Istituto Universita
U ario di Stu
udi Superioori di Paviia
Universittà degli Sttudi di Pavvia
The dissertation entitled “Isolation system for precast concrete building (numerical modeling
and structural response)”, by Luca Marinini, has been approved as partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering.
Prof. Paolo Riva__________________________
Prof. Roberto Nascimbene_________________

Abstract
ABSTRACT
The recent development of Italian and European standards had a deep influence on precast structures
design, with the introduction of dedicated chapters for static and seismic actions. The importance of
connections is explicitly recognized, and the possibility of using “energy dissipating connections” is
offered, with the support of experimental tests on representative specimens.
A new type of hysteretic isolator was designed, in order to meet the code requirement of reliability
(mechanical connection) and in the same time to provide good dissipation properties and economic
efficiency; isolators have to be positioned between columns and cap beams or between cap beam and
roof beam (in this work only this second interaction is investigated) to isolate the superstructure,
emulating a concept similar to bridge deck isolation. During the normal life of the structure, thermal
deformations of the superstructure are allowed with low frictional resistance, while in case of
earthquake, the higher displacement level activates the energy dissipation mechanism, which consists
of two bronze elements (washers), prestressed by high resistance bolts, sliding on a steel plate. After
the earthquake, the system can be retrofit by replacing the two bronze elements, without any business
interruption for the building.
Since this is a new device, experimental investigations are required to characterize the behavior of the
components and to verify the stability of the hysteretic loop of the assembly. For this scope, a frame
test was designed and applied to a traction/compression machine installed in the laboratory of the
“Università degli Studi di Bergamo”.
An analytical study is performed with the Finite Element Program Midas Gen with two main targets:
implement the experimental results in a simple numerical model suitable for performing non-linear
analyses and compare the seismic response of precast structures designed according to EC8, with
standard and hysteretic connections.
Finally, the Direct Displacement Based Design (DDBD) procedure is applied to the design of a
representative precast structure, with standard and hysteretic connections, and the results are compared
with those obtained with the Force Based Design (FBD) procedure.
i
Abstract
This work is carried out in cooperation with Ing. Pietro Spatti, who collaborated for the experimental
test and the structural design, and performed the calibration of the numerical model for the isolator
using an advanced Finite Element Program. Further information can be found in his dissertation
entitled “Isolation system for precast concrete buildings (numerical modeling of the components)”.
Keywords: isolation; experimental test; displacement based design;
ii
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Prof. Paolo Riva for introducing to me the topic of seismic isolation of precast
buildings, for his motivation during this and the past works and for providing me with his proper
guidance and support. In the same way, I want to thank Prof. Roberto Nascimbene for his helpfulness
and availability as well as the patience during the analytical part of the work. I also appreciate “CSP
s.p.a.” and “Officine meccaniche Maffioletti” (in the person of Ing. Alessandro Spadavecchia and
Marcello Maffioletti respectively) for their financial commitment in this project.
iii
Index
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................. i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. xi
LIST OF SYMBOLS ............................................................................................................................. xii
1. Introduction to passive supplemental damping and seismic isolation ............................................ 1
1.1. Fundamental concepts.............................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Categories of supplemental damping and seismic isolation systems ....................................... 4
1.3. Seismic isolation ...................................................................................................................... 4
1.3.1. Conceptual design and conventional approach ................................................................. 4
1.3.2. Pros and cons of seismic isolation in the context of structural performance evaluation .. 5
1.4. Dissertation objectives ............................................................................................................. 6
1.5. Dissertation outline .................................................................................................................. 6
2. State of the art ................................................................................................................................. 8
2.1. Passive I/D systems ................................................................................................................. 8
2.1.1. Energy formulation of the seismic problem ..................................................................... 8
2.1.2. Types of passive energy dissipating systems .................................................................. 10
2.1.3. Influence of passive energy dissipating systems on energy balance .............................. 10
2.1.4. Linear theory of seismic isolation................................................................................... 14
2.1.5. Basic dynamic response of structures with hysteretic dampers ...................................... 17
2.1.6. Approximate equivalent linearization ............................................................................. 19
2.1.7. Study of a nonlinear mechanical system incorporating hysteretic dampers ................... 20
2.2. Friction dampers .................................................................................................................... 26
2.2.1. Advantages and disadvantages of friction dampers and environmental effects ............. 27
iv
Index
2.2.2. Numerical simulation of friction dissipators .................................................................. 28

2.2.3. Friction damper typologies: slotted-bolted connections ................................................. 28
2.2.4. Detailing aspects ............................................................................................................. 29
2.3. Code guidelines...................................................................................................................... 29
2.3.1. Italian seismic code......................................................................................................... 29
2.3.2. Eurocode 8 ...................................................................................................................... 30
2.3.3. F.E.M.A .......................................................................................................................... 30
2.4. Foundation – column – superstructure interaction ................................................................. 31
2.5. Force-based and Displacement-based design ........................................................................ 35
2.5.1. Critical comparison between the two approaches........................................................... 35
2.5.2. Development of displacement-based design methods .................................................... 37
3. Description of the isolation system ............................................................................................... 39
4. Experimental investigation ........................................................................................................... 43
4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 43
4.2. Isolator components ............................................................................................................... 43
4.3. Loading protocol .................................................................................................................... 43
4.4. Experimental Setup ................................................................................................................ 45
4.4.1. Extensometer n° 0 and 1 ................................................................................................. 46
4.5. Monitored output quantities ................................................................................................... 48
4.6. Cycling tests quasi-static loading conditions ......................................................................... 48
4.6.1. P.T.F.E. ........................................................................................................................... 49
4.6.2. Washer ............................................................................................................................ 52
4.6.3. Rubber ............................................................................................................................ 56
4.6.4. Whole isolator system..................................................................................................... 59
4.7. Closing remarks ..................................................................................................................... 63
5. Numerical modelLing of the isolation system .............................................................................. 65
5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 65
5.2. Numerical modelling of the isolation system ........................................................................ 65
5.3. Study on the response of a reinforced concrete column with top isolation ........................... 69
5.3.1. Steel fiber constitutive model ......................................................................................... 70
5.3.2. Concrete fiber constitutive model ................................................................................... 71
5.4. Test column............................................................................................................................ 73
5.5. Application of the isolation system to a test precast structure ............................................... 80
5.6. Closing remarks ..................................................................................................................... 94
v
Index
6. Direct Displacement Based Design (DDBD) ................................................................................ 95

6.1. Design of the longitudinal internal frame (no isolation) ........................................................ 96
6.1.1. Displacement Design Spectrum ...................................................................................... 96
6.1.2. Geometric and Material properties ................................................................................. 96
6.1.3. Structural loads and masses ............................................................................................ 97
6.1.4. Design methodology ....................................................................................................... 97
6.2. Design of the longitudinal internal frame (using isolator systems) ....................................... 99
6.2.1. Design methodology ....................................................................................................... 99
6.3. Closing remarks ................................................................................................................... 104
7. Conclusions and future developments ........................................................................................ 105
7.1. Experimental results ............................................................................................................ 105
7.2. Numerical Analyses ............................................................................................................. 106
7.3. Design implications ............................................................................................................. 107
7.4. Future developments ............................................................................................................ 107
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 110
APPENDIX A....................................................................................................................................... A1
APPENDIX B ....................................................................................................................................... B1
APPENDIX C ....................................................................................................................................... C1
vi
Index
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1.1. Catastrophic failure during Loma Prieta earthquake (1989) ................................................. 1
Figure 1.2. Performance-Based Design approach.................................................................................... 1
Figure 1.3. Rubber bearing tested on its maximum displacement ........................................................... 2
Figure 2.1. Rain flow analogy ............................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2.2. Rain flow analogy ............................................................................................................... 12
Figure 2.3. Parameters of 2DOF isolated system .................................................................................. 15
Figure 2.4. Classical modes of the combined system ............................................................................ 16
Figure 2.5. Single-degree-of-freedom system incorporating hysteretic damper.................................... 17
Figure 2.6. Steady-state response amplitude of single-degree-of-freedom with hysteretic damper under
harmonic base excitation, kd/k = 0.55 .......................................................................................... 20
Figure 2.7. a) Single storey hysteretically damped structure – b) Analogous nonlinear SDOF
oscillator ........................................................................................................................................ 22
Figure 2.8. Hysteretic Characteristic of hysteretically damped structure .............................................. 22
Figure 2.9. Qualitative response of a bent of an isolated bridge ............................................................ 32
Figure 2.10. Equivalent global damping of two quasielastic viscous systems in series, applying a
stiffness proportional damping concept ........................................................................................ 33
Figure 2.11. Equivalent global damping of a quasielastic systems in series with a hysteretic system,
applying a stiffness proportional damping concept....................................................................... 34
Figure 2.12. Modified response spectrum to consider the equivalent viscous damping of the isolation
system ........................................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 2.13. Force-Based Design Procedure ......................................................................................... 36
Figure 2.14. Generic hysteretic rule....................................................................................................... 37
Figure 2.15. Displacement-Based Design Procedure ............................................................................ 38
Figure 3.1. Render view of the isolating system .................................................................................... 39
Figure 3.2. Idealized behaviour of the isolator under static loads in the longitudinal direction ............ 40
vii
Index
Figure 3.3. Behaviour of the isolator subjected to static loads .............................................................. 41

Figure 3.4. Idealized behaviour of the dissipative part of the isolation system ..................................... 41
Figure 3.5. Idealized behaviour of the combined parts of the isolation system ..................................... 42
Figure 3.6. Behaviour of the isolator subjected to seismic loads ........................................................... 42
Figure 4.1. Testing machine ................................................................................................................. 45
Figure 4.2. Instruments n° 0 and 1 ......................................................................................................... 46
Figure 4.3. Instruments n° 2 and 3 ......................................................................................................... 47
Figure 4.4. Instruments n°4 and 5 .......................................................................................................... 47
Figure 4.5. An unused PTFE ................................................................................................................. 49
Figure 4.6. 1° test – split draw illustrating how the test is assembled ................................................... 49
Figure 4.7. Test on teflon after the machine setup ................................................................................. 50
Figure 4.8. Experimental setup of the 1st test ........................................................................................ 50
Figure 4.9. Loading path (the machine controls the displacement and the velocity which it varies with)
........................................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 4.10. Force versus Displacement behaviour of Teflon during the cycles ................................... 51
Figure 4.11. Comparison with the PTFE element after the test (on the left) and a unused element ...... 51
Figure 4.12. An unused washer ............................................................................................................. 52
Figure 4.13. 2° test – split draw illustrating how the test is assembled ................................................. 52
Figure 4.14. Test on washer after the machine setup ............................................................................. 53
Figure 4.15. Experimental setup of the 2nd test .................................................................................... 53
Figure 4.16. Loading path ...................................................................................................................... 53
Figure 4.17. Force versus Displacement behaviour of a single washer during the cycles ..................... 54
Figure 4.18. The first cicle (dashed line) is very similar to the cycle n°50 (continuous line), here
represented with the “Galdabini” data capture (both displacement and force) ............................. 54
Figure 4.19. The original washer before the test and the three specimen tested. deformations are easily
visible ........................................................................................................................................... 55
Figure 4.20. The third washer tested – the groove due to the friction between bronze and steel is
visible both to the left and to the right of the central hole ............................................................ 55
Figure 4.21. An unused rubber .............................................................................................................. 56
Figure 4.22. 3° test – split draw illustrating how the test is assembled ................................................. 56
Figure 4.23. Experimental setup of the 3rd test ..................................................................................... 57
Figure 4.25. Force versus Displacement behavior of the first rubber tested (three holes) .................... 58
Figure 4.26. Force versus Displacement behavior of the second rubber tested (single hole) ................ 58
Figure 4.27. 4° test – split draw illustrating how the test is assembled and zoom on the isolator system
used ........................................................................................................................................... 59
viii
Index
Figure 4.28. Test on whole isolator after the machine setup ................................................................. 60
Figure 4.29. Experimental setup of the 4th test ..................................................................................... 60
Figure 4.31. Force versus Displacement behavior of the whole isolator system ................................... 61
Figure 4.32. Force versus Displacement linearization ........................................................................... 61
Figure 4.33. Elastic (red) and plastic (green) area for the evaluation of the effective damping ............ 62
Figure 4.34. Elastic (red) and plastic (green) area for the evaluation of the effective damping (20 mm
displacement) ................................................................................................................................ 63
Figure 5.1. Kinematic hardening hysteresis model ................................................................................ 65
Figure 5.2. Non-linear elastic hysteresis model ..................................................................................... 65
Figure 5.3. Imposed displacements history - cyclic ............................................................................... 66
Figure 5.4. Imposed displacements history – external loop................................................................... 66
Figure 5.5. Simplified hysteretic model................................................................................................. 67
Figure 5.6. Refined hysteretic model ..................................................................................................... 67
Figure 5.7. Comparison between experimental results and numerical models ...................................... 68
Figure 5.8. Discretization of a section in a fiber model ......................................................................... 69
Figure 5.9. Steel fiber constitutive model .............................................................................................. 70
Figure 5.10. Concrete fiber constitutive model ..................................................................................... 71
Figure 5.11. Geometric and load properties of the representative column ............................................ 73
Figure 5.12. Geometric and reinforcement properties of the R/C Column............................................ 74
Figure 5.13. Force displacement capacity curve for the column ........................................................... 75
Figure 5.14. Time history displacement of the node with concentrated mass ....................................... 76
Figure 5.15. Time history Base shear of the node with concentrated mass ........................................... 76
Figure 5.16. Time history displacement of the node with concentrated mass ....................................... 77
Figure 5.17. Time history Base shear of the node with concentrated mass ........................................... 77
Figure 5.18. Moment-rotation diagram of the base section ................................................................... 79
Figure 5.19. Structural layout of the prototype structure ....................................................................... 80
Figure 5.20. Rendering view of the prototype structure ........................................................................ 81
Figure 5.21. Render view of the connection - refined model ................................................................ 81
Figure 5.22. Wireframe view of a connection – refined model ............................................................. 81
Figure 5.23. Render view of the connection - simplified model............................................................ 82
Figure 5.24. Wireframe view of a connection – simplified model ........................................................ 82
Figure 5.25. Acceleration spectra of the three artificial earthquake ...................................................... 83
Figure 5.26. Acceleration spectrum of the vertical artificial earthquake ............................................... 83
Figure 5.27. Comparison between top column drift resulting from the RS and NLTH analyses .......... 89
Figure 5.28. Comparison between base shear resulting from the RS and NLTH analyses ................... 90
ix
Index
Figure 5.29. Comparison between drift levels of the isolated and non-isolated structures ................... 93
Figure 6.1. Fundamentals of Direct Displacement-Based Design ......................................................... 95
Figure 6.2. Structural model .................................................................................................................. 96
Figure 6.3. Displacement spectrum (Corner period = 4,0 sec) .............................................................. 96
Figure 6.4. Comparison among base shear resulting from the EC8 DCH, DDBD and DDBDiso models
......................................................................................................................................... 103
Figure 6.5. Comparison among drift resulting from the EC8 DCH, DDBD and DDBDiso models ... 103
Figure 7.1. Lateral view of the experimental test ................................................................................ 108
Figure 7.2. Frontal view of the roof beam ........................................................................................... 108
Figure 7.3. Details of anchor channels cast in the concrete blocks ..................................................... 108
Figure 7.4. Anchorage of the energy dissipating connections to the anchor channels ........................ 109
x
Index
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1.1. Seismic Protection Systems, from [Christopoulos, 2006] ...................................................... 4
Table 3.1. Comnponents list .................................................................................................................. 39
Table 4.1. List of tests ............................................................................................................................ 44
Table 5.1. Simplified hysteretic model parameters ............................................................................... 67
Table 5.2. Refined hysteretic model parameters .................................................................................... 67
Table 5.3. Hysteretic areas and effective damping ................................................................................ 68
Table 5.4. Result summary for EC8 Design .......................................................................................... 73
Table 5.5. Time history displacement and base shear ........................................................................... 78
Table 5.6. Time history displacement and base shear ........................................................................... 78
Table 5.7. Results obtained for the four prototype structures analysed ................................................. 82
Table 5.8. Time history results for the model DCM-S .......................................................................... 84
Table 5.9. Time history results for the model DCH-S ........................................................................... 85
Table 5.10. Time history results for the model DCM-R ........................................................................ 86
Table 5.11. Time history results for the model DCH-R......................................................................... 87
Table 5.12. Time history results for the model DCH-R*....................................................................... 88
Table 5.13. Summary table of the time history analyses ....................................................................... 89
Table 5.14. Time history results for the model DCH-R with top isolation............................................ 91
Table 5.15. Time history results for the model DCH-R with top isolation............................................ 92
Table 5.16. Summary table of the time history analyses ....................................................................... 93
Table 6.1. Materials definition ............................................................................................................... 97
Table 6.2. Results obtained with the application of FBD EC8 and DDBD approach ......................... 100
Table 6.3. Time history results for the model DDBD.......................................................................... 101
Table 6.4. Time history results for the model DDBDiso ..................................................................... 102
xi
Index
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Aelastic (Ael) Elastic strain energy for a complete cycle

ag Peak ground acceleration
Ahysteresis (Apl) Area under the Force-displacement curve
[C] Global viscous damping matrix

c Concrete cover
dc Contact displacement
Dd Design displacement
Disol Isolator design displacement
dlim Limit displacement
dmax Maximum displacement (DDBD)
drx Drift in x direction
dry Drift in y direction
dx Displacement in x direction
dy Displacement in y direction
Dy Yield displacement
Ec Concrete elastic modulus

elsys System effective damping
Esd(t) Energy dissipated by the supplemental damping system
esu Steel ultimate strain
Evb(t) Vibrational energy
ࡱ‫( ܜܛ‬t) Work done by static load
‫ܧ‬௔ (t) Absorbed energy
′
‫ܧ‬௜௥ (t) Relative input energy
ୟ
‫ܧ‬௜௡ (t) Absolute input energy
‫ܧ‬௞′ (t) Relative kinetic energy at time t
‫ܧ‬௞ୟ (t) Absolute kinetic energy of the system at time t
‫ܧ‬௩ௗ (t) Energy dissipated by viscous damping
eye Steel yield strain
{Fs} Global static loads applied to the structure
xii
Index
Fhd(t) Nonlinear horizontal force

Fl Longitudinal steel diameter
Flat Horizontal lateral load
Flim Limit Force transmitted
Fmw Medium tangential force on the washer
fpc Concrete strength
fpce Concrete overstrength
fsu Steel ultimate stress
fsue Steel ultimate overstrength
fw Friction washer coefficient
Fw Transverse steel diameter
fy Steel yield stress
Fy Yield curvature
fye Steel yield overstrenght
g Gravity acceleration
Heff Effective height
k Lateral stiffness
kd Lateral stiffness provided by the added damper
kDE Secant stiffness to the maximum displacement
ke Horizontal stiffness
keff Effective stiffness
kG Global pier-bearing stiffness
kpy Secant stiffness to yielding
kv Vertical stiffness
Lhd Hysteretically damped system's parameter

Lp Plastic hinge length
Lsp Strain penetration length
[M] Global mass matrix

m Superstructure mass
mb Base mass above the isolation system
Mcol Column base moment (DDBD)
meff Effective mass (DDBD)
MPD Column base moment (due to PD effects)
p0 Amplitude of the equivalent applied load

QD Stability index
Vector coupling the direction of the ground motion input with the direction of the
{r}
DoF of the structure
Re Spectrum reduction factor
xiii
Index
s Frequency ratio
Sael Elastic acceleration response spectrum
Sad Design acceleration response spectrum
Sd Displacement response spectrum
ST Soil coefficient
t Time variable
T Period
TC, TD Corner periods
Teff Effective period
Tel Elastic period (DDBD)
Tw Normal force on the washer
Vb Total base shear (DDBD)

Vcol Column base shear (DDBD)
xDE Effective damping

xDV High viscous damping
xe Equivalent damping
xeq Equivalent viscous damping
xP Standard viscous damping
xst Equivalent static lateral displacement

{x(t)} Vectors of global displacements
{‫ݔ‬ሶ (t)} Vectors of global velocities
{‫ݔ‬ሷ (t)} Vectors of global accelerations
{xg(t)} Horizontal acceleration of the ground at time t
μG Effective global ductility

ω0 Natural circular frequency
ωg Ground excitation circular frequency
q Behaviour factor according to EC8
W Weight
For all the symbols not listed here, further information can be found within the text.
xiv
Chapter 1. Introduction to passive supplemental damping and seismic isolation
1. INTRODUCTION TO PASSIVE SUPPLEMENTAL

DAMPING AND SEISMIC ISOLATION
1.1. Fundamental concepts
The basic principles of conventional earthquake-resistant design that has been applied for the
last 75 years is intended to ensure an acceptable safety level while avoiding catastrophic
failures and loss of life. When a structure
subjected to a design-level seismic ground
motion does not collapse, and the occupants
can evacuate it safely, it is considered that it
has fulfilled its function, even though it may
never be functional again.
In the last decade, earthquake design passed

through a complex, though relatively quick,
process of development, based on the
introduction of innovative design
approaches. In particular, the rationalization Fig.1.1: Catastrophic failure during Loma
of already known conceptual schemes based Prieta earthquake (1989)
on the familiar Limit State Design approach,
widely adopted for gravity load design, into
more comprehensive Performance-Based Design philosophies that represents a significant
shift in the conceptual design philosophy. A broad consensus between public, politicians and
engineering communities seems
to be achieved when promoting
the emerging opinion that the
excessively severe socio-
economical losses due to
earthquake events, as observed in
recent years in seismic-prone
countries, should be nowadays
considered unacceptable, at least
Fig.1.2: Performance-Based Design approach for “well-developed” modern
countries.
1
It could in fact be argued [Bertero, 1997] that the rapid increase in population, urbanization
and economical development of our urban areas would naturally result into a generally higher
seismic risk, defined as “the probability that social and/or economical consequences of
earthquake events will equal or exceed specific values at a site, or at various sites, or in an
area during a specific exposure time”. Even though the seismicity remains constant, the
implications of business interruption (i.e. downtime) due to damage to the built environment
are continuously increasing and should be assigned an adequate relevance in the whole picture
of Seismic Risk, typically also defined as combination of Seismic Hazard and Vulnerability.
As a result, more emphasis needs to be given to a damage-control design approach, after
having assured that life safety and the collapse of the structure are under control (in
probabilistic terms).
Over the last half century, a large amount of research has been conducted into developing
innovative earthquake-resistant systems in order to raise seismic performance levels while
keeping construction costs reasonable. Most of these systems are designed to dissipate the
seismic energy introduced into a structure by supplemental damping mechanism and/or
designed to limit the transmission of seismic energy to the main structure by isolation of the
main structural elements.
Supplemental damping systems use special devices, activated through movements of the main
structural system, which reduce the overall dynamic response due to mechanical energy
dissipation. The main elements are protected by diverting the seismic energy to these
mechanical devices that can be inspected and even replaced following an earthquake. Ideally,
if all the seismic energy was absorbed by the mechanical dampers, the main structure would
not sustain any damage.
Seismic isolation systems involve the installation of isolators beneath the supporting points of
a structure. For buildings, the isolators are usually located between the superstructure and the
foundations while for bridges they are
introduced between the deck and the piers.
From an energy point of view, a seismic
isolation system limits the transfer of seismic
energy to the superstructure. Ideally, if no
seismic energy is transmitted, the
superstructure remains literally unaffected by
a seismic attack. Conversely, the isolators
must be capable of undergoing the
movements imposed by the ground shaking,
while maintaining their ability to carry
gravity loads from the superstructure to the
ground. To reduce the deformation of the
isolators and dissipate the seismic input Fig.1.3: Rubber bearing tested on its
maximum displacement
energy, supplemental damping systems are
also usually provided.
2
Maximum elastic seismic forces are usually felt by structures with natural periods in the range
of 0.1 to 1 sec., with most severe responses in the range of 0.2 to 0.6 sec. The most important
characteristic of seismic isolation is the lengthening of the vibrational period of the system
associated with the increased flexibility of the isolation system. This period shift controls the
amount of forces induced into the structure, while excessive displacements are controlled by
providing supplemental damping to the seismic isolation system. These displacements occur
at the seismic isolator level and must be accommodated.
When a structure is equipped with either supplemental damping devices or seismic isolation
systems, its seismic response is greatly altered. Although the intention of any seismic
protection system is to improve the performance of a structure, because of the complexity of
the dynamic response of structures to earthquake ground motions and the uncertainty
associated with ground motion characteristics, this is not guaranteed. A thorough
understanding of the impact of adding supplemental damping, or isolating, a structure, is
therefore necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the system.
We can distinguish two different types of isolators: the better known “base isolation”
technique consists of inserting some special equipment (isolators) in the proximity of
foundations. This equipment offers a high stiffness for vertical loads so that the structure is
not subject to sinking, and a low stiffness for horizontal loads, which are peculiar of seismic
events. This way all seismic effects are absorbed by the equipment, whereas the structure is
subject to low oscillations and consequently to low strains. In a few words, base isolation is
aimed to untie the ground-foundation system, so that the structure can be seen as it is
“floating” on the ground during the seismic event, thus reducing the strains.
On the other hand, dissipation systems are made by a series of devices inserted on the inside
of the building frame using different techniques, with the aim of slowing down the structure
oscillation and dispelling seismic energy; the dissipators are devices mounted among some
elements of a building: during an earthquake they are subjected to movements which are
relative to each other.
When the structures oscillates, such devices slow down the vibration by dissipating viscous or
friction energy, thus increasing the so called viscous coefficient and then reducing the strains
on the structure itself.
1.2. Categories of supplemental damping and seismic isolation systems

Supplemental damping systems can be divided in two categories: passive systems and semi-
active/active systems. Passive energy dissipation system are intended to dissipate a portion of
the seismic energy input to a structure without external power sources, such as actuators,
power supplies, computers, etc., necessary for active control technology, and are activated by
the movements of the main structural system.
The main categories of supplemental damping and seismic isolation systems are reported in
Table 1.1.
3
Table 1.1: Seismic Protection Systems, from [Christopoulos, 2006]
Conventional systems Supplemental damping systems Isolation systems
Passive Semi-Active/
Dampers Active Dampers
Flexural Plastic Hinges Metallic Braces Elastomeric
Shear Plastic Hinges Friction Tuned-Mass Lead-Rubber
Yielding Braces Viscoelastic Variable Stiffness High-Damping

Rubber
Viscous Variable Damping Metallic
Tuned-Mass Piezoelectric Lead-Extrusion
Self-Centering Rheological Friction

Pendulum
1.3. Seismic isolation
1.3.1. Conceptual design and conventional approach

Looking at the seismic problems through the lens of an energy approach, it can be observed
that the amount of earthquake energy filtered by the structure is partly dissipated and partly
transformed in demand on structural members, and specifically: (i) first, the transmission of
the input energy to the structure is related to the proximity of the input frequency content to
the structural dynamic characteristics, basically the mass and the stiffness (i.e. the period), (ii)
then, the structural capability of reducing the seismic demand on members relies on the
possibility of dissipating the absorbed energy. The “failure-mode-control” approach relies on
the effectiveness of selected sacrificial structural members (“plastic hinge zones”): the
yielding in fact lengthens the fundamental period of the structure, and the hysteretic behaviour
of the ductile components provides energy dissipation to damp the response motions.
However, structural yielding is an inherently damaging mechanism and, even though the
appropriate selection of the hinge locations and a careful detailing can ensure structural
integrity, large deformations within the structure itself are required to withstand strong
earthquake motions, possibly causing problems for components not intended to provide
seismic resistance. Moreover, further problems occur in the detailing for the seismic design at
a serviceability performance level, in costs and feasibility of repairing after a major event. In a
different perspective, it was thought first to reduce substantially the transmission of the
earthquake energy into the structure before damage occurs, and then to concentrate the energy
dissipation in elements other then the structural members, i.e. in localised devices to be
activated during the seismic event. In this sense, the concepts of period shift and energy
dissipation by which seismic Isolation and Dissipation (I/D) Systems developed are similar to
the conventional “failure-mode-control” approach, specifically: (i) the fundamental period of
4
the fixed-based structure is much shorter than the isolated period, associated with very small
participation factors of the higher modes, and (ii) energy dissipation is then obtained through
Added Damping derived from yielding, viscous and/or friction dissipation. However, the
conceptual background of the modern I/D Systems differs fundamentally from conventional
seismic strategies in the philosophy of how the earthquake attack is withstood: in an isolated
structure, the damage, i.e. the displacement and the dissipation, are localized in components
specially designed and distinct from the structural members. The structure is designed to be
protected, and the development of ductility, plasticization and dissipation, rely exclusively on
the I/D system properties, which are calibrated on the desired level of structural response.
1.3.2. Pros and cons of seismic isolation in the context of structural performance
evaluation
Some advantages appear evident: first, the level of damage is more safely controlled and
confined to generally well-replaceable spots; then, some kind of I/D system not only damp
and reduce the action demand on the structure, but even limit physically the amount of force
transmittable to the structure. However, design of typically isolated structures deserves in
some case particular concern. Practical isolation systems must tradeoff between the extent of
force isolation and acceptable relative displacements across the isolation system during the
earthquake motion. Acceptable displacements in conjunction with a large degree of force
isolation can be obtained by providing damping, as well as flexibility in the isolator. In such a
case, both the forces transmitted and the deformation within the structure are reduced, and the
seismic design of the superstructure is considerably simplified, apart from the need for the
service connections to accommodate the large displacements across the isolating layer. In
addition, particular concern to the boundary condition of the structures is required, as the
larger displacements resulting from the use of seismic isolation increase the possibility of
pounding: collisions may occur between neighbouring structures due to their different phase
vibrations.
As the required ground motions for structures have increased in intensity, the isolation
systems have increased in complexity, with the trend toward very large isolators combined
with large viscous dampers. However, combining large viscous dampers with isolators
underscores the extreme difficulty of getting the level of damping intrinsic to a hysteretic
isolator system above 20% equivalent viscous damping when the displacements become
large. As a result, in the attempt to control through damping the large displacements induced
by the code-mandated motions, the use of supplemental dampers is forced, but, unfortunately,
the dampers themselves drive energy into higher modes, thus defeating the primary reason for
using isolation: the effects of added damping on the structural response have to be carefully
considered, because they can be possibly detrimental. I/D devices also show some inherent
problems: the properties of seismic isolation bearings, in fact, vary due to the effects of wear,
ageing, temperature, history, nature of loading, etc. The concept of Property Modification
Factors has been introduced by Constantinou et al. (1999) in order to characterize the
variability of the nominal properties of an isolator and understanding the consequences on the
device and structural response. A large variety of seismic isolation/dissipation devices have
been developed all over the world. The most successful devices show simplicity and
effectiveness of design, thus being reliable and economic to produce and install, and
5
incorporating low maintenance. Different I/D technologies act differently on the structural
performance, improving some response and possibly worsening others: only an appropriate
combination of a number of factors allows understanding if the structural performance
improves after the application of a specific I/D system, and which is the best technology to be
employed. Among these factors, the absolute maximum acceleration is a measure of the force
level induced into the system, of the damage potential to non-structural elements and of
potential injury to the occupants, the maximum absorbed energy is a measure of potential
structural damage, whilst the residual displacement is an indicator of the structural damage
and of repair costs; in addition, one should consider the maximum displacement ductility over
the total duration of the seismic input, the number and the typology of failed and/or yielded
elements, the presence of soft-mechanisms, the ductility distribution and the risk of pounding.
As the whole thrust of seismic isolation is to shift the probable damage level from not
repairable or repairable towards minor, and thereby to reduce the damage costs, the economic
factors need also to be considered by an engineer wishing to decide whether a structure should
incorporate seismic isolation: maintenance costs should be low for passive systems, though
they may be higher for active seismic isolation, whilst the construction costs including
seismic isolation usually vary by 5-10% from not isolated options. The design problem may
be solved by means of a variety of possible structural forms and materials, with and without
incorporating seismic isolation; the total costs and benefits of different solutions can be
evaluated considering the “value” of having the structure or its contents in a undamaged or
with reduced damage after an earthquake. In many cases such additional benefits render
preferable the adoption of the seismic isolation option.
1.4. Dissertation objectives

The objective of present work is to develop a new seismic isolation device for pre-cast
structures: attention will focus on the characterization of the device and on the development
of design guidelines, following both force-based and displacement-based approach.
The present work is intended to provide a tool for the structural engineer, making him capable
of modelling and designing the system within general structural engineering software and of
finally recommending the optimum solution for each particular situation of seismic design or
retrofit project.
1.5. Dissertation outline

The second chapter presents: a state of the art review of passive I/D systems developed,
including a description of their hysteretic properties and the property modification factors
affecting their behavior; the energy formulation of the seismic problem, in order to introduce
the basic concepts of seismic isolation, including code design guidelines and innovative
approaches; a critical comparison between force-based and performance-based design
procedure.
The third chapter illustrates the conceptual behavior of the seismic isolation system, after a
detailed description of the mechanical components.
6
The fourth chapter presents the results of the experimental tests performed at the University of
Bergamo. The mechanical characterization regards both the single components and the
assembled isolator.
The fifth chapter illustrates the numerical modeling of the isolator, according to the
experimental results and the numerical investigations reported in [Spatti, 2008]. Different
modeling strategies are compared, and the behaviors of a test column and a representative
structure with fix or energy dissipating connections are investigated.
The sixth chapter presents the application of the Direct Displacement Based Design procedure
to the representative precast structure studied in chapter five, and the results are compared
with standard Force-Based Design.
The seventh chapter summarizes the experimental and numerical results and presents possible
future developments.
Further details about the isolator geometry and material, test frame components and
assemblage, and test execution are reported in Appendix A (materials properties), B (technical
drawing of the system) and C (photographs).
7
Chapter 2. State of the art
2. STATE OF THE ART

2.1. Passive I/D systems
2.1.1. Energy formulation of the seismic problem

Since the main purpose of using supplemental damping and seismic isolation systems is to
dissipate a significant portion of the seismic input energy and/or to isolate the structure from
receiving this energy, it is natural to formulate the seismic problem within an energy
framework. Considering a nonlinear MDOF system excited at the base by a horizontal
translation from an earthquake ground motion, the governing differential equation is given by:
[ M ]{x ( t )} + [C ]{ x ( t )} + {Fr ( t )} = − [ M ]{r} xg ( t ) + {Fs } (2.1)
Where:
[M] is the global mass matrix
[C] is the global viscous damping matrix which accounts for all inherent velocity dependent
energy dissipating mechanism in the structure other than the inelastic hysteretic energy
dissipated in the structural members.
{x ( t )} , { x ( t )} and { x ( t )} are respectively the vectors of global accelerations, velocities and
displacements relative to the moving base at time t.
{F ( t )} is the vector of global nonlinear restoring forces at time t generated by the hysteretic
r
characteristics of the structural elements.
{r }
is the vector coupling the directions of the ground motion input with the directions of the
DOFs of the structure.
xg ( t ) is the horizontal acceleration of the ground at time t.

{Fs } is the vector of global static loads applied to the structure prior to and maintained during
the seismic excitation.
8
The energy formulation is obtained by integrating the work done by each element in equation
(2.1) over an increment of global structural displacement {dx} :
Ekr ( t ) + Evd ( t ) + Ea ( t ) = Einr ( t ) + Est ( t ) (2.2)
Where:
Ekr ( t ) is defined as the relative kinetic energy at time t :
1
Ekr ( t ) = { x ( t )} [ M ]{ x ( t )}
T
(2.3)
2
Evd ( t ) is the energy dissipated by viscous damping from the beginning of the record up to
time t :
Evd ( t ) = ∫ { x ( t )} [C ]{dx ( t )}
T
(2.4)
Ea ( t ) is the absorbed energy from the beginning of the record up to time t, expresses as the
sum of recoverable elastic strain energy and energy dissipated through hysteretic damping:
Ea ( t ) = ∫ {dx ( t )} {F ( t )} = E ( t ) + E ( t )
T
r es h (2.5)
Einr ( t ) is the relative input energy from the beginning of the record up to time t :
Einr ( t ) = − ∫ {dx} [ M ]{r }

xg ( t )
T
(2.6)
Est ( t ) is the work done by static loads applied before and maintained during the seismic
excitation from the moment of application of the forces up to time t :
Est ( t ) = ∫ {dx} {Fs }

T
(2.7)
The energy balance expressed from eq. (2.2) is called relative formulation, as it doesn’t
account for the rigid body translation. The equivalent absolute formulation can be expressed
as:
Eka ( t ) + Evd ( t ) + Ea ( t ) = Eina ( t ) + Est ( t ) (2.8)
Where:
Eka ( t )
is defined as the absolute kinetic energy of the system at time t :
1
Eka ( t ) = { xa ( t )} [ M ]{ xa ( t )}
T
(2.9)
2
Eina ( t ) is defined as the absolute input energy from the beginning of the record up to time t :
9
xa } [ M ]{r } dxg ( t )
Eina ( t ) = ∫ {
T
(2.10)
The absolute input energy of the system has a true physical meaning as it is defined as the
total base shear integrated over the ground displacement. As observed by [Huang and Bertero,
1990], the input energy computed with both formulations is very similar for structural natural
periods ranging from 0.1 to 5s, which covers most practical civil engineering structures.
2.1.2. Types of passive energy dissipating systems

Passive energy dissipating systems can be divided into three different categories:
displacement-activated devices, velocity-activated devices, and motion-activated devices.
Displacement-activated devices dissipate energy through the relative displacement that occur
between their connected points. These dampers are usually independent of the frequency of
the motion. Also, forces generated by these devices on the structural elements are usually in
phase with the internal forces resulting from shaking. Therefore, the maximum forces
generated by the dampers occur simultaneously with the maximum internal forces that arise at
the end of a vibration cycle corresponding to the peak transient deformation of the structure.
Typical dampers falling in this category include metallic dampers, friction dampers and self-
centering dampers.
Velocity activated devices dissipate energy through the relative velocities that occur between
their connected points. The force-displacement response of these dampers usually depends on
the frequency of the motion. Also, the forces generated by these devices in the structure are
usually out-of-phase with the internal forces resulting from shaking. Therefore, the maximum
forces generated by the dampers do not occur simultaneously with the maximum internal
forces corresponding to the peak transient deformation of the structure. This results in lower
design forces for the foundations. Typical dampers falling in this category include purely
viscous and visco-elastic dampers.
A motion activated device disturbs the flow of energy in the structure through the vibration of
a secondary system. Tuned-Mass Dampers (TMDs) are examples of motion-activated devices.
A TMD is a relatively small secondary mass-spring-dashpot system that is attached to a
structure in order to reduce its dynamic response. The secondary system is tuned to be in
resonance with the main structure on which it is installed. Under a dynamic excitation, the
TMD resonates at the same frequency as the main structure but out-of-phase from it, thereby
diverting the input energy from the main structure into itself. The input energy is dissipated
by the inertia forces applied by the TMD on the main structure. These systems, usually
installed on the roofs of buildings, have been proven effective in reducing wind-induced
vibrations in high-rise buildings and floor vibrations induced by occupant activity.
2.1.3. Influence of passive energy dissipating systems on energy balance

The introduction of an energy dissipating system into a structural system perturbs the energy
balance during earthquake shaking. If the passive energy dissipation system is well designed,
the perturbation will be beneficial to the structure. From a physical point of view, the energy
perturbation can be visualized using the rain flow analogy.
10
The figure on the right

illustrates a fictitious hangar
with a retractable roof
subjected to a rainstorm. The
rainstorm symbolizes the
earthquake input, while the
amount of rain water
entering the system
represents the total seismic
energy input into the
structure. This amount of
rain water entering the
system depends on the
extent of the roof opening,
symbolizing the dependence
of the input energy on the
structural properties during
an earthquake and Fig.2.1: Rain flow analogy
emphasizing the fact that the
input energy is not the same for every structure subjected to the same ground motion. If the
roof is completely open, the structure would absorb all the seismic energy input generated at
the site by the earthquake. This case symbolizes quasi-resonance between the ground motion
and the dynamic response of the structure. If the roof is completely closed, the structure does
not receive any seismic input energy. This situation corresponds to a perfectly isolated
structure.
The rain water entering the structure, symbolizing the seismic input energy, is collected just
below the ceiling line, and is routed towards a kinetic energy pail. The amount of rainwater
collected by this pail represents the kinetic energy generated by the masses of the structure as
their inertia reacts to the seismic input energy transmitted to the structure. The hosepipe
collecting the rainwater entering from the roof is equipped with a flow gauge in order to
measure the total amount of seismic input energy transmitted to the structure. The rain water
that slides down on each side of the closed portion of the roof symbolizes the amount of
seismic input energy generated by the earthquake that is not transmitted to the structure, but is
rather radiated back to the ground. In other words, not all the seismic input energy generated
at the site is absorbed by the structure.
As the masses of the structure vibrate, the structural elements deform and absorb strain
energy. When the masses stop moving at the end of a cycle of vibration, the kinetic energy is
transferred into strain energy. This process is illustrated in Fig. 2.1 by a two way oscillating
pump connecting the bottom of the kinetic energy pail to the top of the strain energy pail and
the bottom of the strain energy pail to the top of the kinetic energy pail. The flow rate of the
pump is associated with the effective period of vibration of the structure. This pump is
activated as long as rain water is still present in either of these two pails. The vibration of the
structure can therefore be visualized as a constant transfer of kinetic energy into strain energy
and vice-versa. The equivalent viscous damping of the structural system is symbolized by a
11
flow loss in the two-way oscillating pump between the kinetic energy pail and the strain
energy pail. This flow loss is proportional to the flow rates transiting through the pump. This
is analogous to the velocity dependence of the equivalent viscous damping model. The
amount of lost rain water is collected permanently by a viscous damping pail symbolizing the
amount of energy absorbed by equivalent viscous damping.
It is of interest to note that the system composed of kinetic, strain and viscous damping
energy pails represent a viscously damped linear elastic system. If only an initial amount of
input energy is introduced to the system, resulting in a damped free-vibration response, rain
water will be pumped between the kinetic and strain energy pails until all the rain water is
transmitted to the viscous damping pail through losses in the pump.
When the level of water in the strain energy pail reaches a critical level, some of the water is
drained permanently into a hysteretic energy pail. The critical water level in the strain energy
pail symbolizes the amount of strain energy that is absorbed by the structure before it starts
deforming in the elastic range. The manometer in the strain energy pail indicates the
maximum total (recoverable + hysteretic) strain energy absorbed by the structural elements at
any time during the earthquake. This reading is directly related to the peak transient response
of the structure. Therefore, damage in the structure is associated with both the amount of rain
water accumulated in the hysteretic energy pail and the final reading of the manometer.
The energy state of the structure at the end of the shaking is illustrated in Fig 2.2 (picture on
the right). Both the kinetic and recoverable strain energy pails are empty as the structure
comes to rest. If the
structure remains in the
elastic range of the
material during the
earthquake, all the input
energy ends up in the
equivalent viscous
damping pail. If the
structural elements
experience inelastic
deformations during the
earthquake, a portion of
the seismic input energy
is also collected by the
hysteretic energy pail.
Fig.2.2: Rain flow analogy
Therefore, the sum of the volumes of rain water collected by the equivalent viscous damping
pail Vd and by the hysteretic energy pail Vh must be equal to the equivalent volume of
rainwater recorded by the flow gauge Vin:
Vin = Vd + Vh (2.11)
12
From the rain flow analogy discussed above, the strategies for incorporating supplemental
damping and seismic isolation systems against earthquake attacks become obvious. Two
possible intervention strategies are possible. The first strategy consist of minimizing (or even
eliminating) the amount of rain water collected by the hysteretic energy pail that is directly
linked to damage. This can be achieved by supplemental damping mechanisms. The other
intervention strategy consists of reducing the size of the roof opening in order to minimize the
amount of rain flow collected by the seismic input energy pail. This symbolizes the primary
function of a seismic isolation system.
The energy state of a structure equipped with a displacement-activated energy dissipating

system can be described with another rain flow analogy, where a second critical rain water
level is introduced in the strain energy pail. This second critical level is located below the
level where the hysteretic energy pail is connected. This second critical rain water level
represents the critical amount of strain energy that is absorbed by the structure when the
supplemental dampers are activated. Once this second critical level of rain water in the strain
energy pail is reached, some of the rainwater is drained permanently into a supplemental
damping energy pail, thereby reducing the total energy flow into the structure.
The energy state of a structure equipped with a velocity-activated energy dissipating system
during seismic shaking can be described with another rain flow analogy, where the presence
of the dampers causes an increase of flow loss in the two-way oscillating pump connecting the
kinetic energy pail to the strain energy pail. This supplemental energy loss is symbolized by
the rain water collected in a supplemental damping pail, thereby reducing once more the total
energy flow into the structure.
The energy state of a structure equipped with a motion-activated energy dissipation system
such as a TMD can be described with another rain flow analogy, in which the introduction of
a TMD draws a portion of the kinetic energy from the main system into a TMD kinetic energy
pail. This diverted kinetic energy is then pumped from the TMD kinetic energy pail into the
TMD strain energy pail, similarly to the main structure. Through this secondary two-way
pump, losses in flow representing the energy dissipated through viscous damping in the TMD
viscous damping pail. If the secondary system is perfectly tuned, the opening between the
main system’s kinetic energy pail and the secondary system’s kinetic energy pail is large
enough that all the seismic input energy falls directly into the TMD kinetic energy pail,
without any energy being pumped into the main structure’s strain energy pail.
Mathematically, the absolute energy balance equation (2.8) is modified by the introduction of
a passive supplemental damping system as follows:
Eka ( t ) + Evd ( t ) + Ea ( t ) + Esd ( t ) = Eina ( t ) (2.12)
Where the term Esd ( t ) represents the energy dissipated by the supplemental damping system
from the beginning of the earthquake up to time t, and the energy related to static loads is
neglected.
13
It is very important to understand that for design purposes, the most desirable response of a
structure equipped with a passive energy dissipating system is not necessarily associated with
maximum energy dissipation by the dampers. This can be seen by defining the vibrational
energy Evb ( t ) , which corresponds to the portion of the input energy at time t that has not
been dissipated by viscous damping or by the supplemental damping system and that can
potentially cause damage to the structure. The main structure is therefore best protected when
Evb ( t ) is minimized at all times.
From equation (2.12) it can be seen that the vibrational energy is equal to the sum of the
kinetic energy and absorbed energy flowing in the system at time t:
Evb ( t ) = Eka ( t ) + Ea ( t ) (2.13)
From equations (2.12) and (2.13), the vibrational energy is also equal to the difference
between the seismic input energy and the sum of the energy dissipated by viscous damping in
the main structural elements and the supplemental dampers.
Evb ( t ) = Eina ( t ) − Esd ( t ) − Evd ( t ) (2.14)
Equation (2.14) clearly shows that maximizing the energy dissipated by the supplemental
dampers does not necessarily lead to a minimum vibrational energy, since the amount of input
energy can also increase significantly. Therefore, the design strategy resides in minimizing
the difference between the seismic input energy and the energy dissipated by the dampers.
This result leads also to the conclusion that for design purposes, the optimum properties of the
passive energy dissipating system selected depend on both the properties of the ground
motion and of the structural system.
2.1.4. Linear theory of seismic isolation

The linear theory of seismic isolation, given in details by Kelly [1996, 1999], is based on a
two d.o.f. structural model, as shown in Fig. 2.3. The mass m represents the superstructure
and mb the base mass above the isolation system. The stiffness and damping of the structure
and of the isolation system are represented by ks, cs, kb and cb respectively. us, ub and ug are the
absolute displacements of the two masses and of the ground, while relative displacements in
equation (2.15) represent respectively the isolation system displacement and the interstorey
drift. The basic equations of motion of the two degree-of-freedom model are given in equation
( 2.4 ), where M is the total mass.
vb = ub − ug vs = us − ub (2.15)
⎡M m ⎤ ⎧vb ⎫ ⎡ cb 0 ⎤ ⎧vb ⎫ ⎡ kb 0 ⎤ ⎧vb ⎫ ⎡ M m ⎤ ⎧1 ⎫

⎨ ⎬+ ⎨ ⎬+ ⎨ ⎬= ⎨ ⎬ ug (2.16)
⎢m
⎣ m ⎥⎦ ⎩ vs ⎭ ⎣⎢ 0 cs ⎦⎥ ⎩ vs ⎭ ⎣⎢ 0 k s ⎦⎥ ⎩vs ⎭ ⎢⎣ m m ⎥⎦ ⎩0 ⎭
14
Fig.2.3: Parameters of 2DOF isolated system
The nominal frequencies and damping ratios of the system are obtained as follows:
ks k
ωs = >> ωb = b (2.17)
m M
2
⎛ω ⎞
ε =⎜ s ⎟ (2.18)
⎝ ωb ⎠
c c
ξ s = s ; ξb = b (2.19)
2mωs 2mωb
ε is assumed to be in the range of 0-10-2. The solution of the (2.16) leads to the characteristic
system frequencies in equations (2.20), approximated by the (2.21), where the mass ratio γ is
defined as m/M:
1 ⎧ 2 1/ 2
⎫
⎡ 2 ( ) + 4γωb2ωs2 ⎤ ⎬
2
ω12 = ⎨ωb + ωs − ⎢ ωb − ωs
2 2
2 (1 − γ ) ⎩ ⎣ ⎦⎥ ⎭
(2.20)
1 ⎧ 2 1/ 2
⎫
⎡ 2 ( ) + 4γωb2ωs2 ⎤ ⎬
2
ω22 = ⎨ωb + ωs − ⎢ ωb − ωs
2 2
2 (1 − γ ) ⎩ ⎣ ⎦⎥ ⎭
ω12 = ωb2 (1 − γε )
(2.21)
ω 2
ω22 = s
(1 + γε )
1− γ
15
The equations (2.20) to (2.22) display respectively the classical modes of the combined
system, shown in Fig. 2.4, the modal masses and the modal participation factors:
Φ = {1, ε }
1T
(2.22)
⎧ 1 ⎫
= ⎨1, − ⎡⎣1 − (1 − γ ) ε ⎤⎦ ⎬
2T
Φ
⎩ γ ⎭
M1 = M (1 − 2γε )
(2.23)
(1 − γ ) ⎡⎣1 − 2 (1 − γ ) ε ⎤⎦
M2 = M
γ
Fig.2.4: Classical modes of the combined system
Γ1 = 1 − γε
(2.24)
Γ 2 = γε
The found results reveal the basic concepts on which an isolation system relies: the
participation factor of the second mode, responsible for the structural deformation, is in the
order of magnitude of ε, and if the two frequencies are well separated it may be very small.
Then, the second mode is shifted far from the typical range of strong motion frequencies.
Since the participation factor of the second mode is very small, it is also almost orthogonal to
the earthquake input: this means that in any case the input energy associated to the second
mode structural frequency will not be inferred to the structure; the effectiveness of an
isolation system consists in fact in deflecting energy through its orthogonality property rather
than in absorbing it.
Energy absorption is however another component of the isolation system. The modal damping
ratios depend on the structural and the isolators damping: when they can be treated separately,
16
and the energy dissipation can be described just by linear viscous damping, simple
relationships are found:
⎛ 3 ⎞
β1 = βb ⎜1 − γε ⎟
⎝2 ⎠
(2.25)
β s + γβbε ⎛ γε ⎞
1/2
β2 = ⎜1 − ⎟
(1 − γ ) ⎝ 2 ⎠
1/ 2
A natural rubber isolation system may provide a degree of damping in the range of 5 to 20%
of critical, and the structure generally of 2%: the common assumption of a structural damping
of 5% of critical implies the occurring of some degree of damage to have occurred, that is
avoided in isolated structures. The second equation of ( 2.13 ) shows that the structural
damping is increased by the bearing damping, whose contribution might be significant in case
of a βs very small: high damping in the rubber bearings can contribute significantly to the
structural mode.
2.1.5. Basic dynamic response of structures with hysteretic dampers

To begin the study of the effect of hysteretic dampers on the dynamic response of structures, a
generic hysteretic device is added to a simple single-degree-of-freedom linear system
xg ( t ) , as shown in figure 2.5:
subjected to ground acceleration
Fig.2.5: Single-degree-of-freedom system incorporating hysteretic damper
The equation of motion of the combined system can be written as:
mx ( t ) + cx ( t ) + kx ( t ) + Fhd ( t ) = − mxg ( t ) (2.26)
Where m, c, and k are the mass, the equivalent viscous damping constant and the lateral
stiffness of the structure, respectively; x ( t ) , x ( t ) and
x ( t ) are the relative displacement,
velocity and acceleration, respectively; Fhd ( t ) is the nonlinear horizontal force provided by
the hysteretic damper.
17
We assume that the structure has no inherent viscous damping, and is subjected to harmonic
base excitation given by:
p0
xg ( t ) = ag sin ω g t = −
sin ω g t (2.27)
m
Where ωg is the ground excitation circular frequency, ag is the peak ground acceleration and
p0 the amplitude of the equivalent applied load.
By nonlinear time-history dynamic analyses, the amplitude of the steady-state response can be
obtained. If the amplitude of the response is normalized with respect to the excitation
amplitude, the different effects of the added hysteretic damper on the response of the main
structure can be seen.
First, the frequency ratio s is defined as:
ωg
σ= (2.28)
ω0
Where:
k + kd
ω0 = (2.29)
m
And where ω0 is the natural circular frequency of the structure equipped with the damper
before the damper is activated, k is the lateral stiffness of the bare frame and kd is the lateral
stiffness provided by the added damper before it is activated.
The equivalent static lateral displacement of the structure xst is defined as:
p0
xst = (2.30)
k
Finally, the lateral deflection of the system required to activate the hysteretic damper x0 can
be expressed in terms of the activation load of the damper:
Flat
x0 = (2.31)
kd
where Flat is the horizontal lateral load that activates the damper.
In Figure 2.6, the amplitude of the response A normalized by xst, is shown for systems with
kd/k = 0.55 for different values of xst/x0. The ratio xst/x0 can be expressed as:
xst kd p0
Λ hd = = (2.32)
x0 k Flat
18
The hysteretically damped system's parameter Λhd is expressed as a function of both the
lateral stiffness of the added damper with respect to the stiffness of the original structure (kd/k)
and of the activation load of the damper relative to the amplitude of the applied excitation
(p0/Flat).
As can be seen in Figure 2.6 (for kd/k = 0.55) for values of Λhd above 0.85, the apparent
natural frequency of the system with the hysteretic damper is similar to that of the initial
system. The effect of the added damper is similar to an increase in the amount of viscous
damping, with lower amplitudes of vibration for lower values of Λhd . However, for values of
Λhd below 0.85, the apparent natural frequency of the system is affected by the addition of
the hysteretic damper. The effect of the added damper is both to increase the amount of
damping in the system and to alter its dynamic properties. The amount of damping also
increases for decreasing values of Λhd . When Λhd is lower than 0.15, the natural period of
the system becomes similar to that of the fully braced system. In this range, however, lower
values of Λhd result in higher response amplitudes. In Figure 2.6, the system corresponding to
the value of Λ hd ≈ 0.45 , which exhibits the lowest response amplitude, is shown in dashed
lines. The theoretical derivation leading to this optimal value is presented in the following
paragraphs. Based on the above numerical results, the addition of hysteretic dampers to a
system can be envisioned as having three possible effects:
The addition of supplemental damping without significantly modifying the dynamic

properties of the system ( Λ hd ≥ 0.85 in Figure 2.6).
The addition of supplemental damping along with a modification of the dynamic properties of
the system that optimizes the use of the added damper ( Λhd = 0.45 in Figure 2.6).
The addition of supplemental damping along with a significant effect on the dynamic
properties of the system. This modification is the equivalent of adding a brace to the system (
Λ hd ≤ 0.15 ) .
The optimal use of hysteretic dampers will also be further discussed in the following
paragraphs.
2.1.6. Approximate equivalent linearization

From the results shown in Figure 2.6, it may be tempting to replace a nonlinear structure
equipped with hysteretic dampers by a linear system with equivalent viscous damping. This
equivalent viscous damping could be calculated from the amplitude of the nonlinear system at
resonance (e.g. Filiatrault 2002).
Linearization of the nonlinear system greatly simplifies the problem and provides an
approximate estimate of the response of a structure equipped with hysteretic dampers for
preliminary assessment for design purposes. This approach is reflected in current design and
analysis guidelines for structures incorporating passive energy dissipation systems (ASCE
2000, BSSC 2003). It must be clearly understood, however, that this equivalent linearization
for structures incorporating hysteretic dampers should be used only for preliminary design
and for estimating the dynamic response. The addition of this equivalent viscous damping will
19
always cause a reduction of the dynamic response of a single-degree-of-freedom system for

any seismic input signal. Because of the nonlinear nature of actual hysteretic devices, the
results obtained with the linear system with equivalent viscous damping can be non-
conservative.
Fig.2.6: Steady-state response amplitude of single-degree-of-freedom with hysteretic damper under

harmonic base excitation, kd/k = 0.55
A linearization of the structure can be made by computing the effective period of vibration
and the equivalent viscous damping for an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom system. For
this purpose, a pushover analysis of the rehabilitated structure is carried out under a lateral
load distribution consistent with the first mode shape of the structure in its fully braced
condition. The effective stiffness can be calculated graphically, and the effective period can
be computed using the effective lateral stiffness and the first modal weight of the structure:
W1
Teff = 2π (2.33)
gkeff
Nonlinear time-history dynamic analyses are required in order to fully assess the effects of
hysteretic supplemental damping devices on the dynamic response of civil engineering
structures.
2.1.7. Study of a nonlinear mechanical system incorporating hysteretic dampers

An insight into the dynamic characteristics of structures equipped with hysteretic dampers can
be gained by studying the steady-state response of an analogous nonlinear single-degree-of-
freedom (SDOF) oscillator subjected to harmonic excitation. This approach has been used
extensively to characterize the behaviour of nonlinear SDOF systems exhibiting various
hysteretic models [Caughey 1960, Jennings 1964, Iwan 1965, Masri 1975, Iwan and Gates
20
1979, Capecchi and Vestroni 1985, DebChaudhury 1985, Badrakhan 1988]. Although seismic
excitation has much broader frequency content than harmonic motion, it can be assumed that
when a structure is excited by seismic loading, large portions of its response may be
characterized by a quasi-resonant state at its effective fundamental period of vibration. The
study carried out in this section is particularly useful in revealing the nondimensional
parameters governing the response of a simple structure equipped with hysteretic dampers. By
extension, these same parameters will be useful in developing a strategy for obtaining the load
that activates the damper in order to minimize the seismic response of the structure, as
discussed later in this chapter.
Consider, as shown in Figure 2.7.a), a single storey hysteretically damped structure excited by
a harmonic base acceleration:
xg ( t ) = a g cos (ω g t )
(2.34)
where ag, and wg are respectively the amplitude and the circular frequency of the base
excitation. Provided that the bracing elements connecting the hysteretic damper to the main
structural elements remain elastic in tension and compression, the structure can be represented
by a nonlinear SDOF oscillator of mass m . The relative displacement of the SDOF oscillator
with respect to the base is denoted by x(t) . The equation of motion of this system is given by:
d 2 x (t )
m + kb f ( x, u, t ) = −mag cos ωg t (2.35)
dt 2
Where f ( x, u , t ) is the hysteretic restoring force normalized by the initial stiffness kb as

shown in figure 2.7.b), and is defined by:
⎧⎪ x if 0 ≤ x ≤ x0
f ( x, u, t ) = ⎨ (2.36)
⎪⎩ x0 + α ( x − x0 ) if x ≥ x0
where x is the displacement of the mass relative to the moving base, x0, is the lateral
deflection required to activate the hysteretic damper, and a is the post-activation stiffness
slope ratio, i.e. the ratio of the lateral stiffness of the structure in its unbraced condition ku,
(after the damper is activated) to the initial lateral stiffness of the structure in its fully braced
condition kb (before the damper is activated). Furthermore, a secondary stiffness parameter u
is defined in terms of the stiffness values through:
ku
u = 1− = 1−α (2.37)
kb
21
Fig.2.7: a) Single storey hysteretically damped structure b) Analogous nonlinear SDOF oscillator
Fig.2.8: Hysteretic Characteristic of hysteretically damped structure
Finally, the lateral deflection required to activate the hysteretic damper xo can be expressed as:
Flat
x0 = (2.38)
kd
where Flat, is the horizontal lateral load that activates the damper and kd is the horizontal
lateral stiffness provided to the system by the bracing member containing the damper (kd = kb
- ku ).
Note that the inherent damping of the original structure is neglected in order to simplify the
analysis and also because it is assumed much smaller than the damping provided by the
hysteretic damper.
For the purpose of the derivation, the time variable t is changed to an non-dimensional
variable t using:
τ = ωbt (2.39)
22
Where wb is the natural circular frequency of the fully braced frame (before the damper is
activated) given by:
kb
ωb = (2.40)
m
Carrying out the change of variable and dividing by m, equation (2.35) becomes:
d 2 x (τ )
ωb + ωb2 f ( x, u,τ ) = −ag cos στ (2.41)
dτ 2
Where s is the excitation frequency ratio:
ωg
σ= (2.42)
ωb
To simplify the notation, the derivative with respect to t is denoted by the overdot symbol in
the following development. Dividing by ωb2 , equation (2.41) becomes:
x (τ ) + f ( x, u ,τ ) = xst cos στ
(2.43)
Where xst is the static deflection defined by:
mag
xst = − (2.44)
kb
Assuming that a steady-state response of the system exists, by analogy to the linear case, the
solution to equation (2.43) is assumed to take the form:
x (τ ) = A (τ ) cos (στ − ϕ (τ ) ) (2.45)
In the case where f ( x, u ,τ ) is linear and elastic, A (τ ) and ϕ (τ ) are constants and
represents respectively the amplitude and phase of the steady-state motion. In the proposed
solution, although it is recognized that A (τ ) and ϕ (τ ) are not constants with respect to time,
it is assumed that they vary slowly during a cycle of vibration. This method, originally
proposed by Krylov and Bogoliubov [Minorsky 1947], has been used by many researchers to
solve similar frequency response problems for various hysteretic rules. As mentioned earlier,
the solution proposed by Caughey [1960] for bilinear elasto-plastic systems was the first of
such applications and is used here to derive the frequency response of a hysteretically damped
SDOF system.
Defining θ = στ − ϕ (τ ) and differentiating equation (2.45) with respect to t yields:
x (τ ) = A (τ ) cos θ − σ A (τ ) sin θ + ϕ (τ ) A (τ ) sin θ (2.46)
23
By analogy to Lagrange’s method of variation of a parameter, one may impose the additional
restriction:
A (τ ) cos θ + ϕ (τ ) A (τ ) sin θ = 0 (2.47)
Equation (2.47) also assures that the expression of x (τ ) has the same form as in the linear
case where f and A are independent of t:
x (τ ) = −σ A (τ ) sin θ (2.48)
Differentiating again equation (2.48) with respect to t we obtain:
x (τ ) = −σ A (τ ) sin θ − σ 2 A (τ ) cos θ + σ A (τ ) ϕ (τ ) cos θ

(2.49)
Substituting equation (2.49) into (2.43) we get:
−σ A (τ ) sin θ + σ A (τ ) ϕ (τ ) cos θ − σ 2 A (τ ) cos θ + f ( A cos θ , u ,τ ) = xst cos (θ + ϕ (τ ) )

(2.50)
Equations (2.47) and (2.50) are used to define a system of two equations for two unknowns
A (τ ) and ϕ (τ ) :
First, equation (2.50) is multiplied by sin θ and equation (2.47) is multiplied by σ cos θ , and
the two are subtracted:
−σ A (τ ) + σ 2 A (τ ) sin θ cos θ + f ( A cos θ , u ,τ ) cos θ = xst cos (θ + ϕ (τ ) ) sin θ

(2.51)
Then, equation (2.47) is multiplied by sin θ and equation (2.50) after the latter is multiplied
by cos θ :
σ A (τ ) ϕ ( t ) − σ 2 A (τ ) cos 2 θ + f ( A cos θ , u ,τ ) cos θ = xst cos (θ + ϕ (τ ) ) cos θ (2.52)
Since A (τ ) and ϕ (τ ) are assumed to be slow-varying, they will remain almost constant
during one cycle. The time dependence of these two variables can be lifted by taking the
averages of equations (2.51) and (2.52) over one cycle of vibration. In fact, since these two
equations are verified for every value of t, they are also valid for the averages over one cycle.
Equations (2.51) and (2.52) averaged over one cycle of θ yield:
1 2π
−2σ A + f ( A cos θ , u ,τ ) sin θ dθ = xst sin ϕ
π∫
(2.53)
0
24
And
1 2π
f ( A cos θ , u ,τ ) cos θ dθ = xst cos ϕ
π∫
−2σ Aϕ − σ 2 A + (2.54)
0
Where A, ϕ, A and ϕ denote the average values of A (τ ) , ϕ (τ ) , A (τ ) and ϕ (τ ) over one

cycle. Defining:
1 2π
S ( A) = ∫ f ( A cos θ , u ,τ ) sin θ dθ (2.55)
π 0
And
1 2π
C ( A) = f ( A cos θ , u ,τ ) cos θ dθ
π∫
(2.56)
0
Equations (2.53) and (2.54) then become:
−2σ A + S ( A ) = xst sin ϕ

(2.57)
−2σ Aϕ − σ A + C ( A ) = xst cos ϕ
2
The evaluation of S ( A ) and C ( A ) is carried out by integrating the force-displacement

response (hysteresis) by parts over each linear branch.
Acknowledging that the hysteresis shape is symmetric, the integral over one full cycle can be
carried out over one half cycle only (from θ=0 to θ=π) and multiplied by two. The amplitude
of the steady-state response A is first normalized:
A
A= (2.58)
x0
S ( A) C ( A)
And and are also normalized by A:
S ( A)
S ( A) =
A
(2.59)
C ( A)
C ( A) =
A
25
It has been shown (Caughley 1960) that:
⎧0 for A < 1 ⎫
⎪ ⎪
S ( A ) = ⎨⎛ u 2 *⎞ ⎬ (2.60)
⎪⎜ − π sin θ ⎟ for A > 1 ⎪
⎩⎝ ⎠ ⎭
And
⎧1 for A < 1 ⎫
⎪ ⎪
C ( A) = ⎨ 1 ⎛ * u *⎞ ⎬ (2.61)
⎪ π ⎜ uθ + (1 − u ) π − 2 sin 2θ ⎟ for A > 1 ⎪
⎩ ⎝ ⎠ ⎭
Where:
⎛ 2 ( x0 / xst ) ⎞
θ * = cos −1 ⎜⎜1 − ⎟ (2.62)
⎝ ( A / xst ) ⎟⎠
When the steady-state response is reached, the average values of the derivatives of A (τ ) and
ϕ (τ ) over one full cycle A and ϕ are equal to zero. Recallng equation (2.57), squaring and
adding the two equations eliminates the terms in ϕ and yields:
σ 2 = C ( A) ± ( xst / A) + S 2 ( A) (2.63)
Substituting equations (2.60) and (2.61) into equation (2.63) leads to the following
transcendental steady-state amplitude solution:
⎧ xst ⎫
⎪1 ± A for A ≤ 1 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
σ2 =⎨ 2 2 * 2 ⎬
⎪ 1 ⎡uθ * + (1 − u ) π − u sin 2θ * ⎤ ± ⎛ xst ⎞ − ⎛ u sin θ ⎞ for A > 1⎪
⎪ π ⎢⎣ 2 ⎥⎦ ⎜ A⎟ ⎜ π
⎟ ⎪
⎩ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎭
(2.64)
2.2. FRICTION DAMPERS

In the case of friction dampers, the design philosophy to enhance the structural performance is
to provide a way for the structure to yield without damaging the existing structural members:
seismic energy is dissipated by mean of friction, i.e. by making steel plates sliding one against
the other, while bolts hold the steel plates together providing the normal component of the
friction force. Sliding plates are fixed to the cross braces and then clamped together. At a
given sliding load, Py, the plates begin to slide and dissipate energy. Varying the sliding load
will alter the seismic energy attracted by the structure.
26
Incorporating the braces adds initial lateral stiffness to the system, thus lowering the natural
period of the structure and providing a margin over which the structure can shift its period if
resonance is encountered: any time the current structural period attracts seismic energy
enough to activate the friction dampers, the resonance phenomenon can be avoided by a
period shift. When in fact at the low braced period the structure attracts large amounts of
seismic energy, the structure begins to soften as the friction dampers begin to slip and
dissipate energy: the reduced lateral stiffness of the structure, due to the dampers slippage,
causes the desired period shift. If the braced natural period is moved far from the unbraced
natural period, the structure will have a sufficient ability to soften.
2.2.1. Advantages and disadvantages of friction dampers and environmental effects

These devices possess good characteristics of structural behavior. Some of their advantages
are listed below:
• They have high capacity of energy dissipation; compared to devices based on yielding of
metals, friction dissipators possess a great capability of absorbing energy. This characteristic
disappear with the wearing of the sliding surfaces.
• Their behaviour is not seriously affected by the amplitude, the frequency contents or the
number of cycles of the driving force.
• They have a controllable friction force (through the pre-stressing normal force).
• Frictions dissipators are not affected by fatigue effects; the materials are low maintenance or
even maintenance free.
• Friction dampers perform well in various environmental conditions such as temperature.
• The damper design is straightforward and low tech: the design does not require expensive
engineering design costs or testing prior to implementation.
Some potentially relevant disadvantages exhibited by Friction dissipators are:
• The energy dissipated per cycle is only proportional to the maximum displacement instead
of the square of the same displacement, as in the case of viscous damping: this can be relevant
for sudden pulses and for inputs stronger than those expected. Moreover, resonance peaks can
not be properly cut.
• Durability is also a controversial issue, mostly due to the high sensitivity of the coefficient
of friction to the conditions of the sliding surfaces.
• High frequencies can be introduced in the response, due to the frequent and sudden changes
in the sticking-sliding conditions. The dynamic highly non-linear behavior of friction
dissipators makes their numerical simulation very difficult. This situation has arisen some
controversial issues, such as the possible introduction of high frequencies into the structural
response, as well as the lack of studies of these devices when subjected to near-fault pulses.
27
Environmental effects might alter the frictional characteristic of the sliding interface. Critical
conditions to be assessed in a design situation are:
• Localised heating of the contacting materials during slippage: on occasions, these thermal
effects
may alter the frictional response by causing material softening or by promoting oxidation.
However, for the type of sliding systems typically encountered with friction dampers, system
response will be barely sensitive to the relatively small variations in ambient temperature.
• Atmospheric moisture and contaminants: physic-chemical processes may be triggered by

atmospheric moisture of contaminants, occurring at the material interfaces. These processes
may change the physical and chemical character of the surfaces, thus significantly affecting
the frictional response.
• Formation of oxide layers or scale on the exposed surfaces.
• Crevice corrosion (cathodic/anodic effect between exposed and inaccessible regions) and
Bimetallic corrosion: in aggressive environments, corrosion may be a problem. It is necessary
to rely on physical testing to determine the extent of corrosion expected in a given situation
and to find out the potential effects on the frictional characteristics of a sliding system.
2.2.2. Numerical simulation of friction dissipators

The dynamic behavior of friction dissipators is closely related to the contact theory since there
are friction forces generated by sliding surfaces. Basically, the numerical simulation of
friction dampers is based on the rectangular relationship friction force-displacement (Fig. 3.1,
left). In order to carry out the numerical simulation of structures equipped with friction
dampers, some computer programs have been written specifically with this purpose while
others use commercial software packages such as DRAIN-2D, DRAIN-TABS, SADSAP,
SAP2000NL or ADINA. Basically, the existing models fall into one of these two categories:
• Models where the dynamic behaviour of the friction dissipators is described by the contact
analysis and plasticity theory. Usually the equations of motion are solved by using Lagrange
multipliers or penalty methods (e.g. ADINA). This approach can be accurate but it is costly in
terms of computational effort.
• Simpler models where elasto-plastic laws for the friction dissipators are implemented in
finite element models of the whole structure (DRAIN-2D, DRAINTABS, SADSAP,
SAP2000NL).These models have been developed to simulate, approximately, the perfectly
plastic shape of the hysteretic loops using an elastic-plastic hysteretic model and considering
for the initial stiffness any big value to approach an 'ideal' vertical branch. This approach
might lack of accuracy.
2.2.3. Friction damper typologies: slotted-bolted connections

The simplest form of friction dampers are the Slotted-bolted Connections introduced at the
end of conventional bracing members (Fig. 3.4). It is important to ensure that the slippage of
the device occurs before the compressed braces buckle or yield. Each connection incorporates
28
a symmetric shear splice with slotted holes in the connecting plates extending from the
bracing member: the slot length has to accommodate the maximum slip anticipated from the
design earthquake. Disc spring washer can be used in the bolting assembly to accommodate
the possible variation in the plate thickness due to the wear at the contact surfaces and to the
temperature rise resulting from friction heating. Tests results performed by Pall et al. (1980)
and Tremblay and Stiemer (1993) show that sliding connections can exhibit a very high
energy dissipation capability under extreme loading conditions, provided that appropriate
materials and bolt clamping forces are used.
2.2.4. Detailing aspects

Bracing members shall be selected in order to minimize cost and optimize the building
performance.
It is important in the detailing of the brace to avoid the that yielding of the sliding surfaces. It
is possible (Fig. 3.5) to incorporate four or even six large diameter bolts in the oversized slots.
Using these large diameter bolts will allow the total clamping force to be safely applied.
These bolts will have to spread the clamping force over a sufficient area to ensure that
localized compressions do not inhibit the sliding of the plates. Should this retrofit proposal be
selected in terms of performance and cost, this is an important aspect to address.
2.3. Code guidelines

Different kind of guidelines for isolator systems can be found in various codes; in this
paragraph a comparison between three different code is made:
• Italian seismic code (Ordinanza 3274/2003 and following updates);
• Eurocode 8 (European code for seismic design);
• FEMA --- (U.S. seismic code).
2.3.1. Italian seismic code

The 11th chapter of the code gives mechanic limits for isolator devices dividing them into four
categories:
• Linear behaviour devices;
• Non linear behaviour devices;
• Viscous devices;
• Elastomeric devices;
For each type of isolator, the code gives the designer some limits; in the following part of this
text, an elastomeric device will be studied: for this reason, in the following table only the limit
for this device can be found.
Ke = Fe/de is the horizontal stiffness;
29
Kv = Fv/dv is the vertical stiffness;
xe = Ed/(2pFd) is the equivalent damping, defined as the ratio between the dissipated energy
during one complete cycle (Ed) and the elastic dissipated energy (2pFd)
The limits in the table are referred to the 3rd cycle of test of each device in respect to the
design values:
2.3.2. Eurocode 8
The Eurocode 8 doesn’t talk about generic isolator devices, but only about base isolated
buildings (Part 1 – chapter 10th).
General provisions given by the code are:
• Sufficient space between the superstructure and substructure shall be provided,

together with other necessary arrangements, to allow inspection, maintenance and
replacement of the devices during the lifetime of the structure;
• If necessary, the devices should be protected from potential hazardous effects, such as
fire, and chemical or biological attack;
• Materials used in the design and construction of the devices should conform to the
relevant existing norms.
A lot of guidelines are given by the code, with some numerical limits; a paragraph is related
also to the structural analysis: equivalent linear analysis, simplified linear analysis, modal-
simplified linear analysis and time-history analysis (all this type of analysis are allowed to
verified the isolator designed).
The final part of the paragraph gives the designer some procedure to verified the integrity of
non structural elements.
2.3.3. FEMA
The Federal Emergency Management Agency publication n.273 contains an entire chapter on
base isolation and energy dissipation (Chapter 9). These systems are defined as “relatively
new and sophisticated concepts that require more extensive and detailed analysis than do most
conventional rehabilitation schemes”. Energy dissipation devices are classified, in chapter
9.3.3, as displacement-dependent devices (friction devices and metallic yielding devices) and
velocity-dependent devices (solid and fluid Viscoelastic devices). Other devices include shape
memory alloys, friction-spring assemblies with recentering capability, and fluid restoring
force-damping devices.
30
General provisions given by the code are:
• Models of the energy dissipation system should include the stiffness of structural
components that are part of the load path between energy dissipation devices and the
ground, if the flexibility of these components is significant enough to affect the
performance of the energy dissipation system.
• Displacement-dependent devices should be modeled in sufficient detail so as to

capture their forcedisplacement response adequately, and their dependence, if any, on
axial-shear-flexure interaction, or bilateral deformation response.
• Linear procedures are only permitted if it can be demonstrated that the framing system
exclusive of the energy dissipation devices remains essentially linearly elastic for the
level of earthquake demand of interest after the effects of added damping are
considered. Further, the effective damping afforded by the energy dissipation shall not
exceed 30% of critical in the fundamental mode.
Other system requirements concern the operating temperature, environmental conditions,

wind forces, inspection and replacement, manufacturing quality control and maintenance
procedures.
2.4. Foundation – column – superstructure interaction

The concept of isolation and dissipation can be applied to a variety of complex systems,
where isolating/dissipating devices could be inserted between different parts of the structural
system with the purpose of dissipating energy, controlling relative displacements, and
capacity-protecting structural elements against potentially brittle failure modes.
Common examples of application can be found in bridges, when the isolating system is
located between pier top and deck, in frames braced with dissipative elements, in coupled
shear walls and in different types of rocking structures.
In most cases the response of such structures is not easily captured with simple design
approaches and it is therefore always recommended to perform some non-linear time-history
analysis at the end of the design process. An appropriate application of capacity-design
principles may limit the non-linear response to the isolating/dissipating devices, simplifying
the analysis.
Bridges with isolated deck represent the simplest case to analyze, consisting on a serial
system composed by the foundation – pile – isolation device – superstructure (represented in
Fig. 2.9).
31
Fig.2.9: Qualitative response of a bent of an isolated bridge
The global effective stiffness of each pier can be taken as equal to the secant stiffness to
yielding ( K Py ), the effective stiffness of the isolating system located at its top as the secant
stiffness to the expected maximum displacement ( K DE ). The global effective stiffness is
therefore:
1
KG = (2.65)
1 + 1
K Py K DE
Usually the global pier-bearing stiffness will be established to optimize response. The
required effective stiffness of the damper can then be computed as a function of global
stiffness and pier stiffness by inverting eq. (2.65), obtaining
K Py K G
K DE = (2.66)
K Py − K G
It should be noted that the effective stiffness of the isolator is not taken at the maximum
displacement capacity of the isolator but at the expected displacement demand. The ratio
between the two values, to be assumed in the design phase, will depend on the type of
response of the isolator and on the desired protection.
The soil-foundation-pier system is assumed to respond elastically, with a standard viscous

damping (ξ P ) of, say, 5%. The isolating system could be characterized by a high viscous
damping (ξ DV ) and by an essentially linear response, or by an effective damping (ξ DE )
equivalent to the dissipated hysteretic energy. In the first case the global damping (ξ G ) of the
pier-isolator system can be calculated according to the following relation, which assumes a
stiffness-proportional damping (Fig. 2.10):
32
Δ2 2
Δ1 1
Δ1 Δ2 Δ1+Δ2
Δh2
Δh ξ2 ∝
ξ1 ∝ 1 Δ2
Δ1
Δh1 + Δh2 Δ1ξ1 + Δξ1

ξe ∝ ξe =
Δ1 + Δ 2 Δ1 + Δ 2
Foundation − Pier "Elastic" isolator Total
Fig.2.10: Equivalent global damping of two quasielastic viscous systems in series, applying a stiffness
proportional damping concept
Δ Pξ P + Δ Dξ DV
ξG = (2.67)
ΔP + ΔD
In the second case, the effective damping of the isolator should be evaluated as a function of
its hysteretic response and of the expected ductility demand at the equivalent displacement. In
the case of a response essentially elastic-perfectly plastic, the following relation applies:
2 ⎛⎜1 − 1 ⎞⎟
μD ⎠
ξ DE = ⎝ (2.68)
π
While a smaller damping corresponds to thinner cycles. It is often convenient to express the
hysteretic dissipation capacity of a damper giving the ratio of the area of its typical cycle to
the area of a corresponding elastic-perfectly plastic cycle (i.e. an efficiency factor), in which
case expression (2.68) can simply be factored by the calculated efficiency ratio.
With a damper whose energy dissipating characteristics depend on ductility level, as above,
the global ductility is reduced from the damper ductility as a consequence of additional
flexibility of the pier. Thus using the nomenclature of Fig. 2.11, the effective global ductility
μG is related to the damper ductility by the expression:
Δ DE
μG = 1 + ( μ D − 1) (2.69)
Δ S + Δ DE
33
The effective damping provided by the dissipator can then be found from eq.(2.68) using μG
instead of μ D , and reducing by the appropriate efficiency factor, as above. Global damping,
incorporating structural damping provided by the pier is then found from eq.(2.67). In most
cases, contribution of the viscous damping of the pier to the global damping is negligible, and
can be conservatively ignored in the preliminary design phase.
Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ
ΔP ΔP
μD = +1 μG =
Δ DE Δ S + Δ DE
ξ = ξ Δμ D
"Elastic"
Damper Total
Foundation − Pier
Fig.2.11: Equivalent global damping of a quasielastic systems in series with a hysteretic system, applying a
stiffness proportional damping concept.
In order to perform a dynamic modal analysis, a substitute structure model will be used,
considering equivalent linear stiffness of the expected displacement and viscous damping
equivalent to the energy dissipated by hysteresis; the structure will essentially be modelled
using the following elements:
• Linear springs to simulate the soil-foundation system;
• Beam elements to simulate the piers, with an effective stiffness that takes cracking
into account (i.e., a secant stiffness to the yield value);
• Spring elements to simulate the isolation system, with an effective stiffness that takes
yielding into account (i.e., a secant stiffness to the design displacement); it may be
necessary to perform iterative analyses to obtain the correct value of the design
displacement;
• Beam elements to simulate the superstructure, with a stiffness corresponding to the

uncracked value (pre-stressed sections).
If a complete model is used, the concept of equivalent damping would imply a different
equivalent viscous damping for several structural elements, such as soil, foundation, cracked
piers, yielded dampers, and undamaged superstructure. In general, a common value (2% or
5%) is adopted for all elements, with the exception of the dampers, which will be
characterized by a much higher damping equivalent to their hysteresis cycles. If the
commercial software available does not allow the selection of different damping ratios for
34
different elements, an appropriate correction of the response spectrum has been proposed as
the only feasible solution for the problem. This correction is based on the observation that the
equivalent damping of the isolation system is effective only for cycle that involve significant
yielding of the damper, and this correspond to longer periods of vibration. It has therefore
been proposed that the response spectrum be modified according to fig. 2.12 :
Fig.2.12: Modified response spectrum to consider the equivalent viscous damping of the isolation system
the result is a composite spectrum with a step between two spectra with different damping.
The step corresponds to a period value close to, but less than, the period of vibration of the
isolated structure (considering its equivalent stiffness), so that only modes effectively isolated
fall into the reduced acceleration spectrum, while higher modes of vibration that do not
involve isolator deformation are damped only by the structural viscous damping.
The concept is clear and ingenious, but certainly not rigorous, and it is reasonable to expect
problems when a clear distinction between isolated and not-isolated modes is not possible or
when different periods of vibrations, involving different ductility demand from the dampers,
are close to each other. These aspects should be considered before relying on results obtained
from this kind of analysis.
2.5. Force-based and Displacement-based design

In current design practice, seismic loads are expressed in terms of acceleration spectra, from
which inertia forces are calculated and then applied to the structure as static loads. In recent
years there has been a substantial research and design effort directed towards what has been
generally termed Performance Based design. In the following paragraphs the two approaches
will be analysed and compared.
2.5.1. Critical comparison between the two approaches

According to some researcher, there are many fundamental problems with the force-based
design procedure, particularly when applied to reinforced concrete or reinforced masonry
structures. In order to examine these problems, it is first necessary to briefly review the force-
based design procedure (Fig. 2.13 – taken from “DDBD”, Priestley, Calvi, Kowalsky).
35
Fig.2.13: Force-Based Design Procedure
The problems associated with force-based design can be summarized as follows:
• Force-based design relies on estimates of initial stiffness to determine the period and
the distribution of design forces between different structural elements. Since the
stiffness is dependent on the strength of the elements, this cannot be known until the
design process is complete;
• Allocating seismic force between elements based on initial stiffness (even if accurately
known) is illogical for many structures, because it incorrectly assumes that the
different elements can be forced to yield simultaneously;
• Force-based design is based on the assumption that unique force-reduction-factors

(based on ductility capacity) are appropriate for a given structural type and material.
Despite these criticisms it should be emphasized that current force-based seismic design,
when combined with capacity design principles and careful detailing, generally produces safe
and satisfactory designs. However, the degree of protection provided against damage under a
given seismic intensity is very non-uniform from structure to structure.
36
2.5.2. Development of displacement-based design methods

Deficiencies inherent in the force-based system of seismic design have been recognized for
some time, as the importance of deformation, rather than strength, in assessing seismic
performance has come to be better appreciated. Consequently a number of new design
methods, or improvements to existing methods, have been recently developed. Initially the
approaches were designed to fit and improve existing force-based design: these can be
characterized as force-based/displacement checked, where enhanced emphasis is placed on
realistic determination of displacement demand for structures designed to force-based
procedures. Such methods include the adoption of more realistic member stiffnesses for
deformation determination, and possibly use of inelastic time-history analysis, or pushover
analysis, to determine peak deformation and drift demand. In the event that displacements
exceed the code-specified limits, redesign is required.
A second type of approach, named displacement focused force-based approach, was

introduced by Paulay: determining the yield displacement of members from section and
structure geometry without a prior knowledge of strength and using the code drift limit as the
design limit, it is possible to estimate the yield strength and, consequentially, the initial
stiffness; elastic period and elastic displacement can thus be used to incrementally adjust the
strength.
A number of other design approaches have been recently developed, where the aim is to
design structures so that they achieve a specified deformation state under the design-level
earthquake. The most reliable approach utilizes the secant stiffness to maximum
displacement, based on the “substitute structure” characterization and an equivalent elastic
representation ofhysteretic damping at maximum response (trying to avoid the initial stiffness
problem of the force-based design). These methods are classified as Direct-Displacement-
Based Design methods (DDBD) because generally require little or no iteration to design.
In fig. 2.14, it can be seen a generic hysteretic rule (in a force-displacement graph), showing
the difference between initial and secant stiffness.
Fig.2.14: Generic hysteretic rule
In fig. 2.15 a generic procedure of DDBD can be seen: the starting point is clearly the design
displacement (usually a code limit, based on displacement limit or a drift limit); one of the
most important step is the estimation of the equivalent damping (step 2); thus made the
designer able to go through the other steps, until the last check, the damping of the structure
must be the same chosen at the beginning.
37
Fig.2.15: Displacement-Based Design Procedure
38
Chapter 3. Description of the isolation system
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE ISOLATION SYSTEM

The isolation system studied in this dissertation can be classified as a mono-directional two-
stage friction damper: it works as a classical bearing system when subjected to thermal and
static loads and as an hysteretic damper when subjected to seismic excitation.
The image of the isolator and the list of pieces and materials are reported in Fig. 3.1 and table
3.1:
Fig. 3.1: Render view of the isolating system
Table 3.1: Components list
Name Quantity Material

Object nr
1 LOWER PLATE 1 S275JRG2
2 INTERMEDIATE PLATE 1 S275JRG2
3 BOX 1 S275JRG2
4 LOWER POLYETHYLENE 1 PE 300
5 HIGHER POLYETHYLENE 1 PE 300
6 DOWEL 1 115MnPb14
7 RUBBER 1 NEOPRENE
8 BRONZE WASHER 2 PE 300
9 HOLD-WASHER 2
10 M2O BOLT 2
39
The isolator can be divided into three main parts:
• a hollow steel box (n.3 in the previous figure) which is to be cast in the concrete
element with a proper anchorage system (not represented in the figure);
• a system of two steel plates (n.1 and 2 in the figure), the lower one sustained by a
concrete member (beam or column) and the upper one connected to a steel dowel with
enlarged head (n.6 in the figure), which can slide with a low friction thank to the
interposed teflon sheets (n.4 and 5 in the figure);
• a system of two M20 bolt (n.10 in the figure) which connect the plates to an anchor
channel (not represented in the figure), and impress a compression load on the bronze
washers (n.8 in the figure);
The hollow steel box plays a fundamental role for the response of the isolator under static
loads, as it allows relative movements in the order of 9mm between the two connected
elements (e.g. due to thermal elongation) without activating the resistance of the two bronze
washers. In the assemblage phase, the rubber element guarantee an exact centering of the
dowel. The behavior of the system under static loads in the longitudinal direction is
represented in the figure below:
Fig. 3.2: Idealized behavior of the isolator under static loads in the longitudinal direction
While the limit displacement is a design parameter, the limit force depends on the gravity load
transferred by the bearing, multiplied by the friction coefficient of Teflon. After the limit
displacement is reached, the larger part of the dowels gets in contact with the lower part of the
steel box and the shear is transferred to the upper steel plate and the washers begin to work.
A sketch of the kinematic behavior in the transverse (short) direction is reported in Fig. 4.4.
40
Fig. 3.3: Behavior of the isolator subjected to static loads
After this initial stage, the hysteretic loop of the two washers is involved in the response of
the system. The idealized behavior of the system composed by the rubber, dowel and the two
washers is represented in the figure below:
Fig. 3.4: Idealized behavior of the dissipative part of the isolation system
The initial increase in the transmitted force is due to the iperelastic behavior of the confined
rubber under compression, then the dowels get into contact with the internal part of the steel
box and transmit shear to the bronze washers. If the end of the available excursion is reached,
additional force is transmitted by the steel plate. Here the contact displacement dc, the limit
Force transmitted by the washers Flim and the limit displacement of the bolts dlim are design
parameters.
The hysteretic behavior of the assemblage can be obtained by summation in series of the two
hysteretic loops.
A sketch of the hysteretic behavior of the assembled isolator is reported in fig. 4.5.
41
Fig. 3.5: Idealized behavior of the combined parts of the isolation system
Fig. 3.6: Behavior of the isolator subjected to seismic loads
The resulting graph is obtained by summation of the force of the two mechanisms involved.
The idealized hysteresis loop is typical of a friction damper, except from the initial part and
the force inversion.
As far as the transverse and vertical behavior are concerned, the isolator is supposed to be
semi-rigid. The transverse shear is transferred to the dowel and the steel plates, while a
possible uplift is prevented by the head of the dowel, which is larger than the inferior part of
the steel box (the assemblage is possible thank to the elliptical form of the head).
All the technical drawings of the system are reported in Appendix B.
42
Chapter 4. Experimental investigation
4. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
4.1. Introduction
In this chapter, we focus the attention on the experimental investigations, which are aimed at
studying the cyclic properties of the isolation device and its main components. Firstly, we
describe the materials as well as the selected loading protocol. Subsequently, we provide the
main characteristics of the material testing system used to carry out the tests and we introduce
the mechanical properties that we want to evaluate for each components. Finally, we list and
discuss the most important outcomes coming from the analysis of the results.
4.2. Isolator components

This section is dedicated to the description of the available materials. All tests were carried
out in the laboratory of the University of Bergamo (Dalmine):
• Teflon: The material consists of a commercial P.T.F.E. sheet with a thickness of 3mm,
provided by A.T.I. gomma s.r.l. (Albano S. Alessandro, Italy). Its mechanical and
physical properties can be found in Appendix A. Here we only report the declared
friction coefficient, varying from 5 to 9%.
• Bronze: The material consists of a commercial hollow tube with an external diameter
of 80mm and an internal diameter of 45mm, provided by Maffioletti s.r.l.
(Brusaporto). Its mechanical and physical properties can be found in Appendix A.
Here we only report the declared friction coefficient on a dry steel surface, varying
from 16 to 22%.
• Rubber: The material consists of a commercial NR/SBR sheet, with a thickness of

15mm, provided by A.T.I. gomma s.r.l. (Albano S. Alessandro, Italy). Its mechanical
and physical properties can be found in the Appendix A.
• Steel: The material consists of a commercial S275, provided by Maffioletti s.r.l.

(Brusaporto). Its mechanical and physical properties can be found in Appendix A.
4.3. Loading protocol

The loading protocol consists of cycles of increasing amplitude, without taking the specimens
to failure. The tests were performed in displacement-control, in quasi-static conditions.
43
A summary of the experimental tests is reported in table 4.1:
Table 4.1: List of tests
Code Name Type Notes

T01-dc Teflon-steel friction 1 Displacement control - Cyclic 3x (5;10;20;30;40) mm
v=0.5mm/sec Transverse prestress = 160kN
T02-dc Teflon-steel friction 2 Displacement control - Cyclic 3x (5; 10; 20; 30) mm
B01-dc Bronze-steel friction 1 Displacement control - Cyclic 3x (5;10;20;30;40) mm
B02b-dc Bronze-steel friction 2b Displacement control - Cyclic 3x (5;10;20;30;40) mm
v=2mm/sec Transverse prestress = 45kN
B03b-dc Bronze-steel friction 3b Displacement control - Cyclic 3x (5;10;20;30;40) mm
B03c-dc Bronze-steel friction 3c Displacement control - Cyclic 3x (5;10;20;30;40) mm
B03d-dc Bronze-steel friction 3d Displacement control - Cyclic 50x 20 mm
R01-dc Rubber stiffness 1 Displacement control - Cyclic 5x 10 mm Additional holes
v=5mm/sec Transverse prestress = 10kN d=8mm
v=5mm/sec No Transverse prestress d=10mm
R05-dc Rubber stiffness 5 Displacement control - Cyclic 5x 10 mm
v=5mm/sec No Transverse prestress
I01-dc Isolation device 1 Displacement control - Cyclic 3x (5; 10; 20; 30; 40)
mm v=5mm/sec Transverse prestress = 150kN
Bolt preload = 20kN
I01b-dc Isolation device 1b Displacement control - Cyclic 50x 40 mm
Bolt preload = 20kN
I01c-dc Isolation device 1c Displacement control - Cyclic 30x 40 mm
Bolt preload = 40kN
I01d-fc Isolation device 1d Force control - monotonic
Fmax=30kN Transverse prestress = 150kN
Bolt preload = 40kN
I01e-dc Isolation device 1e Force control - monotonic
Fmax=35kN Transverse prestress = 150kN
Bolt preload = 40kN
I02-dc Isolation device 2 Displacement control - Cyclic 3x (5; 10; 20; 30; 40)
Bolt preload = 30kN
44
I02b-dc Isolation device 2b Displacement control - Cyclic 3x (5; 10; 20; 30; 40)
Bolt preload = 32.5 - 27.5kN
4.4. Experimental Setup

Experimental tests were performed using a 50kN Galdabini Sun 5 multipurpose electric
testing apparatus, property of the department of Design and Technology, University of
Bergamo.
In order to evaluate the properties of the components separately and of the whole assemblage,
a test frame was designed, with the purpose of simulating uni-axial cyclic displacements with
an applied vertical load on the isolator.
The main parts of the frame are two S plates, connected to the grips by high-strength screws
and to the auxiliary test plates by bolted connections. Two transverse steel profiles and two
external screws were used to prestress the specimen, in order to simulate the gravity load on
the isolator. To avoid parasitic friction forces, high-strength steel cylinders were used to
support one of the two steel profiles.
Fig. 4.1:Testing machine
Four different test configuration were adopted (described in the following), in order to test the
steel to Teflon and steel to bronze friction coefficients, the response of the rubber inside the
steel box and the cyclic quasi-static behavior of the isolation system.
The above mentioned loading protocols were input by using the Graphwork 4 software which
controlled the displacement and the velocity of the machine’s grips. The load level was read
by the built-in load cell. In order to eliminate the deformations of the test plates from the
45
results, six additional extensometer were attached to the specimens and the data were acquired
using a Spider8 multi channel electronic PC measurement unit. The extensometers used were
manufactured by Gefran s.p.a. and they have the features we can find in the technical sheet
attached in Appendix A.
The calibration of the extensometers was performed using the commercial software HBM
Catman.
4.4.1. Extensometer n° 0 and 1

This two extensometers (with an extension of ±125 mm) were attached to the two test plates
and they measured the relative displacement between them: the same data capture was done
also from the built-in extensometer in the machine
(including the deformations of the steel bars during
the test).
In the picture, we can see the instrument n°1,

positioned in the frontal part of the machine; the
other one (Instrument n° 0) was in the same position
of this one, but in the back part.
During the tests, they have to measure the same

quantities along the time; if they don’t, the two
plates are not moving along a parallel direction and
the test must be stopped.
After the tests, when analysing data, we obtain the

displacement needed simply using a medium value
between the values given by the two instruments;
Fig. 4.2: Instruments n° 0 and 1
these data are more reliable than data obtained using
the built-in data capture of the test machine, because
they give precisely the displacement of the two test plates, without other interferences (like
deformation of the steel bars used to apply the forces).
46

This two extensometers (Instrument n°2 with an extension of ±50 mm, n°3 of ±25 mm) were
attached to the two precompression steel profiles and they measured the rotation between
them.
In the picture, we can see the instrument n°3,

positioned in the frontal part of the machine; the
other one (Instrument n° 2) was in the same position
of this one, but in the back part.
During the tests, they measured data with opposite

sign: the sum of these numbers, divided by the
distance of the two instruments gives the rotation of
the shapes; once again, if the rotation is excessive,
the test must be stopped.
After the tests, when analysing data, we obtain the

same rotation used to control the tests correctness;
moreover, other data can be purged by taking into
account this small rotation of the shapes.
Fig. 4.3: Instruments n° 2 and 3

This two extensometers (Instrument n°2 with an extension of ±50 mm, n°3 of ±25 mm) were
attached to the two precompression steel profiles and
they measured the displacement of the shapes from
the moving grip of the test machine.
Fig. 4.4: Instruments n°4 and 5
Once again, when analysing data, we can clearly

understand if the bending of the precompression
bars (and consequently the movement of the
47
precompression shapes) has significantly modified data or not: then, if necessary, data can be
purged.
4.5. Monitored output quantities

In order to evaluate the cyclic performance of the isolation device and its components, a
number of output quantities are considered. They are the friction coefficients, the equivalent
viscous damping and the effective stiffness.
• The friction coefficient is evaluated as the ratio of the force which cause sliding to the
force due to the transverse prestress.
• The equivalent viscous damping expresses the effectiveness of the isolator in vibration
damping. It is expressed through the following equation:
1 Ahysteresis
ξeq =
4π Aelastic
Where Ahysteresis represents the area under the Force-displacement curve and Aelastic is
the elastic strain energy for a complete cycle.
• The effective stiffness is computed through the expression:
Fmax − Fmin
K eff =
umax − umin
Where Fmax and Fmin are, respectively, the maximum and minimum force and umax and
umin are, respectively, the maximum and minimum displacement.
4.6. Cycling tests quasi-static loading conditions

In the following, we summarize the most important outcomes from the experimental tests
undertaken on materials used in the isolator under quasi-static loading conditions: we want to
investigate the frictional behavior of these materials when subjected to vertical loads.
In Appendix A, we can find the technical sheets of these materials, given by the
manufacturers.
48
4.6.1. P.T.F.E.
The P.T.F.E. (polytetrafluoroethylene, also known as
Teflon) is a polymer which molecule is based on fluorine
and carbon; its characteristics of low static and dynamic
friction made it the ideal material in order to avoid
blocking or first detachment problems between the other
elements of the isolator.
In the first test, we press the P.T.F.E. between the two test
steel plates using the precompression bars described in
Chapter …….: we can now apply the simulated horizontal
load on the two plates, reading the relative displacement
Fig. 4.5: An unused PTFE
of the plates versus the force needed to generate this
displacement.
Fig. 4.6: 1° test – split draw illustrating how the test is assembled
49
Fig. 4.7: Test on teflon after the machine setup Fig. 4.8: Experimental setup of the 1st test
In figures 4.8 and 4.9, we can see the loading path versus time and the results in terms of
force and displacement obtained on P.T.F.E.
30
20
10
Displacement (mm)
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
-10
-20
-30
Time (sec)
Fig. 4.9: Loading path (displacement and velocity control)
50
15000
10000
5000
Force (N)
0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-5000
-10000
-15000
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 4.10: Force versus Displacement behavior of Teflon during the cycles
Using this graph, and knowing that the vertical simulated load in this test is roughly 160 kN,
we can evaluate the friction coefficient for the P.T.F.E.:
Fm 9,5
f PTFE = = ≈6%
Tp 160
The technical sheet attached in the appendix set a range for the friction coefficient between
5% and 9%: the results obtained are in this range.
Fig. 4.11: Comparison with the PTFE element after the test (on the left) and a unused element
51
4.6.2. Washer
The replaceable part of the system is a washer
made of bronze: the mechanical properties of this
material allow the isolator to dissipate energy
during the earthquake via friction between the
washer and the steel plate; therefore, the most
important magnitudes are the torque we use to
screw the bolt down to the washer (directly related
to the vertical force we apply on the washer during
its horizontal motion) and the friction coefficient
between bronze and steel.
Fig. 4.12: An unused washer
Once the earthquake is gone, we can unscrew the
bolt and replace the bronze washer: in this sense,
we can see this element as a fuse, helping the isolator to dissipate energy during the
earthquake and easily replaceable once it is burned.
In the same way we did for the Teflon, in the second test, we press the washer between the
two test steel plates and we use the precompression bars to simulate the internal load given
with the torque in the real system; we could apply the simulated horizontal load on the two
plates, reading the relative displacement of the plates versus the force needed to generate this
displacement.
Different tests are carried out to determine the importance of the internal load on the
dissipated energy: the conclusion is that friction coefficient is independent of the load,
whereas the dissipated energy is directly proportional to it; the more we screw the bolt, more
energy the system will absorb during a single cycle.
Fig 4.13: 2° test – split draw illustrating how the test is

assembled
52
Fig. 4.14: Test on washer after the machine setup Fig. 4.15: Experimental setup of the 2nd test
The loading path and the force/displacement behavior of the washer is shown in figures 4.16
to 4.18.
45
35
25
15
Displacement (mm)
-5 0 50 100 150 200 250
-15
-25
-35
-45
Time (sec)
Fig. 4.16: Loading path
53
10000
5000
Force (N)
0
-45 -35 -25 -15 -5 5 15 25 35 45
-5000
-10000
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 4.17: Force versus Displacement behavior of a single washer during the cycles
10000
5000
Force (N)
0
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
-5000
-10000
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 4.18: The first cicle (dashed line) is very similar to cycle n°50 (continuous line), here represented with
the “Galdabini” data capture (both displacement and force)
After the first test, we tried to understand the long term (fatigue) behavior of the washer: we
carried out a 50 cycles test on the same washer we used in the previous test; the results
obtained are encouraging, showing that the washer doesn’t lose at all its dissipation capacity.
54
The last graph (previous page) is not purged from the error due to the test machine and it’s
significantly different from the real one; however, this is not relevant for our purpose: the two
cycles are very similar and this means that the washer maintains its capacity during the
earthquake.
As we did for the PTFE, using the graph in the previous page, we can roughly estimate the
friction coefficient for the washer (that means bronze on steel):
Fmw 7,5
fW = = ≈ 18,8 %
Tw 40
Fig. 4.19: The original washer before the test and the three specimen tested: deformations are easily
visible
Fig. 4.20: The third washer tested – the groove due to the friction between bronze and steel is visible both
to the left and to the right of the central hole
55
4.6.3. Rubber
In order to avoid the impact of the movable part
of the system toward the box inside the concrete
beam, we positioned a rubber element. This
element has three holes: the central one in
which the steel dowel, welded on the upper
plate, pass through; the second and the third
lateral holes have to allow the rubber expansion
during compression of the element (when the
isolator is moving).
The behavior is perfectly elastic and the rubber

Fig. 4.21: An unused rubber
doesn’t need any substitution after the
earthquake.
For this third test, we don’t need any vertical force simulation and we don’t have to use the
precompression bars; the rubber element is simply positioned, with a dowel welded on a steel
plate and fixed to the first test plate, inside the box fixed to the second test plate.
Two different type of element are investigated: the one shown before, with three holes and a
second one, having only the central hole.
Fig. 4.22: 3° test – split draw illustrating how the test is assembled
56
Chapteer 4. Experim
mental investigation
up of the 3rd test

Figg. 4.23: Expeerimental setu t
15
10
5
Displacement (mm)
0
0 50 100
-5
-
-10
-
-15
Time (seec)
Fig. 4.24:
4 Loading
g path
57
2000
1500
1000
500
Force (N)
0
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 4.25: Force versus Displacement behavior of the first rubber tested (three holes)
2000
1500
1000
500
Force (N)
0
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 4.26: Force versus Displacement behavior of the second rubber tested (single hole)
As we can notice from the graphs in the previous page, the rubber with three holes needs less
force than the other one to be compressed and its behavior can be considered the best one
from the point of view of the forces passing through the isolator.
58
4.6.4. Whole isolator system

In the fourth and last test, we want to analyse the behavior of the whole isolator system; a
modified isolator (the only differences are four holes in the lower steel plate, used to fix it to
the second test plate) is positioned between the two test plate; the vertical load is simulated
using the precompression bars (75 kN of post-tension for each bar) and, applying the
simulated horizontal load on the two plates, we can read the relative displacement of the
plates versus the force needed to generate this displacement.
Fig. 4.27: 4° test – split draw illustrating how the test is assembled and zoom on the isolator system used
59
Fig. 4.28: Test on whole isolator after the machine setup Fig. 4.29: Experimental setup of the 4th test
With this test, we want to obtain the real behavior of the isolator system during an earthquake;
as done for the other test, the following graphs show the loading path and the
force/displacement behavior.
45
35
25
15
Displacement (mm)
-5 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
-15
-25
-35
-45
Time (sec)
Fig. 4.30: Loading path
60
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
Force (N)
0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
-5000
-10000
-15000
-20000
-25000
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 4.31: Force versus Displacement behavior of the whole isolator system
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
Force (N)
0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
-5000
-10000
-15000
-20000
-25000
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 4.32: Force versus Displacement linearization
With this result, using the linearization of the behavior, we can evaluate the effective damping
for the system.
61
Fig. 4.33: Elastic (red) and plastic (green) area for the evaluation of the effective damping
The effective damping is:
1 Apl
ξeff =
4π Ael
62
where Ael is the elastic area in the first graph (red area) and Apl is the plastic area in the
second graph (green area), that means the area of the whole cycle.
Fd
Ael = = 375 J
2
⎡ ( F + Fi−1 ) ⎤
Apl = ∑ ⎢ i ( di − di−1 )⎥ = 1803 J
⎢ 2 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
Using these numbers, we obtain: ξeff ≈ 38 %

The same linearization for the evaluation of the effective damping can be done also with a
smaller displacement of the isolator that means a smaller ductility for the structure; we
calculate the ξeff for a ductility between 1.8 and 2.0 (with a displacement of ±20 mm ).
Fig. 4.34: Elastic (red) and plastic (green) area for the evaluation of the effective damping (20 mm
displacement)
Using these cycles, we obtain, once again: ξeff ≈ 38 %
4.7. Closing remarks

This study involved the testing of an isolation system, composed of different elements and
different materials, to determine their dissipation capacity in view of applications in
earthquake engineering. The effects of friction coefficients, elastic and plastic properties of
the materials are evaluated to judge the cyclic properties of the whole isolator system.
P.T.F.E. sheet shows a good behavior: the friction coefficient between it and the steel plate
has a very low value; this feature allow the upper steel plate to crawl over the other steel plate
handing small forces on the beam at which it is fixed. After the earthquake, the residual
deformation of the sheet is non influential on the future capacity of the element itself.
The bronze washers, which are considered as the sacrificial elements in a capacity design
perspective, show a friction coefficient with steel of approximately 15%-18%, and a stable
hysteretic loop under cyclic testing, with a moderate damage due to sliding (this is not a
problem as the replacement operation is very easy). The result is a “fat” hysteresis loop,
typical of slotted-bolted connections. The bolt preload is a fundamental parameter, as it
63
governs the sliding force of the connection, thus for all the tests a calibrated wrench was used
to determine the preload.
The rubber element inside the steel box was tested only to ensure that its behavior remains
perfectly elastic in the range of displacements induced by thermal elongations and that the
force generated on the steel dowel is not excessive. Among the different geometric
configurations tested, the solution with additional holes was chosen for the test of the
assembly, as the force transferred to the steel dowel was lower (approximately one third) than
the value obtained with the initial solution.
The isolator system designed joins the properties of these tested elements; moreover, it can be
set up to transmit to the beam only the horizontal forces the structure was designed for,
allowing, at the same time, a maximum horizontal displacement of about ±48 mm (including
thermal deformations). The high effective damping evaluated of about 38% damps down
vibrations during an earthquake and the hysteresis cycle absorbs energy, handing low
horizontal forces on the beam it is fixed to (that means low horizontal forces on the columns’
base). Two coupled isolators, positioned on the principal and secondary beams, allow the
structure to have the same behavior in the two orthogonal directions and to design the whole
structural system of the building with a value of base shear and base moment reduced in
proportion to the way the isolators are set up.
64
Chapter 5. Numerical modeling of the isolation system
5. NUMERICAL MODELING OF THE ISOLATION

SYSTEM
5.1. Introduction
In this chapter, the isolation system is implemented in a numerical model suitable for
performing non-linear analyses. A test column and a simple structure were designed
according to Eurocode 8 procedure and then time-history analyses were performed in order to
compare the behavior of the structure with standard connections and the structure equipped
with Nexfuse-type supports.
5.2. Numerical modeling of the isolation system

The isolation system was modelled using the commercial software MIDAS Gen V.7.30,
capable of performing non linear static and dynamic analyses.
Before performing numerical analyses on the complete structure, different modeling strategies
were compared, combining simple truss elements and performing push-pull analyses in
displacement control, in order to reproduce the experimental tests and obtain a model capable
of representing the dissipated energy (area under the Force-displacement curve), the
maximum transmittable force and the limit stop for displacements higher than the length of
the buttonhole. This aspect will be discussed in the last part, as in the experimental tests the
specimen was not taken to rupture. The hysteresis models used in the first phase are the
kinematic hardening and the non-linear elastic models, described in the figures below:
Fig. 5.1: Kinematic hardening hysteresis model Fig. 5.2: Non-linear elastic hysteresis model
65
The analysis type chosen was a push-pull curve, with two different types of imposed
displacement, represented in figg. 5.3 and 5.4:
2
Displacement (cm)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
Step
Fig. 5.3: Imposed displacements history - cyclic
2
Displacement (cm)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
Step
Fig. 5.4: Imposed displacements history – external loop
The first curve is meant to represent the experimental test, the second one only the external
loop.
66
The assembly of constitutive rules are represented in figg. 5.5 and 5.6:
Name NexFuse End stop

Type KH NLE
P1 [kN] 7.5 0.1
P2 [kN] 15 100
P3 [kN] 15
D1 [mm] 2.5 48
D2 [mm] 14 50
D3 [mm] 48
Fig. 5.5: Simplified hysteretic model Table 5.1: Simplified hysteretic model parameters
Name Teflon Gap Bronze End stop

Type KH NLE KH NLE
P1 [kN] 5 0.8 10 0.1
P2 [kN] 5 100 10 100
P3 [kN] 5 10
D1 [mm] 2.5 8 5 48
D2 [mm] 10 12 10 50
D3 [mm] 48 48
Fig. 5.6: Refined hysteretic model Table 5.2: Refined hysteretic model parameters
The difference between the two hysteresis rules is that in the first model, bronze and Teflon
friction are represented together and the loop is not able to represent the “step” in the
behavior, while in the second case two springs in series are added and the behavior of the
system box-rubber-washers is represented separately from the Teflon-steel friction.
For the purpose of analysing large structures, the possibility of using simple models with
enough accuracy is of primary importance.
The parameters were determined in order to match with the experimental results and the
numerical modeling reported in [Spatti, 2008].
67
The results obtained and the comparison with the experimental test are reported in fig. .5.7:
20000
Simplified
model
15000
Abaqus
model
10000
Experimental
5000
Refined model
Force (N)
0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
-5000
-10000
-15000
-20000
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 5.7: Comparison between experimental results and numerical models
The experimental curve was modified in order to obtain similar level of first sliding and
maximum force in positive and negative direction (there was a small asymmetry in the results,
corrected with a rigid translation in the Force axis). The agreement is very good in terms of
area of the hysteresis loop and the refined model is also able to reproduce with good
approximation the initial behavior and the unloading-reloading branch.
The brown dashed curve was obtained in another master dissertation [Spatti, 2008] using a
specific software for 3D detailed FEM analyses.
In the following table the results are compared in terms of effective damping and loop area:
Table 5.3: Hysteretic areas and effective damping
Model Test Test corr Simplified Refined
Loop Area [J] 1803 1803 1844 1828
Elastic Area [J] 342 300 302 302
Equivalent damping 42% 48% 49% 48%
The hysteretic loop areas are very similar for the three cases, while the equivalent damping
are slightly different if we consider, for the determination of the elastic area, the small
increase of force in the final part of the test. If we determine the elastic area using the same
maximum force, the equivalent damping turns out to be very similar.
68
Chapteer 5. Numericcal modelingg of the isolaation system
5.3. Study
S on th
he responsee of a reinfoorced concrrete column with top isolation
In ordeer to compaare the respoonse of a strructure with
h standard rigid
r connecction to a to
op-isolated
structuure, a reprresentative precast reeinforced concrete
c column is analysed using u the
comm mercial softw
ware MIDAS S Gen V.7.330, using fibber models,, described iin the follow
wing:
The fibber elementt formulatioon adopted in

i Midas Geen is describbed in Spaccone et al. (1
1996). It
assum
mes that:
• The sectioon maintainns a plane in the proccess of defo formation annd is assum med to be
perpendicular to the axis of the member. Accordingly
A y, bond-slip between reeinforcing
bars and concrete
c is not
n considerred.
• The centrooidal axis of

o the section is assumeed to be a sttraight line throughout the entire
length of the
t beam element.
Fig. 5.8: Discretizzation of a section in a fibeer model
In a fiiber model, the status of fibers iss assessed byb axial defformations correspond ding to the
axial and
a bendingg deformatiions of the fibers. Thee axial forcce and bendding momen nts of the
sectionn are then calculated
c frrom the streess of each fiber.
f Basedd on the basiic assumptions stated
above,, the relatioonship between the defformations of o fibers andd the deformmation of thhe section
is giveen below.
Where:
69
5.3.1. Steel fiberr constitutivve model

Steel fiber
f constittutive modeel basically retains the curved shaapes approacching the assymptotes
defineed by the bilinear
b kinematic harddening rulee. The transition betw ween two assymptotes
correspponding to the regionns of each unloading
u path
p and strrain-hardenning retains a curved
shape. The fartheer the maxim mum deform mation poinnt in the dirrection of uunloading iss from the
interseection of thhe asymptottes, the smooother the curvature
c beecomes in tthe transitioon region.
The coonstitutive model
m is thuus defined by
b the equattion below:
Wheree:
An im
mage of the hysteresis
h ruule is reportted in fig.5.9:
Fig. 5.9: Stteel fiber constitutive mod

del
70
5.3.2. Concrete fiber

f constiitutive mode
del
MIDA AS uses thee equation of enveloppe curve prroposed by Kent and Park (1973 3) for the
concreete fiber connstitutive model
m of conncrete underr compressioon. Tensionn strength of concrete
is ignoored. The eqquation of the
t envelope curve for compressioon is noted below. This is a well
knownn material model for considerinng the effeect of increeased comppression sttrength of
concreete due to laateral confinnement.
Wheree:
An im
mage of the hysteresis
h ruule is reportted in fig.x.x
xx:
F 5.10: Con
Fig. ncrete fiber constitutive
c m
model
The cooncrete, whhich has excceeded the ultimate

u straain, is assum
med to havee arrived at crushing,
and ass such it is consideredd unable to resist loadss any longeer. Kent andd Park sugg gested the
follow
wing equatioon in order tot calculatee the parameeters defininng the abovve envelope curve for
a rectaangular coluumn sectionn.
71
Wheree:
Scott et
e al (1982)) proposed the followiing equation
n of ultimatte strain forr a laterally
y confined
rectangular colum
mn:
When unloading takes placee on the aboove envelop pe curve, thhe unloadinng path is defined
d by
the eqquations bellow, pointinng towards a point ( ε p, 0) on the t strain aaxis. When the strain
reachees this pointt, it moves to
t the tensioon zone follo
owing the strain
s axis.
If the compressivve strain inncreases agaain the load

d follows thhe previouss unloading
g path and
reachees the enveloop curve.
72
5.4. Test column

Geometric properties and loads applied to the representative column are displayed in fig. 5.11
590 kN
Massless column
Top
Spectrum compatible
ground acceleration
Intermediate
PGA = 0.3g
Ground type B
Concrete C45/55
Steel B450C
Base
Fig. 5.11: Geometric and load properties of the representative column
The structural mass is connected to the column top with an elastic link, which represents the
connection. For the case of the ideally fixed connection, stiffness properties are calculated in
order to consider the constraint as “rigid” with respect to the RC column.
4
J 7 0.8
3E 3 ⋅ 3.57 ⋅10 ⋅
Column cracked stiffness: 2 = 2 ⋅12 = 1287 kN
3 3
H 11.3 m
kN
Link stiffness: K link = 100000
m
The column is designed and detailed according to the rules of EC8 for DCH and DCM, with
behavior factors q=4.5 and q=3. Following Eurocode 8 rules for dimensioning, we obtain:
Table 5.4: Result summary for EC8 Design
N [kN] 590 Sael [g] 33.46% Sael [g] 33.46%

H [m] 11.3 Sad [g] - DCH 7.43% Sad [g] - DCM 11.15%
M [kN/g] 59 Sd [m] 0.150 Sd [m] 0.150
K [kN/m] 1287 Vb [kN] 43.9 Vb [kN] 65.8
T [sec] 1.35 θ [%] 18% θ [%] 12%
qDCH 4.5 Mb [kNm] 603.8 Mb [kNm] 844.3
qDCM 3 1.3 Vbeff [kN] 69.46 1.1 Vbeff [kN] 82.19
Sadeff [g] 11.77% Sadeff [g] 13.93%
qeff 2.84 qeff 2.40
73
The results are obtained considering the increase in base shear due to second order effects and
capacity design procedure, as prescribed by EC8. The effective behavior factor in terms of
base shear is about 2.5, meaning that slenderness effects are somehow taken into account.
Geometric and reinforcement properties are reported in fig. 5.12:
DCH St. φ10 L=316 DCH St. φ10 L=204

long. 20φ22 DCM St. φ8 L=316 DCM St. φ8 L=204
Fig. 5.12: Geometric and reinforcement properties of the R/C Column
The size of the column is dimensioned in order to respect the limit on stability index. The
longitudinal and transversal reinforcement are dimensioned with the minimum code limits
(1% for the longitudinal reinforcement, 12% and 8% for the stirrup mechanical ratio)
The material properties entered in the program refers to the mean values, as prescribed in EC8
4.3.3.4.1. They are use to evaluate the quantities reported in the previous paragraph.
Before performing non-linear analyses, the force-displacement behavior of the column is

evaluated using the software CUMBIA, a set of Matlab codes to perform monotonic moment-
curvature analysis and force-displacement response of reinforced concrete members of
rectangular or circular section. The section analysis is performed by tabulating moment and
curvature of the member section for increasing levels of concrete strain. The member
response is obtained from the section moment-curvature results along with an equivalent
plastic hinge length, as presented by Priestley, Seible and Calvi (1996). Shear deformations
are computed following the procedure described in Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky (2006). The
shear strength envelope for the member is calculated using the revised UCSD shear model
(Kowalsky and Priestley, 2000). The onset of buckling is determined according to two
different models, one propose by Moyer and Kowalsky (2003) and the other proposed by
Berry and Eberhard (2005). The constitutive models for the concrete and steel can be easily
specified by the user. Nonetheless, the code has some default models. The default models for
the unconfined and confined models are those proposed by Mander, Priestley and Park
(1988). The default model for the steel is the same used by the King program (1986). The
code allows the analysis of members subjected to axial load (tension or compression) and
single or double bending.
74
The results obtained for the column in bi-directional bending are reported in the fig. 5.13:
Potential Deformation Limit States
180
No P-Delta
With P-Delta
160
140 Bar Buckling
120
θ=20%
Force [kN]
100 P-Δ Failure
80
60
40
Serviceability Damage control Ultimate
20 Zone Zone Zone
0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20
Displacement [m]
Fig. 5.13: Force displacement capacity curve for the column
As expected, the column behavior is influenced by P-Δ effects: for a displacement of 58cm
and a force of 125kN the limit of 20% on the stability index (imposed by the code if
simplified method are used) is reached, corresponding to a ductility capacity lower than 2.5
(yielding displacement of 23cm). P-Δ failure is conventionally assumed at θ=30%,
corresponding to a displacement of 87cm. For this kind of systems anyway, it is likely that the
allowable drift governs the design, so that the displacement should be limited to 2.5% of the
height, 28cm, leading to the consequence that the response of the column should remain
almost elastic. In such conditions, the energy dissipation capacity of columns is extremely
reduced, so it would be advisable to adopt low values for the behavior factor, otherwise the
limit on displacements, implicit in the FBD procedure, will not be respected.
Starting from the design elastic data, we can compare the behavior of the column with
standard rigid connection and the top-isolated one. In order to design properly the isolation
system, 3 different force-level, 10%, 15% and 20% of the vertical load are considered. For
higher value of the force, analyses showed a behavior similar to the fixed-top column. The
results are calculated with the refined and the simplified models for the isolator, reported in
the previous paragraph. As the differences between the results of DCM and DCH columns are
negligible, due to the fact that ductility is not involved, only DCH results are reported in
figures 5.14 to 5.17.
75
Time history displacement - Refined model
40
Elastic link
30 Hyst 10%
Hyst 15%
Hyst 20%
20
Displacement [cm]
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-10
-20
-30
-40
Time [sec]
Fig. 5.14: Time history displacement of the node with concentrated mass
Time history Base Shear - Refined model
200
Elastic link
150 Hyst 10%
Hyst 15%
Hyst 20%
100
Base shear [kN]
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-50
-100
-150
-200
Time [sec]
Fig. 5.15: Time history Base shear of the node with concentrated mass
76
Time history displacement - Simplified model
40
Elastic link
30 Hyst 10%
Hyst 15%
Hyst 20%
20
Displacement [cm]
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-10
-20
-30
-40
Time [sec]
Fig. 5.16: Time history displacement of the node with concentrated mass
Time history Base Shear - Simplified model
200
Elastic link
150 Hyst 10%
Hyst 15%
Hyst 20%
100
Base shear [kN]
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-50
-100
-150
-200
Time [sec]
Fig. 5.17: Time history Base shear of the node with concentrated mass
77
The results in terms of maximum displacement and base shear are compared in the table
below. For the refined model we obtained:
Table 5.5: Time history displacement and base shear
Model Force [kN] Displacement [cm]
Rigid 138.32 28.82
Hyst 10% 87.36 17.11
Hyst 15% 106.34 20.90
Hyst 20% 125.87 25.69
Hyst 25% 138.24 28.62
For the simplified model we obtained:
Table 5.6: Time history displacement and base shear
Model Force [kN] Displacement [cm]
Rigid 138.32 28.82
Hyst 10% 90.11 17.60
Hyst 15% 115.07 22.83
Hyst 20% 121.94 24.07
Hyst 25% 136.68 28.27
The difference in the results using the simplified model is always lower than 10%, meaning
that the dissipation properties of the isolator described with the simpler model (loop area) are
satisfactory for the purpose of evaluating maximum displacements and forces, even if the first
sliding (Teflon friction) is not visible. In terms of step-by-step response, the differences are
more evident, as the stiffness variations of the isolator cause period modifications for the
whole column, influencing the response.
78
It is interesting to compare the moment-rotation diagram of the base section for the case of
fixed column and top isolated with 10% sliding force:
Moment-Rotation diagram
2000
1500 Fixed
10%
1000
Moment [kNm]
500
0
-0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
Rotation [rad/m]
Fig. 5.18: Moment-rotation diagram of the base section
We can see that the response in the case of rigid connection is inelastic, with low ductility
levels, while for the top isolated column there is no excursion in the inelastic range.
From this simple test, we can make the following consideration:
• The FBD procedure of EC8 was calibrated for frame structures, and does not seem to
work very well for isolated column structures, which are very flexible and thus present
a quasi-elastic response. The size of columns is determined to respect stability limits
and the minimum reinforcement ratios govern the section design. It is advisable to
work in low ductility classes and check the displacement limits at the beginning of the
design phase;
• In case of isolated structures, the dissipative behavior can be assigned to the

connections, while the R/C elements remain elastic. With a sliding force of 10-15%,
displacements and base shear can be controlled, with possible optimization in vertical
elements and foundation dimensions (no capacity design is required if the column
remains elastic);
• As far as analyses are concerned, simple models can represent the behavior with
enough accuracy, for the purpose of determining maximum displacements and forces.
79
5.5. Application of the isolation system to a test precast structure

In order to test the effects of the application of the hysteretic connections in a real case, a
simple precast structure was designed according to the rules of EC8. The layout of the
structure is shown in the figure below:
Fig. 5.19: Structural layout of the prototype structure
The structural system consists of simply supported beams with 60x100 rectangular section,
10m spanning, and roof elements with wing profile, with 20m span, laying on isostatic
columns. The foundation system is made of isolated precast footings, which are connected at
the base floor level by an industrial pavement. Claddings are attached directly to the columns,
spanning in the horizontal direction.
80
Fig. 5.20: Rendering view of the prototype structure
The structure was designed for a seismic zone 2 and an importance factor of 1.2. Different
design choices (DCM or DCH) and modeling methods (refined or simplified models) were
analysed. For the case of DCM a behavior factor of q=3 was adopted, while for DCH the
suggested value of q=4.5 was used. The limit on column slenderness imposed by EC8 (1/10
of the shear span) was not considered, but a comparison was made with the refined DCH
model. As far as the numerical modeling is concerned, the commercial software MIDAS Gen
v7.30 was used to perform modal analyses and calculate the design actions. For the simpler
model columns, beams and roof elements were modelled as beam elements connected at the
same level (height of roof support), while for the refined model the element finite dimensions
and the connection points were explicitly modelled.
Fig. 5.21: Render view of the connection - refined Fig. 5.22: Wireframe view of a connection – refined
model model
For the refined model rigid links were used to connect the element axis to the point of
connection and elastic links to represent the connections. The erection phase was considered
by applying different boundary conditions to different load cases (the supports are not fixed
when the gravity load is applied to the roof elements, but they are fixed when considering
seismic loads).
81
Fig. 5.23: Render view of the connection - simplified Fig. 5.24: Wireframe view of a connection –
model simplified model
For the simplified model, classic hinge connections are used, and the element axis are
positioned at the extrados level of the beam. This model is not able to represent the different
behavior in the two directions, but it is simple to generate and reduces the analysis time.
In both cases the roof was not considered as a rigid diaphragm, because there isn’t any rigid
slab connecting the elements.
The results obtained for the five models are summarized in table 5.7:
Table 5.7: Results obtained for the four prototype structures analysed
Columns Footings Tx Ty Vbx Vby

Model %W % W dx [cm] dy [cm]
[cm] [cm] [sec] [sec] [kN] [kN]
DCM-R 75x75 475x475 1.49 1.38 1067 9.0% 1157 9.7% 17.9 17.6
DCM-S 80x80 520x520 1.41 1.41 1163 9.1% 1163 9.1% 18.0 17.4
DCH-R 80x80 500x500 1.32 1.22 814 6.6% 885 7.2% 16.4 15.9
DCH-S 85x85 500x500 1.26 1.26 884 6.7% 884 6.7% 16.1 15.6
DCH-R* 100x100 620x620 0.63 0.58 1805 12.87% 2010 14.33% 8.71 8.21
The design process was controlled by the limits on displacements and second order effects.
This second aspect was taken into account with the simplified method suggested by the
Eurocode (stability index), which lead to base moment amplifications up to 20% of the
analysis value. The imposed verification on the stability index gave as a consequence better
results for the structures designed with lower behavior factor, suggesting that ductility cannot
be fully exploited with high slenderness. The DCH-R* model was the only one without
increment of internal actions due to second order effects.
82
The longitudinal and transversal reinforcement ratios were governed by imposed minimum,
1% (geometric) and 12% (mechanical ratio) respectively.
The designed structures were then subjected to a set of three spectrum compatible terns of
accelerograms, 2 in the horizontal and one in the vertical direction, generated with the
software SIMQKE.
The acceleration spectra are reported in the figures below:

Horizontal response spectra
1.2
1.0
TH 1
TH2
0.8 TH3
TH4
Ag [m/s2]
EC8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
t [sec]
Fig. 5.25: Acceleration spectra of the three artificial earthquake
Vertical response spectra
1.2
1.0
0.8
TH4
Ag [m/s2]
EC8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
t [sec]
Fig. 5.26: Acceleration spectrum of the vertical artificial earthquake
83
The results obtained in terms of displacement, drift and base shear for each column are
reported in the tables 5.8 to 5.13:
Table 5.8: Time history results for the model DCM-S
Simplified model - DCM
Column dx [cm] dy [cm] drx [%] dry [%] Vbx [kN] Vby [kN]
P1 33.80 34.14 3.13% 3.16% 236.21 284.88
P2 33.82 34.16 3.13% 3.16% 245.82 285.22
P3 33.80 33.96 3.13% 3.14% 236.29 284.20
P4 33.98 34.15 3.15% 3.16% 233.97 291.90
P5 33.98 34.16 3.15% 3.16% 198.59 212.99
P6 33.98 33.96 3.15% 3.14% 234.72 291.74
P7 34.04 34.15 3.15% 3.16% 233.94 295.30
P8 34.04 34.16 3.15% 3.16% 198.48 212.13
P9 34.04 33.96 3.15% 3.14% 234.65 295.26
P10 34.03 34.15 3.15% 3.16% 233.76 295.15
P11 34.04 34.16 3.15% 3.16% 198.58 211.96
P12 34.03 33.96 3.15% 3.14% 234.67 295.17
P13 33.95 34.15 3.14% 3.16% 233.75 291.27
P14 33.95 34.16 3.14% 3.16% 198.57 212.39
P15 33.95 33.96 3.14% 3.14% 234.99 291.43
P16 33.75 34.15 3.12% 3.16% 238.33 282.78
P17 33.77 34.16 3.13% 3.16% 249.40 283.94
P18 33.75 33.96 3.12% 3.14% 238.13 283.36
84
Table 5.9: Time history results for the model DCH-S
Simplified model - DCH
P1 37.58 37.36 3.48% 3.46% 225.41 234.37
P2 37.61 37.56 3.48% 3.48% 246.85 236.15
P3 37.60 37.57 3.48% 3.48% 225.60 233.76
P4 37.74 37.36 3.49% 3.46% 224.49 241.15
P5 37.74 37.56 3.49% 3.48% 193.27 190.32
P6 37.74 37.57 3.49% 3.48% 224.68 241.02
P7 37.80 37.36 3.50% 3.46% 224.74 243.69
P8 37.80 37.56 3.50% 3.48% 193.47 191.26
P9 37.80 37.58 3.50% 3.48% 224.94 243.65
P10 37.78 37.36 3.50% 3.46% 224.82 243.75
P11 37.78 37.56 3.50% 3.48% 193.46 191.21
P12 37.78 37.58 3.50% 3.48% 224.98 243.74
P13 37.69 37.35 3.49% 3.46% 224.72 241.23
P14 37.70 37.56 3.49% 3.48% 193.31 190.00
P15 37.69 37.58 3.49% 3.48% 224.84 241.34
P16 37.51 37.35 3.47% 3.46% 231.97 233.38
P17 37.53 37.56 3.47% 3.48% 241.09 235.09
P18 37.50 37.58 3.47% 3.48% 232.20 233.81
85
Table 5.10: Time history results for the model DCM-R
Refined model - DCM
P1 17.94 21.22 1.66% 1.96% 173.96 142.30
P2 18.19 34.33 1.68% 3.18% 222.90 133.62
P3 17.92 21.11 1.66% 1.95% 172.81 142.13
P4 26.50 21.49 2.45% 1.99% 170.44 187.13
P5 26.38 34.49 2.44% 3.19% 169.02 153.21
P6 26.49 21.37 2.45% 1.98% 168.24 186.70
P7 33.55 21.67 3.11% 2.01% 162.87 227.07
P8 33.40 34.61 3.09% 3.20% 168.83 169.17
P9 33.52 21.56 3.10% 2.00% 164.51 223.71
P10 33.53 21.66 3.10% 2.01% 162.95 227.34
P11 33.38 34.60 3.09% 3.20% 168.72 169.38
P12 33.50 21.56 3.10% 2.00% 162.94 221.48
P13 26.51 21.46 2.45% 1.99% 169.57 186.51
P14 26.39 34.49 2.44% 3.19% 168.79 153.08
P15 26.49 21.37 2.45% 1.98% 168.63 185.56
P16 17.93 21.19 1.66% 1.96% 174.17 142.33
P17 18.23 34.34 1.69% 3.18% 221.95 133.62
P18 18.01 21.09 1.67% 1.95% 173.70 143.00
86
Table 5.11: Time history results for the model DCH-R
Refined model - DCH
P1 17.47 20.38 1.62% 1.89% 175.62 145.03
P2 17.72 32.09 1.64% 2.97% 209.79 135.51
P3 17.46 20.30 1.62% 1.88% 174.02 144.44
P4 25.42 20.64 2.35% 1.91% 174.11 182.96
P5 25.30 32.24 2.34% 2.99% 161.81 147.74
P6 25.40 20.56 2.35% 1.90% 171.14 180.50
P7 32.32 20.83 2.99% 1.93% 169.43 230.68
P8 32.17 32.38 2.98% 3.00% 162.65 168.83
P9 32.29 20.76 2.99% 1.92% 169.39 222.58
P10 32.29 20.82 2.99% 1.93% 169.37 230.65
P11 32.14 32.38 2.98% 3.00% 162.80 168.95
P12 32.26 20.75 2.99% 1.92% 169.28 222.52
P13 25.40 20.61 2.35% 1.91% 173.48 183.20
P14 25.28 32.24 2.34% 2.99% 162.97 147.42
P15 25.38 20.55 2.35% 1.90% 172.68 180.23
P16 17.38 20.34 1.61% 1.88% 174.14 144.45
P17 17.67 32.10 1.64% 2.97% 209.16 135.82
P18 17.46 20.28 1.62% 1.88% 174.89 144.89
We can see that in all the cases the results obtained in terms of displacement are higher than
the prevision from the elastic analysis, leading to drift levels higher than 2.5%.
87
Table 5.12: Time history results for the model DCH-R*
Refined model – DCH – Col100
P1 9.43 14.14 0.87% 1.31% 267.75 182.61
P2 9.98 25.47 0.92% 2.36% 341.99 173.07
P3 9.58 14.18 0.89% 1.31% 267.39 181.83
P4 16.31 14.42 1.51% 1.33% 276.92 248.11
P5 16.28 25.66 1.51% 2.38% 295.11 218.32
P6 16.35 14.47 1.51% 1.34% 276.59 248.51
P7 22.14 14.59 2.05% 1.35% 273.58 304.15
P8 22.10 25.82 2.05% 2.39% 290.30 258.25
P9 22.15 14.62 2.05% 1.35% 273.34 311.27
P10 22.13 14.61 2.05% 1.35% 273.79 304.00
P11 22.09 25.81 2.05% 2.39% 289.87 258.22
P12 22.14 14.59 2.05% 1.35% 273.54 311.23
P13 16.28 14.45 1.51% 1.34% 277.46 248.17
P14 16.26 25.63 1.51% 2.37% 294.64 217.96
P15 16.33 14.41 1.51% 1.33% 277.19 248.39
P16 9.50 14.16 0.88% 1.31% 268.83 180.71
P17 9.95 25.42 0.92% 2.35% 341.01 173.26
P18 9.46 14.12 0.88% 1.31% 268.90 183.17
If the limit on column slenderness is respected, the drift level remains below 2.5% for the
design earthquake.
88
Table 5.13: Summary table of the time history analyses
Model Vbx [kN] %W Vby [kN] %W dx [cm] dy [cm] drx [cm] dry [cm]
DCM-R 2798.6 19.63% 2896.8 20.31% 33.55 34.61 3.11% 3.20%
DCM-S 4871.3 39.94% 4000.3 32.80% 34.04 34.16 2.89% 2.89%
DCH-R 2804.4 18.88% 2952.1 19.88% 32.32 32.38 2.99% 3.00%
DCH-S 3986.7 31.75% 3820.8 30.43% 37.80 37.58 3.20% 3.18%
DCH-R* 3713.4 22.15% 4559.8 27.19% 22.15 25.82 2.05% 2.39%
We can see that for DCM design, the maximum base shear is higher than for DCH, while the
displacement is similar. For all the cases, the ductility level in terms of displacements is lower
than 2 (value referred to the isostatic column presented in the previous chapter), very different
from the behavior factor suggested by the EC8. Also the displacements are different from the
values obtained in the elastic analyses.
Drift at the column top
3.5%
Elastic
Time history
3.0%
Damage control
2.5% li it
Drift [%]
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
DCM-R DCM-S DCH-R DCH-S DCH-R*
Model
Fig. 5.27: Comparison between top column drift resulting from the RS and NLTH analyses
The general trend observed for the test column is confirmed for the whole structure. The
inelastic demand in columns is very low, but the maximum displacements are higher than
predicted by the elastic analyses. If foundation flexibility would be taken into account,
89
displacements would be even higher, leading to an increase of P-Δ effects. The damage
control limit, assumed equal to 2.5%, could be increased to 3% for precast structures, because
claddings are attached isostatically and do not interfere with the deformation of the structure.
The model with the largest column size, respecting the EC8 limit on slenderness, is the only
one which can guarantee acceptable displacement levels when subjected to the design
earthquake.
In terms of base shear, the results obtained reflect the use of the mean material properties and
the strain hardening of the steel material model in the non linear analyses. The results
obtained are reported in the table below:
Total base shear
6000
Elastic
Time history
5000
4000
Base shear [kN]
3000
2000
1000
0
DCM-R DCM-S DCH-R DCH-S DCH-R*
Model
Fig. 5.28: Comparison between base shear resulting from the RS and NLTH analyses
If we consider that the design shear is calculated on the basis of capacity design consideration
on the column flexural capacity (which is generally overdesigned), the difference would be
smaller. The total shear capacity of the column is much more higher than the acting shear.
In order to reduce the displacement and drift levels and increase the dissipated energy, the
hysteretic system can be applied to the top of beam and columns. As suggested by the
preliminary analyses on the test column, the sliding force levels considered are 10% and 15%
of the vertical load.
The results in terms of force and displacements are reported in the tables 5.14 to 5.16, for the
case of DCH-R model, which can be considered as the usual designers’ choice:
90
Table 5.14: Time history results for the model DCH-R with top isolation
Simplified model – DCH – 10% Sliding force
P1 11.36 10.84 1.05% 1.00% 151.50 129.44
P2 12.43 16.37 1.15% 1.52% 175.98 129.13
P3 11.35 10.78 1.05% 1.00% 151.69 127.71
P4 15.69 12.28 1.45% 1.14% 152.06 187.29
P5 15.65 17.06 1.45% 1.58% 146.72 138.55
P6 15.74 12.25 1.46% 1.13% 159.61 193.61
P7 19.72 13.26 1.83% 1.23% 145.57 204.47
P8 19.71 17.09 1.83% 1.58% 134.66 160.90
P9 19.81 13.29 1.83% 1.23% 161.04 208.92
P10 19.74 13.26 1.83% 1.23% 161.43 204.64
P11 19.67 17.08 1.82% 1.58% 133.45 161.07
P12 19.73 13.25 1.83% 1.23% 147.39 206.99
P13 15.64 12.24 1.45% 1.13% 158.70 185.34
P14 15.61 17.03 1.45% 1.58% 149.63 140.50
P15 15.70 12.28 1.45% 1.14% 151.11 192.40
P16 11.34 10.77 1.05% 1.00% 153.10 131.45
P17 12.36 16.36 1.14% 1.52% 176.35 129.33
P18 11.35 10.83 1.05% 1.00% 153.45 124.56
The displacement refers to the column top. At the isolators level there’s an increase due to the
deformation of the hysteretic bearing, with a maximum displacement increase of 48mm.
91
Table 5.15: Time history results for the model DCH-R with top isolation
Simplified model – DCH – 15% Sliding force
P1 13.48 12.76 1.25% 1.18% 154.04 120.15
P2 14.77 16.01 1.37% 1.48% 182.89 133.10
P3 13.45 12.74 1.25% 1.18% 154.08 120.53
P4 17.53 14.87 1.62% 1.38% 161.14 190.23
P5 18.58 17.50 1.72% 1.62% 139.12 137.91
P6 17.65 14.89 1.63% 1.38% 161.37 189.60
P7 21.94 16.24 2.03% 1.50% 162.70 209.82
P8 21.96 18.68 2.03% 1.73% 138.70 161.11
P9 21.99 16.23 2.04% 1.50% 161.94 208.85
P10 21.95 16.25 2.03% 1.50% 162.53 211.03
P11 21.95 18.59 2.03% 1.72% 138.71 161.12
P12 21.96 16.24 2.03% 1.50% 162.84 208.34
P13 17.62 14.88 1.63% 1.38% 161.29 191.83
P14 18.58 17.42 1.72% 1.61% 137.97 138.05
P15 17.55 14.92 1.62% 1.38% 160.91 190.23
P16 13.50 12.73 1.25% 1.18% 158.20 120.18
P17 14.76 15.99 1.37% 1.48% 185.05 133.13
P18 13.46 12.80 1.25% 1.19% 155.65 120.32
92
Table 5.16: Summary table of the time history analyses
Model Vbx [kN] %W Vby [kN] %W dx [cm] dy [cm] drx [cm] dry [cm]
DCH-R 2798.6 19.63% 2896.8 20.31% 33.55 34.61 3.11% 3.20%
DCH-Is10 2750.9 18.56% 2306.6 15.56% 19.81 17.09 1.83% 1.58%
DCH-Is15 2797.2 18.84% 2674.2 18.01% 21.99 18.68 2.04% 1.73%
From table 5.15 we can see that the displacement level at the column top is always lower than
2/3 of the value obtained for the original design, while the base shear is similar. A graphical
comparison is reported in the figures below:
3.5%
3.0%
Damage control limit

2.5%
Yielding drift
Drift [%]
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
DCH-R DCH-Is10 DCH-Is10tot DCH-Is15 DCH-Is15tot
Model
Fig. 5.29: Comparison between drift levels of the isolated and non-isolated structures
If we consider the drift level at the column top (for the columns verification), we can see that
the response is elastic (below the yielding drift) for the isolated structures, while for the non
isolated one there’s an excursion in the inelastic range, with the transcendence of the damage
control limit. The drift level of the whole structure is slightly higher, because of the
concentrated displacement at the isolators’ level (48mm).
In terms of base shear, the differences are negligible, because the maximum value is reached
at the yielding displacement.
93

In this chapter, the experimental results exposed in chapter 4 were translated in a numerical
model to be implemented in nonlinear analyses.
Two different modeling strategies were investigated, one more refined (capable or
reproducing the initial plateau due to Teflon sliding) and one simplified (trilinear with
kinematic hardening). The main properties to reproduce were identified in the maximum
sliding force and the hysteresis loop area. The end stop behavior was represented via a
nonlinear elastic spring acting in parallel to the isolator.
Simple test on truss acting in parallel and on a single column with top isolation showed that
both model are capable of reproducing the experimental results, and the differences between
the refined and the simplified model are always lower than 10%, thus for large models it is
advisable to use the latter, which can reduce analysis time.
In the second part of the chapter, a test column was designed according to the EC8 procedure,
in ductility class High and Medium, and then a set of spectrum compatible accelerograms was
generated in order to perform non linear time-history analyses on the original structures and
on the structure with top isolation, with sliding forces of 10%, 15%, 20% and 25% of the
applied weight. Very useful design indication emerged:
• The design procedure of EC8 should be used carefully for slender structures, because
the behavior factors suggested in the code were calibrated for standard frame
structures. If the geometric constraint reported in 5.4.1.2.2 (1) of the code is respected
(Section size larger than 1/10 of the height for a cantilevering precast column), drift
limits are satisfied (but the columns are overdesigned), otherwise a preliminary check
of the yielding displacement of the column is strongly recommended, so that realistic
values of q can be chosen (for very slender structures the response can be elastic);
• The choice of an unrealistic value for the behavior factor leads to excessive drift levels
in the nonlinear analyses (up to 3%), very different from the elastic prevision;
• The application of a top isolation system can reduce substantially the displacements at
the column top (up to 50%), for the same capacity of the base section;
• For the typology investigated, the optimal sliding force is approximately 10% of the
vertical load.
In the last part of the chapter, nonlinear analyses were performed on a test precast structure.
The results obtained were very similar to the case of the single column, with drift levels of
about 3% for the structure designed with EC8. The influence of stability was evident, since
the design phase was governed by respect of displacements and stability index rather than
capacity of the elements. The application of the top isolation system with 10% sliding force
can reduce the displacement level of approximately 2/3, while the base shear remains almost
the same. In order to investigate the design opportunities offered by the isolation system, in
the next chapter the structure will be design using a displacement-based approach.
94
Chapter 6. Direct Displacement Based Design (DDBD)
6. Direct Displacement Based Design (DDBD)

As already said in Chapter 2, the design procedure known as Direct Displacement Based
Design (DDBD) has been developed over the past ten years with the aim of mitigating the
deficiencies in current force-based design. The fundamental difference from force-based
design is that DDBD characterizes the structure to be designed by a single-degree-of-freedom
(SDOF) representation of performance at peak displacement response, rather than by its initial
elastic characteristics.
Fig. 6.1: Fundamentals of Direct Displacement-Based Design

In the pictures above, we can appreciate the main steps for applying DDBD, starting from a
Multi Degree of Freedom Structure and finishing with an estimation of its period (passing
through the Single Degree of Freedom analogy):
95
6.1. Design of the longitudinal internal frame (no isolation)

We can analyse the series of columns of a pre-cast building connected by beams trying to find
out their longitudinal response in the same way we do for bridge piers.
Fig. 6.2: Structural model
As illustrated in the picture, our structure has 6 columns with ten meters spacing.
6.1.1. Displacement Design Spectrum

Using the parameters taken from EC8, we can evaluate the Design Spectra:
• ag=0,3g;
• ST=1,2 (Firm
soil);
• TC=0,5 sec;
• TD=4,0 sec (2sec

in the EC8
version);
Fig. 6.3: Displacement spectrum (Corner period = 4,0 sec)
The peak response displacement and the relative Displacement Design Spectrum are:
TCTD
δ max = 2,5ag ST = 0, 224 m
4π 2
6.1.2. Geometric and Material properties

We analyse 6 squared columns (75 x 75 cm), 10,8 m height, supporting a cap beam with a
section of 0,6 x 1,0 m.
96
Pre-cast concrete and steel rebars were considered with the properties listed in the following:
Table 6.1: Materials definition
Concrete strength fpc = 45 MPa
Concrete overstrength fpce = 1,3 fpc = 58 MPa
Concrete elastic modulus Ec = 38240 MPa
Steel yield stress fy = 450 MPa
Steel yield overstrength fye = 1,1 fy = 495 MPa
Steel yield strain eye = 0,25%
Steel ultimate stress fsu = 60 MPa
Steel ultimate overstrength fsue = 1,1 fsu = 66 MPa
Steel ultimate strain esu = 10%
Longitudinal steel diameter Fl = 24 mm
Transverse steel diameter Fw = 10 mm
Concrete cover c = 50 mm
In the previous table, we can see strengths applied to seismic design: we can now try to design
the system columns starting from these data.
6.1.3. Structural loads and masses

In order to evaluate the response of the system, we have to know the vertical loads acting on
the structure (mainly the weight of the structural elements) and the horizontal loads expressed
as inertia of the structural mass during the earthquake movement.
6.1.4. Design methodology

We consider the cap beam as rigid, and the piers fixed at the base, as they are connected by an
industrial pavement. In the longitudinal direction we can analyse the supporting frames as
cantilevers, whose heights correspond to the point of support of the superstructure.
In this design, we can distinguish two different type of column: the two lateral columns and
the central columns (the dimension are equal, the tributary area on each, change).
In DDBD, we have to find a effective height at which the masses acting on the structure are
positioned: for all the columns is 11,3 m (the real height of the column, plus half of the height
of the cap beam).
97
Evaluating the neutral axis depth and the limit state curvature for each section, we can say that
the concrete strain governs; using semi – empirical equations, we can estimate the strain
penetration length (LSP = 0,261 m) and the plastic hinge length (LP = 1,052 m).
Once again, using semi – empirical equations, we can see that the yield displacement for a
column of this size (0,75 x 0,75 x 10,3 m) is quite a large number:
φy
(H + LSP ) = 0,309 m
2
Δy = eff
3
in particular if we compare the yield displacement with the maximum displacement governed
by the allowable drift (3%):
Δd = 3% ⋅ Heff = 0,339 m
We can immediately notice that the displacement ductility is about 1: the system response is
almost elastic; now, we have to combine the damping of the system to evaluate an effective
damping that have to be associated to the SDF system. As the abutments are considered to be
unrestrained in the longitudinal direction, the total shear will be shared by the piers (Having
assumed as a design choice to have the same reinforcement ratio, the shear will be distributed
inversely proportional to the height of the piers). As the displacement is the same for all the
piers, the system damping can be found in the following way:
∑ ⎡⎢⎣ξ ⋅ ( H )
6 −1
⎤
li effi
⎥⎦
ξlsys = i =1
= 6, 26%
∑H effi
−1
With this damping, we can evaluate the reduction factor and scale the displacement spectrum:
0,5
⎛ 0, 07 ⎞
Rξ = ⎜ ⎟⎟ = 0, 921
⎜ 0, 02 + ξ lsys
⎝ ⎠
Now, we have all the elements to calculate the properties of the frame (elastic period,
effective mass, effective stiffness and base shear):
Tel = 3, 294 sec

meff = 429 ton
keff = 1561 kN
m
Vb = 529 kN
The base shear is distributed to the columns in inverse proportion to their heights: in this case,
they have the same height, that means they have the same base shear.
98
Vcol = 88 kN
M col = 996 kNm
We have now to check P-D effects on the columns (we use the stability index):
WPΔ Δ dl
θΔ = = 27,1%
M col
This value is quite large and we have to take into considertion P-D effects during the design;
re-evaluating base bending moment and base shear, we obtain:
M PΔ = WPΔ Δ dl
M col = M col + M PΔ = 1266 kNm
M col
Vcol = = 112 kN
H eff
Using these values, we can now design the reinforcement for this type of column. As the
ductility demand is lower than 1.5, EC2 design rules can be applied.
6.2. Design of the longitudinal internal frame (using isolator systems)

Starting from the same frame shows before, we can now consider the studied isolator system
positioned in between the column and the cap beam: in this way, the superstructure is
supported on friction bearings with a maximum displacement of 45 mm and an effective
damping of approximately 38%.
General consideration (like displacement spectrum) as well as material properties are the
same: the only difference is the reinforcement of the column.
6.2.1. Design methodology

We want the column to remain elastic during the earthquake: the energy dissipation have to be
concentrated in the isolator; for this reason, the target displacement is the sum of a
displacement of the column that is less than its yield displacement (we consider 50%) and the
maximum displacement of the isolator.
Δd = ( 0,7Δ y + Δisol ) = 26,1 cm that corresponds to a drift of about 2,1%.
For this reason, we can say that the piers remain elastic during the earthquake and their
equivalent damping is the elastic damping, taken equal to 5%. To find the effective damping
we need to take into account the shear force and the displacement in the elements, doing an
energy-based average. We finally obtain an increased (with respect to the analysis without
isolators) effective damping:
ξeff = 10,7%
99
As done before, the reduction factor is:
Rξ = 0,743
The properties of the frame will be:
Tel = 3,145 sec

meff = 429 ton
keff = 1710 kN
m
Vb = 447 kN
We can distribute the base shear in proportion to the columns and find out the base moments:
Vcol = 75 kN
M col = 842 kNm
We have now to check P-D effects on the columns:
WPΔ Δdl
θΔ = = 24,7%
M col
In this example, we re-evaluate base bending moment and base shear and we notice that there
is a small difference between the value obtained before and the new ones:
M col = 1086 kNm

M col
Vcol = = 96 kN
H eff
Once again, using these values, we can design the reinforcement for the columns, applying
EC2 design rules.
The results obtained are reported in the following table:
Table 6.2: Results obtained with the application of FBD EC8 and DDBD approach
Columns Footings longit. transv.

Model [cm] [cm] Rebars Rebars
FBD-DCH 80x80 500x500 20φ22 φ10@120
DDBD 75x75 440x440 28φ24 φ10@240
DDBDiso 75x75 400x400 28φ20 φ10@240
The advantage in the application of the DDBD procedure is evident, in particular when the
isolation system is used, as the dissipative behaviour is concentrated in the connections while
100
columns remain elastic. In this way, the application of capacity design to the foundations and
to the column in shear is not necessary.
In order to validate the design procedure, non-linear time history analyses were performed,
with three set of spectrum compatible accelerograms, generated with the software SIMQKE.
The results are reported in the following tables and graphs:
Table 6.3: Time history results for the model DDBD
Refined model - DDBD

P1 16.10 18.23 1.49% 1.69% 180.26 156.59
P2 16.28 29.92 1.51% 2.77% 257.00 158.10
P3 16.11 18.24 1.49% 1.69% 179.52 157.17
P4 24.84 18.54 2.30% 1.72% 182.79 240.36
P5 24.78 30.10 2.29% 2.79% 217.21 186.01
P6 24.81 18.54 2.30% 1.72% 182.83 241.10
P7 30.80 18.73 2.85% 1.73% 183.42 290.43
P8 30.64 30.21 2.84% 2.80% 207.56 222.86
P9 30.78 18.71 2.85% 1.73% 183.39 291.50
P10 30.77 18.72 2.85% 1.73% 183.37 290.28
P11 30.61 30.19 2.83% 2.79% 207.62 222.85
P12 30.76 18.71 2.85% 1.73% 183.36 291.32
P13 24.81 18.53 2.30% 1.72% 182.74 238.76
P14 24.76 30.05 2.29% 2.78% 217.15 186.41
P15 24.80 18.51 2.30% 1.71% 182.68 241.12
P16 16.14 18.22 1.49% 1.69% 179.53 156.91
P17 16.28 29.84 1.51% 2.76% 256.38 158.50
P18 16.07 18.19 1.49% 1.68% 179.65 157.00
101
Table 6.4: Time history results for the model DDBDiso
Refined model - DDBDiso

P1 11.62 11.79 1.08% 1.09% 127.43 108.32
P2 12.44 15.17 1.15% 1.40% 155.20 113.43
P3 11.61 11.69 1.08% 1.08% 127.37 107.90
P4 15.68 12.84 1.45% 1.19% 151.79 177.70
P5 15.64 15.89 1.45% 1.47% 122.47 125.65
P6 15.71 12.79 1.45% 1.18% 151.04 168.56
P7 17.79 13.47 1.65% 1.25% 150.83 181.00
P8 17.83 15.95 1.65% 1.48% 121.88 138.45
P9 17.82 13.46 1.65% 1.25% 150.49 180.51
P10 17.80 13.47 1.65% 1.25% 150.51 182.11
P11 17.83 15.96 1.65% 1.48% 121.65 140.28
P12 17.79 13.44 1.65% 1.24% 150.82 179.54
P13 15.68 12.79 1.45% 1.18% 151.22 177.55
P14 15.64 15.91 1.45% 1.47% 121.29 126.12
P15 15.70 12.83 1.45% 1.19% 151.83 177.03
P16 11.64 11.72 1.08% 1.09% 127.07 108.35
P17 12.43 15.18 1.15% 1.41% 154.15 113.42
P18 11.58 11.77 1.07% 1.09% 127.36 107.83
102
Total base shear
4500
4000
3500
3000
Base shear [kN]
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
DCH-R DCH-Is10 DCH_Is15 DDBD DDBDiso
Model
Fig. 6.4: Comparison among base shear resulting from the EC8 DCH, DDBD and DDBDiso models
3.5%
Damage control limit

3.0%
2.5%
Yielding drift
Drift [%]
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
DCH-R DCH-Is10 DCH_Is15 DDBD DDBDiso
Model
Fig. 6.5: Comparison among drift resulting from the EC8 DCH, DDBD and DDBDiso models
103
Observing the tables 6.2 to 6.4 and the figures 6.4 and 6.5, we can make the following
considerations:
• If the FBD approach is used, the behaviour factor should be chosen after an evaluation
of the yielding displacement of columns. For slender elements, the response can be
quasi-elastic, thus it is advisable to increase the longitudinal and decrease the
transversal reinforcement (confinement is not necessary);
• Using the DDBD approach, the drift level is a designer’s choice, and the ductility
demand can be checked in the initial stage of the design. Using this approach, it is
easier to recognize that the response is essentially elastic;
• The DDBD procedure applied to the isolated structure is capable of reproducing the
increased dissipation of the system, provided by Nexfuse connections, and the results
obtained with non-linear time history analyses showed a good agreement in terms of
response.

Using isolator systems between columns and the cap beam, we have a significant decrease of
the dimensions of the columns (and clearly of the section area and the concrete needed). We
decided, in the design process, to ensure that the columns can resist, more or less, to the same
base moment and base shear (despite the reduction in size) both in the design with and
without isolation. In this way, using isolators, we have a reduction of the maximum
displacement reached by the central point of the cap beam and we dissipate energy during the
hysteresis of the systems.
After the earthquake, columns are still elastic and all the damage will be concentrated in the
washers of the isolators.
104
Chapter 7. Conclusions and future developments
7. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

This study involved experimental and numerical investigations on a prototype energy
dissipating connection for precast structures. The importance of a reliable, efficient and
economic type of connection for precast structures is incontrovertible and it is recognized by
all the modern codes, which provide general design guidelines and demand the development
and testing of the systems to the manufacturers. In the first part of the dissertation the
mechanical properties of the prototype isolator and its components were investigated,
confirming the quality of the conceptual design of the system. In the second part of the
dissertation numerical investigation were performed in order to verify the applicability of the
connections to representative precast structures and the economic implications. The adoption
of energy dissipating connections can reduce the inelastic demand on columns without
involving the global dissipation capacity, leading to a more economic and safe structural
design.
7.1. Experimental results

The experimental tests were performed with the aim of characterizing the behavior of the
single mechanical components and the global behavior of the connection.
PTFE sheets showed a very low friction coefficient with the steel plate (in the range of 3-4%),
necessary to allow thermal deformations without transferring excessive forces between the
connected elements (roof beam and supporting beam or beam and column). The cyclic
behavior was stable, without any significant damage or strength reduction after a consistent
number of cycles.
The bronze washers, which are considered as the sacrificial elements in a capacity design
perspective, showed a friction coefficient with steel of approximately 15%-18%, and a stable
hysteretic loop under cyclic testing, with a moderate damage due to sliding (this is not a
problem as the replacement operation is very easy). The result is a “fat” hysteresis loop,
typical of slotted-bolted connections. The bolt preload is a fundamental parameter, as it
governs the sliding force of the connection, thus for all the tests a calibrated wrench was used
to determine the preload.
The rubber element inside the steel box was tested only to ensure that its behavior remains
perfectly elastic in the range of displacements induced by thermal deformations and that the
force generated on the steel dowel is not excessive. Among the different geometric
configurations tested, the solution with additional holes was chosen for the test of the
105
assembly, as the force transferred to the steel dowel was lower (approximately one third) than
the value obtained with the initial solution.
The final test on the whole isolator confirmed the “conceptual design” previsions: a two-stage
frictional behavior, a “fat” and stable hysteresis loop and limited damages to the bronze
washers and the Teflon sheet under the steel box. Different bolt preload levels were tested
(including a simulated asymmetric condition) to investigate the variation of the sliding force.
All the test were performed in cyclic conditions, and reached a maximum displacement of
40mm, corresponding to a ductility level of about 4. In accordance to EC8 provisions, three
full cycle at the maximum amplitude were performed, resulting in a very low decrease of the
transmitted force due to the reduction of bolt preload, without any significant damage in the
“capacity protected” components. The effective damping calculated on the basis of the
hysteresis loop reached the considerable value of 38%.
7.2. Numerical Analyses

On the basis of the experimental tests, an extensive numerical investigation was performed, in
order to compare the performance of different modelling options and investigate the effects of
the applications of hysteretic connections on a representative precast structure.
In the first part of chapter 5, two models for the isolation system were calibrated to match the
experimental results: a refined model capable of reproducing two sliding levels (Teflon
friction and Bronze friction sliding forces) and the end stop behavior and a simplified model
consisting of a trilinear curve plus the end stop behavior. Both models gave satisfactory
results in terms of loop area and transmitted force.
In the second part of chapter 5, a test column was designed according to EC8 provisions, for a
PGA=0.3g, in DCH and DCM classes. After the design, the top isolation was applied, and the
“optimal” level of sliding force (around 10% of the vertical load) was determined by
comparing different options. The behavior of the test column with 25% sliding force was
equivalent to that of the fixed-connection column. The beneficial effect of the isolation
system in limiting top displacements and base shear is evident, with maximum reductions of
nearly 35% respect to the fixed connection case.
In the last part of chapter five, a single-story representative precast structure with isolated
columns was designed according to EC8 provisions, for different ductility classes (DCH and
DCM) and with different modeling strategies (explicit modeling of connections eccentricity
and simplified modeling). If the very demanding limit on column size is not respected (one
tenth of the column height), the structural design is governed by damage limitation and
respect of the stability coefficient. The choice of the behavior factor should be consistent with
the yielding displacement of the column, (the values suggested for standard frame structures
are unrealistic), otherwise the drift limit implicit in the code procedure of 2.5% cannot be
respected, as resulting from the non-linear analyses. The application of the isolation system to
standard designed structures reduced consistently the drift level (under 2.5%) and the inelastic
demand on columns, with insignificant variations on the maximum base shear (related to the
column capacity at yielding).
106
In the sixth chapter, the Direct Displacement Based Design procedure was applied to the test
structure, resulting in a more effective design in both cases of fixed connections (the structural
response is quasi-elastic and the drift limit in the time history analyses is respected) and
energy dissipating connections (the increased effective damping is considered in the design
phase, with a reduction of column reinforcement). In order to solve some numerical problems,
the EC8 displacement spectrum was modified according to EN1998-2 7.5.4 provisions, and
the constant velocity branch was extended up to 4 seconds. The base shear values obtained
with the DDBD procedure was approximately 10% of the gravity load, confirming the
indications of the study performed on the test column.
7.3. Design implications

The numerical investigations and the DDBD procedure demonstrated the structural
effectiveness of the application of energy dissipating connections to precast structures in
seismic areas, and the inadequacy of code provisions for frame structures in the case of
isolated columns systems. For the examined structural type, consisting of very flexible
isostatic columns, the contribution of the added damping is fundamental for the reduction of
displacements and base shear. A structural optimization can be obtained if the effective
damping and stiffness of the connections are considered at the beginning of the design phase,
and the hysteretic behavior is moved from the column base to the connections.
7.4. Future developments

This dissertation focused on the characterization and numerical implementation of an energy
dissipating connection, which can provide considerable advantages from the structural and
economical point of view.
The prototype connection tested was designed to connect roof beams with primary beam
elements, but in the numerical analyses the experimental results were used to model also
beam-column connections, without considering response modifications due to axial load
variations. This was made under the assumption that in terms of global behavior, the response
of a connection subjected to a tensile force is balanced by the response of the compressed
connection (the torsion acting on beams is transferred as a force couple in the isolators). The
real behavior of such a connection should be deeply investigated and the system composed by
the steel box and flat head dowel need to be verified against uplift.
Another important aspect concerns the experimental testing of the system connected to real
structural elements, for the verification of the influence of the anchor channels used to fix the
bolts and the anchorage of the steel box in the wing profile in the global response.
At the time the author’s writing, a test on a real-scale roof beam supported by four energy
dissipating connections has been planned. The test is described in figg. 7.1 to 7.4:
107
Fig. 7.1: Lateral view of the experimental test
The roof beam, 20m long, is connected with two anchorage concrete blocks. A central steel
frame with an electro mechanic jack is used to apply a force in the longitudinal direction.
Fig. 7.2: Frontal view of the roof beam
The steel boxes of the isolators are cast in the concrete roof beam. Holes are provided to allow
the operations of bolt preload.
Fig. 7.3: Details of anchor channels cast in the concrete blocks
A set of anchor channel is cast in each concrete block, to allow multiple test in case of failure.
108
Fig. 7.4: Anchorage of the energy dissipating connections to the anchor channels
This test will be used to refine the numerical models and to check that the end stop behavior is
not fragile. Possible optimization of the components will be studied.
The applicability of the system to different structural configurations and for areas of lower
seismicity will be the subject of further research.
The end scope of the research work is the development of a designer’s manual, that can be
used by practicing engineers to obtain good estimate of the structural element’s dimensions
and reinforcement with simplified procedures. Only in case of non-standard structures refined
analyses will be necessary.
109
References
REFERENCES
ASCE [2000], "Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings", FEMA-356,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
Badrakhan, F. [1988] "Dynamic Analysis of Yielding and Hysteretic Systems by Polinomial
Approximations", Journal of Sound and Vibration, No. 125 (1), pp. 23-42
Berry, B.P., Eberhard, M.O. [2005], “Practical Performance Model for Bar Buckling”, ASCE Journal
of Structural Engineering, Vol.131, No. 7.
Bertero, V. V. [1995] "Tri-Service Manual Methods", Vision 2000, Part 2, Appendix J, Structural
Engineers Association of California, Sacramento.
Capecchi, D., Vestroni, F., [1985] "Steady-State Dynamic Analysis of Hysteretic Systems", Journal of
Engineering Mechianics, American Society of Civil Engineering,No. 111 (12), pp. 1515-1531
Caughey, T.K. [1960] "Sinusoidal Excitation of a System with Bilinear Hysteresis", Journal of applied
Mechanics, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, No. 27 (4), pp. 640-643
Christopoulos, C., Filiatrault, A. [2006] Principles of Passive Supplemental Damping and Seismic
Isolation, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy
Costantiniou, M.C., Tsopelas, Kasalanati, A., Wolf, E.D. [1999] "Property modification factors for
Seismic Isolation Bearings", Technical Report MCEER-99-0012, Multidisciplinary Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY.
DebChaudhury, A. [1985] "Periodic Response of Yielding oscillators", Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, American Society of Civil Engineering,No. 111 (8),pp. 977-994.
Eurocode 8, "Design of structures for earthquale resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and
rules for buildings", UNI-EN 1998-1:2005
Filiatrault, A. [2002] Elements of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dyamics - Second Edition,
Polytechnical International Press, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Iwan, W.D. [1965] "The Steady-State Response of the Double Bilinear Hysteretic Model", Journal of
Applied Mechanics, American Society of Mechanical Engineering, No. 32, pp. 921-925.
Iwan, W.D., Gates, N.C. [1979] "Estimating Earthquake Response of Simple Hysteretic Structures",
Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, American Society of Civil Engineering, No.105,
EM3, pp. 391-405.
110
References
Jennings, P.G. [1964], "Periodic Response of a General Yielding Structure", Journal of the
Engineering Mechanics Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, (EM2),pp. 131-166.
Kelly, J.M. [1990] "Base isolation Linear Theory and Design", Earthquake Spectra, No. 6 (2),pp. 223-
244
Kent, D.C.,Park, R. [1971], "Flexural members with confined concrete", Journal of the structural
division, ASCE, No.97, pp. 1969-1990
King, D.J., Priestley, M.J.N., Park, R. [1986] "Computer Programs for Concrete Column Design".
Research Report 86/12, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zaeland,
May 1986.
Kowalsky, M.J., Priestley, M.J.N. [2000] "Improved Analytical Model for Shear Strength of Circular
Reinforced Concrete Columns in Seismic Regions”, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 97, No.3
Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N., Park, R. [1988] "Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for Confined
Concrete", ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 114, No.8
Masri, S.F. [1975] "Forced Vibration of the Damped Bilinear Hysteretic Oscillator", Journal of the
Acoustic Society of America, No. 57 (1), pp. 106-112.
Minorsky, N. [1947] Nonlinear Mechanics, J.W. Edwards, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Moyer, M.J., Kowalsky, M.J. [2003] “Influence of tension Strain on Buckling of Reinforcement in
Concrete Columns”, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 100, No.1.
Ordinanza P.C.M. 20 Marzo 2003, n. 3274, "Primi elementi in materia di criteri generali per la
classificazione sismica del territorio nazionale e di normative tecniche per le costruzioni in zona
sismica"
Pall, A.S., Marsh, C., Fazio, P. [1980] "Friction Joints for Seismic Control of Large Panel Structures",
Journal of Prestressed Concrete Institute, No. 25 (6), pp. 38-61
Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi, G.M., Kowalsky, M.J. [2006] Displacement-Based Seismic Design of
Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F., Calvi, G.M. [1996] Seismic Design and retrofit of Bridge Structures, John
Wiley and Sons, New York.
Spacone, E., Filippou, F.C., Taucer, F.F. [1996]. "Fiber Beam-Column Model for Nonlinear
Analysis of R/C Frames. I: Formulation." Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 25, N. 7., pp. 711-725.
Spatti, P. [2008], “Isolation system for Precast Buildings (numerical modelling of the
components)”, MSc Dissertation, European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of
Seismic Risk (ROSE School), University of Pavia, Italy.
Tremblay, R., Stiemer, S.F. [1993] "Energy dissipation Through Friction Bolted Connections in
Concentrically Braced Steel Frames", ATC 17-1 Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy
Dissipation, and Active Control, No. 2, pp. 557-568
111
Appendix A - Materials
Appendix A – Materials
A.1. PTFE
A1
A2
A3
A4
A.2. Rubber
A5
A.3. Bronze
In this graph, we can see the behaviour of the bronze used to built washers (Force [daN]
versus Deformation [mm]).
A6
Appendix B - Drawings
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
Appendix C – Photograps
Appendix C – Photographs
Fig. C.2: Fig. C.1: Test plate n°1 Fig. C.3: Test plate n°2
Fig. C.4: Cylinders Fig. C.5: How to assemble cylinders on the test
plate
C1
Fig. C.6: Precompression profile n°1 Fig. C.7: Precompression profile n°2
Fig. C.8: Bolt Ø10 (long) Fig. C.9: Bolt Ø10 (short)
Fig. C.10: Screw threaded Ø24 (Traction bar) Fig. C.11: Screw threaded Ø20 (Precompression
bar)
Fig. C.12: Thick plate (1° test) Fig. C.13: Thick blocks (1°/2°/3°/4° tests)
C2
Fig. C.14: Eyelet plate (1°/2°/3° tests) Fig. C.15: Teflon (1° test)
Fig. C.16: L blocks (2°/4° tests) Fig. C.17: Hold washer (2° test)
Fig. C.18: Washer (2° test) Fig. C.19: Dowel plate (2° test)
Fig. C.20: Rubber plate (3° test) Fig. C.21: Full rubber (3° test)
C3
Fig. C.22: Three holes rubber (3° test) Fig. C.23: Lower plate (4° test)
Fig. C.24: Teflon (4° test) Fig. C.25: Upper dowel plate (4° test)
Fig. C.26: Steel box (4° test) Fig. C.27: How to assemble isolator (1)
Fig. C.28: How to assemble isolator (2) Fig. C.29: How to assemble isolator (3)
C4
Appendix C – Phottograps
Fig. C.30: How

H to assem
mble isolator (4)
( Fig. C.331: How to asssemble isola
ator (5)
Fig. C.32: How

H to assem
mble isolator (6)
( Fig. C.333: How to asssemble isola
ator (7)
Fig. C.34: How

H to assem
mble isolator (8)
( Figg. C.35: Rotatte the steel bo
ox
Fig. C.36: How

H to assem
mble isolator (9)
( Fig. C.37: How to assemble isolattor (10)
C5
Fig. C.38: Once the dowel is in the steel box, it Fig. C.39: Isolator parts overlapped
remains fix to the upper plate
C6

Dissertation2008 Marinini 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

Dissertation2008 Marinini PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISOLATIO

A Dissertation Suubmitted inn Partial Fulfilment

Supeervisors: Prof. Rob

Prof. Paolo Riva__________________________

Prof. Roberto Nascimbene_________________

Keywords: isolation; experimental test; displacement based design;

2.2.2. Numerical simulation of friction dissipators .................................................................. 28

6. Direct Displacement Based Design (DDBD) ................................................................................ 95

Figure 3.3. Behaviour of the isolator subjected to static loads .............................................................. 41

Aelastic (Ael) Elastic strain energy for a complete cycle

[C] Global viscous damping matrix

Ec Concrete elastic modulus

Fhd(t) Nonlinear horizontal force

Heff Effective height

Lhd Hysteretically damped system's parameter

[M] Global mass matrix

p0 Amplitude of the equivalent applied load

Vb Total base shear (DDBD)

xDE Effective damping

xst Equivalent static lateral displacement

μG Effective global ductility

1. INTRODUCTION TO PASSIVE SUPPLEMENTAL

In the last decade, earthquake design passed

1.2. Categories of supplemental damping and seismic isolation systems

Table 1.1: Seismic Protection Systems, from [Christopoulos, 2006]

Conventional systems Supplemental damping systems Isolation systems

Flexural Plastic Hinges Metallic Braces Elastomeric

Shear Plastic Hinges Friction Tuned-Mass Lead-Rubber

Yielding Braces Viscoelastic Variable Stiffness High-Damping

Viscous Variable Damping Metallic

Tuned-Mass Piezoelectric Lead-Extrusion

Self-Centering Rheological Friction

1.3. Seismic isolation

1.3.1. Conceptual design and conventional approach

1.4. Dissertation objectives

1.5. Dissertation outline

2. STATE OF THE ART

2.1.1. Energy formulation of the seismic problem

[ M ]{x ( t )} + [C ]{ x ( t )} + {Fr ( t )} = − [ M ]{r} xg ( t ) + {Fs } (2.1)

[M] is the global mass matrix

characteristics of the structural elements.

xg ( t ) is the horizontal acceleration of the ground at time t.

Ekr ( t ) + Evd ( t ) + Ea ( t ) = Einr ( t ) + Est ( t ) (2.2)

Ekr ( t ) is defined as the relative kinetic energy at time t :

Einr ( t ) = − ∫ {dx} [ M ]{r } 

Est ( t ) = ∫ {dx} {Fs }

Eka ( t ) + Evd ( t ) + Ea ( t ) = Eina ( t ) + Est ( t ) (2.8)

2.1.2. Types of passive energy dissipating systems

2.1.3. Influence of passive energy dissipating systems on energy balance

The figure on the right

The energy state of a structure equipped with a displacement-activated energy dissipating

Eka ( t ) + Evd ( t ) + Ea ( t ) + Esd ( t ) = Eina ( t ) (2.12)

Evb ( t ) = Eka ( t ) + Ea ( t ) (2.13)

Evb ( t ) = Eina ( t ) − Esd ( t ) − Evd ( t ) (2.14)

2.1.4. Linear theory of seismic isolation

⎡M m ⎤ ⎧vb ⎫ ⎡ cb 0 ⎤ ⎧vb ⎫ ⎡ kb 0 ⎤ ⎧vb ⎫ ⎡ M m ⎤ ⎧1 ⎫

Fig.2.3: Parameters of 2DOF isolated system

Fig.2.4: Classical modes of the combined system

2.1.5. Basic dynamic response of structures with hysteretic dampers

Fig.2.5: Single-degree-of-freedom system incorporating hysteretic damper

The equation of motion of the combined system can be written as:

mx ( t ) + cx ( t ) + kx ( t ) + Fhd ( t ) = − mxg ( t ) (2.26)

First, the frequency ratio s is defined as:

[ M ]{x ( t )} + [C ]{ x ( t )} + {Fr ( t )} = − [ M ]{r} xg ( t ) + {Fs } (2.1)

Einr ( t ) = − ∫ {dx} [ M ]{r }

⎡M m ⎤ ⎧vb ⎫ ⎡ cb 0 ⎤ ⎧vb ⎫ ⎡ kb 0 ⎤ ⎧vb ⎫ ⎡ M m ⎤ ⎧1 ⎫

mx ( t ) + cx ( t ) + kx ( t ) + Fhd ( t ) = − mxg ( t ) (2.26)

x (τ ) = A (τ ) cos θ − σ A (τ ) sin θ + ϕ (τ ) A (τ ) sin θ (2.46)

A (τ ) cos θ + ϕ (τ ) A (τ ) sin θ = 0 (2.47)

x (τ ) = −σ A (τ ) sin θ − σ 2 A (τ ) cos θ + σ A (τ ) ϕ (τ ) cos θ

−σ A (τ ) sin θ + σ A (τ ) ϕ (τ ) cos θ − σ 2 A (τ ) cos θ + f ( A cos θ , u ,τ ) = xst cos (θ + ϕ (τ ) )

−σ A (τ ) + σ 2 A (τ ) sin θ cos θ + f ( A cos θ , u ,τ ) cos θ = xst cos (θ + ϕ (τ ) ) sin θ

σ A (τ ) ϕ ( t ) − σ 2 A (τ ) cos 2 θ + f ( A cos θ , u ,τ ) cos θ = xst cos (θ + ϕ (τ ) ) cos θ (2.52)

Where A, ϕ, A and ϕ denote the average values of A (τ ) , ϕ (τ ) , A (τ ) and ϕ (τ ) over one

−2σ A + S ( A ) = xst sin ϕ