Performance Evaluation of Base-Isolated Structures

Paper:

Performance Evaluation of Base-Isolated Structures

Sarun Chimamphant∗ and Kazuhiko Kasai∗∗
∗ Interdisciplinary Graduate School of Science and Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology
4259 Nagatsuta-cho, Midori-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 226-8503, Japan
Email: chimamphant.s.aa@m.titech.ac.jp
∗∗ Structural Engineering Research Center, Tokyo Institute of Technology

4259 Nagatsuta-cho, Midori-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 226-8503, Japan

[Received December 24, 2014; accepted March 9, 2015]

Seismic isolation systems have been recognized for
their effectiveness in protecting building and their con-
tents. Despite costly technology, seismic isolation has
been used in several countries, including Japan. Base-
isolated building response could be substantially re-
duced, which is very favorable compared to conven-
tional fixed-base buildings. Several studies have fo-
cused on base-isolated building response and the ef-
fects of isolation properties, for example, but none has
talked about performance in ways that nonengineers
such as building owners could understand. The slight
damage from an earthquake may protect a building’s
structural integrity, but it may also damage nonstruc-
tural components and disrupt ongoing building func-
tionality CF. The PEER methodology framework used
to consider CF damage to nonstructural components
uses a nonstructural component fragility curve, taking
into account building location, and produces results in
the form of a return period, in years, indicating how
long the building may be expected to exceed that spec-
ified damage state. Several building structures are in-
vestigated and discussed.
Keywords: seismic performance, continued functional-
ity, nonstructural component, base-isolated structure
contribute a higher mode to the superstructure, especially
in higher base-isolated structures. The MDOF model is
essential for capturing these story-by-story responses ac-
curately.
PEER-performance-based earthquake engineering
(PBEE) [8] is used to evaluate a structure’s performance.
The framework takes into account the possibility of the
following:
(i) a seismic intensity level evaluating a structure at a
specified location
(ii) structure response under several types of ground
motion and intensity levels as clarified by incremen-
tal dynamic analysis
(iii) the probability of exceeding a certain damage state
We consider continued functionality (CF) damage
states imposed on nonstrucutural components of partition
walls and suspended ceilings, which are sensitive to de-
formation and acceleration in performance evalution. We
obtained fragility curves representing the probability of
exceeding the CF damage state for nonstructural compo-
nents from previous researches. We also demonstrate fur-
ther applications of PEER methodology.

1. Introduction 2. Models of Base-Isolated Structures

The main concept of base isolation technology is that it
introduces flexibility at the base story between the super-
structure and ground, enabling large concentrated move-
ment at the base story and reducing demand upon the su-
perstructure. The degree of displacement depends mainly
on isolation system flexibility. To limit this large isolation
displacement so that it would not pound with the moat
wall and/or adjacent buildings, the base isolation system
is often designed to absorb energy. This is done by adding
energy dissipation devices, resulting in addition of damp-
ing to the system.
Several studies have addressed basic effects of the iso-
lation system, but most have used a 2DOF system [2–7]
in their investigations. due to great differences in base
isolation damping and superstructure damping, however,
highly nonproportional damping effects tend to occur that
2.1. Design Following US Code
The analytical model for a multiple degree of freedom
(MDOF) system is represented by a stick model as ex-
emplified by the 3-story base-isolated structure shown in
Fig. 1. The mass of each floor mi , where i is the ith
floor and the mass of base isolation floor mb are equal.
All stories are the same height. Based on the United
States standard code ASCE 7-10 [9], the equivalent lat-
eral static force profile for base-isolated structures is de-
termined from the following equation
wx hx
Fx = n Vs . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
∑ wi hi
i=1
where wi and wx = the portion of the total effective seis-
mic weight of the structure located or assigned to Level i

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.10 No.4, 2015 647

Chimamphant, S. and Kasai, K.
m3 i=3
k3
c3
m2 i=2
k2
c2
m1 i=1
k1
c1
Equivalent lateral force mb Base
} Isolation level
assuming fixed base cb kb
Fig. 1. Analytical model and equivalent lateral force based
on ASCE 7-10 3-story as an example.
or x, hi and hx = height from the base to level i or x. Vs =
design base shear. With equal height and mass, Eq. (1)
produces the triangular force profile and triangular mode
shape shown in Fig. 1.
The superstructure period of base-isolated structures
requires a maximum limited period, so superstructure pe-
riod Ts = 0.1N, where N is the number of stories above
the isolation level. Mass, superstructure period, and mode
shape are known, so the stiffnesses of individual sto-
ries is obtained from K s φ s = (2π /Ts )2 M s φ s where K s is
the tridiagonal stiffness matrix, M s the diagonal uniform
mass matrix, Ts the superstructure period, and φ s the tri-
angular mode shape.
Superstructure damping is assumed proportional to the
stiffness matrix, which is C s = α K s where C s = damp-
ing matrix, and α = stiffness-proportional damping coef-
ficient to be set for the desired damping ratio at Ts . Super-
structure damping ratio ζs = 0.02 is assumed.
For the base isolation system, stiffness kb damping
coefficient cb is determined assuming a rigid super-
structure. Given base isolation period Tb base isola-
tion damping ratio ζb , stiffness kb obtained from kb =
(2π /Tb )2 (mb + Nmi ) and the damping coefficient cb is
obtained from cb = (4πζb /Tb ) (mb + Nmi ).
3-, 9-, and 20-story, representing short, medium, and
tall base-isolated structures, are investigated which give
the superstructure periods of 0.3, 0.9, and 2.0 seconds.
Base isolation period Tb = 2, 3, and 4 seconds and base
isolation damping ratio ζb = 0.1 and 0.3 are considered to
cover a wide range of base isolation properties.
2.2. Designed Building Characteristics
After all of the necessary stiffnesses and damping co-
efficients for both the superstructure and isolation sys-
tem are determined, stiffness matrix K s and damping ma-
trix C s are formed. Complex eigenvalue analysis is then
conducted to obtain dynamic properties of base-isolated
structures. Results of natural periods and damping ratios
are shown in Tables 1 and 2.
Take a case in which Tb = 2 and ζb = 0.1, Table 1
shows that 1st period T1 is almost the same as Tb for the
648
3-story case and increases to 1.08 times Tb for the 9-story
case and 1.36 times Tb for the 20-story case due to the
higher flexibility of superstructures. If Tb or ζb is higher,
the increase of T1 becomes smaller. For the same case,
Tb = 2 and ζb = 0.1, Table 2 shows that 1st damping ra-
tios ζ1 are 0.98, 0.8, and 0.4 times ζb for the 3-, 9-, and
20-story structures, indicating that ζ1 may be much lower
than ζb assigned based on a rigid superstructure assump-
tion for taller structures.
Figure 2 compares yield strength required of base-
isolated structures to the steel-moment frame fixed-base
structures. Note that yield strength required for base-
isolated structures is calculated at isolation period Tb , re-
gardless of Ts . Based on the code, conventional fixed-
base structures enable significant yielding in structures
under design basis earthquakes, while base-isolated struc-
tures do not. Isolation systems reduce force and dis-
placement on the superstructure. Superstructures of base-
isolated structures appear to be even stronger than fixed-
base structures, ensuring elastic behavior during ground
motion excitation. We therefore assume in this study that
superstructures of base-isolated structures are elastic.
3. Calculation of Performance Evaluation Re-
turn Period
PEER-performance based earthquake engineering
(PBEE) [8] is used to evaluate base-isolated structure
performance. The framework uses seismic damage
analysis, structural analysis, and seismic hazard analysis
and considers the continued functionality (CF) damage
state of partition walls (drift-sensitive components) and
suspended ceilings (acceleration-sensitive components).
CF represents the state in which a building remains
usable without interruption by an earthquake. Eqs. (2)
and (3) evaluate base-isolated structure performance
considering CF of partition walls and suspended ceilings.
N
1
λCF,p = = ∑ {P [CF|δk ]
TR,p k=1
M  . . . (2)

· ∑ P [δk |s j ] · P [s j ]
j=1
1 N   
λCF,c = = ∑ P CF|ac,k
TR,c k=1
M   . . (3)
 
· ∑ P ac,k |s j · P [s j ]
j=1
δ is drift ratio, ac is component acceleration obtained
from time history analysis of suspended ceiling having
period Tc and damping ratio ζc , and λCF,p and λCF,c are
the annual frequency of exceeding continued functionality
(CF) damage state of partition wall and suspended ceil-
ing. The return periods TR,p , TR,c can then be obtained
from 1/λCF,p and /λCF,c , indicating the number of years
that the building is expected to exceed the CF damage
state. As stated, Eqs. (2) and (3) contain damage analysis,
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.10 No.4, 2015