Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1187–1198

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Effect of LRB isolators and supplemental viscous dampers on seismic

isolated buildings under near-fault excitations
C.P. Providakis ∗
Applied Mechanics Lab, Department of Applied Sciences, Technical University of Crete, GR-73100 Chania, Greece

Received 29 November 2006; received in revised form 7 July 2007; accepted 13 July 2007
Available online 23 August 2007

Abstract

Base isolation is a quite sensible structural control strategic design in reducing the response of a structural system induced by strong ground
motions. It is clear that the effects of near-fault (NF) ground motions with large velocity pulses can bring the seismic isolation devices to critical
working conditions. In the present paper, nonlinear time history analyses were performed using a commercial structural analysis software package
to study the influence of isolation damping on base and superstructure drift. Various lead-rubber bearing (LRB) isolation systems are systematically
compared and discussed for aseismic performances of two actual reinforced concrete (RC) buildings. Parametric analysis of the buildings fitted
with isolation devices is carried out to choose the appropriate design parameters. The efficiency of providing supplemental viscous damping for
reducing the isolator displacements while keeping the substructure forces in reasonable ranges is also investigated.
c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Base isolation; LRB; Viscous damping; Near-fault; Strong ground motion; FEM

1. Introduction elastomeric bearings, such as high-damping rubber bearings

Buildings are vulnerable when subjected to severe earth-
quakes. Although considerable progress was made in earth-
quake engineering towards the end of the century, catastrophic
building failure examples are found wherever strong ground
motion earthquakes attack. Structural members and their inter-
nal contents can be protected against severe earthquake events
with the installation of structural isolation devices to add damp-
ing to the isolated structure. The concept of the base isolation
technique is to separate the structure from the ground in order to
avoid earthquake damage [1]. However, we can modify the de-
mand it makes on the structure by preventing the motions being
transmitted from the foundation into the structure above. Dur-
ing this procedure a significant amount of energy is dissipated
while an appropriate stiffness of the isolated system is provided
to maintain structural integrity.
A significant amount of both past and recent research
in the area of base isolation has focused on the use of
∗ Tel.: +30 2821037637; fax: +30 2821037866.
E-mail address: cpprov@mred.tuc.gr.
URL: http://www.mechanics.tuc.gr.
(HDRB) and lead-rubber (LRB) bearings [2–5]. Such devices
have already been used over many years by engineers and
require only minimal initial cost and maintenance compared to
other passive, semi-active and active response modification and
energy absorption devices [6].
In the case of far-field (FF) ground motions the isolators
experience acceptable deformations. However, for structures
subjected to near-field (NF) ground motions, the isolator
displacements tend to be considerable [7,8]. Therefore,
isolators with very large dimensions may be required for
structures located in NF areas. These costly geometries are in
contradiction with the main objective of implementing seismic
isolators to reach a more economical and practical solution
by mitigating the strong ground motion pulses transferred to
the building. But, since those pulses can reach some peak
velocities of the order of 0.5 m/s and durations of 1–3 s, it is
obvious that it leads to considerable interest to researchers, and
recently several papers for investigating the dynamic behavior
of base-isolated buildings under NF motion were published.
It was observed that LRB-isolated buildings with selected
properties might perform poorly and can cause instability in
the isolation system. Since the LRB system is a very common

c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.07.020
1188 C.P. Providakis / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1187–1198
isolation system equipped with all the desirable features of base
isolation, it is necessary to investigate those parameters that
affect the dynamic behavior of an isolated system.
To address the problem stated above, the efficiency of
providing different LRB systems for actual RC buildings,
in combination with supplemental dampers for reducing the
isolator displacements while keeping the inter-story forces in
reasonable ranges, was investigated by many researchers [9–
11]. The response of this combined isolation action as well as
the superstructure behavior seems to be effective for NF ground
motions. However, such a complex isolation system leads to
undesirable results under moderate or strong FF earthquake
excitations. It is obvious that a significant increase in stiffness,
although controlling displacement, activates higher modes of
the dynamic model, also taking into account that supplemental
viscous dampers, although helping in this control, on the
contrary introduce secondary damping forces with complex
coupling effects. Therefore, there is a need to study extensively
the aseismic performance of different LRB isolators with or
without the combination of supplemental viscous dampers for
structures experiencing NF motions. This study of the aseismic
performance of different LRBs under the effect of supplemental
viscous damping is the main objective of this paper. Thus,
parametric analysis for variations in the fundamental isolation
period and damping is performed. The recommended ranges of
the design parameters are also presented in this study. The peak
responses of the isolated structure are obtained and the relative
effectiveness of the various isolation systems is evaluated for
the selected design parameter of isolation systems.
2. Modeling of isolation system
2.1. LRB isolators
As stated previously, the main objective of the present
research is to study the effect of LRBs and supplemental
viscous dampers on the seismic performance of isolated
buildings in relation to the characteristics of the NF ground
motion and isolator properties. Seismic isolators are generally
classified into two general groups as rubber-based (such
as high-damping rubber and lead-rubber bearings [12]) and
sliding-based (such as Eradiquake [13] and friction pendulum
bearings [12]). The rubber-based bearing isolation system
consists of layers of rubber and steel, with the rubber being
vulcanized to the steel plates for horizontal flexibility and
vertical stiffness. In this paper the case of the lead-rubber
bearing (LRB) isolator will be presented. This isolator consists
of a lead-plug insert which provides its characteristic hysteretic
energy-dissipation effect. Therefore, the LRB system is able
to support the structure vertically, to provide the horizontal
flexibility together with the restoring force, and to provide the
required hysteretic damping.
In the present paper, the isolators were initially designed
to follow some available recommendations of the Uniform
Building Code (UBC-97) [14]. The mechanical properties
of the LRB isolation system were set to comply with a
recommendation of the UBC-97 building code. The design
Fig. 1. Typical bilinear LRB hysteresis.
parameters considered here are: the ratio Q/W of the
characteristic strength Q over the total weight on the isolation
system W , the yield force Fy , the isolator diameter D, the
lead core diameter d, the number of rubber layers n, and the
layer thickness t. For design and analysis, the shape of the
nonlinear force–deflection relationship, termed the hysteresis
loop (represented as a bilinear curve as shown in Fig. 1), has an
elastic (or unloading) stiffness ke and a yielded (or post-elastic)
stiffness k p .
The elastic stiffness ke is defined as the ratio of the yield
strength to the yield displacement, as expressed in equation
F
ke = Dyy , while the post-yield stiffness k p is given by the
formula
G · Ar
kp = fL , (1)
tr
where G is the shear modulus of the rubber, Ar is the cross-
sectional area of the rubber layers, tr is the total thickness
of rubber consisting of n layers, and the factor f L is equal
to 1.5. The characteristic strength Q (force intercept at zero
displacement) is given by the equation
Q = Apb σypb , (2)
where Apb is the area of lead core, and σypb the yield strength of
the lead core (ranging between 7 and 8.5 MPa). The average or
effective stiffness keff is defined as the ratio between the force
Fm , occurring at a specified LRB isolator displacement ∆, and
the displacement ∆:
Fm
keff = . (3)
∆
The effective stiffness keff can also be expressed as a
function of the characteristic strength Q as in the following
equation:
Q
keff = k p + (when ∆ > D y ) (4)
∆
where D y is the yield displacement as shown in Fig. 1. On
the other hand, when the design displacement ∆ < D y , the
effective stiffness keff = ke . The force Fm can be defined as
Fm = Q + k p ∆ (5)
while the yield force Fy can be obtained from
Fy = Q + k p D y . (6)
 C.P. Providakis / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1187–1198 1189

Fig. 3. Typical equivalent hysteretic curves for LRB isolators with Q/W =
Fig. 2. Typical equivalent hysteretic curves for LRB isolators with Q/W = 10%.
7.5%.

The area E D of the hysteretic loop can be obtained from the

equation
E D = 4Q(∆ − D y ). (7)
This area represents the energy dissipation at each cyclic
motion of LRB isolator. Then, the effective damping ratio
ζeff , which produces the same amount of damping energy
dissipation as the hysteretic energy dissipated at each cyclic
motion of the LRB isolator, is expressed as
ED
ζeff = . (8)
2πkeff ∆2
Finally, the fundamental isolation period T iso is given by the
equation Fig. 4. Typical equivalent hysteretic curves for LRB isolators with Q/W =
s 12.5%.
iso M
T = 2π P (9) respectively, of the qth degree of freedom with respect to
keff
the base floor just above the isolation system, and g is the
where M is the total mass on the isolation system, including the acceleration of gravity. Q is the total number of degrees of
mass of thePsuperstructure and the mass of the isolation system. freedom of the superstructure and Ceff is the effective damping
The term keff = K eff is the total effective stiffness of the coefficient given in terms of the effective damping ratio ζeff by
isolation system. Some typical equivalent hysteretic curves for the equation
LRB isolators used in the present parametric study are plotted p
in Figs. 2–4 for the cases of Q/W = 7.5%, 10% and 12.5%, Ceff = 2ζeff M K eff . (11)
respectively, as a function of the fundamental isolation period.
To determine properties of the LRB isolation system 2.2. Supplemental viscous dampers
and calculate the approximate maximum deformation of the
isolation system in order to produce initial values for the Viscous dampers are devices that provide a resisting force
analysis, the equation of its motion, which uses effective and that is proportional to the applied velocity [15]. The damper
equivalent values, is applied here [2]. Although this assumption force introduced in the dynamic system is described by the
may be considered as a gross approximation, it seems to work equation
well in common base isolation systems [1]. This equation of FD = cVC
exp
(12)
motion can be written as,
where FD is the damper force, c is the damper coefficient,
Q
X VC is the relative velocity between the damper ends, and exp
M ẍb (t) + Ceff ẋb (t) + K eff xb (t) + m q aq = −M ẍ g (t) (10)
is the damper exponent, which generally ranges from 0.3 to
q=1
1.0. For the present study and for reasons of simplicity, the
where xb (t) is the relative displacement of the isolation damper exponent is held constant at a value of exp = 1. A
system with respect to ground, ẍ g (t) is the horizontal ground typical force–displacement relationship for a viscous damper
acceleration, m q and aq are the mass and relative acceleration, investigated in the present work is presented in Fig. 5.
1190 C.P. Providakis / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1187–1198
Fig. 5. Typical force–displacement relationship for a viscous damper.
Fig. 6. Structural model of building A (from ETABS window).
3. Structural models considered
For the parametric analysis of various isolation systems, two
actual three-dimensional RC buildings, with one LRB isolation
device and supplemental viscous damper under each column,
have been investigated. Building A, as shown in Figs. 6 and
7, is an actual six-story RC building of 12.3 m × 16.9 m in
plan (x and y axes) dimensions and 18.0 m in height (z axis).
This building is equipped with a total number of 28 LRBs and
28 biaxial viscous dampers in its isolation base under each
column. The elastic modulus and Poisson ratio of the building
construction material are 29 × 106 MPa and 0.2, respectively,
while the total mass is 2800 kN s2 /m. On the other hand,
building B is an actual five-story RC building with dimensions
as shown in Figs. 8 and 9. The elastic modulus and Poisson ratio
of building B’s construction material are also 29 × 106 MPa
Fig. 7. Typical floor plan of the structural model of building A (from ETABS
window).
Fig. 8. Structural model of building B (from ETABS window).
and 0.2, respectively, while the total mass is 4600 kN s2 /m.
Building B is equipped with a total number of 42 LRB isolators
and 42 biaxial viscous dampers in its isolation system under
each column.
The commercial structural analysis software ETABS version
8.3.0 [16] was used for the analysis. Using ETABS software,
each floor slab is modeled with a rigid diaphragm, which
represents each floor by three degrees of freedom: two lateral
degrees of freedom in the x and y directions and a rotational
degree of freedom about the vertical axis. These degrees of
 C.P. Providakis / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1187–1198
Fig. 9. Typical floor plan of the structural model of building B (from ETABS window).
freedoms are located at the center of the floor mass, which is
the same at every floor. Although the structural models used
here have asymmetric floor plans, the mass and rigidity centers
are considered to be relatively close to each other, and the lateral
torsional coupling effects are not prominent.
The method of nonlinear time-history analysis is used and
the relative effectiveness of the isolation systems according
to variations in the design parametric characteristics is
investigated. The fixed-base fundamental periods of building A
are 0.68 and 0.54 s in the x and y directions, respectively, while
those of building B are 0.37 and 0.35 s in the same directions,
respectively. The fixed-base Rayleigh damping coefficient, C fix ,
for both buildings is kept constant at 5% for the first two
modes. Two bi-directional earthquake records, typical of NF
and FF strong ground motions, are adopted in the present
study. The two horizontal components of the 1979 Imperial
Valley earthquake (Array #5) and 1994 Northridge earthquake
(Old Ridge Route) records [17,18] are considered. The time
variation of the ground acceleration, velocity and displacement
are shown in Figs. 10–13.
As can be observed in Figs. 10 and 11, the fault normal
components of displacement and velocity (Fig. 11) of the 1979
Imperial Valley earthquake (NF) are significantly larger than
those of fault parallel components (Fig. 10). This, in turn,
1191
implies that the isolated response of the structure will be mainly
affected by the fault normal component of the near-fault seismic
motion. Furthermore, the peak displacement in each direction
occurs at times when the other has a relatively small magnitude,
which implies that the fault normal and fault parallel motions
are more or less uncorrelated. The 1994 Northridge earthquake
(Old Ridge Route) record, as depicted in Figs. 12 (fault normal)
and 13 (fault parallel), can be considered as a typical case of a
record expected on the ground for FF motions occurring during
a major earthquake.
In the present study, bilinear isolators such as the
commonly used lead rubber bearing (LRB) isolation systems
were investigated. The introduction of LRB isolators in the
nonlinear time-history analysis was achieved by activating
the ISOLATOR1 (ISO1) nonlinear link element of ETABS.
These specific isolators provide hysteretic damping through
the yielding of the lead core. The evaluation of the ETABS
link element properties, at a specified maximum displacement
∆, as well as the inspection of the device performance in
terms of geometry, vertical buckling, shear load capacity and
stability, is derived by using an iterative procedure employing
both a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and ETABS software
simultaneously.
1192 C.P. Providakis / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1187–1198
Fig. 10. 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake (Array #5)—140 ground motion
characteristics (fault parallel and near-fault motion).
The iterative procedure starts by assuming a design
displacement ∆. Next, the basic design parameters of LRB
isolators such as ratio Q/W , isolator diameter D, lead-core
diameter d, yield force Fy and ratio K p /K e are fixed in such
a way that the fundamental isolation period T iso falls in the
range 1.5 s ≤ T iso ≤ 2.5 s, where the fundamental isolation
periods of most base-isolated buildings lie, as reported by
Makris [15]. More specifically, by appropriately changing the
LRB isolator height and keeping constant the other design
parameters, three different sets for each building (A and B)
were investigated using isolator diameters d = 654 mm,
665 mm and 674 mm with a ratio of the characteristic strength
Q to the total structure weight W of Q/W = 7.5%, 10% and
Fig. 11. 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake (Array #5)—230 ground motion
characteristics (fault normal and near-fault motion).
12.5%, respectively, as shown in Tables 1 and 2. The iterations
of the preliminary design analysis are performed in such a
way that the maximum displacement computed from ETABS
finite-element analysis in the last step of iteration is almost
identical to the selected maximum design displacement keeping
the fundamental isolation period in the selected range.
Since the selected NF earthquake records have a large
impact on the various LRB isolator cases, we decided to use
supplemental damping to reduce the displacement demands
on isolators. Thus, we added damping in the isolation system
in the form of supplemental viscous damper devices in both
horizontal directions of the structural base isolation level. The
introduction of this supplemental damping was achieved by the
 C.P. Providakis / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1187–1198 1193

Fig. 12. 1994 Northridge earthquake (Old Ridge Route)—090 ground motion Fig. 13. 1994 Northridge earthquake (Old Ridge Route)—360 ground motion
characteristics (fault normal–near fault record). characteristics (fault parallel–far fault record).

For instance, if each one of 42 LRB isolators of building B

activation of the DAMPER (DAMP) nonlinear link element of
(with a total mass = 4600 kN s2 /m) provides a stiffness of
ETABS.
2100 kN/m to the isolation system, then the effective damping
This ETABS nonlinear link element requires the knowledge
coefficient can be calculated by taking into account a given
of the supplemental effective damping coefficient Ceff in the
desired supplemental viscous damping ratio of, let us say, 20%
analysis. Recalling that Ceff is a function of the effective
in the equation
damping ratio ζeff , then it can be obtained through the total
stiffness K eff and mass M supported on the isolation system r
K eff p
in each direction under consideration (x or y) and the use of 42Ceff = 2ζeff M = 2ζeff K eff M
M
equation √
r = 2 · 0.2 · 42 · 2100 · 4600 ⇒ 42Ceff = 8057 (14)
K eff kN s
Ceff = 2ζeff ωM = 2ζeff M ⇒ Ceff = 191.83 .
M m
 
p kN s On the other hand, a desired supplemental effective damping
= 2ζeff K eff M (13)
m ratio of 14.38% can be obtained from a supplemental effective
1194 C.P. Providakis / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1187–1198

Table 1 Table 2
Basic characteristics for different LRB base isolation cases of building A Basic characteristics for different LRB base isolation cases of building B

No. of layers T iso (s) Effective Elastic Design No. of layers T iso (s) Effective Elastic Design
stiffness stiffness K e displ. stiffness stiffness displ.
K eff (kN/m) ∆ K eff (kN/m) K e (kN/m) ∆
(kN/m) (mm) (mm)
Q/W = 7.5% Q/W = 7.5%

Lead core diameter: 109 mm Lead core diameter: 114 mm

Device diameter: 654 mm Device diameter: 684 mm

Fy = 84.39 kN Fy = 92.31 kN

K p/K e = 0.115 K p/K e = 0.115

12 1.49 2429 16,740 150 15 1.49 2144 14,649 180

18 1.71 1681 11,160 190 20 1.70 1608 10,987 240
25 1.96 1209 8,035 265 27 1.95 1211 8,138 300
33 2.20 916 6,087 350 36 2.21 924 6,104 372
42 2.43 734 4,783 410 45 2.43 758 4,883 420

Q/W = 10% Q/W = 10%

Lead core diameter: 126 mm Lead core diameter: 132 mm

Device diameter: 665 mm Device diameter: 690 mm

Fy = 111.77 kN Fy = 122.58 kN

K p/K e = 0.108 K p/K e = 0.107

15 1.49 2429 14,859 120 17 1.50 2126 14,198 180

23 1.73 1647 9,691 165 24 1.71 1596 10,057 210
31 1.96 1207 7,190 230 34 1.95 1200 7,099 240
39 2.20 917 5,715 330 47 2.20 933 5,135 285
56 2.44 730 3,980 330 62 2.43 758 3,893 320

Q/W = 12.5% Q/W = 12.5%

Lead core diameter: 141 mm Lead core diameter: 147 mm

Device diameter: 674 mm Device diameter: 700 mm

Fy = 138.93 kN Fy = 150.96 kN

K p/K e = 0.101 K p/K e = 0.101

16 1.49 2431 15,254 140 20 1.50 2126 13,197 170

26 1.71 1682 9,387 170 29 1.71 1595 9,102 200
42 1.96 1211 5,811 200 42 1.96 1198 6,284 240
65 2.20 922 3,755 230 60 2.21 927 4,399 280
87 2.43 737 2,805 275 87 2.43 758 3,034 300

• Ceff = C100 (with a level of supplemental damping ratio

damping coefficient Ceff = 100 kN s/m of an isolation corresponding to a supplemental damping coefficient of
system with viscous dampers placed in parallel to the LRB 100 kN s/m);
system of building A (with total mass = 2800 kN s2 /m and • Ceff = C200 (with a level of supplemental damping ratio
total effective stiffness = 28 × 1209 kN/m = 33852 kN/m) by corresponding to a supplemental damping coefficient of
using the following equation 200 kN s/m).
p √ The effectiveness of the supplemental damping in the LRB
28Ceff = 2ζeff K eff M = 2ζeff 28 · 1209 · 2800
isolation system was, in turn, evaluated using five sets of
⇒ 28 · 100 = 19 471 · 58 · ζeff (15)
fundamental isolation periods and three sets of Q/W ratios, as
⇒ ζeff = 14.38%. described in Table 3, for each building A and B, respectively.
From the inspection of this table, one can observe that, in the
Thus, finally, three different configurations of supplemental selected fundamental isolation period range, the addition of the
damping ratios were evaluated: supplemental damping may increase the total damping of the
isolation system by a value of 37.01 % for building A and 34.71
• Ceff = C0 (without supplemental damping); % for building B.
 C.P. Providakis / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1187–1198 1195

Table 3
Supplemental viscous damping ratio ranges for buildings A and B

T iso K eff Supplemental damping ratio T iso K eff Supplemental damping ratio
C100 (%) C200 (%) C100 (%) C200
(%)
Building A: Q/W = 7.5% Building B: Q/W = 7.5

T = 1.49 2429 10.15 20.29 T = 1.49 2144 10.32 20.64

T = 1.71 1681 12.20 24.39 T = 1.70 1608 11.91 23.83
T = 1.96 1209 14.38 28.76 T = 1.95 1211 13.73 27.46
T = 2.20 916 16.52 33.04 T = 2.21 924 15.72 31.43
T = 2.43 734 18.46 36.91 T = 2.43 758 17.35 34.71

Building A: Q/W = 10% Building B: Q/W = 10%

T = 1.49 2429 10.15 20.29 T = 1.50 2126 10.36 20.72

T = 1.73 1647 12.32 24.64 T = 1.71 1596 11.96 23.92
T = 1.96 1207 14.39 28.78 T = 1.95 1200 13.79 27.58
T = 2.20 917 16.51 33.02 T = 2.20 933 15.64 31.28
T = 2.44 730 18.51 37.01 T = 2.43 758 17.35 34.71

Building A: Q/W = 12.5% Building B: Q/W = 12.5%

T = 1.49 2431 10.14 20.28 T = 1.50 2126 10.36 20.72

T = 1.71 1682 12.19 24.38 T = 1.71 1595 11.96 23.93
T = 1.96 1211 14.37 28.74 T = 1.96 1198 13.80 27.61
T = 2.20 922 16.47 32.93 T = 2.21 927 15.69 31.38
T = 2.43 737 18.42 36.84 T = 2.43 758 17.35 34.71

Fig. 14. Force–displacement loop for NF ground motion of building A isolated Fig. 15. Force–displacement loop for FF ground motion of building A isolated
with LRB of ratio Q/W = 10% and T iso = 1.96 s. with LRB of ratio Q/W = 10% and T iso = 1.96 s.

For the purposes of the present parametric study, 90
nonlinear time-history modal analyses were performed to
investigate the previously mentioned design parameters as well
as the seismic excitation of buildings A and B as applied to the x
and y directions. Two criteria—base and superstructure drift—
are selected here for the investigation of the effectiveness of
different kinds of LRBs and supplemental damping systems, as
was also presented in previously published works of the present
author [19,20].
4. Results
4.1. Building A
In order to distinguish the difference in the displacement
of the LRB system under NF and FF x-direction earthquake
motion, the corresponding force–displacement loops as
obtained by the use of ETABS are plotted for comparison
in Figs. 14 and 15, respectively. These figures indicate that
LRB isolators present higher displacements in the case of NF
motion. On the other hand, in the same figures the bilinear
equivalent approximation of LRB hysteretic behavior is also
presented, for the case of T iso = 1.96 s and Q/W = 10%,
to prove the accuracy of the preliminary LRB design. Figs. 16
and 17 show the variations in base and superstructure drift
(relative displacement between the top and base floor) for
the different LRB (with and without supplemental dampers)
isolation systems as a function of the fundamental isolation
period T iso . Fig. 16 shows the effect of NF motion on the
isolated structure while, in contrast, Fig. 17 shows the variation
of the base and superstructure drifts in terms of FF motion
records. The introduction of a higher level of damping in the
isolation system, generally speaking, reduces the base drift for
the case of NF earthquake motion, but eventually increases the
superstructure drift for FF motion.
1196 C.P. Providakis / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1187–1198
Fig. 16. Base and superstructure drifts for building A provided with different
LRB and supplemental viscous dampers under NF ground motion.
Fig. 16 shows that there is an increase in base drift as the
period is increased. In addition, it can be seen that for NF
excitation the effectiveness of supplemental damping in terms
of controlling the base drift is improved at higher fundamental
periods. In contrast, under FF excitation, as drawn in Fig. 17,
the reduction of base drift is approximately constant in the
whole range of periods used.
Comparing the superstructure drift values produced by NF
and FF excitations, it is observed that the way those motions
excite the whole structure is different. Positive effects of the
base isolation system are presented under FF excitation. By
shifting the fundamental period of the structure, better response
is achieved. That is not very clear under near-fault excitation,
where high values of drifts are developed. Actually, there is
a range of periods from 1.5 to 2.0 s, for which the maximum
response is presented.
On the other hand, the introduction of supplemental viscous
damping alters this negative effect in near-fault sites and
makes the structure perform effectively (especially in the
range of periods between 1.5 and 2 s) by reducing those
high values of superstructure drifts. Therefore, base isolation
devices in combination with supplemental viscous damping
devices provide control in large displacement, produced in
near-fault sites, and develop better superstructures responses,
presenting the best performance in higher periods. However, the
Fig. 17. Base and superstructure drifts for building A provided with different
LRB and supplemental viscous dampers under FF ground motion.
effect of supplemental viscous damping under FF excitation,
although reducing the already reasonable base displacements,
increases superstructure responses. Actually, at high levels of
supplemental damping, some of the drifts produced in various
periods exceed the respective drifts created under NF excitation.
The ways that supplemental damping affect the structure
response, under near-fault and far-fault excitations, are also
presented in Figs. 18 and 19, respectively. The trends for the
series under NF excitation (Fig. 18) are descending, in contrast
to those under FF excitation (Fig. 19). Actually, there are
high values of response at specific ranges of supplemental
damping under FF excitations. This leads to the conclusion
that there is a specific level of supplemental damping for
each pre-selected fundamental isolation period beyond which
superstructure drifts may increase to critical values.
4.2. Building B
To further verify the above results concerning building A,
here we also investigated the effect of providing supplemental
viscous damping in the base isolation system of building
B to reduce its isolator displacement. As the superstructure
drift values provide an accepted measure of the potential
for both non-structural and structural damage in buildings,
 C.P. Providakis / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1187–1198
Fig. 18. Trend for the LRB isolation device series of building A under NF
earthquake motion.
Fig. 19. Trend for the LRB isolation device series of building A under FF
earthquake motion.
Fig. 20. Trend for the LRB isolation device series of building B under NF
earthquake motion.
we concentrate our attention on comparing the effect of
supplemental damping on the NF and FF motion excited
superstructure drifts of building B as a function of the change
1197
Fig. 21. Trend for the LRB isolation device series of building B under FF
earthquake motion.
in the fundamental isolation period. Figs. 20 and 21 show that
the behaviour of building B is quite similar to that presented
in building A. One may observe that supplemental damping
is not so beneficial for the case of FF motion which may
excite an LRB isolation system. It is proved that the trend of
superstructure drift changes in a similar fashion to that observed
in building A: for NF motion it seems to be descending, while
for FF motion it seems to be ascending.
5. Conclusions
In the present paper, different LRBs base-isolation devices
with supplemental viscous damping are examined for their
seismic performance in terms of base and superstructure
drift under near-fault and far-fault motions. Near-fault sites
produce strong ground motions with undesirable effects on
the base isolation system as well as on the response of
the superstructure. In order to mitigate these effects, the
implementation of supplemental viscous damping on the
existing base isolation systems represents an effective design
strategy, under those motions.
However, the introduction of additional damping forces
makes the structure response ineffective, under moderate
or strong ground motions, coming from far-fault sites. If
a high level of damping is required at large displacement
occurring in near-fault locations, the level of damping at
smaller displacements becomes extremely high. Therefore,
the isolation system will not be effective if the building
experiences a moderate earthquake. Ironically, the isolation
dampers, themselves, although controlling displacements,
make buildings more rigid for a strong far-fault ground motion
and, by driving energy into higher modes, may defeat the
primary reason for using isolation, namely the reduction of
the superstructure drift. More specifically, the provision of
supplemental isolation viscous damping to LRB isolators
increases the superstructure drifts in buildings subjected to far-
fault earthquake ground motions. It is important to note here
that these high values of drifts occurring at higher levels of
supplemental damping are greater than those produced in near-
fault ground motions. This implies that, beyond some levels
1198 C.P. Providakis / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1187–1198
of supplemental damping, the isolated buildings still remain
vulnerable to damage if drifts are not controlled carefully.
More extensive and detailed analyses are needed to
verify the findings reported. The extension of this study to
different structural and base-isolation systems under near-fault
and far-fault excitations should be preformed. Furthermore,
the evaluation of a structure’s response in terms of floor
accelerations could also lead to important results.
References
[1] Skinner RI, Robinson WH, McVerry GH. An introduction to seismic
isolation. London: John Wiley and Sons; 1993.
[2] Kelly JM. Earthquake-resistant design with rubber. 2nd ed. London:
Springer-Verlag; 1997.
[3] Naeim F, Kelly JM. Design of seismic isolated structures; from theory to
practice. Chichester (UK): Wiley; 1999.
[4] Su L, Ahmadi G, Tadjbakhsh JG. A comparative study of performances of
various base isolation systems, part I: Shear beam structures. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1989;18:11–32.
[5] Su L, Ahmadi G, Tadjbakhsh JG. A comparative study of performances
of various base isolation systems, part II: Sensitivity analysis. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1990;19:21–33.
[6] Makris N, Chang S. Effects of damping mechanisms on the response
of seismically isolated structures. PEER report 1998/06. Berkeley (CA):
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering,
University of California; 1998.
[7] Jangid RS, Kelly JM. Base isolation for near-fault motions. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2001;30:691–707.
[8] Rodriguez-Marek A. Near fault seismic site response. Ph.D. thesis.
Berkeley: Civil Engineering, University of California; 2000. p. 451.
[9] Makris N, Black CJ. Dimensional analysis of bilinear oscillators under
pulse-type excitations. ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics 2004;
130(9):1019–31.
[10] Macrae GA, Morrow DV, Roeder CW. Near-fault ground motion effects
on simple structures. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 2001;
127(9):996–1004.
[11] Chopra AK, Chintanapakdee C. Comparing response of SDF systems
to near-fault and far-fault earthquake motions in the context of spectral
regions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2001;30:
1769–89.
[12] Kelly JM. Role of damping in seismic isolation. Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 1999;28(1):3–20.
[13] HITEC (Highway Innovation Technology Evaluation Center). Evaluation
Findings for R.J. Watson Inc. Sliding Isolation Bearings. Reston (VA):
Technical evaluation report, ASCE, 1998.
[14] Uniform Building Code. International Conference of Building Officials.
Whittier, CA. 1997.
[15] Makris N. Rigidity–plasticity–viscosity: Can electro-rheological dampers
protect base isolated structures from near-source ground motions.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1997;26:571–91.
[16] ETABS, Computers and Structures Inc. Berkeley, CA. 2003.
[17] Jangid RS. Base isolation for near-fault motions. Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 2002;30:692–707.
[18] Malhotra PK. Response of buildings to near-field pulse like ground
motions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1999;28:
1309–26.
[19] Providakis CP, Xirogiannis J, Stavroulaki M. Comparative studies on
performance on base isolation devices for near fault ground motions.
In: Kounadis A, Providakis C, Exadaktylos G, editors. Proceedings of 7th
HSTAM international conference on mechanics. 2004. p. 281–7.
[20] Providakis C, Yeroyianni M. Earthquake strong ground motion evaluation:
Application for earthquake disaster mitigation. In: Proceedings of 1st joint
EU-Japan workshop on seismic risek. EU Directorate General XII, EU
Library. 1998.