ENGINEERING COLLEGE BIKANER

MINI PROJECT REPORT

BUILDINGS WITH BASE ISOLATION TECHNIQUES
ROLL NO.:- 16EEBCE020

STUDENT NAME :- HIMANSHU BISHNOI

SEE PROFILE

PROJECT REPORT

BUILDINGS WITH BASE ISOLATION TECHNIQUES

HIMANSHU BISHNOI

Roll No. 16EEBCE020

Civil Engineering Department, Engineering College Bikaner , Rajasthan, INDIA

ABSTRACT
The base isolation (BI) system for buildings is designed to isolate the
building structure from potentially destructive seismic motion by preventing
the superstructures from absorbing the energy. The base isolator's
mechanism lengthens the overall structure's natural period and reduces its
acceleration response to earthquakes and seismic motion. Throughout this
research, a steel building with structural rubber bearings is used. The
purpose of this study was to see if the foundation isolation was adequate
against building lateral and inter-story drift, as allowed by the National
Building Code of Canada in 2010. The nonlinear time history response
analysis utilising the dynamic MODAL analysis was performed on two
buildings: a fixed base (FB) building and an isolated base (IB) building with
rubber bearing. The analysis is a case study for a symmetric steel structure,
with the goal of demonstrating the ultimate capacity of the chosen structural
bearing and comparing the differences between isolated base and fixed base
buildings. The inclusion of the structural rubber bearing decreases the
vertical displacement, moment, and shear generated for the same mode,
according to preliminary data.
Keywords: earthquake, dynamics, time history response, building, base isolation, rubber bearing, earthquake,
dynamics

INTRODUCTION
The mechanism of base isolation (BI) offers earthquake resilience to the new
construction. The BI system decouples the building from earthquake-
induced horizontal ground motion and provides highly stiff vertical
components to the superstructure's base level in relation to the substructure
(foundation). It lowers the amount of lateral forces imparted to the inter-
story drift and the floor acceleration by shifting the fundamental lateral
period, Ta, dissipating the energy in damping, and shifting the fundamental
lateral period, Ta. In 1986, the Structural Engineers Association of Northern
California (SEONC) issued a simple regulation titled "Tentative Isolation
Design Requirements," which was later incorporated into the Uniform
Building Code 1997, FEMA 273 (except for permit to pushover), and the
International Building Code IBC2000.
Vertical and horizontal loads, lateral motion, and lateral rotation transferred
from the superstructure into the bearing and from the bearing to the
superstructure are among the structural bearing criteria.

the substructure Bearings enable the structure to be supported stress-free in

terms of (1) rotation in all directions, (2) deformation in all directions, and
(3) horizontal forces (wind, earthquake). Designers are concerned with
reducing the influence of horizontal forces caused by wind pressure or
seismic stress. The structural bearing technique is one of the strategies for
reducing the building's lateral displacement, increasing structural safety, and
improving human comfort during such an event. Because there have been
few studies in this field, this study aims to elucidate the benefits of the base
isolation approach in relation to structures. Figure 1 is a schematic diagram
of the design process for earthquake-resistant structures, as outlined in Part 4
of the National Building Code of Canada. Buildings and their structural
members must be designed using one of the following methods: I analysis
based on generally accepted theory, (ii) evaluation of a given full-scale
structure or prototype by loading tester, or (iii) studies of model analogues,
according to Clause 4.1.1.4 of the NBCC 2010. The chosen building height
for this model analogue research will be less than 60 m for standard form
buildings.
It was discovered that more attention should be paid to four factors for
earthquake resistant building utilising base isolation [Raufaste, 1992]: 1.
guidelines for the evaluation and approval of base isolation structures; 2.
guidelines for the performance of base isolation devices; 3. facilities to
encourage the exchange, collection, and dissemination of technical
information on the response-control structure; and 4. research into methods
for evaluating response-control structure performance. Sener and Utku's
investigation of active-passive base-isolation systems for structural seismic
response management found to be successful for small to medium-sized
earthquakes. Hybrid base isolation systems, which include an active and
passive system, may be used to regulate the reaction of structures subjected
to increased ground movements caused by earthquakes of greater size. It is
proposed to use a hybrid base isolation system that combines passive base
isolation pads with hydraulic type actuators. The system is used to reduce
the stresses imposed on the superstructure by earthquake-induced ground
motion [Sener and Utku, 1995, 1996, 1998; Pozo et al., 2005]. It is installed
between the building's foundation and its superstructure. Historical
structures have a low height, are generally large, and have a short natural
vibration period, making them ideal candidates for the base-isolation system.
As a result, if these structures are in a seismically active area, employing
base isolation devices will be a highly effective approach to improve their
dynamic response. The displacements at the base isolation level might be
rather large in some situations, exceeding the permitted limitations. Dampers
should be added to the base isolation system in such circumstances
[Iskhakov and Ribakov, 2007]. Matsagar and Jangid investigate the
analytical seismic responses of structures retrofitted with base isolation
devices for the retrofitting of various important structures such as historical
buildings, bridges, and liquid storage tanks to investigate the effectiveness of
base isolation in seismic retrofitting. The seismic response of the retrofitted
structures is shown to be substantially lower than that of the conventional
structures, demonstrating the efficacy of the base isolation approach
[Matsagar and Jangid 2008]. Chia-Ming and Spencer [Chia-Ming and
Spencer, 2010] presented the design and experimental verification of an
active base isolation system for a seismically stimulated building, as well as
modelling the complex nature of control-structure interaction (CSI). Jung et
al. studied the use of magnetorheological (MR) elastomers in a smart base-
isolation system.

a novel family of smart materials that may alter their elastic modulus or
stiffness based on the amount of the applied magnetic field The findings also
point to the possibility of utilising MR elastomers as variable stiffness
components to improve the performance of standard base-isolation systems
[Jung et al. 2011]. Zhang et al. investigated the impact of a coupling
earthquake on a 6-story building's sliding base-isolation construction. The
results demonstrate that under the influence of a coupling earthquake, the
peak values of relative acceleration, relative displacement, and inter-storey
shear force of a sliding base-isolation structure increase to varying degrees
[Zhang et al., 2011]. Zhao and Ma investigated the total restoring force
model of the isolation device in relation to slide-limited friction base
isolation technologyThey looked at how friction coefficient, elastic stiffness,
and yield displacement of the displacement-constraint device affected the
base isolation system [Zhao and Ma 2011]. Spyrakos et al. [Spyrakos et al.
2009] investigated and developed a 2-DOF (degree-of-freedom) model for
the effect of soil-structure interaction (SSI) on the response of a base isolated
multistory building built on an elastic soil layer overlaid on rigid bedrock
and subjected to harmonic ground motion. Li and Wu looked at the height-
to-width ratio (HWR) limit for base-isolated buildings using elastomeric
 rubber bearings. The isolated building with a longer period may have a
higher HWR value, and the stiffness of the superstructure has minimal effect
on the HWR limit value [Li and Wu 2006]. The isolated layer's outermost
rubber pads cannot withstand tensile force, and the compressive force they
must bear can't be more than their anti-pressure capability. These are the two
most important criteria for determining the HWR limit for an isolated
structure. .
The major goals of this research are to: (1) contribute to the efficient
design of structural base isolated approaches for buildings,(2) Use base
isolation to model and evaluate the behaviour of a structure.

DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDING

Figure 2 shows a two-story steel structure [SAP2000 Help, Example

O], with three bays of 30 feet in each direction and a storey height of 12 feet,
as illustrated in Figure 2.
The structural steel has the following specifications: E = 29000 ksi (A992Fy50)
modulus of elasticity, Poisson ratio of 0.3, W24x55 beam section, W14x90
column section. For the ceiling and floor, the horizontal slabs are reinforced
concrete with a 4000 psi strength and a thickness of 6 in and 10 in,
respectively. The dead load (DL) for the roof is 75 psf, and the living load (LL)
is 20 psf, while the floor is 125 psf for DL and 100 psf for LL.

Table 1. Bearings with high damping properties

Stiffness in the vertical (axial) plane 10,000 k/in

(linear)
Shear stiffness in each direction at the start 10 K/in
In both directions, shear yield force 5 kips
Post-yield shear stiffness as a percentage of original 0.2
shear stiffness
To make entire diaphragm stiff, diaphragm restrictions are applied at each
level. This project underwent nonlinear time history analysis, in which
SAP2000 applied seismic load (Multi-Modal Pushover) to lacc nor-1 file
data in the X-direction and lacc nor-2 file data in the Y-direction at the same
time. Each time history is presented in cm/sec2 units, with 3000 possible
combinations.
For a total of 60 seconds, time increments are spaced at 0.02 second
intervals. Each line has eight acceleration spots. This structure is examined
in two scenarios: case 1 with a fixed base and case 2 with an isolated base.
Table 1 lists the specifications for the rubber isolator.

BASE BUILDING IN AN ISOLATED ENVIRONMENT

When compared to conventional foundations, base isolation extends

the fundamental lateral period, reducing base shear pressures and increasing
total building drift to total height and inter-story drift [Chopra, 2001;
Tedesco et al., 1998; Eggert and Kauschke, 2002]. Figure 3.a depicts the
time response history for column B.1 with its three joints; Joint 13-15, the
figure shows that the column moves laterally at the same rate from the base
to the roof level, thus no deflection occurs at joint 14. Figure 3.b depicts the
B.1 column movement with respect to the base, and shows that the column
moves in the same direction with the base to a large extent. It's worth noting
that shifting the basic period alters the moment and, as a result, the shape of
the building's deformation. It was discovered that when the natural period
decreases, the structure deforms more laterally. During the fourth and fifth
periods, the plastic hinge appeared.

BUILDING WITH A FIXED BASE

When compared to base-isolated foundations, the fixed base for the

steel columns relies on the steel plate and anchored bolts connection, where
a reduction in the fundamental lateral period led in an increase in the base
shear pressures, total building drift to total height, and inter-story drift.
Figure 4.a illustrates the time response history for column B.1 with its three
joints; joint 13-15 indicates that the column travels laterally at an
independent rate from the base to the roof level, causing deflection at joint
14.
4.b shows how the B.1 column moves in relation to the base, with Joint 13 moving the base and
Joints 14, and 15 moving independently. It's worth noting that changing the basic period affects
the moment values, which in turn alters the deformation forms of the building. It was discovered
that when the period decreases, the structure deforms more laterally, at a faster pace than the base
isolated building. The placement of the plastic hinge emerged in the first mode and changed when
the MODAL period changed. It can be found at any point along the member's span, as well as at
the end.

EVALUATION RESULTS COMPARISON

(a)SAP2000 Ver. 14.1, a finite element analysis (FEA) programme, was

used to solve the basic lateral period. The fundamental period (T) and
associated frequency (=1/T) for the Modal participating mass ratio (MPMR)
solved for Ritz Vector Analysis for the steel building under examination in
this work, which includes two scenarios: fixed basis and isolated base, are
shown in Table 2. For Modal 1 through 5, it was discovered that the isolated
base's natural period is 5.699, 6.337, 6.895, 1.64, and 1.766 times that of the
fixed base. [Taranath, 2005] The first three modes were substantially higher,
absorbing more than 95 percent of the earthquake-induced load. The natural
vibration modes for the isolated base and fixed base buildings versus lateral
displacement are shown in Figure 5.
 Designers are concerned with the moment and shear forces created by
each mode in order to forecast failure modes, gradual collapse of the
building, or to install extra bracing to counteract such lateral loading.

Table 2For permanent and isolated base buildings, the modal

participating mass ratio (MPMR) was calculated.

Mod Period, T [seconds] Frequency, ƒ [Hz]

al Fixed Isolated Fixed Isolated
Mod Base Base Base Base
e
1 0.49310 2.81065 2.0279 0.35578
2 0.35973 2.79750 2.7799 0.35746
3 0.35117 2.42137 2.8476 0.41298
4 0.19916 0.32664 5.0211 3.06147
5 0.14006 0.24728 7.1397 4.04399
Where ƒ ≥ 1 Hz implies rigid building, ƒ < 1 Hz implies flexible
building

Table 3 shows the moment (M) and shear (V) values for column B.1 and its
three joints for five distinct MODAL periods (modes) for minor (V3, M2)
and major (V3, M3) joints (V2, M3). The moment for the fixed base
building is greater than the isolated base building by 51.38, 20455, 0.31,
2.34, and 2.23 for modes 1 through 5 for the minor (M2), and 70, 106, 66,
13.7, and 2.289 for modes 1 through 5 for the major (M2) (M3After taking
into account the increased mass of the structure, the base isolation improves
the building's ability to resist earthquake-induced loads, and the reduction in
moment may be used to reduce the size of the selected members, lowering
the overall construction weight and cost.

Designers are also interested in drift, which must adhere to code standards. Table 4
illustrates the deflections in the x, y, and z directions for the edge column B.1 for the
fixed base and isolated base buildings under the various 5 MODAL (periods). The main
takeaway from this table is that the deflection for the base isolated building does not
begin at zero, which decreases the building's drift index substantially. When looking at
the drift index (DI) for MODAL mode 1, for example, the isolated base DI = (0.46999”
– 0.4518”)/288” = 0.063159E-3 in, but the fixed base building DI = (0.7459” – 0”)/288”
= 2.589E-3 in, suggesting that the isolated base deflection is 40.99 times less than the
fixed base building. The building efficiency is determined by four factors: shear rigidity
index (SRI), bending rigidity index (BRI), drift index (DI), and inter-story drift (ISD)
[Taranath, 2005], the last two of which may be stated as follows:

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9],

Where n is the floor deflection, Hi is the building's overall height, and hi is the floor
height.

The joint responses in Table 5 were generated by applying a modal

combination to each joint independently. The joint responses are denoted by
Ri,m, where I denotes the direction and (m) denotes the mode. This equation
describes the entire reaction.
 [3] √∑

For example, the joint reaction for an isolated base building in the X-
direction is SQRT (0.6842+0.7482+0.8672) = 1.33 kips, but it is SQRT
(3.134E-22+37.0542+34.0762+8.258E-32+66.9032) = 83.727 kips for a
fixed base building. In the X-direction, the joint reaction in the fixed base
building for column B.1 seems to be 62.95 times that of the base isolated
building. After computing the base reactions for each mode, the modes are
combined using the complete quadratic combination (CQC) or square root of
sum of squares (SRSS) modal combination rule:

[4] ∑

[5] √∑

Where all joint reactions from all columns must be calculated for the basic reaction
[CSI, 2012].

Once the equivalent mass and stiffness are determined, a simplified

analysis modelling the dynamic response of a multi-story structure may be
done by converting the multi-degree of freedom (MDOF) system to a single-
degree of freedom (SDOF) system [Taranath, 2005].

CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions may be derived based on the theoretical and modelling
findings:
 The main finding of the modelling study on the accuracy of seismic effect
and lateral load patterns used in the Multi-Modal Pushover analysis (MPA)
in predicting earthquake effect was that the accuracy of the pushover results
is highly dependent on the earthquake load path, structure properties, and
ground motion characteristics.
 Once the equivalent mass and stiffness are calculated, the lateral
 deflection for MDOF for multi-story buildings may be expressed as
SDOF.
 The placement of the plastic hinge varies depending on the kind of
loading and the change in MODAL period. It can be found at any
point along the member's span, as well as at the end.
 Inter-story and drift index For the lateral load pattern, which in most
instances corresponds to the average, the multi-modal (SRSS) and the
elastic first mode with long period should be used to forecast drift.
 Base-isolated structures have less lateral deflection and lower moment
values than fixed base structures because the lateral displacement at
the base is never zero.
 The base isolation separates the building from the earthquake-induced
stress and allows for a longer fundamental lateral period than a fixed
foundation.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I'd like to express my gratitude to Mr. Prashant Bhakar for his

guidance during this project. I also appreciate the library's help and making
the database available for the literature study, as well as the civil engineering
department's provision of SAP2000 (Ver. 14) to conduct the modal analysis.

REFERENCES

C. Chia-Ming and B. F. Spencer Jr. (2010). Sensors and Smart Structures

Technologies for Civil, Mechanical, and Aerospace Systems, 8-11
March, USA, p. 76473V. (12 pp.).
A.R. Chopra, A.R. Chopra, A.R. Chopra (2001). “Structural dynamics.”
CSI. (accessed March 2012) Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, USA.
https://wiki.csiberkeley.com/display/kb/Base+reactions+for+response
+spectrum+analysis/Base+reactions+for+response+spectrum+analysis
.
H. Eggert and W. Kauschke, “Structural Bearings,” Ernst & Sohn, Germany,
2002.
FEMA is the Federal Emergency Management Agency (1997). “FEMA 273:
NEHRP Guidelines for Building Seismic Rehabilitation.” California's
Federal Emergency Management Agency
H.-J. Jung, E. Seung-Hyun, J. Dong-Doo, K. Jeong-Hoi (2011). "Analysis of
the seismic performance of a smart base-isolation system using MR
elastomers." pages. 1439-1450, 55 City Road, London, EC1Y 1SP,
United Kingdom.
The International Code Council (ICC) is a non-profit organisation that
(2000). The IBC stands for the International Building Code. Country
Club Hills, IL, USA: ICC Inc.
The International Conference of Building Officials is an annual gathering of
building officials from across the world (1997). The UBC stands for
“Uniform Building Code.” Whittier, California, USA: ICBO.
Iskhakov, I., and Ribakov, Y., Iskhakov, I., and Ribakov, Y., Iskha (2007).
"Modern developments in base isolation applications for seismic
protection of historic structures," in STREMAH 2007, the 10th
International Conference on Studies, Repairs, and Maintenance of
Heritage Architecture, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 623-632.
H.-N. Li and X.-X. Wu (2006). “Limitation of the height-to-width ration for
earthquake-isolated buildings.” 277-287 in Structural Design of Tall
Special Buildings, vol. 15.
V. A. Matsagar and R. S. Jangid (2008). "Seismic retrofitting of buildings
with base isolation." Vol. 13, pages. 175-185, Practice Periodical on
Structural Design and Construction.
Canada's National Research Council (2010). “Canadian National Building
Code.” The National Research Council of Canada (NRCC) is based in
Ottawa, Canada.
“Adaptive backstepping control of hysteretic based- separated structures,”
Pozo, F., Ikhouane, F., and Pujol, G. (2006). 373-394 in Journal of
Vibration and Control, Vol. 12, No. 4.
Raufast, New Jersey (1992). “Earthquake-resistant structure with isolation at
the base.” Technology Administration, National Institute of Standards
and Technology, United States of America.
M. Sener and S. Utku (1995). In Proceedings of the 36th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and
Materials Conference and AIAA/ASME Adaptive Structures Forum,
Part 1 (of 5), April 10- 13, New Orleans, LA, USA, pp. 2350-2359.
 Table 4. Joint displacement in column B.1

Modal Joint Fixed Base Isolated Base

Mode [Height] U1 U2 U3 U1 U2 U3
15 [288] -9.2E-14 -0.7459 -0.0032 -2.2E-11 -0.4699 -0.0001
1 14 [144] -5.4E-14 -0.4597 -0.0025 -2.2E-11 -0.4642 -0.0001
13 [0.00] 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.2E-11 -0.4518 -4.8E-5

15 [288] 0.8412 -0.2804 -0.0026 -0.4659 1.9E-11 2.3E-5

2 14 [144] 0.4806 -0.1602 0.0021 -0.4625 1.8E-11 2.1E-5
13 [0.00] 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.456 1.8E-11 1.1E-5

15 [288] 0.7684 1.6E-13 -0.0013 -0.5141 0.1714 6.7E-5

3 14 [144] 0.4362 9.0E-14 -0.001 -0.5088 0.1696 6.0E-5
13 [0.00] 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.4987 0.1662 2.9E-5

15 [288] 1.19E-14 0.5858 0.0073 -3.3E-14 -0.6543 -0.0086

4 14 [144] -1.03E-14 0.5853 0.0043 -1.8E-15 -0.1044 -0.0073
13 [0.00] 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.6E-14 0.5306 -0.0031

15 [288] 0.6114 -0.2038 -0.0062 -0.727 0.2423 0.0066

5 14 [144] -0.6612 0.2204 -0.0034 -0.1064 0.0355 0.0056
13 [0.00] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0025 -0.1926 0.5778

Where U1, U2, U3 are displacement in x, y, z directions respectively in [in]; Height in [in]

Table 5. Joint reactions for column B.1 at the base (Joint 13)

Joint reaction [kip]

Structure Type Type
1 2 3
Modal1 0.000 0.678 0.480
Modal 2 0.684 0.000 -0.108
Modal 3 0.748 -0.249 -0.291
Isolated Base
Modal 4 0.000 -0.796 31.454
Modal 5 -0.867 0.289 -24.722
Gravity 0.000 0.000 361.487
Modal 1 -3.134E-2 16.522 13.514
Modal 2 37.054 5.849 10.948
Modal 3 -34.076 2.291E-2 5.603
Fixed Base
Modal 4 8.258E-3 25.378 -22.900
Modal 5 66.903 -9.451 18.251
Gravity 0.179 0.404 360.799
Directions 1, 2, 3 represent X, Y, Z axis respectively; Gravity load equals to dead and live load
Figure 1. Design procedure for Base Isolation buildings according to NBCC 2005

Joint 15

Joint 13
View publication stats