Comparative Study of Base Isolation Systems

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/245284951
Comparative Study of Base Isolation Systems
Article in Journal of Engineering Mechanics · September 1989

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1989)115:9(1976)
CITATIONS READS
125 1,127
3 authors, including:
Lin Su Goodarz Ahmadi

University of Shanghai for Science and Technology Clarkson University
54 PUBLICATIONS 719 CITATIONS 1,037 PUBLICATIONS 20,531 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Intermolecular interactions and its effect within Cr 3+ -containing atmospheric particulate matter using molecular dynamics simulations View project
Inhalation Project - fluid and particle dynamics through the nasal cavity. View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Lin Su on 13 February 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

COMPARATIVE STUDY O F B A S E
ISOLATION SYSTEMS
By Lin Su, 1 Goodarz Ahmadi, 2 and Iradj G. Tadjbakhsh 3
ABSTRACT: A comparative study of effectiveness of various base isolators is car-

ried out. These include the laminated rubber bearing with and without lead plug
and several frictional base isolation systems. The structure is modeled as a rigid
mass and the accelerograms of the NOOW component of the El Centro 1940 earth-
quake and the N90W component of the Mexico City 1985 earthquake are used.
The performances of different base isolation devices under a variety of conditions
are evaluated and compared. Combining the desirable features of various systems,
a new design for a friction base isolator is also developed and its performance is
studied. It is shown that, under design conditions, all base isolators can signifi-
cantly reduce the acceleration transmitted to the superstructure.
INTRODUCTION
Use of base isolation devices in the foundation of critical structures as a

mean of aseismic design has attracted considerable attention in the recent
years. A variety of designs for base isolation ranging from rubber bearings,
roller bearings and frictional types have been developed. Excellent reviews
on the earlier and recent literature on the subject were provided by Kelly
(1982, 1986). Although, a large number of studies on the performances of
different devices have been reported, a complete understanding of the ad-
vantages and disadvantages of various systems is lacking. It is highly de-
sirable that a consensus is reached on the merits and the limitations of var-
ious proposed systems. At present there exists several leading base isolation
systems that have been implemented in the construction of medium to large
size structures. All of these systems have certain features in common, the
most important of which are the horizontal flexibility and energy dissipative
capacity.
Many articles have appeared that describe various base isolation systems
and their expected responses. But scarcely few comparative studies have
been made that would evaluate their performances side by side for a given
structure and a given ground input. A particular difficulty here is the absence
of an agreed upon definition of performance criteria. In fact there is not one
single performance criterion but several, and some of these are at cross pur-
poses to each other. Hadjian and Tseng (1986) have noted eleven desired
performance criteria related to the safety and reliability of the base-isolated
structures. A generally well understood criterion is the acceleration trans-
missibility of the isolator. Another desirable feature is the limited relative
displacement. Yet one of these goals can be achieved at the expense of the
other. Among other criteria one should mention the relative rigidity of the
'Res. Asst., Dept. of Mech. and Industrial Engrg., Clarkson Univ., Potsdam, NY
13676.
Prof., Dept. of Mech. and Industrial Engrg., Clarkson Univ., Potsdam, NY.
3
Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., Troy, NY 12181.
Note. Discussion open until February 1, 1990. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on July
5, 1988. This paper is part of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 115,
No. 9, September, 1989. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9399/89/0009-1976/$1.00 + $.15
per page. Paper No. 23857.
1976
Downloaded 02 Nov 2010 to 128.153.98.207. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit
structure in the presence of minor tremors or strong gusts of wind.
In this work, a comparative study of various base isolation systems is
carried out. Several leading base isolation devices for the horizontal earth-
quake excitations are considered. In order to concentrate on the effects of
variations in the properties of the base isolators, the structure is modeled as
a rigid block. Although this is a limitation of present study, it is not a serious
shortcoming. It is well known that a structure with a properly designed base
isolation system behaves essentially as a rigid body (Kelly 1982, 1986). Two
major earthquake excitations, namely, the accelerograms of the El Centro
1940 and the Mexico City 1985 earthquakes are used in the analysis. A
parametric study of the performances of various base isolators is carried out.
The maximum relative displacement of the structure and its peak absolute
acceleration for a range of values of natural period and friction coefficient
are obtained. The effectiveness of different isolators under various conditions
are assessed and discussed. The results show that properly designed base
isolation systems are quite effective in reducing the acceleration transmitted
to the superstructure. Furthermore, the frictional base isolation systems are
less sensitive to unexpected variations in the frequency content of the ground
motion.
By integrating the desired features of certain lead base isolation systems,
a modified design for a friction-type base isolator is developed. The new
base isolator appears to perform remarkably well under a variety of severe
loading conditions.
FORMULATION
Simplified mathematical models for different leading isolation systems are

briefly described in this section.
Pure-Friction Base Isolator
Pure-friction (P-F) base isolation systems have been proposed in which
the isolation mechanism is sliding friction. A schematic diagram of a pure-
friction isolator is shown in Fig. 1(a). These isolators are the simplest base
isolation systems of all and there has been a large body of theoretical work
on their performances (Ahmadi 1983; Ahmadi and Mostaghel 1984; Chen
and Clough 1981; Constantinou and Tadjbakhsh 1984; Kelly and Beucke
1983; Mostaghel and Tanbakuchi 1983; Su et al. 1988; Younnis and
Tadjbakhsh 1984). Recently, Li (1987) described the use of a layer of sand
as a simple pure-friction isolation system in the foundation of a four-story
building in Beijing.
When a rigid structure with a pure Coulomb friction base isolator is sub-
jected to horizontal earthquake excitation, assuming that the structure is al-
ways in contact with its foundation, the equation of motion in terms of the
slip displacement x is given as
x + u,g sgn (x) = -tig (1)
Here, tig = the horizontal ground acceleration, (x = the friction coefficient,
and g = the acceleration of gravity. Eq. 1 describes the behavior of the
system in the sliding phase. Whenever the structure sticks to its foundation,
the non-sliding condition
x= 0 (2)
1977
(a) P-F System (b) LRB System
i J}
V~
(c) R-FBI System (d) EDF System
7^
/
-vW- M
-3}-
(e) NZ System (f) SR-F System
FIG. 1. Schematic Diagrams of Base-Isolation Systems
holds as long as
W3 - \Ug\ > 0 . . . (3)
As soon as the stick condition given by Eq. 3 fails, slip will occur and Eq.
1 applies. Note that during the sliding phase, whenever x becomes zero, the
stick condition has to be checked in order to determine if the structure re-
mains in sliding phase or sticks to its foundation.
Laminated Rubber Bearing

Laminated rubber bearing (LRB) base isolators have been extensively tested
at the University of California (Kelly 1982, 1986). The system has also been
implemented for the four story Law and Justice Building of the San Ber-
nardino County. The main isolator of the system consists of alternating lay-
ers of rubber and steel with the rubber being vulcanized to the steel plates.
This system and the MRPRA system are closely akin and their dominant
features consist of the parallel actions of springs and dashpots as shown
1978
schematically in Fig. 1(b). This schematic diagram also represents the GERB
isolation system which is composed of helical springs and viscodampers
(Huffmann 1985).
When a rigid structure with a rubber bearing or a viscodamper is excited
by an earthquake ground acceleration ug, the equation of motion in terms of
trie horizontal relative displacement x is given as
x + 2£a>„i + wjx = —Ug (4)
Here, £ = the effective damping coefficient and co„ = the natural frequency
of the isolator.
R-FBI System
A recently developed base isolation system is the resilient-friction base
isolator (R-FBI) proposed by Mostaghel et al. (1984, 1986, 1987). This iso-
lator consists of concentric.layers of plates that are in friction contact with
each other and contains a central core of rubber. The system provides base
isolation through the parallel action of friction, damping and restoring springs.
A similar mechanism was used in Alexisismon base isolator developed by
Ikonomou (1984). These designs essentially use rubber bearings and pure-
friction isolators which work in parallel. Fig. 1(c) shows a schematic dia-
gram of a rigid structure with a resilient-friction base isolator.
When subjected to earthquake excitation, the equation of motion in terms
of the horizontal relative displacement x is given as
x + 2£o)0;c + u>lx + jj^g sgn (x) = — iig (5)
Here, £ = the damping coefficient, a>0 = the natural frequency of the system,
(jij = the friction coefficient, and g = the acceleration of gravity. Eq. 5
describes the motion of the system in the sliding phase. Initially when the
structure starts from rest or whenever the structure is sticking to its foun-
dation through the friction force, the non-sliding condition given by Eq. 2
holds as long as
(jig - |«g + co^l > 0 (6)
Failure of the non-sliding condition as given by Eq. 6, indicates the occur-
rence of slip and the motion then is governed by Eq. 5. During the sliding
phase whenever the relative velocity becomes zero, the non-sliding condition
given by Eq. 6 must be checked. That determines if the structure remains
in the sliding phase or sticks to its foundation.
EDF Base Isolator

An important friction-type base isolation system was the system developed
under the auspices of Electricite de France (EDF) (Gueraud et al. 1985).
This system is standardized for nuclear power plants in regions of high seis-
micity and is constructed by the French Company Framatome. Typically the
power plant is built atop a vast monolithic concrete raft that covers several
thousands of square meters. This raft is supported by hundreds of base iso-
lators that are in turn supported by a foundation raft built directly on the
ground. The main isolator of the EDF system consists of a laminated (steel-
reinforced) neoprene pad topped by a lead-bronze plate which is in frictional
contact with a steel plate anchored to the structure. The friction surfaces are
1979
designed to have a coefficient of friction of a. = 0.2 during the service life
of the base isolation system. The EDF isolator which essentially uses an
elastomeric bearing and friction plate in series is schematically shown in Fig.
1(d).
An attractive feature of the EDF system is that it guarantees a maximum
acceleration transmissibility of JULQ. Thus the power plant and its contents
can be designed on that basis. For lower amplitude ground accelerations the
lateral flexibility provide base isolation.
For the EDF system, the equations of motion in the sliding phase are given
as
x + u,g sgn (x) = -ug - y, (7)
2tm0y + w^y = |xg sgn (i) (8)
During the non-sliding phase, the EDF isolator behaves as a laminated rub-
ber bearing and its motion is governed by
y + 2{,i»0y + <oly = ~ug, (9)
x=0 (10)
Here, x = the slip displacement and y = the relative displacement of the
neoprene pad. Whenever the structure sticks to the isolator, Eqs. 9 and 10
govern the motion as long as the non-sliding condition
ixg - |«g + y| > 0 (11)
holds. As soon as this condition fails, slip occurs and Eqs. 7 and 8 apply.
In a sliding phase whenever x becomes zero, the non-sliding condition given
by Eq. 11 is checked in order to determine whether the structure remains
sliding or stick condition prevails.
NZ System
Another base isolation system which found wide application in New Zea-
land as well as Japan, Iceland, Italy and the United States is the lead-rubber
(or NZ) base isolator (Buckle 1985). The isolator is composed of a laminated
elastomeric bearing with a lead core. The function of the lead plug is pri-
marily to dissipate energy while the lateral flexibility is provided by the
laminated rubber bearing. The system behaves essentially as hysteretic dam-
per (H-D) devices (Contantinou and Tadjbakhsh 1985; Kelly and Hodder
1982; Robinson and Tucker 1977). The NZ and other hysteretic base iso-
lators may be modeled by hysteretic spring-damper. Fig. 1(e) displays a
schematic diagram of these isolators.
Contaninou and Tadjbakhsh (1985) proposed to use the model developed
by Wen (1980) for describing the behavior of these hysteretic base isolators.
Accordingly, the expression for hysteretic restoring force, Q, in a hysteretic
damper is given as
Q(x,x) = a — x + (1 - a)FyZ (12)
Here, Z = a dimensionless hysteretic component satisfying the following

nonlinear first order differential equation:
1980
YZ = —/|x|Z|Zp _1 - pilZJ11 + Ax, (13)
where Y and Fy = the yield displacement and force of the hysteretic damper,
respectively, and (3, 7 and A = dimensionless parameters. Parameter T| is
an integer which controls the smoothness of the transition from elastic to
plastic response and a is the post to preyielding stiffness ratio. The values
ofFy = 46 kN, Y = 7.7 mm, a = 0.157, (3 = - 0 . 5 4 , 7 = 1.4 A = 1, and
T| = 1 were suggested by Contaninou and Tadjbakhsh (1985) so that the
predicted response from the model fits the experimental results for certain
lead-core laminated rubber bearings.
The equation of motion of the rigid structure with a hysteretic isolator in
terms of the horizontal relative displacement x is given as
N F
x + 2£co0x + oi02x H ( y
la — x + (I — a)FyZ \I = — ug, (14)
where the hysteretic restoring force Z is determined by Eq. 13. Here, ug =

the horizontal ground acceleration, £ = the (viscous) damping coefficient,
u>„ = the preyielding natural frequency of the system, M = the mass of the
structure and N = the number of the hysteretic dampers used. In the sub-
sequent analysis, four NZ isolators per one thousand tons of mass of the
structure are considered.
SR-F Base Isolator

Combining the desirable features of the EDF base isolator and the R-FBI
system, a new design for base isolation system may be considered. It is
proposed to replace the elastomeric bearings of the EDF base isolator by R-
FBI units. That is, the upper surface of the R-FBI system in the modified
design is replaced by a friction plate. As a result the structure can slide on
its foundation similar to the EDF system. The behavior of the proposed de-
sign which may be called sliding resilient-friction (SR-F) base isolation sys-
tem is schematically shown in Fig. 1(f).
Due to the presence of two different friction coefficients, the equations of
motion become somewhat more involved. In fully sliding phase, the equa-
tions of motion are given as
x + (xg sgn (i) = -ug - y, (15)
2t,u>0y + oi20y + ^iQ sgn (y) = \xg sgn (x) (16)
Here, u> and u^ are the coefficients of friction of the upper plate and the
isolator plates, respectively. Whenever there is no sliding in the upper plate
but the friction plates of the isolator are sliding, the equations of motion
become
i = 0, (17)
2
y + £w0y + u>ly + u,,g sgn (y) = -ug (18)
In this case the behavior of the isolator becomes similar to the R-FBI system.
When only the upper plate slides, the isolator behaves as a pure-friction
system and equations of motion are given as
x + u.g sgn (i) = -«g, (19)
1981
y=0 (20)
If there is no sliding, the equations of motion simply become
x =y = 0 ; (21)
The non-sliding condition for the upper friction plate continues as long as
(xg - \ug + y\ > 0 (22)
The stick condition for the friction plates in the body of the isolator continues
as long as the inequality
M-i9 - l«g + «& + x\ > 0 (23)
is satisfied. Note that y and x in Eq. 22 and 23 become identically zero if
there is no sliding in the body or the upper plate of the isolator, respectively.
In the design of the SR-F isolator, u, must be larger than u., for the system
to work effectively. The values of |x, = 0.03 to 0.07 and jx = 0.1 to 0.2
are recommended at this preliminary stage.
RESPONSES TO EARTHQUAKE EXCITATIONS
In this section, the responses of a rigid structure with various base iso-
lation systems subjected to earthquake excitations are studied. For the sake
of comparison, the viscous damping of all the base isolators considered is
taken to be a constant £ = 0.1 and the natural period is varied between 0.3
to 10 sec. That covers the design range of natural period (1 to 4 sec) for
practical base isolation systems. For several values of parameters and various
base isolators, responses of the structure to the accelerograms of the N00W
component of the El Centro 1940 earthquake and the N90W component of
the Mexico City 1985 earthquake are evaluated. The peak relative displace-
ment and the maximum absolute acceleration of the structure are plotted
versus natural period TB in several figures. Many important features of var-
ious base isolators may be studied from these figures.
Using a fourth order Runge-Kutta scheme, a computer program for inte-
grating the equations of motion of various system is developed. The presence
of frictional nonlinearities and transition from sliding condition to nonsliding
phase and vice versa make the system of governing equations rather stiff.
To evaluate the time of change of phase of motion, smaller time steps are
used in the transition period whenever required. To check the accuracy of
the computational scheme, the program was rerun by reducing time step
several times until no changes in the results were noticeable. Typically a
time step in the range of 0.0002 to 0.002 sec for sliding or nonsliding phases
and was found adequate.
Responses to El Centro 1940 Earthquake

For the El Centro 1940 earthquake (with a peak ground acceleration of
0.34g), the displacement and acceleration response spectra for structures with
different base isolation systems are shown in Figs. 2 and 3. The numbers
in parentheses denote the relevant coefficients of friction for various isola-
tors. For the SR-F base isolator which involves two coefficients of friction,
the values of |x( and \K are listed.
Fig. 2 compares the displacement response spectra obtained for various
1982
base isolators. (Note that the displacements here correspond to the base dis-
placement of structure relative to the ground and should not be confused
with the structural deflection.) For practical range of natural period, it ap-
pears that the frictional systems lead to lower peak displacement responses.
For the pure-friction (P-F) isolator with a given friction coefficient, the max-
imum relative displacement remains a constant. For the R-FBI and the SR-
F systems, the peak slip is always less than the limits set by the P-F isolator
and approach these bounds for large T0. It is also observed that for T0 greater
than 1 to 2 sec the peak displacement for the R-FBI system and the SR-F
isolator become identical. That is, for these values of natural period, there
is almost no sliding in the upper friction plate of the SR-F isolator; hence,
it behaves the same as the R-FBI system. Similarly, for relatively large nat-
ural periods, the EDF system behaves practically as a rubber bearing due to
the absence of appreciable slip. Fig. 2 also shows that the peak displacement
of a structure with the R-FBI or the SR-F isolators decreases rapidly as fric-
tion coefficient u^ increases. Furthermore, this figure shows that for the lam-
inated rubber bearings (LRB), the NZ, and the EDF system, the maximum
relative displacements are generally much higher than those of the P-F, the
R-FBI and the SR-F isolators for T0 > 1 sec. For example, for T0 - 2 sec
which is the suggested natural period for most of these isolators, the peak
slip for the P-F, the R-FBI and the SR-F systems are about 3 to 6 cm. The
lowest relative displacement of 3 cm is obtained for p,t = 0.1. While, the
peak relative displacements for the NZ, the LRB and the EDF systems are
about 10 to 16 cm, respectively.
Fig. 3 shows that the peak acceleration transmitted to the structure for
different base isolators. For the P-F system, as expected, the peak trans-
mitted acceleration is a constant, uX|. For the R-FBI and the SR-F systems
the maximum absolute accelerations approach the limiting value of ^g for
large T„. The natural period for which the limiting acceleration is attained
is an increasing function of the friction coefficient. The maximum acceler-
ations transmitted by the EDF and the SR-F isolation systems show certain
interesting features. For T0 less than one to two seconds, the peak absolute
accelerations are equal to u.g for both systems which is identical to that of
a pure friction system. For large T„ (more than 1 to 2 sec), the EDF system
behaves essentially as a rubber bearing, whereas the behavior of the SR-F
isolator becomes identical to a R-FBI system.
Fig. 3 shows that for the LRB, the NZ and the EDF systems the trans-
mitted accelerations become lower than those for the P-F, the R-FBI and the
SR-F isolators for T0 greater than 3 to 4 sec. However, the recommended
natural periods for the LRB and the EDF systems are 2 sec and 1 sec, re-
spectively. Fig. 3 also indicates that the LRB, the R-FBI and the NZ systems
do not guarantee a maximum peak acceleration, while the P-F, the SR-F and
the EDF systems do provide an upper bound of \xg for the maximum ac-
celeration transmitted to the superstructure. This figure also shows that, ex-
cept for the EDF, the SR-F and the P-F isolators, the undesirable amplifi-
cations of the ground acceleration for small T0 could occur. Most of the
isolators are designed, however, to operate with a natural period greater than
one second. For T0 about 2 to 3 sec, m = 0.05 to 0.1 and p, = 0.1 to 0.2,
Fig. 3 shows that all the isolators (with the exception of the P-F isolator)
considered here transmit roughly about O.lg to 0.15g to the structure. That
is, the isolator reduces the peak acceleration by a factor of two to three.
1983
100
t EL CENTRO 1940
w
LRB y / ~ - R-FBI(O.OS)
//
-J—U-4—i i i 111 4 1 1—I I I I
0.1 1 10
NATURAL PERIOD, T„ (SEC)
100'
EL CENTRO 1940 (b)
a
o
010l EDF(0.1K /~v/

I-}
a,
CO
S f
« P-F(O.l)
•<
W SR-F(0.1,0.2)
NZ -//" R-FBI(O.l)
4 U-\—I I I I II -1 1 1—I I I I I
0.1 1 10
FIG. 2. Variations of Peak Relative Displacement with Natural Period for El Cen-
tra 1940 Earthquake
The results presented in Figs. 2 and 3 may be used for a preliminary

comparative study of various base isolators. It appears that the frictional base
isolators lead to relatively small amount of slip (about 5 cm) while providing
a bound (u.g) on the maximum acceleration transmitted to the structure. The
Laminated rubber bearing with and without lead core with T„ greater than 2
to 3 sec have the capability to filter the ground acceleration effectively.
However, the peak displacement of these isolators could become rather large
and reach to about 12 to 22 cm.
1984
1000
: w \ EL CENTRO 1940
o
W,^ LRB
w
- R-FBI(O.OS)-
s" \ \ ^/EDF(0.2)
Z
o
l-H
SR-F(0.05,0.2p \C\r—\
-
£ 100-1- \ \
« I SR-F(0.05,0.1)^
o P-F(0.05) \^~~~ —
o \
•<
«
\
\
W \
\
\
\
10 1 -1 1 l~4-4-4-t-l 1 1 1—1 1 1 IN
0.1 1 10
NATURAL PERIOD, T. (SEC)
1000'
-
:
(b) EL CENTRO 1940
u
w
CO - R-FBI(O.l)—"^ \ \
s \ \
o SR-F(0.1,0,2)-^^ *
I
o
EDFfO.l)-^
\ P-F(o.l)
o - \
•<
«
_ \
\
w \
6. \
\
10 1 1 1—1 M i l l -i 1—i—i i i i^t
0.1 1 10
NATURAL PERIOD, T0 (SEC)
FIG. 3. Variations of Peak Absolute Acceleration with Natural Period for El Cen-
tra 1940 Earthquake
Responses to Mexico City 1985 Earthquake

A frequency analysis of the accelerogram of the El Centra 1940 earth-
quake shows that the energy is concentrated in the frequency range of about
1 to 4 Hz with its peak at about 1.5 Hz. This is a rather common distribution
for most of the available earthquake records. On the other hand, the acce-
lerogram of the Mexico City 1985 earthquake (with peak ground acceleration
of 0.18g) shows certain peculiar features. Among the most important one is
the presence of a prolong sinusoidal behavior at a frequency of about 0.5
1985
IUU-
MEXICO CITY 1985

LRB-
§• v
t C^ »
EDF(0.2)
<5 SR-F(0.0S,0.1) <T>7 P-F(0.05)
S / //
i/7
o /" f
1/ii
3 10- 1,7
&. n'
DIS
W
SR-F(0.05,0.2)
7 V
-R-FBI(0.05)
ft.
0.1
1 1 U-l\ a a—
i ii
1
1 1 1 1 1 11 1
10
NATURAL PERIOD, T, (SEC)
100
MEXICO CITY 1985
s
o
H
EDF(O.l)
s
w
h-1
ft.
CO
8
«
ft.
-I 1 1 ''I f i l l 4 1 1 1 I I I I
0.1 10
NATURAL PERIOD, T. (SEC)
FIG. 4. Variations of Peak Relative Displacement with Natural Period for Mexico
City 1985 Earthquake
Hz. As a result the response spectra for this earthquake are sharply peaked
at the natural period of 2 sec. Since most of the isolators are designed with
a natural period close to this range, this earthquake is of particular interest
for comparative studies of performances of various base isolators under a
severely off-design loading.
The peak relative displacement and absolute acceleration for base-isolated
structures subjected to the N90W component of the Mexico City 1985 earth-
quake are shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. Fig. 4 compares the dis-
1986
placement response spectra for various base isolators. Similar to the previous
case, it appears that for relatively large T0 the SR-F isolator behaves like a
R-FBI unit and its peak displacements become similar to those obtained for
the R-FBI system. Furthermore, the behavior of the EDF isolation system
becomes almost identical to the laminated rubber bearing. This figure also
shows that, for Ta > 1 sec, the maximum displacements of the P-F, the R-
FBI and the SR-F systems are relatively low, particularly for u,! = 0.1. The
NZ, the LRB and the EDF systems, however, do lead to very large relative
displacements. For the recommended design value of T0 about 2 to 3 sec,
Fig. 4 shows that the peak relative displacements for the LRB and the NZ
systems become about 70 to 80 cm. For the same natural period, the peak
displacements for the R-FBI and the SR-F base isolators with u., = 0.1, or
0.05 are about 13 to 45 cm.
The peak acceleration transmitted to the structure for various base isolation
systems for the Mexico City 1985 earthquake are shown in Fig. 5. As noted
before, the P-F, the EDF and the SR-F isolators provide an upper bound for
the maximum absolute acceleration. It is also observed that the peak accel-
erations for these systems remain equal to u,g up to T0 about 3 to 4 sec.
This is of particular signficance in this case where unusual amplifications of
the ground motion at natural period of 2 sec occur. For large T0, the EDF
and the SR-F isolators behave the same as the LRB and the R-FBI systems,
respectively. For the R-FBI system with a friction coefficient of 0.05 to 0.1,
the maximum acceleration reaches to about 0.4g to 0.25g for T0 = 2 sec
and drops to about 0.13g for the design natural period of Ta = 4 sec. This
figure also shows that the acceleration response spectra for the NZ and the
LRB systems have sharp peaks at T0 about 2 to 3 sec. For these natural
periods, the peak accelerations reach to about 0.65g for the LRB and the
NZ isolators. That is, these devices do not function as isolators anymore,
rather they now amplify the ground acceleration by a factor of three. From
Fig. 5, it is also observed that for T0 greater than 4 to 6 sec, the transmitted
peak acceleration drops rapidly for the rubber bearing and the R-FBI systems
while remains rather large for the NZ isolator.
The results presented in Figs. 4 and 5 may be used for a comparative
study of the performances of various base isolators subject to the Mexico
City 1985 earthquake excitation. It is observed that the P-F and the SR-F
isolators provide a fixed bound (u.g) on the peak acceleration transmitted to
the structure while keeping the peak slip of the structure to manageable lim-
its. The EDF system also provides a similar bound on the peak acceleration;
however, it may lead to large relative displacements. The R-FBI system
generally performs well in reducing the peak acceleration transmitted to the
structure with limited relative displacement. On the other hand, the lami-
nated rubber bearing (with and without a lead core) with a natural period of
about 2 sec appear not to function properly for earthquakes with substantial
energy content at low frequency. Indeed, they amplify the ground acceler-
ation considerably and lead to large relative displacement response spectra.
Sample Responses
Some sample displacement responses are shown in Fig. 6. To better ob-
serve the stick-slip behavior of various frictional systems, the accelerogram
of the NOOW component of the El Centro 1940 which is magnified by a
factor of two is used in the analysis. A natural period of T0 = 2 sec and
1987
1000
; MEXICO CITY 1985 (a)
LRB/ -v
o / v
/
R-FBI(O.OS)
S
<j EDF(0.2) V
2;
o
SR-F(0.05,0.2)'
3 100; r
« SR-F(0.05,0.1)
w P-F(O.OS) \
Q
O
«:
a,
10 -I 1 i I I I II -1 1 1 1 I I I1
0.1 I 10
MEXICO CITY 1985

(b)
o NZ/ -
t ^•v
w
CO
/ V.
RATION (CM
FBI(O.l)
_
SR-F(0. Ifl.l'r
3
W
•J ^ s ^ ^?r~ \i ^ ^ ^^
o EDFtO.l)^^ P-F(O.l) \
o
< \
• <
\
« \
a,
10- 1 1 4—[—J-4-- U J 1 1I 1 1.—i—|—|—1_

0.1 1 10
FIG. 5. Variations of Peak Absolute Acceleration with Natural Period for Mexico
City 1985 Earthquake
coefficients of friction of \x = 0.1 and (Xi = °-05 for the isolators are con-
sidered. Fig. 6(a) shows the response of the resilient-friction base isolator.
It appears that sliding occurs almost continuously except for the duration of
1 sec at the start of motion. Furthermore, small amplitude oscillation around
residual displacements could be clearly observed in the time duration of 15
to 20 sec.
In Fig. 6(b) the slip and the total displacement of the structure for the
EDF system are shown by solid and dotted lines, respectively. (Here slip
1988
EDF (b)
/; . A A. /\ /-
S 33f •
rt«A//W^v
a f 1/ V
o.
CO
O-I0-
-20
1- 1 1
10
-30 TIME (SEC)
I5T
SR-F W
10 - ,v . . . • /;\> A
•' . ,«...-.-
,-,
Ed
S
W
-J
a.
~W ' H
CO II
3-10-
-15- U
-20- 1- 1 _—_i
10
TIME (SEC)
FIG. 6. Sample Displacement Responses to Magnified El Centro 1940 Earth-

quake Record
1989
refers to the relative displacement between the structure and the isolator and
the total displacement refers to the sum of the slip and the displacement of
the isolator relative to its base.) This figure clearly shows that large slips
occur in relatively short time durations. A maximum slip of about 30 cm is
observed at t = 6 sec. Fig. 6(b) also shows the large amplitude oscillation
of the building due to the elastomeric part of the isolator about the residual
slip displacement.
Fig. 6(c) shows the time histories of the displacement of a structure with
a sliding resilient-friction base isolator. The solid line in this figure corre-
sponds to the slip displacement in the upper friction plate (x), while the
dotted line represents the total displacement (x + y). The general behavior
observed is quite similar to that of the EDF system; however, both the slip
and the total displacement for the SR-F isolator are much lower than those
of the EDF system.
CONCLUSIONS
Results of a comparative study of performances of the pure-friction, the

resilient-friction with or without an upper friction plate, the laminated rubber
bearing with and without a lead core and the EDF base isolators subjected
to two different earthquake excitations are presented. Responses of a rigid
structure with various base isolators to accelerograms of the N00W com-
ponent of the El Centro 1940 earthquake and the N90W component of the
Mexico City 1985 earthquake are evaluated. The peaks of the relative dis-
placement and the absolute acceleration of the structure under a variety of
conditions are obtained and discussed. It is shown that in general the base
isolation systems protect the structure from the effects of high amplitude and
high frequency oscillations that fall in the same range as the natural fre-
quencies of the structure.
For most common earthquakes (for which the El Centro 1940 earthquake
is a representative), all base isolators perform rather satisfactorily. With proper
design they can reduce the peak acceleration transmitted to the structure while
keeping the peak displacement under a manageable limit. The frictional iso-
lators provide a simple upper bound (|xg) on the acceleration response spec-
tra, while the rubber bearing type could reduce the acceleration even further
if they are sufficiently soft. However, care should be given not to make the
isolator too flexible to avoid uncomfortable excessive vibration due to wind
forces.
For earthquakes with considerable energy at low frequencies (for which
the Mexico City 1985 earthquake is a representative), the LRB and the NZ
systems are not suitable. The presented results indicate that for such earth-
quakes, undesirable amplification of ground excitation may occur. The EDF
and the SR-F isolators, however, still limit the transmitted peak acceleration
to u.g. The R-FBI system also appears to perform well for such ground ex-
citations although the transmitted acceleration somewhat increases for small
friction coefficients.
The results also show that the low frequency energy content of the earth-
quake excitation increases the relative displacement responses. The increase
is largest for the laminated rubber bearing and the EDF system. The SR-F,
the R-FBI and the P-F systems lead to the least amount of increase in their
displacement response spectra.
1990
Based on the presented results, it may be concluded that, for relatively
rigid structures, the frictional isolation systems are less sensitive to the un-
desirable variations in the frequency contents of ground excitation. Further-
more, due to their high energy dissipative capacity, the frictional isolators
can effectively reduce the transmitted acceleration with limited slip displace-
ments.
It is well known that a relatively stiff structure with a properly designed
base isolation system responds essentially in its rigid body mode to seismic
excitation. Nevertheless, in many cases the structure-isolation interactions
could become significant. This is particularly the case when natural fre-
quencies of the structure and the isolator are not sufficiently far apart. Fur-
thermore, the frictional isolators generate shock leadings which could excite
higher frequencies of the structure. Thus, the conclusions of the present study
is limited to stiff structures and when the influence of flexibility of the struc-
ture is negligible. A comparative study of performances of various base iso-
lator for a flexible structure is currently being carried out and the results will
be reported in near future.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Thanks is given to Dr. N. Mostaghel for many helpful discussions. This

work is supported by the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Re-
search, State University of New York at Buffalo under the Grants No. NCEER
86-3021F and 87-2007.
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Ahmadi, G. (1983). "Stochastic earthquake response of structures on sliding foun-

dation." Int. J. Engrg. Sci., 121, 93-102.
Ahmadi, G., and Mostaghel, N. (1984). "On dynamics of a structure with a frictional
foundation." J. De Mecanique Theorique et Appliquee, 3, 271—285.
Buckle, I. G. (1985). "New Zealand seismic base isolation concepts and their ap-
plication to nuclear engineering." Nuclear Engrg. and Design, 84, 313-326.
Chen, D., and Clough, R. W. (1981). "Earthquake response of structures with fric-
tion sliding motion." Earthquake Engrg. Res. Ctr., Univ. of California, Berkeley,
Calif.
Constantinou, M. C , and Tadjbakhsh, I. G. (1984). "Response of a sliding struc-
tures to filtered random excitation." J. Struct. Mech. 12, 401-418.
Constantinou, M. C , and Tadjbakhsh, I. G. (1985). "Hysteretic dampers in base
isolation: random approach." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 111(4), 705-721.
Gueraud, R., et al. (1985). "Seismic isolation using sliding-elastomer bearing pads."
Nuclear Engrg. and Design, 84, 363-377.
Hadjian, A. H., and Tseng, W. S. (1986). "A comparative evaluation of passive
seismic isolation schemes." Base Isolation and Passive Energy Dissipation, C.
Rojahn, ed., ATC-17, 291-304.
Huffmann, G. R. (1985). "Full base isolation for earthquake protection by helical
springs and viscodampers." Nuclear Engrg. and Design, 84, 331-338.
Ikonomou, A. S. (1984). "Alexisismon seismic isolation levels for translational and
rotational seismic input." Proc, 8WCEE, July 21-28, 975-982.
Kelly, J. M. (1982). "Aseismic base isolation." Shock Vib. Dig., 14, 17-25.
Kelly, J. M., and Hodder, S. B. (1982). "Experimental study of lead and elastomeric
dampers for base isolation systems in laminated neopreme bearings." Bull, of New
Zealand Nat. Soc. Earthquake Engrg., 15(2), 53-^7.
Kelly, J. M., and Beucke, K. E. (1983). "A friction damped base isolation system
1991
with fail-safe characteristics." Earthquake Engrg. Struct. Dyn., 11, 33-56.
Kelly, J. M. (1986). "Aseismic base isolation: review and bibliography." Soil Dyn.
Earthquake Engrg., 5, 202-216.
Li, L. (1987). "Advances in-base isolation in China." Presented at the 3rd Inter-
national Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, June 22-24,
Princeton Univ., Princeton, N J .
Mostaghel, N., and Tanbakuchi, J. (1983). "Response of sliding structures to earth-
quake support motion." Earthquake Engrg. Struct. Dyn., 11, 729-748.
Mostaghel, N. (1984). "Resilient-friction base isolator." Report No. UTEC 84-097,
The Univ. of Utah.
Mostaghel, N., Hejazi, M., and Khodaverdian, M. (1986). "Response of structures
supported on resilient-friction base isolator." Proc. Third U.S. Nat. Conf. on
Earthquake Engrg., Charleston, S.C., Aug., 1993-2003.
Mostaghel, N., and Khodaverdian, M. (1987). "Dynamics of resilient-friction base
isolator (R-FBI)." Earthquake Engrg. Struct. Dyn., 15, 379-390.
Robinson, W. H., and Tucker, A. G. (1977). "A lead-rubber shear damper." Bull.
New Zealand Nat. Soc. Earthquake Engrg., 10, 151-153.
Skinner, R. J., Kelly, J. M., and Heine, A. J. (1975). "Hysteretic dampers for
earthquake-resistant structures." Earthquake Engrg. Struct. Dyn., 3, 287-296.
Su, L., Orabi, I. I., and Ahmadi, G. (1988). "Nonstationary earthquake response
of a sliding rigid structure." Int. J. Engrg. Sci., 26(9), 1013-1026.
Wen, W. K. (1980). "Equivalent linearization for hysteretic systems under random
excitation." J. Appl. Mech., 47, 150-154.
Younis, C. J., and Tadjbakhsh, I. G. (1984). "Response of sliding rigid structure
to base excitation." / . Engrg. Mech., ASCE, 110, 417-432.
1992
View publication stats

Comparative Study of Base Isolation Systems

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

Comparative Study of Base Isolation Systems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Comparative Study of Base Isolation Systems

Article in Journal of Engineering Mechanics · September 1989

Lin Su Goodarz Ahmadi

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ABSTRACT: A comparative study of effectiveness of various base isolators is car-

Use of base isolation devices in the foundation of critical structures as a

Simplified mathematical models for different leading isolation systems are

(c) R-FBI System (d) EDF System

(e) NZ System (f) SR-F System

FIG. 1. Schematic Diagrams of Base-Isolation Systems

Laminated Rubber Bearing

EDF Base Isolator

Q(x,x) = a — x + (1 - a)FyZ (12)

Here, Z = a dimensionless hysteretic component satisfying the following

where the hysteretic restoring force Z is determined by Eq. 13. Here, ug =

SR-F Base Isolator

RESPONSES TO EARTHQUAKE EXCITATIONS

Responses to El Centro 1940 Earthquake

010l EDF(0.1K /~v/

The results presented in Figs. 2 and 3 may be used for a preliminary

Responses to Mexico City 1985 Earthquake

MEXICO CITY 1985

MEXICO CITY 1985

10- 1 1 4—[—J-4-- U J 1 1I 1 1.—i—|—|—1_

FIG. 6. Sample Displacement Responses to Magnified El Centro 1940 Earth-

Results of a comparative study of performances of the pure-friction, the

Thanks is given to Dr. N. Mostaghel for many helpful discussions. This

Ahmadi, G. (1983). "Stochastic earthquake response of structures on sliding foun-

You might also like