Influence of Pulse-Like Near-Fault Ground Motions on the

Base-Isolated Buildings with LRB Devices

Ali Ruzi Özuygur, Ph.D. 1; and Ehsan Noroozinejad Farsangi, Ph.D. 2

Abstract: Seismic base isolation is a passive structural control system that has been effectively utilized as an innovative seismic-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dogu Akdeniz Universitesi on 11/01/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

resistant design method in the past decades. The properties of earthquake ground motions have significant effects on the response of
the base isolation system. Many recent studies were dedicated to the influence of near-fault ground motions on the response of seis-
mically isolated buildings. These previous studies concluded that near-fault ground motions mostly impose larger displacement on the
seismic isolators and, in some cases, larger floor acceleration; furthermore, the velocity pulse period influences the seismic isolator
displacement and the floor acceleration. Most of the previous studies were conducted using ground motions simulated with certain
parametric conditions of near-fault ground motions and/or a limited number of real earthquake ground motions. This study intended to
examine the conclusions of previous studies through response history analysis of a seismically isolated prototype building with lead–
rubber bearing (LRB) isolators using a large number of real near-fault earthquake ground accelerations. It was found that no consistent
resonance phenomenon can be observed when the velocity pulse period is close to the natural period of the isolated building in terms of
floor acceleration and isolator displacement, in contrast to the findings of other studies. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-
5576.0000603. © 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Near-fault earthquake ground motions; Seismic base isolation; Velocity pulse amplitude; Velocity pulse period.

Introduction Heaton et al. (1995) conducted a parametric study on a seismi-

As a passive structural control technique, seismic base isolation has
been used in the past decades to protect structures from the destruc-
tive effects of earthquakes. Many seismically isolated buildings
subjected to real earthquakes have displayed the expected structural
performance so far. The base isolation system essentially separates
the upper stories from the foundation or basement by relatively
weak and elastoplastic isolation devices like lead rubber or spheri-
cal sliding bearings. The base isolators increase the fundamental
vibration period and damping capacity of the structures, which re-
duces the structural response to the earthquake ground shaking
(Kelly 1999; Aydin et al. 2012).
The characteristics and wave content of the earthquake ground
motions are influential on the performance of the seismic base
isolation system (Moustafa et al. 2010). The near-fault (NF) earth-
quake ground motions containing large-amplitude velocity pulses
have induced larger lateral displacement demand than the far-fault
(FF) ones do. The effects of the NF earthquake ground motions
to the behavior of seismically isolated buildings in terms of iso-
lator displacement, floor acceleration, story drift ratio, and tension
in the isolators have been extensively studied by numerous re-
searchers. Some of the significant studies are summarized in the
following.
1
Adjunct Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Fatih Sultan Mehmet
Vakif Univ., Sütlüce Mah, Karaağaç Cad. 12/A, Istanbul 34445, Turkey
(corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7145-8065.
Email: aliruzi@gmail.com
2
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Civil and Surveying Engineering, Grad-
uate Univ. of Advanced Technology, Kerman 7631818356, Iran. ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2790-526X. Email: noroozinejad@kgut.ac.ir
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 8, 2020; approved
on April 13, 2021; published online on June 23, 2021. Discussion period
open until November 23, 2021; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Practice Periodical on Struc-
tural Design and Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0680.
cally isolated building using a simulated NF ground motion and
concluded that the seismic isolation system undergoes larger dis-
placement under the NF ground motion. Jangid and Kelly (2001)
showed that NF ground motions contain displacement pulses as
well as a large amount of input energy at high frequencies and that
the real and pseudo-velocity spectra are much different. Jangid
(2005) showed that for low values of friction coefficient of the
friction pendulum system (FPS), there is significant sliding dis-
placement in the FPS under NF motions. The optimum friction co-
efficient of the FPS was found to be 0.05–0.15 under NF motions.
Jangid (2007) indicated that for low yield strength of lead–rubber
bearing (LRB) isolators, there is significant displacement in the
bearing under NF motions. The optimum yield strength of the LRB
was found to be 10%–15% of the total weight of the building under
NF motions.
Providakis (2008) studied the performance of the supplemental
viscous damping devices under FF and NF ground motions in relation
to story drifts. He concluded that the supplemental damping devices
can efficiently reduce story drifts under NF ground accelerations.
Mazza and Vulcano (2012) checked the effectiveness of the seismic
isolation of framed buildings with high-damping rubber bearings,
considering the effects of the horizontal and vertical components
of NF ground motions. Rong (2020) investigated seismic response
of 5-story frame structure supported by lead–rubber bearings isolation
system subjected to NF ground motions to obtain the optimum yield
shear coefficient and optimum ratio of preyield stiffness to postyield
stiffness of lead–rubber bearings. Kömür et al. (2019) showed that the
effects of NF earthquake record on the frame system are generally
greater than the effects of the FF earthquake records.
Noroozinejad Farsangi et al. (2018) studied the base-isolated
structures under vertical ground motion, which is a significant com-
ponent of near-field earthquake ground motions, and proposed a
rocking isolated system named Telescopic Column, which compen-
sates the weakness of a conventional base isolation system mostly
used for lateral ground shaking. Özuygur (2021) studied the

© ASCE 04021027-1 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2021, 26(4): 04021027

 story acceleration of base-isolated buildings with various seismic
load-resisting systems under NF and FF earthquakes. It was con-
cluded that the floor acceleration can be reduced effectively by pro-
viding more rigidity to the superstructure and that excessive
damping is detrimental.
Other researchers studied the resonance phenomenon, which
could be experienced when the fundamental period of the
isolated structure is close to the velocity pulse period of NF
ground motion. Lu et al. (2003) expressed that a resonance phe-
nomenon was observed around the fundamental period of the
isolated structure when it was close to the velocity pulse period
of artificial NF ground motion. The pulse has more influence on
the isolator displacement than the acceleration of the superstruc-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dogu Akdeniz Universitesi on 11/01/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ture. Alhan and Göktas (2009) concluded that the NF ground

motion influences the floor acceleration of a superstructure in
addition to isolator displacement. Lu et al. (2013) concluded
that, although a pulse excitation is not harmonic, it is still able
to exert a resonance-like behavior for the isolator displacement
of an isolation system when the pulse period is close to the iso-
lation period.
Mazza and Vulcano (2009) showed that the isolator displace-
ment increases following an increase in the pulse period two
degrees of freedom systems subjected to pulse-type artificial mo-
tions. Alhan and Davas (2016) concluded that, in long and short
pulse periods, the ratio of isolation period to the pulse period am-
plifies the base displacement and floor acceleration. As refer-
enced previously, the common conclusions drawn from the
previous studies are that the NF ground motions mostly impose
larger displacement on the seismic isolators and, in some cases,
larger floor acceleration; furthermore, the velocity pulse period
is influences the seismic isolator displacement and the floor
acceleration. Fig. 1. Floor plan of the prototype buildings (units are in meters).
Most of the previous studies were conducted using ground mo-
tions simulated with certain parametric conditions of NF ground
motions and/or a limited number of real earthquake ground mo-
tions. In this study, the conclusions of the past studies were exam- Table 1. Dimensions of structural elements, material properties and
ined through response history analysis of a seismically isolated loading values
prototype building with LRB isolators using a large number of real Structural elements and parameters Dimensions and values
NF earthquake ground motions whose velocity pulse periods vary Cross-sections of the columns 0.8 × 1.0 m and 0.8 × 1.1 m
from the shortest to the longest. Cross-sections of the beams 0.6 × 1.1 m and 0.8 × 1.1 m
Thickness of the slab with 0.5 m
ribbed beams above the isolators
Prototype Building Slab thickness of the upper stories 0.25 m
Thickness of the shear wall 0.45 m
The prototype building whose structural floor plan is given in Fig. 1 Concrete class C50 with f ck ¼ 50 MPa
is assumed to be an industrial facility bearing heavy acceleration- Reinforcing steel class S420 with f sy ¼ 420 MPa
sensitive equipment. It consists of 3 stories with equal 6-m story Weight of the industrial equipment 10 kN=m2
Uniform live load 2 kN=m2
height. It has a dual seismic force resisting system consisting of
shear walls and moment-resisting frames. The dimensions of struc-
tural elements, material properties and loading values are summa-
rized in Table 1. elastic spectra are given in Fig. 2, are obtained from NGA-West2
The parametric study was performed under assumed maximum Database of Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center
credible earthquake (MCE), having 2% probability of exceedance (PEER 2019) with scaling to fit the response spectrum of the MCE.
in 50 years, whose spectral accelerations at the short period (SaS ) Furthermore, 100 pairs of bidirectional NF earthquake ground ac-
and a period of 1 s (Sa1 ) are SaS ¼ 1.8g and Sa1 ¼ 1.2g, respec- celeration time histories whose velocity pulse periods vary from
tively. This level of seismic hazard approximately corresponds to 0.728 to 13.118 s were obtained from PEER (2019) with scaling
that of a location far from seismically active North Anatolian Fault, to the target spectrum of a single conditional period (Baker 2011;
Marmara Sea, Turkey, about 13 km. The North Anatolian Fault has Carlton and Abrahamson 2014; Kwong and Chopra 2017), the
generated destructive earthquakes throughout history with moment natural period of the isolated building, which is 2.06 s as given in
magnitudes mostly larger than 7.0 (Erdik et al. 2004). The uniform the following section and shown in Fig. 3. The reason for scaling
hazard response spectrum of the MCE for 5% damping is depicted the NF ground motions to the single-period spectral acceleration is
in Figs. 2 and 3. to keep all the selected ground motions at the same amplitude of
Seven pairs of bidirectional FF earthquake ground motion time acceleration around the natural period of the isolated building as
histories, whose square roots of the sum of the squares (SRSS) of much as possible to catch the influence of velocity pulse period

© ASCE 04021027-2 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2021, 26(4): 04021027

 amplitude more precisely. The properties of the selected FF
ground motions and the scaling factors are given in Table 2.
The characteristics, including pulse amplitudes calculated by
the authors, of the selected NF ground motions and the scaling
factors are given in Table 3 with ascending order of the pulse
periods. The pulse amplitudes corresponding to the pulse periods
are presented in Fig. 4. The ground motions with record sequence
number 1051, 451, 879, 1476, 1161, 1528, and 1505 (named
Group 1) have velocity pulse amplitude larger than 2 m=s, as
seen in Fig. 4.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dogu Akdeniz Universitesi on 11/01/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Design of LRB Isolators by the Equivalent Lateral
Force Procedure
The seismic isolation design has been thoroughly presented by
Naeim and Kelly (1999). LRB isolators were used as the isolation
system in this study. The LRB isolators by the equivalent lateral
force procedure were designed in accordance with the Turkish
Building Seismic Code (Disaster and Emergency Management
Presidency, Ministry of Interior, the Republic of Turkey 2018),
which mainly adopts the design approach of ASCE 7 (ASCE
2016). Modification factors for upper and lower bound properties
of LRBs were defined based on aging and environmental effects,
hysteretic heating, and history of loading effects and permissible

manufacturing variation (McVitty Constantinou 2015). In this

Fig. 2. Uniform hazard response spectrum for 5% damping and elastic
spectra for FF ground motions.
study, the nominal properties of LRBs were used for simplicity.
LRB isolation devices were commonly modeled by a bilinear curve
defined by the characteristic strength Q, elastic stiffness ke , and
plastic stiffness kp , as explained in the force–displacement curve
in Fig. 5. The yield strength of lead was taken as σL ¼ 8 MPa.
The shear modulus of rubber was taken as G ¼ 0.51 MPa.
The characteristics of the LRB isolators used in the seismic
isolation design of the building were defined by iterative calcu-
lations as presented in Table 4. Nonlinear modeling parameters
of a single LRB isolator were calculated as ke ¼ 42,916 kN=m,
kp ¼ 4,291.6 kN=m, Fy ¼ 1,117 kN, keff ¼ 7,143 kN=m, Ceff ¼
1,069 kN- sec =m. The isolation design parameters defined by the
equivalent lateral force procedure are summarized in Table 5.
Although the effective period of the isolation system T eff ¼ 2.00 s
obtained from the equivalent lateral force procedure, the effective
period obtained from the dynamic analysis was 2.06 s with the con-
tribution of the flexibility of the superstructure. Therefore, T eff ¼
2.06 s was regarded as the natural period of the isolation system in
scaling the NF ground motions to the target spectrum, as mentioned
in the previous section.

Numerical Analysis and Discussion

Response history analyses were performed on the prototype build-

Fig. 3. Uniform hazard response spectrum for 5% damping and elastic
spectra for NF ground motions.
ing using the FF and NF earthquake ground motions given in the
previous section. The isolator displacement obtained from the
analysis of the NF ground motions is presented in Fig. 6 showing
the corresponding pulse period to demonstrate the influence of the
pulse period on the isolator displacement. Neither a consistent re-
lation between peak isolator displacement and the pulse period nor
the resonance phenomenon around the conditional period 2.06 s
was observed unlike the previous conclusions based on simulated
ground motions. The ground motions with sequence number 451,
8123, 292, 1511, 185, 8119, 879, 1476, 1161, 6962, 900, and 1489
(named Group 2) generated peak isolator displacement demand
larger than 0.45 m, whereas the ones with sequence number 4847,
1086, 1501, 8606, 1478 and 1491 (named Group 3) generated peak

Table 2. FF ground motions from PEER NGA-West2

Record
sequence Scale T p− pulse Earthquake Rjb V s30
number factor period (s) name Year Station name Magnitude Mechanism (km) (m/s)
175 4.155 — Imperial Valley-06 1979 El Centro Array #12 6.53 Strike slip 17.94 197
721 2.138 — Superstition Hills-02 1987 El Centro Imp. Co. Cent 6.54 Strike slip 18.2 192
728 2.535 — Superstition Hills-02 1987 Westmorland Fire Sta 6.54 Strike slip 13.03 194
900 2.561 7.504 Landers 1992 Yermo Fire Station 7.28 Strike slip 23.62 354
1158 1.649 — Kocaeli_Turkey 1999 Duzce 7.51 Strike slip 13.6 282
1161 2.943 5.992 Kocaeli_Turkey 1999 Gebze 7.51 Strike slip 7.57 792
1605 1.223 — Duzce_Turkey 1999 Duzce 7.14 Strike slip 0 282

© ASCE 04021027-3 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2021, 26(4): 04021027

 Table 3. NF ground motions from PEER NGA-West2
Record Pulse
sequence Scale T p− pulse amplitude Earthquake Station Rjb V s30
number factor period (s) (m/s) name Year name Magnitude Mechanism (km) (m=s)
1052 2.615 0.728 1.479 Northridge-01 1994 Pacoima Kagel Canyon 6.69 Reverse 5.3 508
568 1.521 0.805 1.215 San Salvador 1986 Geotech Invest. Center 5.8 Strike slip 2.1 489
1051 2.444 0.840 2.612 Northridge-01 1994 Pacoima Dam (u. left) 6.69 Reverse 4.9 2,016
1602 1.494 0.882 0.996 Duzce_ Turkey 1999 Bolu 7.14 Strike slip 12.0 294
1004 1.825 0.931 1.424 Northridge-01 1994 LA-Sepulveda VA H. 6.69 Reverse 0.0 380
451 2.839 1.071 2.233 Morgan Hill 1984 Coyote Lake D.-S. A. 6.19 Strike slip 0.2 561
1106 1.373 1.092 1.455 Kobe_Japan 1995 KJMA 6.9 Strike slip 0.9 312
569 1.599 1.127 1.474 San Salvador 1986 National Geogr. Inst 5.8 Strike slip 3.7 456
1054 1.261 1.232 0.961 Northridge-01 1994 Pardee-SCE 6.69 Reverse 5.5 326
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dogu Akdeniz Universitesi on 11/01/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1063 0.825 1.246 1.242 Northridge-01 1994 Rinaldi Receiving Sta 6.69 Reverse 0.0 282
1044 1.212 1.372 1.457 Northridge-01 1994 Newhall-Fire Sta 6.69 Reverse 3.2 269
4847 1.102 1.400 1.041 Chuetsu-oki_Japan 2007 Joetsu Kakizakiku K. 6.8 Reverse 9.4 383
4451 1.403 1.442 0.878 Montenegro_Yug. 1979 Bar-Skupstina Opstine 7.1 Reverse 0.0 462
3965 2.017 1.540 1.103 Tottori_Japan 2000 TTR008 6.61 Strike slip 6.9 139
1120 0.418 1.554 0.645 Kobe_Japan 1995 Takatori 6.9 Strike slip 1.5 256
8123 1.147 1.554 1.126 Christchurch_N. Z. 2011 Christchurch Rest. 6.2 Revers. Ob. 5.1 141
3548 1.205 1.568 1.460 Loma Prieta 1989 Los Gatos-Lexing. D. 6.93 Revers. Ob. 3.2 1,070
1013 1.148 1.617 0.991 Northridge-01 1994 LA Dam 6.69 Reverse 0.0 629
77 1.162 1.638 1.418 San Fernando 1971 Pacoima Dam (up. l. a.) 6.61 Reverse 0.0 2,016
4228 2.739 1.799 1.862 Niigata_Japan 2004 NIGH11 6.63 Reverse 6.3 375
1119 1.030 1.806 0.987 Kobe_ Japan 1995 Takarazuka 6.9 Strike slip 0.0 312
3746 1.435 1.967 0.836 Cape Mendocino 1992 Centerville Beach N. F. 7.01 Reverse 16.4 459
4458 1.553 1.974 0.983 Montenegro_ Yug. 1979 Ulcinj-Hotel Olimpic 7.1 Reverse 4.0 319
4040 0.813 2.023 1.010 Bam_ Iran 2003 Bam 6.6 Strike slip 0.1 487
723 0.746 2.394 1.076 Superstition Hills 2 1987 Parachute Test Site 6.54 Strike slip 1.0 349
1086 0.786 2.436 1.036 Northridge-01 1994 Sylmar-Olive V. M. 6.69 Reverse 1.7 441
2734 1.907 2.436 0.844 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 04 1999 CHY074 6.2 Strike slip 6.0 553
1182 1.268 2.570 0.768 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 1999 CHY006 7.62 Revers. Ob. 9.8 438
767 1.964 2.639 0.991 Loma Prieta 1989 Gilroy Array #3 6.93 Revers. Ob. 12.2 350
1114 0.838 2.828 0.862 Kobe_Japan 1995 Port Island (0 m) 6.9 Strike slip 3.3 198
1045 0.813 2.982 0.965 Northridge-01 1994 Newhall-W P. C. Rd. 6.69 Reverse 2.1 286
1084 0.630 2.982 0.790 Northridge-01 1994 Sylmar-Converter Sta 6.69 Reverse 0.0 251
828 1.495 2.996 1.458 Cape Mendocino 1992 Petrolia 7.01 Reverse 0.0 422
982 0.722 3.157 0.815 Northridge-01 1994 Jensen Filter Pl. A. B. 6.69 Reverse 0.0 373
2114 0.869 3.157 1.089 Denali_Alaska 2002 TAPS Pump St. #10 7.9 Strike slip 0.2 329
292 1.654 3.273 1.221 Irpinia_Italy-01 1980 Sturno (STN) 6.9 Normal 6.8 382
171 0.989 3.423 1.161 Imperial Valley-06 1979 El Centro–Mel. G. A. 6.53 Strike slip 0.1 265
1085 0.950 3.528 1.154 Northridge-01 1994 Sylmar–Conv. S. E. 6.69 Reverse 0.0 371
983 0.913 3.535 0.824 Northridge-01 1994 Jensen Filter Pl. G. B. 6.69 Reverse 0.0 526
181 1.003 3.773 1.220 Imperial Valley-06 1979 El Centro Array #6 6.53 Strike slip 0.0 203
180 1.350 4.130 1.326 Imperial Valley-06 1979 El Centro Array #5 6.53 Strike slip 1.8 206
182 1.165 4.375 1.321 Imperial Valley-06 1979 El Centro Array #7 6.53 Strike slip 0.6 211
316 2.224 4.389 1.353 Westmorland 1981 Parachute Test Site 5.9 Strike slip 16.5 349
161 2.773 4.396 1.300 Imperial Valley-06 1979 Brawley Airport 6.53 Strike slip 8.5 209
170 1.969 4.417 1.445 Imperial Valley-06 1979 EC County Center FF 6.53 Strike slip 7.3 192
178 2.041 4.501 1.175 Imperial Valley-06 1979 El Centro Array #3 6.53 Strike slip 10.8 163
173 1.732 4.515 1.008 Imperial Valley-06 1979 El Centro Array #10 6.53 Strike slip 8.6 203
802 1.855 4.571 1.081 Loma Prieta 1989 Saratoga-Aloha Ave 6.93 Revers. Ob. 7.6 381
1511 1.958 4.732 1.435 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 1999 TCU076 7.62 Revers. Ob. 2.7 615
179 1.346 4.788 1.202 Imperial Valley-06 1979 El Centro Array #4 6.53 Strike slip 4.9 209
185 2.703 4.823 1.991 Imperial Valley-06 1979 Holtville Post Office 6.53 Strike slip 5.4 203
8119 1.019 4.823 1.261 Christchurch_N. Z. 2011 Pages Road P. S. 6.2 Revers. Ob. 1.9 206
1176 1.749 4.949 1.635 Kocaeli_Turkey 1999 Yarimca 7.51 Strike slip 1.4 297
1510 1.398 4.998 1.533 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 1999 TCU075 7.62 Revers. Ob. 0.9 573
879 1.715 5.124 2.291 Landers 1992 Lucerne 7.28 Strike slip 2.2 1,369
1476 3.370 5.285 2.151 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 1999 TCU029 7.62 Revers. Ob. 28.0 407
1244 1.151 5.341 1.258 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 1999 CHY101 7.62 Revers. Ob. 9.9 259
3744 1.645 5.362 1.348 Cape Mendocino 1992 Bunker Hill FAA 7.01 Reverse 8.5 566
1480 2.694 5.383 1.744 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 1999 TCU036 7.62 Revers. Ob. 19.8 478
803 1.670 5.649 1.291 Loma Prieta 1989 Saratoga-W V. Coll. 6.93 Revers. Ob. 8.5 348
1503 0.646 5.740 0.923 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 1999 TCU065 7.62 Revers. Ob. 0.6 306
1161 4.336 5.992 2.297 Kocaeli_Turkey 1999 Gebze 7.51 strike slip 7.6 792
143 0.827 6.188 1.123 Tabas_Iran 1978 Tabas 7.35 Reverse 1.8 767
6906 0.666 6.230 0.987 Darfield_N. Z. 2010 GDLC 7 Strike slip 1.2 344
184 1.739 6.265 1.316 Imperial Valley-06 1979 El Centro Diff. Array 6.53 Strike slip 5.1 202

© ASCE 04021027-4 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2021, 26(4): 04021027

 Table 3. (Continued.)
Record Pulse
sequence Scale T p− pulse amplitude Earthquake Station Rjb V s30
number factor period (s) (m/s) name Year name Magnitude Mechanism (km) (m=s)
1501 1.149 6.552 0.997 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 1999 TCU063 7.62 Revers. Ob. 9.8 476
1193 1.876 6.650 1.205 Chi-Chi_ Taiwan 1999 CHY024 7.62 Revers. Ob. 9.6 428
8606 2.129 7.084 1.328 El Mayor-C._Mex. 2010 Westside El. Sch. 7.2 Strike slip 10.3 242
6962 1.748 7.140 1.703 Darfield_N. Z. 2010 ROLC 7 Strike slip 0.0 296
6927 1.199 7.371 1.398 Darfield_N. Z. 2010 LINC 7 Strike slip 5.1 263
900 2.918 7.504 1.632 Landers 1992 Yermo Fire Station 7.28 Strike slip 23.6 354
1498 1.956 7.784 1.256 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 1999 TCU059 7.62 Revers. Ob. 17.1 273
6897 2.733 7.826 1.843 Darfield_N. Z. 2010 DSLC 7 Strike slip 5.3 296
6942 2.573 8.043 1.462 Darfield_N. Z. 2010 NNBS North N.B. Sch. 7 Strike slip 26.8 211
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dogu Akdeniz Universitesi on 11/01/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1515 1.901 8.099 1.202 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 1999 TCU082 7.62 Revers. Ob. 5.2 473
1530 2.524 8.687 1.775 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 1999 TCU103 7.62 Revers. Ob. 6.1 494
8161 1.805 8.722 1.342 El Mayor-C._Mex. 2010 El Centro Array #12 7.2 Strike slip 10.0 197
6966 1.714 8.757 1.127 Darfield_N. Z. 2010 Shirley Library 7 Strike slip 22.3 207
1479 2.350 8.869 1.064 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 1999 TCU034 7.62 Revers. Ob. 35.7 394
1550 2.747 8.882 1.733 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 1999 TCU136 7.62 Revers. Ob. 8.3 462
6975 2.076 8.932 1.584 Darfield_N. Z. 2010 TPLC 7 Strike slip 6.1 249
1496 2.674 8.939 1.220 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 1999 TCU056 7.62 Revers. Ob. 10.5 403
1478 1.841 8.974 0.776 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 1999 TCU033 7.62 Revers. Ob. 40.9 423
1548 1.979 9.023 1.567 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 1999 TCU128 7.62 Revers. Ob. 13.1 600
1482 1.547 9.331 1.086 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 1999 TCU039 7.62 Revers. Ob. 19.9 541
1485 3.243 9.338 1.731 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 1999 TCU045 7.62 Revers. Ob. 26.0 705
6969 2.516 9.352 1.624 Darfield_N. Z. 2010 Styx Mill Transfer St. 7 Strike slip 20.9 248
6960 2.155 9.394 1.379 Darfield_N. Z. 2010 Riccarton High School 7 Strike slip 13.6 293
1481 2.960 9.576 1.686 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 1999 TCU038 7.62 Revers. Ob. 25.4 298
1529 0.895 9.632 1.010 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 1999 TCU102 7.62 Revers. Ob. 1.5 714
6911 0.870 9.919 0.923 Darfield_N. Z. 2010 HORC 7 Strike slip 7.3 326
1489 3.080 10.220 1.925 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 1999 TCU049 7.62 Revers. Ob. 3.8 487
1528 2.777 10.318 2.164 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 1999 TCU101 7.62 Revers. Ob. 2.1 389
1491 2.130 10.381 1.147 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 1999 TCU051 7.62 Revers. Ob. 7.6 350
1492 0.551 11.956 1.153 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 1999 TCU052 7.62 Revers. Ob. 0.0 579
6959 1.641 12.019 1.071 Darfield_N. Z. 2010 Christchurch Rest. 7 Strike slip 19.5 141
1505 0.706 12.285 2.422 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 1999 TCU068 7.62 Revers. Ob. 0.0 487
1487 2.997 12.313 1.362 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 1999 TCU047 7.62 Revers. Ob. 35.0 520
6887 2.110 12.621 1.284 Darfield_N. Z. 2010 Christchurch B. G. 7 Strike slip 18.1 187
1493 3.364 13.118 1.568 Chi-Chi_Taiwan 1999 TCU053 7.62 Revers. Ob. 6.0 455

Fig. 4. Pulse amplitudes corresponding to the pulse period of the selected NF ground motions.

isolator displacement demand smaller than 0.15 m. The mean value
of the peak isolator displacements was calculated as 0.3 m, which
was interestingly close to the isolator displacement obtained from
the equivalent lateral force procedure as 0.346 m. The ground mo-
tions that generated peak isolator displacements with deviation less
than 10% from the mean value are 1052, 1004, 1106, 569, 1054,
4040, 723, 1045, 171, 1085, 316, 170, 802, 1510, 1244, 1480, 803,
6906, 184, 1193, 6942, 1550, 6975, 1485, 6969, 1505, 1487, and
1493 (named Group 4).
Characteristics of the ground motions of each group were in-
vestigated in more detail. As for the ground motions of Group 2,
the pulse amplitudes and peak isolator displacements are shown
in Fig. 7(a) with corresponding pulse periods. Furthermore, the
acceleration spectra of the ground motions of Group 2 are

© ASCE 04021027-5 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2021, 26(4): 04021027

 presented in Fig. 7(b) with the mean and target spectrum. It can
be observed from Fig. 7 that there is not a consistent relationship
between the pulse amplitude and peak isolator displacement; the
increase in the isolator displacement is caused by the higher or-
dinate of the acceleration spectra as the mean spectrum is seen
above the target one before and after the conditional period
of 2.06 s.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dogu Akdeniz Universitesi on 11/01/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
As for the ground motions of Group 3, the pulse amplitudes and
peak isolator displacements are shown in Fig. 8(a) with correspond-
ing pulse periods. Furthermore, the acceleration spectra of the
ground motions of Group 3 are presented in Fig. 8(b) with the mean
and target spectrum. It can be observed from Fig. 8 that there is not

Fig. 5. Force–displacement relationship of LRB isolator.

Table 4. Characteristics of the selected LRB isolators

Characteristics Values
Outside diameter (mm) 1,400
Diameter of lead core (mm) 400
Number of rubber layers 21
Thickness of rubber layer (mm) 8 Fig. 7. Characteristics and isolator displacement demand of the ground
Thickness of side-cover rubber (mm) 20 motions of Group 2: (a) pulse amplitude and peak isolator displacement
Number of the isolators 72 demand; and (b) acceleration spectrum.

Table 5. Parameters of seismic isolation design

W (kN) D (m) K eff (kN=m) T eff (s) Ceff (kNs=m) β eff V b =W
509,828 0.353 514,302 2.00 94,541 0.235 0.36

Fig. 6. Isolator displacements obtained from the analysis of the NF ground motions with the corresponding pulse periods.

© ASCE 04021027-6 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2021, 26(4): 04021027

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dogu Akdeniz Universitesi on 11/01/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Characteristics and isolator displacement demand of the ground
motions of Group 3: (a) pulse amplitude and peak isolator displacement
demand; and (b) acceleration spectrum.
Fig. 9. Characteristics and isolator displacement demand of the ground
motions of Group 4: (a) pulse amplitude and peak isolator displacement
demand; and (b) acceleration spectrum.
© ASCE 04021027-7
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2021, 26(4): 04021027
Fig. 10. Floor accelerations induced by the FF and NF ground
motions.
a consistent relationship between the pulse amplitude and peak iso-
lator displacement; the decrease in the isolator displacement is
caused by the lower ordinate of the acceleration spectra as the mean
spectrum is seen under the target one before and after the condi-
tional period of 2.06 s.
As for the ground motions of Group 4, the pulse amplitudes and
peak isolator displacements are shown in Fig. 9(a) with correspond-
ing pulse periods. Furthermore, the acceleration spectra of the
ground motions of Group 4 are presented in Fig. 9(b) with the mean
and target spectrum. It can be observed from Fig. 9 that there is not
a consistent relationship between the pulse amplitude and peak iso-
lator displacement; the peak isolator displacements are close to the
mean value because the mean acceleration spectrum best matches
the target one.
The floor accelerations of the building obtained as the mean
from the seven-pair FF, and 100-pair NF earthquake ground mo-
tions are comparatively given in Fig. 10. The peak difference be-
tween the floor accelerations is obtained at the ground floor
as 8.5%.
The acceleration of the ground floor obtained from the analy-
sis of the NF ground motions is presented in Fig. 11, showing
the corresponding pulse period to demonstrate the influence of
the pulse period on the floor acceleration. Neither a consistent
relation between peak floor acceleration and the pulse period
nor the resonance phenomenon around the conditional period
2.06 s was observed. The ground motions with sequence number
568, 1004, 451, 8123, 77, 292, 983, 179, 879, 1161, 6897, and
1487 (named Group 5) generated peak floor acceleration demand
larger than 0.55g, whereas the ones with sequence number 171,
173, 1510, 1501, 6927, 6966, 1548, 1482, 1529, and 6887
(named Group 6) generate peak floor acceleration demand smaller
than 0.35g.
In investigating the characteristics of the ground motions of
Group 5, the pulse amplitudes and the peak floor acceleration are
shown in Fig. 12(a) with corresponding pulse periods. Further-
more, the acceleration spectra of the ground motions of Group
5 are presented in Fig. 12(b) with the mean and target spectrum.
It can be observed from Fig. 12 that there is not a consistent re-
lation between the pulse amplitude and peak floor acceleration;
the increase in the floor acceleration is caused by the higher
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dogu Akdeniz Universitesi on 11/01/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Acceleration of the ground floor obtained from the analysis of the NF ground motions with the corresponding pulse periods.

ordinate of the acceleration spectra as the mean spectrum is seen
above the target one before and after the conditional period of
2.06 s.
In investigating the characteristics of the ground motions of
Group 6, the pulse amplitudes and the peak floor acceleration are
shown in Fig. 13(a) with corresponding pulse periods. Further-
more, the acceleration spectra of the ground motions of Group 6
are presented in Fig. 13(b) with the mean and target spectrum. It
can be observed from Fig. 13 that there is not a consistent rela-
tionship between the pulse amplitude and peak floor accelera-
tion; the decrease in the floor acceleration is caused by the
lower ordinate of the acceleration spectra as the mean spectrum
is seen under the target one before the conditional period of
2.06 s.
The ground motions of Group 1 were further investigated based
on the isolator displacement and floor acceleration demands. The
pulse amplitudes, the peak isolator displacement, and the peak
floor acceleration are shown in Fig. 14(a) and Table 6 with cor-
responding pulse periods. Furthermore, the acceleration spectra of
the ground motions of Group 1 are presented in Fig. 14(b) with the
mean and target spectrum. The mean value of the floor acceler-
ations is 0.53g. It is worth noting that the ground motion of se-
quence number 1505 generates the lowest floor acceleration,
0.38g, and isolator displacement, 0.277 m, because of the lower

Fig. 12. Characteristics and peak floor acceleration demand of the Fig. 13. Characteristics and peak floor acceleration demand of the
ground motions of Group 5: (a) pulse amplitude and peak floor accel- ground motions of Group 6: (a) pulse amplitude and peak floor accel-
eration demand; and (b) acceleration spectrum. eration demand; and (b) acceleration spectrum.

© ASCE 04021027-8 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2021, 26(4): 04021027

 ordinate of acceleration spectra, although it has one of the largest
pulse amplitudes, 2.42 m. It can be observed from Fig. 14 that
there is not a consistent relationship between the pulse amplitude
and peak floor acceleration as well as peak isolator displace-
ment; the increase or decrease in the floor acceleration, as well
as the isolator displacement, is caused by the ordinate of the ac-
celeration spectra, rather than the pulse period and/or the pulse
amplitude.
Lastly, representative force–displacement diagram and bidi-
rectional lateral displacement diagram of an isolator under
Northridge-01 earthquake in 1994 with record sequence number
1052 are given in Fig. 15.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dogu Akdeniz Universitesi on 11/01/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Conclusions

Based on the response history analyses conducted on the prototype

Fig. 14. Characteristics and response demand of the ground motions
of Group 1: (a) pulse amplitude and peak response demands; and
(b) acceleration spectrum.
building using the real NF ground motions, the following conclu-
sions can be made:
1. No resonance phenomenon is observed when the velocity pulse
period is close to the natural period of the isolated building.
2. There is not any consistent relationship between the velocity
pulse period and the peak isolator displacement as well as
the floor acceleration.
3. There is not any consistent relationship between the velocity
pulse amplitude and the peak isolator displacement as well as
the floor acceleration.
4. The increase or decrease in the floor acceleration, as well as the
isolator displacement, is predominantly caused by the ordinate
of the acceleration spectra; the effects of the pulse period and/or
the pulse amplitude on the floor acceleration and the isolator
displacement remain minor.
5. The floor acceleration response of the isolated building under
real NF ground motions could be higher than that of the FF
ground motions by 8% or so, provided that the acceleration
spectrum of the ground motions best matches the target spectrum.

Table 6. Characteristics of the ground motions of Group 1

Record sequence number Pulse period (s) Pulse amplitude (m/s) Isolator displacement Floor acceleration (g)
1051 0.84 2.61 0.226 0.52
451 1.07 2.23 0.534 0.76
879 5.12 2.29 0.632 0.63
1476 5.29 2.15 0.541 0.46
1161 5.99 2.30 0.554 0.58
1528 10.32 2.16 0.385 0.40
1505 12.29 2.42 0.277 0.38

Fig. 15. (a) Force–displacement diagram of an isolator; and (b) bidirectional lateral displacement diagram of an isolator.

© ASCE 04021027-9 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2021, 26(4): 04021027

 Data Availability Statement
Models and ground motions that support the findings of this study
are available from the authors upon reasonable request.
References
Alhan, C., and S. O. Davas. 2016. “Performance limits of seismically iso-
lated buildings under near-field earthquakes.” Eng. Struct. 116 (Jun):
83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.02.043.
Alhan, C., and Y. Göktas. 2009. “Effects of near-field earthquakes on seis-
mically isolated buildings.” In Proc., WCCE-ECCE-TCCE Joint Conf.:
Earthquake and Tsunami. London: Turkish Chamber of Civil Engi-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dogu Akdeniz Universitesi on 11/01/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
neers, European Council of Civil Engineers, World Council of Civil
Engineers.
ASCE. 2016. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.
ASCE/SEI 7/16. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Aydin, E., B. Ozturk, and O. F. Kilinc. 2012. “Seismic response of low-rise
base isolated structures.” In Proc., 15th World Conf. on Earthquake
Engineering. Lisbon, Portugal: Sociedade Portuguesa de Engenharia
Sísmica.
Baker, J. W. 2011. “Conditional mean spectrum: Tool for ground-motion
selection.” J. Struct. Eng. 137 (3): 322–331. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000215.
Carlton, B., and N. Abrahamson. 2014. “Issues and approaches for imple-
menting conditional mean spectra in practice.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
104 (1): 503–512. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120130129.
Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency, Ministry of Interior, the
Republic of Turkey. 2018. Turkish building seismic code. Ankara,
Turkey: Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency, Ministry
of Interior, the Republic of Turkey.
Erdik, M., M. Demircioğlu, K. Şeşetyan, E. Durukal, and B. Siyahi. 2004.
“Assessment of probabilistic earthquake hazard in the Marmara Region,
Turkey.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 24 (8): 605–631. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.soildyn.2004.04.003.
Heaton, T. H., J. F. Hall, and M. W. Halling. 1995. “Response of high-rise
and base-isolated buildings to a hypothetical M w 7.0 blind thrust earth-
quake.” Science 267 (5195): 206–211. https://doi.org/10.1126/science
.267.5195.206.s.
Jangid, R. S. 2005. “Optimum friction pendulum system for near-fault mo-
tions.” Eng. Struct. 27 (3): 349–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct
.2004.09.013.
Jangid, R. S. 2007. “Optimum lead–rubber isolation bearings for near-fault
motions.” Eng. Struct. 29 (10): 2503–2513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engstruct.2006.12.010.
Jangid, R. S., and J. M. Kelly. 2001. “Base isolation for near-fault motions.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 30 (5): 691–707. https://doi.org/10.1002
/eqe.31.
Kelly, J. M. 1999. “The role of damping in seismic isolation.” Earthquake
Eng. Struct. Dyn. 28 (1): 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096
-9845(199901)28:1<3::AID-EQE801>3.0.CO;2-D.
© ASCE 04021027-10
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2021, 26(4): 04021027
Kömür, M. A., İ. Ö. Deneme, and R. Oruç. 2019. “Seismic response of
fixed-base and LRB base-isolated RC frame systems under NF and
FF excitations.” J. Struct. Eng. 2 (4): 174–189. https://doi.org/10
.31462/jseam.2019.04174189.
Kwong, N. S., and A. K. Chopra. 2017. “A generalized conditional mean
spectrum and its application for intensity-based assessments of seismic
demands.” Earthquake Spectra 33 (1): 123–143. https://doi.org/10
.1193/040416eqs050m.
Lu, L. Y., C. C. Lin, and G. L. Lin. 2013. “Experimental evaluation of
supplemental viscous damping for a sliding isolation system under
pulse-like base excitations.” J. Sound Vib. 332 (8): 1982–1999.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2012.12.008.
Lu, L. Y., M. H. Shih, S. W. Tzeng, and C. S. Chang. 2003. “Experiment of
a sliding isolated structure subjected to near-field ground motion.” In
Proc., 7th Pacific Conf. on Earthquake Engineering. Wellington,
New Zealand: New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering.
Mazza, F., and A. Vulcano. 2009. “Nonlinear response of RC framed build-
ings with isolation and supplemental damping at the base subjected to
near-fault earthquakes.” J. Earthquake Eng. 13 (5): 690–715. https://doi
.org/10.1080/13632460802632302.
Mazza, F., and A. Vulcano. 2012. “Effects of near-fault ground motions on
the nonlinear dynamic response of base-isolated RC framed buildings.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 41 (2): 211–232. https://doi.org/10.1002
/eqe.1126.
McVitty, W. J., and M. C. Constantinou. 2015. Property modification fac-
tors for seismic isolators: Design guidance for buildings. Technical
Rep. No. MCEER-15-0005. New York: Univ. of Buffalo, State Univ.
of New York.
Moustafa, A., K. Ueno, and I. Takewaki. 2010. “Critical earthquake loads
for SDOF inelastic structures considering evolution of seismic waves.”
Earthquake Struct. 1 (2): 147–162. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2010.1
.2.147.
Naeim, F., and J. M. Kelly. 1999. Design of seismic isolated structures:
From theory to practice. New York: Wiley.
Noroozinejad Farsangi, E., A. A. Tasnimi, T. Y. Yang, I. Takewaki, and
M. Mohammadhasani. 2018. “Seismic performance of base-isolated
buildings under multi-directional earthquake excitations.” Smart Struct.
Syst. 22 (4): 383–397.
Özuygur, A. R. 2021. “A comparative study of floor accelerations of different
structural systems with lead-rubber-bearing (LRB) isolators.” Can. J. Civ.
Eng. 99 (999): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2019-0382.
PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center). 2019.
“NGA-West2 database of Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center.” Accessed October 17, 2019. http://ngawest2.berkeley.edu.
Providakis, C. P. 2008. “Effect of LRB isolators and supplemental viscous
dampers on seismic isolated buildings under near-fault excitations.”
Eng. Struct. 30 (5): 1187–1198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct
.2007.07.020.
Rong, Q. 2020. “Optimum parameters of a five-story building supported by
lead-rubber bearings under near-fault ground motions.” J. Low Freq.
Noise Vibr. Act. Control 39 (1): 98–113. https://doi.org/10.1177
/1461348419845829.
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.