Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1870 – 1877

11th International Symposium on Plasticity and Impact Mechanics, Implast 2016

Response of the double concave friction pendulum system under

triaxial ground excitations
Vrunda M Shaha, Dr.D.PSonib
a
PG Student, Civil Engineering Department, SardarVallabhbhai Patel Institute Of Technology, Vasad, 388306,India.
b
Professor and Head, Civil Engineering Department, SardarVallabhbhai Patel Institute Of Technology, Vasad, 388306,India.

Abstract

Modelling techniques of Double Concave Friction Pendulum (DCFP) system are presented. Seismic responses of the three-
dimensional single-story building isolated by DCFP with different coefficient of friction and initial time period of top and bottom
sliding surfaces are investigated under triaxial ground excitations and compared with unilateral and bilateral ground excitations.
The influence of vertical flexibility on horizontal response is investigated. It is observed that the triaxial ground motion has
noticeable effect on response of the building relative to unilateral ground motion. The error in peak resultant absolute deck
acceleration and the error in peak resultant isolator deformation, occurring by neglecting vertical ground motion component,
could be significant.
© 2017
© 2016Published
The Authors. Published
by Elsevier by Elsevier
Ltd. This Ltd.
is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Peer-review under responsibility ofthe organizing committee of Implast 2016.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of Implast 2016
Keywords:Double Concave Friction Pendulum System; Vertical Component of Ground Motion; Bilateral Interaction; Seismic Isolation

1. Introduction
The double concave friction pendulum system is growing interest due to its facility of providing different
coefficient of friction and isolator geometry of top and bottom sliding surface. As shown in figure 1 , the
displacement capacity of double concave friction pendulum system is twice compared to traditional friction
pendulum system [Fenz and Constantinou, 2006][1].

Fig.1 maximum sliding displacements of Double Concave Friction Pendulum System

Jangid R S (1997)[2] presented thatthe response of structures with sliding support to bi-directional (i.e. two

1877-7058 © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of Implast 2016
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2016.12.240
 Vrunda M. Shah and D.P. Soni / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1870 – 1877 1871

horizontal components) harmonic ground motion is investigated. The responses of the system with bidirectional
interaction are compared with 2D idealization in two orthogonal directions. And observed that the sliding base
displacement may be underestimated if the effects of bi-directional interaction of frictional forces are neglected ,
which is crucial from the design point of view.JOSE L.et al. (1998)[7]presented that for Different modelling aspects
of single-storey structures and a real four-storey building frame isolated using the FPS and subjected to earthquake
ground motions in two direction are investigated. It is observed that there is 20 per cent error in mean results when
neglecting vertical motion of the building. Uplift leading 3 times increase in column base shear when ignoring the
vertical dynamics of the building.Soni et al. (2010)[4]presented that Modelling techniques and Seismic responses of
the three-dimensional single-story building isolated by DVFPI with different μ and initial time period of top and
bottom sliding surfaces are investigated under triaxial ground motions and compared with unilateral and bilateral
ground excitations. It is observed that triaxial ground motion has noticeable effect on response of the building
relative to unilateral ground motion. There is significant error in peak resultant base shear, occurring by neglecting
vertical ground motion component.

2. Force - displacement relationship of the DCFP

The force displacement relationship for the entire DCFP bearing was derived in [Fenz and Constantinou,
2006][1] as shown in equation (1).

ே ఓேభ ௦௚௡ሺ௨ሶ భ ሻோ೐೑೑భ ାఓேమ ௦௚௡ሺ௨ሶ మ ሻோ೐೑೑మ

‫ܨ‬ൌ ‫ ݑ‬൅  (1)
ோ೐೑೑భ ାோ೐೑೑మ ோ೐೑೑భ ାோ೐೑೑మ
Here, ܴ௘௙௙ଵ = ܴଵ െ ݄ଵ and ܴ௘௙௙ଶ =ܴଶ െ ݄ଶ ; ߤܰଵ ‫݊݃ݏ‬ሺ‫ݑ‬ሶ ଵ ሻ and ߤܰଶ ‫݊݃ݏ‬ሺ‫ݑ‬ሶ ଶ ሻ are the friction forces acting on top and
bottom sliding surfaces respectively; the ‫݊݃ݏ‬ሺ‫ݑ‬ሶ ଵ ሻ and‫݊݃ݏ‬ሺ‫ݑ‬ሶ ଶ ሻ are incorporated to maintain the symmetry of the top
and bottom sliding surfaces about the central vertical axis. The signum function have a value of +1 for positive value
of sliding displacement and -1 for negative value of sliding displacement; ߤ = the coefficient of friction of top and
bottom sliding surfaces; ܰଵ And ܰଶ = Vertical force acting on top and bottom surfaces respectively. Here assuming
that ܰଵ and ܰଶ equal to weight of top and bottom sliding surface respectively.

Fig. 2 Mathematical model for a DCFP bearing

The two FPSs will move simultaneously and the DCFP will behave bi-linearly as the theoretical push-over curve
when the sliding friction coefficients of both FPSs (ߤଵ and ߤଶ ) are same and a DCFP is subjected to a static load. The
DCFP will behave tri-linearly when two friction coefficients are different (say ߤଵ <ߤଶ ). The overall behavior of
DCFP can be obtained by defining two separate single concave elements connecting in series with small point mass
modeled as articulated slider as shown in Figure 2.

3. Assumptions, structural system and ground motions

A three dimensional single story rigid building resting on DCFP system installed between base mass and
foundation block of the building shown in Figure 3.
The assumptions considered for this whole system are as follow:
1. The superstructure is symmetrical with respect to two orthogonal horizontal directions. Therefore, there is
no torsional coupling with lateral movement of the system and the system will have only lateral degrees of
freedom.
2. The coefficient of friction of the DCFP bearing is assumed to be constant and independent of the relative
velocity at the sliding interface.
1872 Vrunda M. Shah and D.P. Soni / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1870 – 1877

3. There is no uplift and impact between the structure and the sliding surface of the DCFP bearing during
earthquake. This express indirectly that the isolator is assumed to stay in contact with the sliding surfaces at
all times during earthquake.
4. The articulated slider of DCFP bearing is assumed to have point contact with both top and bottom sliding
interfaces.
5. No overturning and sliding occurs in the superstructure during sliding over DCFP bearing.
6. The DCFP is isotropic it means there is same coefficient of friction and isolation period in each of the two
principle directions of motion in the principle plane.
7. Assume the superstructure is linearly elastic.

The superstructure of the system consists of a rigid deck slab and columns. The deck slab has lateral dimension b in
X-direction and in Y-direction. The columns are too considered as mass less, axially inextensible. The deck slab is
supported by columns, at top, at the edges of the deck slab and the columns are connected to a rigid base slab at the
bottom of the columns. The centre of mass CM is located at the centre of the deck slab. The group of DCFP system
is arranged betweenrigid base slab and foundation.

Fig. 3 Structural Model Elevation

Table 1 Structural models taken in consideration for study

Models Vertical stiffness of Earthquake components
columns
Model A Infinite X (Unilateral component)
Y (Unilateral component)
XY (Bilateral component) with interaction

Model B Infinite XYZ (triaxial components) with interaction in XY direction

Model C Finite XYZ (triaxial components) with interaction in XY direction

The structural model taken in study is characterized with infinite stiffness of column and subjected to X (Unilateral
component), Y (Unilateral component), XY (bilateral components) and XYZ(triaxial) components of
earthquake.The responses of the structural models are obtained for six earthquake ground motions, which represent
a wide range of ground motion characteristics that need to be considered in the design of seismic-isolated structures
listed in Table 2. The response of structural model is obtained and the records represent near fault effects.

4. Governing equations of motion

The governing equation of motion for the three dimensional single story superstructure, base mass and slider in X-
direction are shown in equation (2).

The equation for Deck:

݉ௗ ‫ݑ‬ሷ ௗ௫ ൅ ܿ௫ ‫ݑ‬ሶ ௗ௫ ൅ ݇௫ ‫ݑ‬ௗ௫ ൌ െ݉ௗ ‫ݑ‬ሷ ௚௫ (2a)
The equation for Base mass:
݉௕ ‫ݑ‬ሷ ௕௫ െ  ܿ௫ ‫ݑ‬ሶ ௕௫ െ  ݇௫ ‫ݑ‬ௗ௫ ൅  ݇௕ଵ ‫ݎ‬ଵ ‫ݑ‬௕௫ െ  ݇௕ଵ ‫ݎ‬ଵ ‫ݑ‬௦௫  ൅  ‫ܨ‬௫ଵ ൌ െ݉௕ ‫ݑ‬ሷ ௚௫ (2b)
 Vrunda M. Shah and D.P. Soni / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1870 – 1877 1873

The equation of slider:

݉௦ ‫ݑ‬ሷ ௦௫ െ  ݇௕ଵ ‫ݎ‬ଵ ‫ݑ‬௕௫ ൅ ሾ݇௕ଵ ‫ݎ‬ଵ ൅  ݇௕ଶ ‫ݎ‬ଶ ሿ‫ݑ‬௦௫  ൅  ሺ‫ܨ‬௫ଶ െ ‫ܨ‬௫ଵ ሻ ൌ െ݉௦ ‫ݑ‬ሷ ௚௫ (2c)
Wherein ݉ௗ ǡ ݉௕ ǡ ݉௦ = Deck mass, Base mass and mass of slider respectively; ܿ௫ = damping coefficient in X-
direction; ݇௫ = stiffness of superstructure in X-direction; ‫ݑ‬ሷ ௗ௫ ǡ ‫ݑ‬ሷ ௕௫ ƒ†‫ݑ‬ሷ ௦௫ = X- directional component of deck
acceleration, base mass acceleration and slider acceleration respectively; ‫ݑ‬ሶ ௗ௫ ƒ†‫ݑ‬ሶ ௕௫ = X- directional component of
deck velocity and base mass velocity; ‫ݑ‬ௗ௫ ǡ ‫ݑ‬௕௫ ƒ†‫ݑ‬௦௫ = X- directional component of deck displacement, base mass
displacement and slider displacement respectively; ‫ݎ‬ଵ ƒ†‫ݎ‬ଶ = Earthquake influence coefficients; ‫ܨ‬௫ଵ ƒ†‫ܨ‬௫ଶ =
Frictional forces in X- directional; ‫ݑ‬ሷ ௚௫ = X- directional component of ground acceleration. These governing
equation of motion for the three dimensional single story superstructure, base mass and slider can be obtained in Y-
direction.

Table 2 Details of earthquake ground motions used in study

Earthquake Applied in X-direction Applied in Y direction Applied in Z-direction
components PGA components PGA PGA(g)
Kobe (1995,Kobe University) 000 0.284 090 0.304 0.372

Northridge (1994,New Hall Fire Station) 360 0.589 090 0.583 0.548

Lexington Dam (1989, Loma Prieta) 000 0.433 090 0.420 0.151

Corritilos (1989, Loma Prieta) 000 0.618 090 0.469 0.431

Sylmar (1987, Olive view Medical centre) 000 0.558 090 0.503 0.40

Coyoto Lake (1979,Gilroy Array #2) 140 0.248 050 0.186 0.162

5. Solution of equations of motion

Due to nonlinear force deformation behavior of DCFP bearing and considerable difference in damping of
superstructure and the isolation system, the governing equation of motion of the base isolated structure are solved in
incremental form using Newmark’s step by step method assuming linear variation in acceleration over small time
interval, ∆t, in this study. The friction forces are obtained by hysteretic model. The hysteretic model is a continuous
model of friction forces proposed by Constantinouet al. [1990] using Bouc-wen equation [Wen, 1976]. In hysteretic
model, the interaction between frictional forces can be expressed by coupling of hysteretic displacements
components in two directions. A very small time step of the order of 1X10 -5 has been found suitable for step by step
solution because of highly nonlinear behavior of the system.

6. Effect of vertical component on DCFP isolated building

The normal reactions for top and bottom surface of isolation system produce due to effect of vertical component of
earthquake. This can be expressed as
௨ሷ ೒೥
ܰଵ ൌ ሺ‫ݓ‬ௗ ൅ ‫ݓ‬௕ ሻ ቂ ൅ ͳቃ (3a)
௚
௨ሷ ೒೥
ܰଶ ൌ ሺ‫ݓ‬ௗ ൅ ‫ݓ‬௕ ൅ ‫ݓ‬௦ ሻ ቂ ൅ ͳቃ (3b)
௚

7. Numerical study

To demonstrate the accuracy and validity of analysis methods, models and developed program, the Force
deformation relationship for Model A underbilateral components and Model B under triaxial components of
Northridge, 1994 (New Hall Fire Station) earthquake, respectively, for the example building isolated by the FPS
obtained is shown below.
1874 Vrunda M. Shah and D.P. Soni / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1870 – 1877

Fig.4(a) Almazan et al. (1998)[7] and (b) developed program

Fig.5(a) Almazan et al. (1998)[7] and (b) developed program

7.1. Corrilitos (1989 Loma Prieta) earthquake results

The response of three dimensional single story DCFP isolated building is obtained for criteria
Ts=0.5s,T1=1.5s,T2=2.0s,μ1=0.04,μ2=0.05,λ= 0.001 and ξ = 2 %. The results obtained for corrilitos (1989 Loma
Prieta) earthquake are plotted below. Table 3 shows peak response quantities for six earthquake ground motion for
stiff building.
Figure 6 shows time history of displacement for total isolator displacement for unilateral, bilateral and triaxial
ground excitation in X and Y direction for Corrilitos (1989 Loma Prieta) earthquake. The time history of deck
acceleration for unilateral, bilateral and triaxial ground excitation in X and Y direction for Corrilitos (1989 Loma
Prieta) earthquake is shown in figure 7.Figure 8 shows time history of base shear for unilateral, bilateral and triaxial
ground excitation in X and Y direction for Corrilitos (1989 Loma Prieta) earthquake. Figure 9 represent correlation
between the isolator displacements in X and Y- directions for (a) top sliding surface, (b) bottom sliding surface and
(c) total isolator deformation for Corrilitos (1989 Loma Prieta) earthquake. The graph shows path of movement of

Fig. 6 Time history of Displacement (a) in X (b) in Y for Corrilitos (1989 Loma Prieta) earthquake

Fig. 7Time history of Acceleration (a) in X (b) in Y for Corrilitos (1989 Loma Prieta) earthquake
 Vrunda M. Shah and D.P. Soni / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1870 – 1877 1875

0.08
UNILATERAL UNILATERAL
BILATERAL BILATERAL
0.06
0.05 TRIAXAIL TRIAXIAL
0.04

BASE SHEAR IN X

BASE SHEAR IN Y
0.02
0.00
0.00

-0.02
-0.05
-0.04

0.098 -0.06

-0.10 0.102
0.11 0.0803 0.0813
-0.08
0.086
2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 TIME
6 (sec) 8 10 12
TIME (sec)

Fig. 8Time history of base shear (a) in X (b) in Y for Corrilitos (1989 Loma Prieta) earthquake

2
3 BILATERAL BILATERAL 4 BILTERAL
TRIAXIAL TRIAXIAL TRIAXIAL
3
1
2
2

1
1 0
0
X1

VBY
X2
0 -1
-1
-2
-1
-2 -3

-4
-2
-3 -5

-3 -6
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
Y1 Y2 VBX

Fig. 9 correlation between the isolator displacements in X and Y- directions for (a) top sliding surface, (b) bottom sliding surface and (c) total
isolator deformation for Corrilitos (1989 Loma Prieta) earthquake.

isolator. Figure 10 shows interaction curve for unilateral, bilateral and triaxial ground excitation for lexington dam
(1989 Loma Prieta) earthquake. The interaction curve is square for unilateral ground motion,circular for bilateral
ground motion and for triaxial ground motion the isolator move in side as well as outside of circular interaction
curve.
TRIAXIAL COMPONENTS
UNILATERAL COMPONENT BILATERAL COMPONENTS
0.04
0.04 0.04

0.02
0.02 0.02
FY1 (W)

0.00
0.00 0.00
FY1

FY1

-0.02
-0.02 -0.02

-0.04
-0.04 -0.04

-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04

-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04
FX1 (W)
FX1 FX1

Fig.10 Interaction of friction forces in X and Y direction for (a) unilateral (b) bilateral and (c) triaxial ground motion.

- TRIAXIAL COMPONENTS
1.6
1.55

1.4

1.2
N2 (W)

1.0

0.8

0.6 0.615

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
TIME(SEC)

Fig. 11 Time history of the normal reaction N2 (W) of 1994New Hall Fire Station ground motion

Figure 11 shows time history of normal reaction for 1994 New Hall Fire Station earthquake ground motion. Here
normal reaction of triaxial ground motion changes continuously and reaches maximum of 55% of corresponding
unitary value of model A. Figure 12 shows characteristic force displacement relationship of DCFP system under
unilateral, bilateral and triaxial ground motion. For unilateral ground motion the hysteresis loop is straight, the line
of loop is slightly curved for bilateral ground motion and for triaxial ground motion there is effect of spike due to
variation in normal reaction of vertical component of earthquake. Figure 13 shows Mean peak resultant isolator
deformation and deck acceleration error spectra under the six ground motions considered for unilateral, bilateral
ground excitation relative to the triaxial ground excitation for stiff structure. The graphs represent that, When the
vertical component of the ground motion is neglected, the mean error in peak resultant absolute deck acceleration
could be increase in the range of 10-22% for unilateral and 2-18% for bilateral earthquake and the mean error in
1876 Vrunda M. Shah and D.P. Soni / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1870 – 1877

peak resultant isolator displacement could be under estimated in the range of 23-29% for unilateral and 0-2% for
bilateral earthquake typically for the stiff structure.
0.4 0.2
BILATERAL (XY) COMPONENTS 200 TRIAXIAL COMPONENTS
UNILATERAL (X) COMPONENT
0.2 0.1 100

0
0.0

FBX (W)
0.0
FBX (W)

FbX (W)
-100

-0.2
-0.1 -200

-0.4
-300
-0.2
-0.6 -400

-0.3 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4

-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200
UBX(mm) Ubx (mm) UX (mm)

0.2
UNILATERAL (Y) COMPONENT BILATERAL (XY) COMPONENTS 0.4 TRIAXIAL COMPONENTS

0.2
0.1
0.2

FBY (W)
0.0 0.0 0.0
FBY(W)

FbY (W)
-0.2 -0.1 -0.2

-0.4 -0.2 -0.4

-0.6
-0.3 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200
-300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 UY (mm)
UBY(mm) UBY (mm)

Fig.12 Characteristic force-displacement relationship of DCFP for unilateral, bilateral and triaxial ground excitation.

Table 3 Peak response quantities of single storystiffbuilding under different components of considered earthquake ground motions ( Ts = 0.5 sT1
= 1.5 s, T2 =2.0 s, μ1= 0.04, μ2= 0.05, λ= 0.001and ξ = 2 %),
Earthquake Components ࢛ሷ ࢈࢞ ሺࢍሻ ࢛ሷ ࢈࢟ ሺࢍሻ ࡲ࢈࢞ ሺࢃሻ ࡲ࢈࢟ ሺࢃሻ ࢛࢈࢞ ሺ࢓࢓ሻ ࢛࢈࢟ ሺ࢓࢓ሻ N2(W)

1995 Kobe (Kobe Unilateral Model A 0.047 0.030 0.046 0.02 5.24 2.776 1.00
University)
Bilateral Model A 0.059 0.045 0.041 0.028 15.505 6.89 1.00
Triaxial Model B 0.051 0.046 0.045 0.033 8.179 10.339 1.05

1994 Northridge (New Unilateral Model A 0.085 0.062 0.080 0.061 10.613 11.47 1.00
Hall Fire Station) Bilateral Model A 0.084 0.060 0.063 0.046 27.459 12.869 1.00
Triaxial Model B 0.086 0.058 0.07 0.04 26.221 12.378 1.06

1989 Loma Prieta Unilateral Model A 0.063 0.064 0.048 0.045 6.85 5.86 1.00
(Lexington Dam) Bilateral Model A 0.059 0.056 0.056 0.054 9.598 8.92 1.00
Triaxial Model B 0.06 0.057 0.058 0.056 10.405 8.961 1.012

Corritilos (1989 Loma Unilateral Model A 0.115 0.086 0.114 0.074 2.87 4.53 1.00
Prieta) Bilateral Model A 0.102 0.083 0.078 0.071 4.07 5.16 1.00
Triaxial Model B 0.098 0.0813 0.072 0.069 4.93 5.58 1.05

1979 Coyoto Lake Unilateral Model A 0.011 0.032 0.01 0.032 0.61 1.55 1.00
(Gilroy Array #2) Bilateral Model A 0.02 0.03 0.018 0.029 3.87 2.79 1.00
Triaxial Model B 0.016 0.03 0.01 0.029 1.86 1.89 1.013

1987 Sylmar – Olive Unilateral Model A 0.097 0.06 0.076 0.042 14.33 17.47 1.00
view Medical centre Bilateral Model A 0.1 0.075 0.097 0.046 21.361 18.418 1.00
Triaxial Model B 0.097 0.067 0.098 0.047 21.493 16.919 1.05

0
UNILATERAL 0
BILATERAL
UNILATERAL
MEAN PEAK RESULTANT ISOLATOR
MEAN PEAK RESULTANT ABSOLUTE

BILATERAL
DECK ACCELERATION ERROR (%)

DEFORMATON ERROR (%)

-10

-10

-20

-20

-30
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
TS (SEC) TS (SEC)

Fig. 13 Mean peak resultant isolator deformation and deck acceleration error spectra under the six ground motions considered for unilateral,
bilateral ground excitation relative to the triaxial ground excitation for stiff structure.
 Vrunda M. Shah and D.P. Soni / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1870 – 1877 1877

Figure 14 shows Mean peak resultant deck acceleration error and mean peak resultant isolator deformation error
for the six earthquake ground motions considered for rigid building relative to flexible building. The graphs shows
that, When vertical flexibility of structure is ignored, the error in peak resultant absolute deck acceleration could be
in range of 1 to 18 % and the error in peak resultant isolator deformation could be in range of 1 to 12% for rigid
building relative to flexible building.
50 20
NWH LEN KOBE NWH LEX KOBE
COR COY SYL COR COY SYL
40 MEAN ERROR MEAN ERROR

ISOLATOR DEFORMATION ERROOR

DECK ACCELERATION ERROOR

PEAK RESULTANT ABSOLUTE

PEAK RESULTANT ABSOLUTE

30
10

20

10

0
0

-10

-20 -10
0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10
Tv Tv

Fig.14 Mean peak resultant deck acceleration error and isolator deformation error for the six earthquake ground motions considered for
Model B relative to Model C.
8. Conclusion
1) There is significant difference in the results of unilateral (X or Y) components, bilateral (XY) components and
triaxial components of ground excitations for structural system with DCFP bearing.
2) The hysteresis loop for force displacement relationship for triaxial ground motion shows spike effect due to
variation in normal reaction of vertical component of earthquake.
3) When the vertical component of the ground motion is neglected, the mean error in peak resultant absolute deck
acceleration could be increase in the range of 10-22% for unilateral and 2-18% for bilateral earthquake
typically for the stiff structure.
4) When the vertical component of the ground motion is neglected, the peak resultant isolator displacement could
be under estimated in the range of 23-29% for unilateral and 0-2% for bilateral earthquake typically for the
stiff structure.
5) When vertical flexibility of structure is ignored, the error in peak resultant absolute deck acceleration could be
in range of 1 to 18 % for rigid building relative to flexible building.
6) When vertical flexibility of structure is ignored, the error in peak resultant isolator deformation could be in
range of 1 to 12% for rigid building relative to flexible building.

Acknowledgements
I thank the Almighty for giving me the courage and strength to complete and accomplish this research. , I would like
to thank my family members, especially. I would like to take sincere thanks towards my esteemed guide, Dr. Devesh
P. Soni, Head of Department of Civil Engineering, SardarVallbhbhai Institute of Technology, for his guidance.

References
[1] Michael C. Constantinou , ‘Behaviour of the double concave Friction Pendulum bearing’,Earthquake engineering and Structureal dynamics;
09/(2006), 35(11):1403 – 1424.
[2] Jangid R S,’Response of pure-friction sliding structures to bi-directional harmonic ground motion’, Engineering Structures, 1997, Vol. 19,
No. 2, pp. 97 104.
[3] Jangid R S, ‘Seismic response of sliding structures to bidirectional earthquake Excitation’, Engineering an structural dynamics, 1996, vol. 25,
1301-1306.
[4] Soni et al. , 'Response of the Double Variable Frequency Pendulum Isolator under Triaxial Ground Excitations', Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, 2010, 14: 4, 527 — 558.
[5] Jangid R S , ‘Response of sliding structures to bi-directional excitation’, journal of sound and vibration), 2001, 243(5), 929}944.
[6] Jangid R S,‘Computational numerical models for seismic response of Structures isolated by sliding systems’, Structural control and health
monitoring Struct. Control health monit, 2005; 12:117–137.
[7] Jose l.et al. (1998),‘modelling aspects of structures isolated with the Frictional pendulum system’, earthquake engineering and structural
dynamics Earthquake engng. Struct. Dyn., 1998, 27, 845ð867.
[8] Montazar (2008),‘Effects of vertical ground motions on the seismic response of isolated structures with XY-Friction Pendulum system’, The
14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering , Beijing, China, October 2008, 12-17.
[9] Montazar (2008),‘Effects of vertical ground motions on the seismic response of isolated structures with XY-Friction Pendulum system’,
The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering , Beijing, China, October 2008, 12-17.
[10] Michael C. Constantinou , ‘Friction pendulum double concave bearing’, Technical report on October 29, 2004.