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

net/publication/268430951

Comparison of Different Seismic Isolation Systems through Shaking Table

Tests on a Steel Structure

Article · January 2002

CITATIONS READS

3 306

5 authors, including:

Felice Carlo Ponzo Domenico Nigro

Università degli Studi della Basilicata Università degli Studi della Basilicata
161 PUBLICATIONS 1,777 CITATIONS 87 PUBLICATIONS 740 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

M. Dolce Donatello Cardone

Civil Protection Department of Italy Università degli Studi della Basilicata
221 PUBLICATIONS 5,363 CITATIONS 101 PUBLICATIONS 3,229 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Reluis Project View project

Towards the "Ultimate Earthquake Proof" Building: Development of Integrated Low-Damage Building Systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Domenico Nigro on 02 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 3rd World Conference on Structural Control
Como, Italy, 7-12 Aprile 2002

Comparison of Different Seismic

Isolation Systems through Shaking
Table Tests on a Steel Structure
Felice Carlo Ponzo, Domenico Nigro, Mauro Dolce, Donatello Cardone,
and Antonio Cacosso
DiSGG, University of Basilicata, Potenza, Italy

ABSTRACT

An experimental investigation aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of three different seismic

isolation systems in reducing seismic vibrations of building structures is presented. The
isolation systems are made of sliders, that support gravity loads while allowing for large
displacements, coupled with energy dissipating and/or re-centering devices exploiting the
mechanical characteristics of different materials: steel, rubber and shape memory alloys. The
shaking table tests were carried out with the one-directional seismic platform of the
Structural Laboratory of the University of Basilicata. The experimental outcomes
emphasized the efficiency of all the considered protection systems and in particular the
excellent performances of the SMA-based devices characterized by a strong re-centering
capability.

1. INTRODUCTION

In the last decade, the research on new techniques and mate-

rials to improve the seismic behaviour of new and/or existing
buildings played a crucial role in structural engineering
(Constantinou et al. 1998, Manside 1999). Several
experimental tests (Dolce et al., 2001c) and numerical
evaluation (Dolce et al., 2000a) have shown the
effectiveness of many passive control techniques,
particularly of seismic isolation.
New technologies and devices based on innovative
materials, like Shape Memory Alloys (SMA), have been
utilised in experimental tests on structural models (Dolce et
al. 2001a, Dolce et al. 2001c) and on real buildings (Dolce Figure 1. Test model
2

et al 2001b), showing their great performances and full feasibility.

The main goal of the experimental investigation reported in this paper is to evaluate and
compare the seismic performances of two conventional and one innovative isolation systems.
One conventional system is based on steel hysteretic devices, having large energy dissipation
and no re-centring capability, the other is based on rubber devices, having low energy
dissipation and self-centring capability. The innovative system is based on a SMA device,
having low energy dissipation and strong re-centring capability.
The experimental tests were carried out on the ¼ scale two storey steel frame shown in
figure 1, on the one-d.o.f. shaking table of the Structural Laboratory of the University of
Basilicata. The model has 750 mm interstorey height and 1125 mm span length and masses
of about 360 kg and 340 kg at the first and second storey respectively.

2. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

Three different seismic isolation systems were manufactured by TIS s.p.a. and implemented
and tested at the Structural Laboratory of the University of Basilicata. They all make use of
lubricated stainless steel - PTFE sliders (figure 1a), that support the weight of the model
while allowing for large one-directional displacements under low forces.

Figure 2. a) Steel-PTFE slider; b) steel based device; c) rubber based device; d) SMA based device

The steel-based device exploits U-shaped mild steel stripes subject to roller bending
(figure 2b), that provide high energy dissipation and large ductility capacity (Dolce et al.,
1996). In the rubber base system, the high damping rubber devices are only deputed to
provide some restoring quasi-elastic force, while not supporting any gravity load (figure 2c).
 3

The third type of device exploits the superelastic properties of Nichel-Titanium SMA wires
(figure 2d) to get full re-centring capacity and good control of the force transmitted to the
structure.
The effectiveness of the isolation systems in reducing seismic vibrations was checked
through shaking table tests, using the E-W component of the acceleration time history record-
ed at Colfiorito (Umbria-Marche 1997 earthquake), suitably scaled in time. During each test
sequence, the peak table acceleration was progressively increased, from 0.1g up to about
1.1g, for the SMA based and steel based systems, and almost 1.3g for the rubber based
system. The maximum table acceleration was selected so as to keep the steel model in the
elastic range. For this reason the fixed base model was subjected to only 0.25g.
The shaking table is driven by a Schenck-Instron actuator, ⍨125 mm stroke, 40 kN maxi-
mum force. The instrumentation included five servo-accelerometers, to record the longitudi-
nal accelerations of the table and of the base and the two floors of the model, as well as the
transverse acceleration of the first storey. Three displacement transducers measured the inter-
storey displacements, and the shift of the isolator with respect to the table. A load cell
measured the force of the actuator.

3. ISOLATION SYSTEMS DESIGN

The design of the isolation systems was aimed at obtaining the same force level (about 1.2
KN, i.e. about 17% of the total weight of the structural model) for the selected design
displacement, taken equal to 25mm.
The rubber-based isolation system was designed first. An equivalent natural period of
vibration of the base-isolated model equal to 1 sec (2 secs. for the full-scale structure) was
assumed as target period. The energy dissipation capacity of the complete isolation system
was considered, taking into account the friction developed in the lubricated steel-PTFE
sliders (of the order of 3% of the model weight). An iterative procedure was followed, based
on the updating of the secant stiffness and the equivalent viscous damping of the isolation
system until the design displacement was obtained. Reference to the elastic response spectra
provided by EC8 for soil type B was made, assuming 0.6g as PGA value. Once the rubber
devices were defined, the steel-based and SMA-based isolation systems were designed with
the above stated criterion. Two U-shaped steel plates, plastically deformed in roller bending,
were used in the first case, while two 1mm diameter pre-tensioned SMA-austenite wire loops,
subjected to loading-unloading tensile cycles, were employed in the second case.

4. TESTS RESULTS

Several characterization tests on the isolation systems were carried out before the seismic
tests, in order to verify the correspondence of their mechanical characteristics with the design
parameters. The tests were performed directly on the final configuration of the isolation
systems, already installed under the model with all the additional masses. Once the model
was fixed to the reaction frame of the table, with a special bracket system, the table was
moved according to a sinusoidal law. The force of the isolations system, including the
friction force in the sliders, was then equal to the force measure by the load cell of the
4

actuator minus the friction force of the platform guides and the inertia force of the platform
mass.
Figure 3 shows that the experimental force-displacement characteristics of the isolation
systems are in good accordance with the design values.
The seismic performances of the different isolation systems were compared with reference
to the maximum values of the following quantities: interstorey drifts, floor accelerations, base
displacement, base shear. Moreover the residual displacements was examined to evaluate
their re-centring capability.

2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
Force [KN]

Force [KN]
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
-0.5 -0.5
-1.0 -1.0
-1.5 -1.5
-2.0 a) -2.0
b)
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -40 -20 0 20 40
Displacement [mm] Displacement [mm]

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0
Force [KN]
Force [KN]

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0

-0.5 -0.5

-1.0 -1.0

-1.5 -1.5

-2.0 c) -2.0 d)
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Displacement [mm] Displacement [mm]

Figure 3. Experimental force-displacement behaviour of the isolation systems (including friction in

sliders): a) steel based system; b) SMA based system; c) Rubber based system; d) sliders only

Figure 4 shows the maximum interstorey drift of the first and second level respectively.
Comparing all the isolated configurations of the model to the fixed one, the effectiveness of
all the isolation systems in reducing drastically (3 to 6 times at 0.25 g) the interstorey drifts is
evident. Even for very high acceleration, greater than 1g, the drifts of the isolated model is
well below the drifts of the fixed base model for 0.25 g. The better force control of the steel-
based and SMA-based system is apparent for high acceleration values, as the drift remains
almost constant while increasing the table acceleration. On the other hand, the rubber based
system appears more effective for low acceleration values, due to its lower initial stiffness.
Figure 5 shows the amplification factors of the maximum floor acceleration with respect
to the table acceleration. The effectiveness of all the isolation systems is even more apparent
for this quantity. While the fixed base model was subjected to floor acceleration about 3.5
times the table acceleration at 0.25 g, the isolated models, irrespective of the isolation
systems, was subjected to a de-amplification of the order of 60-80% at 0.25 g and
considerably less than 50% for higher acceleration.
Figure 6a shows the maximum values of the base shear. The reduction produced by the
isolation systems is between 5 and 10 times at 0.25 g. The best performance are again
obtained by the rubber based system for low acceleration values (up to 0.6 g) and by the
SMA based system, for high acceleration values.
Figure 6b shows the maximum displacements attained by the isolation systems during the

st nd
1 F lo o r 2 F lo o r
1 1

F ix e d F ix e d
0 .9 0 .9
R ubber R ubber
0 .8 0 .8
S te e l S te e l
0 .7 0 .7
S MA S MA
0 .6 0 .6
Drift [%]

Drift [%]

0 .5 0 .5

0 .4 0 .4

0 .3 0 .3

0 .2 0 .2

0 .1 0 .1

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
P G A [m g ] P G A [m g ]
 5

tests. The three isolation systems experience approximately the same displacements, with
maximum difference of the order of 25%, irrespective of the table acceleration. The
maximum displacements attain 40 mm for more than 1g acceleration. This quite low value
can be justified by the considerable energy dissipation due to the friction in the sliders.
Figure 4. Comparison of the maximum interstorey drifts
Figure 5. Comparison of the amplification factors of floor accelerations
Figure 6. Comparison a) Base shear and b) maximum base displacement

In figure 7, the residual displacements at the end of the test are reported. Significantly
different behaviours of the isolation systems are shown. The re-centring capability of the
rubber and of the SMA based systems practically eliminates any residual displacement, even
for more than 1 g, while the highly energy dissipating system based on the steel hysteresis, is
characterised by high values of the residual displacement, which results of the order of half
the maximum displacement.
5. CONCLUSION 20

18

16
Residual displacement [mm]

M a x 1 st F lo o r ' s A c c e le r a tio n 14 M a x 2 n d F lo o r ' s a c c e le r a tio n

4 000
5. 400
45
12
4. F ixe d
F ixed F ixe d
3 550 40
350
Rubber
R ubber 10 R ubber
4. 0 R ubber
300 35
300
S te e l S te e l Steel
S teel 8
Amplification [%]
Shear [KN] [%]

3. 5
250 S MA 250
30 S MA
Displacement [mm]
Amplification

3. 0 S MA 6 SMA
200 200
25
2. 5 4
150 20
150
2. 0 2
100 100
15
1. 5 0 R ubber
105 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
1.500
PGA [mg] S teel
0. 50 50
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 S MA
0. 0
P G A [m g]
0 Figure 7. Residual
P G A [m g ]
displacement of the
0 200 400 600 80 0 1000 1200 1400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
P G A [m g ] isolation systemsP G A at
[m gthe
] end of the test.
Although the performances of a structure
equipped with a base isolation system depend strongly on the design criteria of the system
(initial stiffness, force for a given displacement, etc.), and further elaborations of the
experimental results are needed, some general conclusion can already be drawn from the
experimental tests carried out to compare different isolation systems.
The great effectiveness of all the tested systems, though characterised by different
materials, different working principles and, consequently, different mechanical behaviour,
has been fully confirmed. The improvement in terms of interstorey drift, acceleration am-
plification, base shear, with respect to a similar fixed based structure, is of the order of three
to ten times, according to the type of isolation system and the considered quantity, for the
maximum intensity considered for the fixed base case.
The comparison of the different systems emphasises the importance of some re-centring
capability, if residual displacements at the end of an earthquake must be avoided. Finally, the
optimal performances of the isolation system based on superelastic SMA wires has been
highlighted. Due to its strong re-centring capability and its good force control, the SMA-
based system resulted to give the better overall performances for high earthquake intensity.
The combination of sliders with different kinds of energy dissipating and/or re-centring
devices provides a practical, effective and economical solution for seismic isolation, and
deserves greater attention in future research and application.
 6

REFERENCES

Constantinou M.C., Soong T.T., Dargush G.F. (1998) “Passive energy dissipation systems for
structural design and retrofit”, Monografy, MCER, Buffalo, NY.
Dolce M., Filardi B., Marnetto R., Nigro D. (1996) Experimental Tests and Applications of a
New Biaxial Elastoplastic Device for the Passive Control of Structures. 4th World
Congress on Joint Sealants and Bearing Systems for Concrete Structures, Sacra-
mento, CA.
Dolce, M., Cardone, D., Ponzo, F.C. (2001a) “Retrofitting of R/C framed structures through SMA
based energy dissipating and re-centring braces”, 7th Int. Seminar on Seismic Isolation,
Passive energy dissipation and active control of vibrations of structures, Assisi, Italy.
Dolce M., Cardone D., Ponzo F.C., Bixio A.R., Nigro D. (2001b) The Behaviour of SMA Isolation
Systems during the Full-Scale Release Tests of the Rapolla’s Building, 5th World Congress
on Joints, Bearings and Seismic Systems for Concrete Structures, Roma.
Dolce M., Cardone D., Ponzo F.C. (2001c) Comparison of Different Passive Control Systems for R/C
Frames through Shaking Table Tests, 5th World Congress on Joints, Bearings and Seismic
Systems for Concrete Structures, Roma.
MANSIDE Project (1999) “Memory Alloys for New Seismic Isolation and Energy Dissipation
Devices”, Proceedings of the Final Workshop, Roma.

View publication stats