Peformance Analysis of Aseismic Base Isolation System For A Multi-Story Buildind

Performance analysis of aseismic base isolation
systems for a multi-story building

F.-G. Fan and G. Ahmadi
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY

13676, USA
N. Mostaghei
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio 43606, USA

I. G. Tadjbaldash
Department of Civil Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 12181, USA

A comparative study of the performances of several leading base isolation devices including the
Rubber Bearing with and without lead core, the Sliding-Joint, the French System, and the
Resilient-Friction isolator with and without upper sliding plate for a multi-story building under
seismic ground accelerations is carried out. Several earthquake ground accelerations including
E1 Centro 1940, Pacoima Dam 1971, and Mexico City 1985 earthquakes are considered. The
acceleration, the base displacement and the structural deflection response spectra for the structure with different base isolation systems under various conditions are obtained and discussed.
Several sensitivity analyses for variations in the parameters of the isolators and/or structure are
also carried out. The effectiveness of various base isolators under a variety of conditions are
studied and advantages and disadvantages of different systems are discussed. The results show
that the acceleration transmitted and the column stresses of the structure can be effectively
reduced by using properly designed base isolation systems. The results of the sensitivity
analyses show the friction-type isolation systems are less sensitive to the variations in the
amplitude and frequency content of the ground excitation in comparison to the Rubber Bearing
base isolators. The study also shows that the peak accelerations transmitted by the friction-type
isolators are not significantly affected by small variations in friction coefficient. Furthermore,
variations in mass ratio and damping of the structure or the isolator do not significantly affect
the peak responses.
INTRODUCTION
The conventional technique for aseismic design of structures is to strengthen the structural members in order to
withstand strong earthquakes. However, this strengthening strategy inevitably leads to higher masses and hence
higher seismic forces. A structure designed in this way
may survive a strong earthquake, while there could
result intolerable damages to its members, as well as, to
its sensitive internal equipment. Moreover, the economical consideration limits the construction of a completely safe structure within the bounds of traditional
design methodology.
An alternative design strategy is to isolate the structure from the ground motion during the earthquake
strong motion. The base isolation concept has been suggested a long time ago. According to Kelly ~.z, as early
as 1909, a British physician had applied for a patent on
Paper accepted May 1989. Discussion closes September 1991.
separating a building from the ground by a layer of talc

or sand. However, it was only in the last three decades
that this design concept has received serious attentions.
The base isolation design methodology appears to have
considerable potential in preventing earthquake damages
to structures and their internal equipment. A large
number of base isolation systems for various types of
structure have been suggested. Several of which have
been developed and used to protect buildings, bridges,
nuclear power plants, and other structures against earthquakes. Extensive reviews on historical developments
and recent literature on the subject were provided by
Kelly t.2. Therefore, only brief descriptions of several
leading base isolation systems which are considered in
this study are presented in this section.
A class of base isolation systems which has been
extensively studied at the University of California by
Kelly and co-workers ~'2.3 is the Laminated Rubber
Bearing (LRB) base isolators. The system has been
used in the four story Foothill Communities Law and
Computational Mechanics Publications 1991
152 Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1991, Volume 10, Number 3, April
Performance analysis of aseismic base isolation systems: F.-G. Fan and G. Ahmadi
Justice Building in San Bernardino County, California
and a number of buildings in Europe, Japan, and New
Zealand. A LRB isolator is made of alternating layers of
rubber and steel with the rubber being vulcanized to the
steel plates. The LRB is rather flexible in the horizontal
direction but quite stiff in the vertical direction. The
horizontal stiffness of the bearing is also designed in
such a way that it can resist the wind forces with little
or no deformation. Figure l(a) shows a schematic
diagram for a LRB isolator. The GERB system 4, which
is composed of helical springs and viscodampers,
behaves similar to the LRB system in the horizontal
direction and its mechanical behaviour may also be
represented by Fig. l(a).
The laminated rubber bearing base isolator with a lead
core has found wide applications in New Zealand as well
as other countries. This system is referred to as the lead
core LRB or the New Zealand (NZ) base isolation
system. The lead core is used to reduce the lateral
displacement and to offer an additional mechanism for
energy dissipation, while the flexibility and restoring
force are provided by the rubber bearing. The performance of the NZ isolator (Lead core laminated rubber
bearing) under a variety of conditions were reported in
Refs 2, 3, 5. Figure l(b) displays the mechanical
behavior of the NZ base isolation system. The mechanical behavior of hysteretic dampe r3"6-8 may also be
schematically represented by this figure.
Base isolation systems in which the only isolation
mechanism is sliding friction are Pure-Friction (P-F) or
Sliding-Joint base isolation systems. In this class of base
isolation systems, one or several friction plates or a layer
of sand are used to isolate the structure from the ground.
A schematic diagram for P-F base isolation systems is
shown in Fig. l(c). There has been a large number of
theoretical works on the performance of this class of
I.
"
I.
(a) LRB System
(b) NZ System
~
(c) P-F System
,I
i-9
v----
(d) R-FBI System
'
i-
'
.I
-!
IH
(e) EDF System
Fig. 1.
(f) SR-F System
Schematic diagrams of isolation systems
isolators under deterministic or stochastic ground excitations 9-16. In Refs 17 and 18, the use of a layer of sand
as a simple P-F base isolator for a building in Bejin,
China was described.
Recently, a base isolation system referred to as the
Resilient-Friction Base Isolation system (R-FBI) was
proposed by Mostaghe119-2~. This isolator consists of
several layers of teflon coated friction plates with a central core of rubber. The rubber provides the restoring
force for the system and hence control the relative
displacement while energy is dissipated by the friction
forces. An extensive study of the responses of a fivestory building isolated by the R-FBI system was provided by Mostaghel and Khodaverdian 22. Figure l(d)
illustrates the mechanical behavior of the R-FBI system.
The Alexisismon base isolation system developed by
Ikonomou 23 also makes use of the combined actions of
sliding joint and rubber bearings. The rubber element in
the Alexisismon system appears to act in bending while
in the R-FBI isolator acts in shear. Although these
designs are quite different, the mechanical behavior of
the Alexisismon base isolator may also be schematically
represented by Fig. l(d).
Another base isolation system which is used for base
isolation of nuclear power plants in regions of high
seismicity was developed under the auspices of Electricite de France (EDF) 24. It has been used in the
design of nuclear power plants in France, and Iran. The
Kroeberg nuclear power plant in South Africa relies on
the EDF base isolation system for protection against
earthquake. An EDF base isolator unit 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 base raft of the structure.
Whenever there is no sliding in the friction plate, the
EDF system behaves as a LRB and the flexibility of the
neoprene pad provides isolation for the structure. The
presence of the friction plate serves as an additional
safety feature for the system. Whenever the ground
acceleration becomes very large, sliding occurs which
dissipates energy and limits the acceleration transmitted
to the superstructure. The behavior of the EDF base
isolator is shown schematically in Fig. l(e).
A base isolation concept which combines the desirable
features of the R-FBI and the EDF systems was proposed in Ref. 25. This system which is referred to as the
Sliding Resilient-Friction (SR-F) base isolation system
is a R-FBI unit with an additional upper friction plate.
The behavior of the SR-F isolator is shown schematically in Fig. l(f). Whenever there is no sliding in the
upper friction plate, the SR-F base isolator behaves as a
R-FBI unit. For high ground accelerations, sliding in the
upper friction plate occurs which provides an additional
mechanism for energy dissipation and increases the
overall effectiveness of the isolation system.
General design requirements for a base isolation
system and design criteria for base-isolated building
were described in Refs 2 6 - 2 8 . In these works, codetype criteria regarding allowable base displacement,
peak transmitted acceleration, natural period and
seismic coefficient were suggested. Guidelines regarding the design of the rubber bearing base isolation
system with or without a lead core were also presented
in Refs 2 6 - 2 8 . Recently, Mostaghel et al. 29"3
described the design procedure for the R-FBI system.
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1991, Volume 10, Number 3, April 153
In spite of a large number of studies on performances

of different base isolation systems, the advantages and
disadvantages of various systems are not well understood. One difficulty here is the desired requirements
are numerous. Hadjian and Tseng 3~ have pointed out
eleven desired performance criteria related to safety and
reliability of the isolated structure. Recently, S u e t
al.25'32 have carried out several comparative studies of
different base isolation devices for rigid and shear beam
structures. Fan et al. 33.34 considered the performances
of various base isolation systems for a multi-story
building under a horizontal sinusoidal ground motion.
In this work, performances of several base isolation
systems described earlier for a multi-story, shear frame
subject to several seismic ground motions are studied.
The equations of motion for various base isolation
systems are described. The governing equations for frictional base isolation devices and the criteria for transition between different phases of motion are highly
nonlinear. Considerable care is needed in formulation of
the computational model for handling these rather stiff
equations. Utilizing the fourth-order Runge-Kutta
scheme, a computational algorithm for accurate numerical evaluation of the response of the base isolated structure is developed. The peak absolute acceleration of
each floor, the peak base displacement, and the peak
structural deflection for various base isolation systems
are evaluated and the results are compared with each
other and with those of the fixed-base structure. The
acceleration responses both in time and frequency
domains are examined. A series of sensitivity studies for
variations in friction coefficient and natural period of the
isolator, as well as, damping and mass ratio of the structure are also carried out. The effects of the velocitydependence of friction coefficient is also studied and
discussed.
The results show that the transmitted acceleration and
the column stresses of the structure can be significantly
reduced by using properly designed base isolation
systems. The frictional systems generate high frequency
peaks in the acceleration responses, however, these high
frequency peaks do not lead to large structural deformations. The results of the sensitivity analyses show the
friction-type isolation systems are less sensitive to
variations in the amplitude and frequency content of the
ground excitation in comparison to the LRB, and the NZ
base isolators. The study also shows that the peak
accelerations transmitted by the friction-type isolators
are not significantly affected by small variations in friction coefficient. Furthermore, variations in mass ratio
and damping of the structure or the isolator only slightly
affects the peak responses.
LRB system
The schematic diagram for the Laminated Rubber
Bearing base isolation system is shown in Fig. l(a). The
equations of motion of a multi-story frame with a LRB
system are given as,
~' + 2g'o~0o$+ ~02s + ~
i=l
cti$~ = -j~g
(1)
[m]le} + [ c ] l x ] + [k]lx} = - ( ~ ' + ~ g ) [ m ] { l l

(2)
where s is the relative displacement between the base of
structure and the ground, xi is the displacement of the
ith floor relative to the base as shown in Fig. 2, yg is
the horizontal ground acceleration, and [m ], [ c], [k]
represent mass, damping, and stiffness matrices, respectively. The natural circular frequency of the bearing
O:o, and its effective damping ratio ~'o are defined as
2~'~ = M '
ko
O:o = ~
(3)
where Co and ko are the damping and the horizontal

stiffness of the bearing, respectively. The mass-ratio
parameter c~i is defined as
mi
li - M '
mb
C~b= --~,
M = mb +
i=l
m~
(4)
where mi is the mass of the ith floor, mb is the mass of

the base and M is total mass of the structure. Here, [ 1 }
is a column vector all of whose elements are unity and
a dot on top of a letter denotes a time derivative. A
natural period To of about 2 sec(% = 7r rad/sec) is
commonly suggested for the LRB base isolation
systems. The effective damping ratio of the isolator ~'o
varies considerably with the strain of the rubber. According to Refs 35 and 36, it may be as high as 0.3 for low
strain and reduces to about 0.05 for high strain. Here,
an intermediate value of 0.08 for ~'o is considered in
za~
,~,._~3 ~l "~ardFLOOR
z~~
~2nd FLOOR
GOVERNING EQUATIONS
The equations governing the motion of various base
isolation systems and the criteria for motion transitions
of frictional systems have been described at length in
Ref. 33. Therefore, only a brief description is needed
here. For a multi-story, lumped-mass, shear building
with different base isolation systems, the equations of
motion and the criteria for motion transitions are summarized in this section.
Fig. 2. Structural model of a three-story building with

a base isolation system
most cases. Note also that the motion of the GERB

system may also be described by equation (1).
N Z system
The schematic diagram for the mechanical behavior of
the New Zealand system is shown in Fig. 1(b). When a
multi-story building is isolated by the NZ (or a
hysteretic damper) base isolation system, the deflection
of the structure is governed by equation (2), and the
equation governing the base displacement is given as,
N
~" + 2~oO~o~ + O~:oS+ ~1 Q +
liXi "~" -'~g
Equation (8) governs both the sliding and nonsliding

~ s
of motion of the R-FBI system. The deformation
of structure is governed by equation (2) which is coupled
with equation (8) through the inertial forces. The
nonsliding phase continues as long as
(10)
I.~g + 6o2s + ~ Oti.~il < #g

i=l
As soon as the condition,
Ig + co2 s + ~
(5)
i=1
c~i~iI = #g
(11)
i=1
where N is number of base isolators used, and M is total

mass of the structure. The hysteretic restoring force Q
which is generated by the lead core may be approximated by Wen S37 model as
F
Q(s, ~) = tx - y s + (1 - ot)E,.Z
Y
(6)
where the dimensionless hysteretic displacement Z

satisfies
YZ= -3,1JIZIZt n-t -/3JIZl~ + 0~
(7)
In equation (6) and (7), F r and Y represent the force

and the yield displacement of the equivalent hysteretic
dampers, 13, 3', and 0 are dimensionless parameters, ~/is
an integer which controls the smoothness of transition
from elastic to plastic response, tx is the post to preyielding stiffness ratio.
In order that the predictions of this model may fit the
experimental results, for certain lead-core laminated
rubber bearings, the values of E , . = 4 6 KN,
Y = 7.7 mm, ot = 0.157,/3 = - 0 . 5 4 , 3' = 1.4, 0 = 1.0,
and *1 = 1 were suggested in Ref. 7. These values
together with the natural period To of 2 sec
(COo= ~" rad/sec), a damping ratio ~'o of 0.08 and the
mass per isolator ratio, M/N, of 200 tons are used in this
study.
R - F B I system
Figure l(d) shows the schematic diagram describing
the mechanical behavior of the Resilient-Friction Base
Isolation system. The equation for the displacement of
isolator is given as,
is satisfied, the sliding motion starts.

The natural period of 3 to 4.5 sec are suggested for the
R-FBI base isolation system in Refs 19-21. In this
study, unless stated otherwise, To = 4 sec, # - 0.05
and ~'o = 0.08 are used. It is noted that equations
(8)-(11) are also applicable to the Alexisismon system
as long as the deformation in its rubber element remains
small.
P - F system
Figure l(c) shows the schematic diagram for a PureFriction base isolation system. The equation governing
the displacement of the P - F isolator is given as,
g + p.gsgnl (~) + ~.~ oti.~i= -g
(12)
i=l
where sgn~ (~) is defined by equation (9) with coo being

zero for the P - F system. The deflection of the base
isolated structure is governed by equation (2). With the
definition of sgn~ (~) as given by equation (9), equations
(12) and (2) govern both the sliding and the nonsliding
motions. For the nonsliding phase (, = 0), equation (12)
reduces to g = 0, and the deformation of the structure is
governed by equation (2).
The criteria for motion transitions are identical to
those given by equations (10) and (11) with ~o m 0.
Usually, a friction coefficient between 0.05 and 0.2 are
used for the P--F (Sliding-Joint) base isolation systems 9-~6. In this study, # = 0.1 is used in most of the
numerical experiments.
S R - F system
The mechanical behavior of the Sliding ResilientFriction base isolation system is shown in Fig. 1(f). The
equations of motion of the S R - F base isolator are given
as
+ 2~oO~o~+ O~2oS+ #gsgnl(~) + ~
otii = -g (8)
2
2~oO~o~ + OOoy
+ #jgsgn3(P) = #gsgn2(~ - y)
i=1
where # and g are the friction coefficient and acceleration of gravity, respectively; and sgn~(J) is defined as
+ 2~oO~o~ + o~2Y + #igsgn3(P) + ~
(13)
oti~i = -~8
i=1
I~l
~>0
JCs + ~2s+ ~
sgnl(g) =
t~g ~=1
-1
(14)
otiXi
~= 0
~<0
(9)
where the relative displacements y and s are defined in

Fig. l(f), and tz and #~ represent the friction coefficients of the upper and the body friction plates, respec-
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1991, Volume 10, Number 3, April
155
tively. With the definitions
y "~ j~g "~
sgn: (~ . y)
. . .
OlijCi
Itg=
. - 5, = 0
(15)
~-y<0
The criterion for the nonsliding phase to continue is the

same as that given by equation (18).
In practice, the laminated neoprene pad is designed to
have a natural period of about 0.8 to 1.2 sec, and the
friction coefficient of the friction plate is about 0.2. In
the present study, unless stated otherwise the values of
T,, = 1 sec (090= 27r rad/sec), ~'o = 0.08, and # = 0.2
are used.
and
MODELING
+ xg + 09:o5'+ ~
sgn3(Y)=
Itlg
~xi
i=1
19=0
(16)
~9<o
Equations (13) and (14) govern various sliding and
nonsliding states of motion. In all these different phases
of motion, the deformation of structure is governed by
equation (2). Explicit equations of motion for fully
sliding, partially sliding, and nonsliding conditions were
given in Ref. 33.
The nonsliding condition in the body friction plates
continues as long as
Is + Xg + 092y + E
c~il < It/g
The formulation given in the previous section is for a

general multi-story shear frame. In the subsequent
analyses, a three-story building as shown in Fig. 2 is
used as the structural model. It is assumed that the
masses of different floors and the base raft are identical
and the stiffness and damping of columns of various
stories are also the same. For this particular structural
model, the damping matrix is proportional to the stiffness matrix. The explicit expressions for mass, damping, and stiffness matrices are given in Appendix A. The
equations of motion of the structure can be decoupled
into three independent modal equations by the method of
normal mode. The modal equations, the modal matrix
and the relations between natural frequencies of the
structure are also listed in Appendix A. Accordingly,
09: = 2.802091,
(17)
093 =
4.049091
(21)
i=1
and
As soon as the lefthand side of (17) becomes equal to
Itlg, the body friction plates begin to slide. Likewise,
the nonsliding condition in the upper friction plate persists as long as the criterion
l Y + g + ~
Oliff i I
< #g
(18)
i=1
holds. Sliding starts when the lefthand side of (18)

becomes equal to Itg.
In the subsequent analysis, unless stated otherwise the
values of It1 = 0.05, It = 0.1, ~'o = 0.08, and a natural
period of To = 4 sec (090= r/2 rad/sec) are used.
EDF system
Figure l(e) shows the schematic diagram for the
behavior of the EDF base isolation system. The equations of motion of the EDF isolator for both sliding and
nonsliding motions are given by
2~o090Y + JoY = Itgsgn2(J - Y )
~t' + 2~'o09oy + 09:Oy + ~
otiXi = - Xg
(19)
(20)
~': = 2.802~'1,
(22)
in which 09 is the natural circular frequency and ~"is the

modal damping ratio. Here, subscripts 1, 2, and 3 identify the mode of vibration. In the subsequent analyses,
the fundamental natural period /'1 = 27r/oh is varied
between 0.1 to 1 sec to cover the range of stiff to flexible structures. Except for the section on sensitivity
analysis on the effects of variation of ~'1, a damping
ratio of 0.02 for the fundamental mode is used throughout this study.
The recommended values of natural periods To,
damping ratios g'o, and friction coefficients It (or Its) of
the isolators studied are summarized in Table 1. These
values are used throughout this work except for the sections on sensitivity studies.
Techniques of solution
In this section, the procedure of numerical evaluation
is briefly described. Based on the fourth-order RungeKutta scheme, a double precision FORTRAN routine for
Table I. Values of parameters used for various base isolators
i=l
where y is the deflection of the rubber, s is the total

relative displacement between the base raft of the structure and the ground, and the sgn2 function is given by
equation (15). Equations (19) and (20) are identical to
equations (13) and (14) with #1 equal to zero. For nonsliding phase, equation (19) vanishes and the EDF base
isolator reduces to a LRB unit. As noted before, the
deflection of the structure is governed by equation (2).
~'3 = 4.049~'1
Natural
Period
Damping
Ratio
Friction
Coefficient
Base Isolation System
To (sen)
~'o
~(~/~,)
Laminated Rubber Bearing (LRB)

New Zealand (NZ)
Pure-Friction ( P - F )
Resilient-Friction (R-FBI)
Electricite de France (EDF)
Sliding Resilient Friction (SR-F)
2
2
0.08
4
1
4
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.1
0.05
0.2
0.05/0. i
numerical evaluation of responses of the base isolated
multi-story shear frame was developed in Ref. 33. This
program is adapted for use in the present analysis. A
time step of At = 0.00025 sec is used during the continuous phases of motion away from the transitions. The
accuracy of the results is verified by comparing the
results with those obtained by finer time steps for several
cases. For frictional systems, the precise evaluation of
the time of phase transitions are crucial to the accuracy
of response analysis. Therefore, a successive time-stepreducing procedure is used to approach each of these
transitions with an accuracy of 10-1m/sec 2 in
evaluating the stick-slip criteria and an accuracy of
10 -1 m/sec in evaluating the zeros of ~ (or ~ -3> and
for the EDF and the S R - F systems). In this fashion, the
time of transition is accurately determined, and based on
the appropriate criteria, the equations governing the
subsequent phase are specified.
Responses of the three-story structure with various
base isolators subject to several earthquake ground
accelerations including El Centro 1940 N00W, Pacoima
Dam 1971 S16E, and Mexico City 1985 N90W are
evaluated. The first 20 sec record of E1 Centro and
Pacoima Dam earthquakes and the first 80 sec record of
Mexico City earthquake are used in this study. The peak
absolute accelerations for various floors, (~8 + g +
; ) 1 . ~ , the maximum deflection, X3lmax, and the maximum relative base displacement, S lmax, for a range of
natural period of 0.1 < TI < 1 sec are evaluated and
discussed. Sensitivity studies on the effects of variations
of parameters of the isolators and the structure for El
Centro 1940 earthquake are carried out. To understand
the effects of variation in intensity of ground excitation,
the magnified accelerogram of El Clentro 1940 earthquake is used and the peak responses are evaluated. The
results are compared with those for the original E1 Centro earthquake record and discussed. Unless stated
otherwise a structure with a fundamental natural period
of 0.3 sec and the parameters of isolators as listed in
Table 1 are used in the sensitivity analysis.
Table 1 are used in these analyses. The IMSL Fast

Fourier Transform routine FCOST 38 is used for the frequency analysis of approximate the first 20 sec of the
acceleration responses.
Figure 3 shows the sample absolute acceleration time
histories at the top of structure, '(~t'e + ~"+~3), for
various base isolation systems and fro: the fixed-base
(F-B) structure. The ground acceleration, .fg, is also
plotted in this figure, It is noticed that the fixed-base
structure significantly amplifies the ground acceleration
while the base isolation systems generally reduces the
acceleration transmitted to the structure. Figure 3(a)
shows that the fixed-based structure amplifies the
ground acceleration of El Centro 1940 earthquake to
about lg. The acceleration response time history of the
fixed-based structure shows a narrow-band oscillation
which is essentially a random amplitude sinusoidal time
variation with a dominant period of 0.3 sec (corresponding to the fundamental natural period of the structure).
This is due to the wide-band nature of ground excitation
and the light daming of the structure. It is .perhaps of
interest to point out that in the earlier study ~, where a
sinusoidal ground excitation was used, the acceleration
response time history at the third floor of structure also
(o)
o
LR8
W
.J
Lid
C.~
C.~
<
R-FBI/SR-F
0
--I
RESPONSES TO EL C E N T R O E A R T H Q U A K E
5
t
In this section, responses of the base isolated and the

fixed-base three-story frame subject to the accelerogram
of El Centro 1940 earthquake are studied. The base
isolation systems described earlier are considered and
the sample as well as the peak responses are obtained
and discussed.
6 7 8
( sec )
~) I0
11
12
(b)
P-F
Sample responses
The characteristics of acceleration response time
histories of the structure for various base isolation
systems and for the fixed-base one are quite different. In
certain respects, these characteristics are important for
performance analyses of base isolation systems. Prior to
analyzing peak structural responses under different conditions, it is desirable to examine the response time
histories in order to identify the behaviors of various
base isolation systems. In this section, several sample
response time histories and their Fourier decompositions
are presented and discussed. A structure with a fundamental natural period of 0.3 see and the recommended
values of the parameters for various isolators as listed in
Z
0
EDF
J
W
~g
<
~3 6 "/ 8
( sec )
~) 1'0 1'1 12
Fig. 3. Sample absolute acceleration responses at the

top of structffre for El Centro 1940 earthquake
showed a sinusoidal time variation, however, with a
period of that of the ground excitation.
From Fig. 3 it is observed that the acceleration
response for a structure with a LRB system shows a
rather smooth low amplitude sinusoidal time variation
with a period of about 2 sec which is the natural period
of the base isolated structure. The acceleration response
time history of the NZ system has similar features to
those of the LRB system, and therefore, is not shown in
here. The acceleration time histories of a structure with
frictional base isolation systems contain many high frequency sharp peaks. This is because the non-linear stickslip and slip-reversal transitions exert discontinuous
forces on the base of structure. For El Centro 1940
earthquake ground excitation considered here, no sliding
in the upper friction plate of the S R - F system occurs.
Therefore, the response of the S R - F system coincides
with that of the R - F B I system. It is perhaps of interest
to mention that the acceleration time history patterns
observed here for the R - F B I , the P - F , and EDF
systems are similar to those for the sinusoidal ground
excitation studied in Ref. 33.
The sample absolute acceleration time histories at
various floors for different base isolation systems are
shown in Fig. 4. Figure 4(a) displays the acceleration
time histories at various floors of structure for the LRB
system. The ground acceleration time history shown by
dash line is also plotted in this figure for reference. It is
observed, the LRB system filters out the high frequency
accelerations contained in the ground acceleration. It is
also noticed that the shape of the acceleration responses
for various floors are approximately the same. This
implies that the structure vibrates essentially as a rigid
body.
Figure 4(b) shows the acceleration time histories for
the P - F system. It is observed that the response at the
base floor contains some sharp peaks which are due to
the slip-stick transitions of the P - F system. It is known
that at the slip-stick and the slip-reversal transitions, the
absolute accelerations at the base of structure change
discontinuously due to the shock loadings of friction
force. It is noticed that for certain short time durations,
the solid line and dash line coincide. These indicate the
stick phases for the P - F isolator. Upon examining the
acceleration time histories for various floors, it is
observed that as the accelerations are transmitted
through the floors, the sharp peaks become broader and
the amplitudes are slightly modified due to the damping
and the amplifying effects of structure. Figure 4(b)
shows that for 6 < t < 8 sec, for which the amplitude of
ground acceleration is small and the base of structure
essentially sticks to the foundation, the amplifying effect
of structure is quite significant,
The acceleration time histories at various floors for
the R - F B I / S R - F systems are presented in Fig. 4(c).
The general features of these acceleration time histories
are similar to those for the P - F system; however, the
amplitudes of vibration for the R - F B I / S R - - F systems
are smaller than those for the P - F system. A careful
examination of base floor response shows that the durations of stick phase for the R - F B I / S R - F systems are
much shorter than those for the P - F system.
Figure 4(d) shows the acceleration time histories of
various floors for the EDF system. It is observed that the
acceleration time histories exhibit approximate sinusoi-
(o) LRB
._.
~,
"-"
Z
_o
3rd
FL
2rid
FL
1 st
hi
FL
o s
0.0
-0.5
BASE
i
1
i
2
i
3
i
4
1
:5
i
6
i
7
( sec
i
8
i
9
i
10
i
11
1
12
(b) P-F
3rd FL
._.
2rid FL
z
_o
o"'
~ 0.5
0.0
-0.s
BASE
0
5
t
( sec
10 11 12
.-.
(c) R-FBI
3rd
FL
2rid
FL
lad
~ 0.5
BASE
0.0
-o.s
t
( sec
() EDF
""
...
z
o
,.,
o 0.5
~
3rd
FL
2nd
FL
Rg.
I
BASE
0.0
-0.5
t
( sec
Fig. 4. Sample absolute acceleration responses at

various floors for different base isolation systems for El
Centro 1940 earthquake
dal variations with a period of about 1 sec which corresponds to the natural period of the EDF system when
there is no slip in its friction plate.
Fourier decomposition of the acceleration time
histories are shown in Fig. 5. Frequency contents of the
acceleration responses may be clearly observed from
this figure. Figure 5(a) shows the Fourier spectra of
acceleration responses at various floors for the fixedbase structure. The Fourier spectrum for the base shown
in this figure is that of the accelerogram of El Centro
1940 earthquake. It is observed that the ground acceleration has a broad spectrum and peaks at frequencies of
about 1 to 1.5 Hz. As the acceleration is transmitted to
the upper floor, it develops a sharp peak at frequency of
about 3.33 Hz corresponding to the fundamental frequency of the structure. It is also observed that the peak
of the Fourier spectrum increases rapidly as the acceleration is transmitted to the higher floors.
The Fourier spectra of acceleration response at
various floors for the LRB base isolation system are
shown in Fig. 5(b). It is observed that the Fourier spectra of various floors are almost identical. This implies
that the structure vibrates essentially in its rigid body
mode. This figure also shows that the dominant frequencies for the LRB systems is about 0.5 Hz which cor-
responds to the natural frequencies of the base isolated

structure.
Figure 5(c) displays the Fourier spectra of various
floors for the R - F B I system. It is observed that the
acceleration response of the base floor contains many
high frequency components which are generated by the
discontinuous shock loadings; furthermore, frequencies
in the range of 0.3 to 2 Hz and 5 to 8 Hz contain
substantial energy. As the acceleration is transnfitted to
the higher floors, the amplitude of the Fourier spectra at
high frequencies decay, and the energy containing frequencies are somewhat modified. For example, the
acceleration response at the third floor contains essentially no energy at frequencies higher than 12 Hz.
Figure 5(d) shows the Fourier spectra of various
floors for the EDF system. It is observed that the
Fourier spectra are peaked at about 1 Hz. Furthermore,
similar to the LRB system, the Fourier spectra of
various floors are almost identical.
The present results show that the base isolation
systems reduce the acceleration transmitted to the superstructure to a significant extent. The acceleration
responses for the R - F B I system have broad band spectra and contain high frequency components. The Fourier
spectra for the LRB system show sharp peaks at the
(o) F-B
.
(b) LRB
3rd FL
3rd FL
(/1
o~
v
2rid
bJ
a
FL
~.
2rid
FL
F-"
--J
=<
1st FL
<
1st FL
0.25
0.01'01.~.~.1__..%... T
0
2
4
6
,
10
FREQUENCY
BASE
12 I'4 1~6 ll8 20
0.00
BASE
61
....
LO
r~
..J
n
<
2rid FL
LO
1st FL
=<
F/g.
20
( Hz )
3rd
EDF
FL
2rid FL
Ist FL
0.25
0.25
0.00
116 ll8
ll4
(d)
3rd FL
~. . . .
110 ll2
FREQUENCY
(Hz)
(c) R-FBI
0
8
,
0
.
l b 1'2 1'4 1'6 1'8
Fourier
FREQUENCY
( Hz )
decompositions
of
20
0.00
roT""--
6
8 10 12 1 4 1 6
FREQUENCY ( Hz )
1820
acceleration responses at various floors for El Centro 1940 earthquake
Soil Dynamics and. Earthquake Engineering, 1991, Volume 10, Number 3, April 159
Performance analysis of aseismic base isolation systems." F.-G. Fan and G. Ahmadi
natural frequency of the isolators but do not have high
frequency component.
"-'- 0.30
E
v
Response spectra
In this section, the N00W component of El Centro
1940 earthquake is used as the ground excitation.
Parameters of base isolation systems as shown in Table
1 and a structural damping of ~'1 = 0.02 are considered.
The peak absolute acceleration at the top of structure,
(g + # + -~3)I.... the peak base displacement, s I....
and the peak deflection of structure, x31 . . . . for various
/'1 and for different base isolation systems and for the
fixed-base structure are evaluated. The resulting
response spectra curves are plotted in Fig 6 - 8 . For this
level of ground excitation, no sliding in the upper friction plate of the S R - F system occurs. Therefore, it
behaves exactly as a R - F B I base isolator.
Figure 6 shows the peak acceleration responses at the
top floor for various base isolation systems and for the
fixed-base structure. It is observed that the peak
accelerations for the base isolated structure are less than
half of that for the fixed-base one. The peak acceleration of
the fixed-base structure is about lg which is approxiamtely three times that of the ground excitation. The
structure with the P - F system experiences a peak
acceleration response of about 0.4g, while that with the
R - F B I / S R - F or the EDF systems lead to peak acceleration responses of about 0.3g. From Fig. 6, it is also
observed that the LRB and the NZ systems lead to the
lowest peak acceleration responses of the order of 0.15
to 0.2g for the ground acceleration considered.
The peak base displacement responses for various
base isolation systems are compared in Fig. 7. It is
observed that a structure with the LR system experiences
the highest base displacement (about 15 cm), while that
with the P - F system generally experiences the lowest
base displacement (about 4 cm). It is also noticed that
except for the P - F system, the peak base displacement
responses for all isolators remain almost constant for the
entire range of/'1 considered. That is, the base isolated
structure behaves essentially as a rigid body.
0.25
Z
t,i
:~ 0.20
W
LRB
~0.15
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
/i
: !
R-FBI/SR-F
~o.~o
<
NZ
EDF
:~ //
0.05
........
P-F
. . .
......
. . "'",
.
.,,,'",%..,,""-'"
,,-
0.00
~~
T;
( sec )
Fig. 7. Variations of peak base displacements of structure with its natural period of El Centro 1940 earthquake
Figure 8 shows the peak deflection response spectra

for the base isolated structures and the fixed-base one.
It is observed, the fixed-base structure leads to a peak
deflection which is much higher than those of the base
isolated structures. For a structure with a fundamental
natural period of 0.3 sec (which corresponds to a typical
three-floor building), fixed-base structure leads to a
peak deflection response of about 2 cm. The R - F B I /
S R - F , the LRB, and the NZ systems lead to the lowest
peak deflections of only about 0.4 cm. It is perhaps of
interest to point out that the peak acceleration responses
for the R - F B I / S R - F systems are about twice that of
the LRB system; however, Fig. 8 shows that the peak
deflection responses for these base isolators are comparable. This result indicates that the short duration
sharp pulses observed in the acceleration response time
histories of the R - F B I / S R - F systems do not contain
sufficient energy to generate high levels of deformation
and/or stresses in the structure.
10
.--,,
E
v
_0
F-B
1 0 ""
Z
w
_J
_o
w0
FrO
W
EDF
R-FBI/SR-F
p-F
It.
l.iJ
ra
I0 -L
v
LRB
~"
/SR-F
NZ
10
-'
1 0 -I
T1
see )
Fig. 6. Variations of peak absolute accelerations at the

top of structure with its natural period for El Centro
1940 earthquake
160
I0
-~
I 0 -~
T1
( sec )
Fig. 8. Variations of peak deflections of structure with

its natural period for El Centro 1940 earthquake
systems effectively reduce the peak transmitted acceleration and column stresses. For E1 Centro 1940 earthquake, the LRB and the NZ systems lead to the lowest
peak acceleration responses among the isolators considered. The R - F B I / S R - F together with the LRB, the
NZ systems generate the lowest peak deflections of
structure. Furthermore, the frictional systems lead to the
lowest peak base displacements. These results are in
agreement with those of Ref. 32.
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
It is of importance to understand the sensitivity of peak
responses of base isolated structures to the variations in
the parameters of the isolators and the structure. In the
following, such sensitivity analyses for El Centro 1940
earthquake are carried out. The parameters of the
isolators and the structure including friction coefficient,
damping ratio, natural period, and mass ratio are varied.
The peak responses of the base isolated structure and the
fixed-base one are evaluated and their sensitivities are
analyzed. The effects of variations in the intensity and
frequency content of seismic excitation are also studied

and discussed.
Effects of friction coefficient of isolation system

Due to the construction imperfection and ageing process, a certain degree of deviation in friction coefficient
from its nominal design value may be expected. Therefore, it is desirable to understand the effects of variations
in friction coefficient on the peak responses of the
superstructure. In this section, such a study is undertaken. A structure with a fundamental natural period of
0.3 sec and ~', = 0.02 is considered, and the N00W
component of El Centro 1940 earthquake is used as the
ground excitation. The peak responses for a range values
of friction coefficient are evaluated and the results are
presented in Figs 9 and 10.
Figure 9(a) shows the variations of peak acceleration
with # for the P - F , the R - F B I , and the EDF systems.
It is observed that, in general, the peak acceleration
response increase as # increases for the systems shown
in this figure. For example, the peak acceleration
responses for the P - F and R - F B I systems increase
from about 0.2g to about 0.45g as/~ increases from 0.03
to 0.1. For the EDF system, the peak acceleration
"'-0.30
E
(o)
(o)
"-" 0.25
.
..
I-,Z
m 0.20
Z
0
uJ
0
i.i
-.I
hi
0
R-
o<
,/'
/.,/,oF
a0.15
(/3
5
EDF
~0.10
<
m
0..
v 0.05
"
/
10
-~
o.oo
o.&5
o. o
o. s
o. o
0.00
0.25
0.00
FRICTION COEFFICIENT,
0.65
0. 0
0. 5
0. 0
0.25
FRICTION COEFFICIENT,
(b) SR-r
"-'0.20
(b) S R - F
E
v
~z 0.15
_o
//"
SR-F2
o.-o. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.oooo
n~
iii
a_
0.10
0'1
SR-F1
o."
iiiJ
0
0
<
uJ
LLJ
(.J
SR-F1
hi
U3
<
%-
.........
m 0.05
10 -'
0.00
0 . 6 5 0 . 1 0 1
O. 15
FRICTION COEFFICIENT, /~ (or #1)
Fig. 9. Variations of peak absolute accelerations at the

top of structure with friction coefficient
0.00
0.00
o.6s
"'.
SR-F2
"~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
o. o
o. s
FRICTION COEFFICIENT, /~ ( o r / ~ )
Fig. 10. Variations of peak base displacements with

friction coefficient
response increases from about 0.15g for # = 0.1 to
about 0.25g for # = 0.2. Figure 9(a) also shows that the
peak acceleration responses for the P - F and the R - F B I
sysems are almost identical in the entire range of # considered.
Figure 9(b) displays the variations of peak acceleration versus friction coefficients of the upper and the
body friction plates of the S R - F systems. In this figure,
S R - F 1 stands for a Sliding Resilient- Friction system
for which the friction coefficient of the body plates is
0.05, while that of the upper plate is varying. Similarly,
S R - F 2 denotes a S R - F system for which the friction
coefficient of the upper friction plate is kept fixed at 0.1,
while that of the body plates is varied. Figure 9(b) shows
that, for small friction coefficient, the peak acceleration
response for the S R - F 1 system increases with #. For
# > 0.07, the peak acceleration becomes a constant.
The reason is that, for relatively larger #, no sliding in
the upper friction plate occurs during the entire duration
of ground excitation. Similarly, the peak acceleration
response for the S R - F 2 system increases as #j increases
for small #t. A slight decrease in the peak acceleration
in the range of 0.09 < #, < 0.1 is noticed. For
#, > 0.1, the body friction plates of the S R - F 2 system
stick to each other, the system reduces to a P - F unit and
the peak acceleration remains a constant.
Figure 10(a) shows the effect of variation of friction
coefficient on the peak base displacement responses for
the P - F , the R - F B I and the EDF systems. It is
observed that the peak base displacement responses
generally decrease as # increases. The exception is the
EDF sysem for which the peak displacement response
first increases to a peak of about 19 cm at/z = 0.05, and
then decreases with further increase in/z. For the P - F
and R - F B I systems, a 50% decrease in their peak
displacement responses are observed as ~ varies from
0.03 to 0.1. The effects of variations in friction coefficients of the body and the upper friction plates on the
peak base displacement responses for the S R - F
systems are displayed in Fig. 10(b). This figure
shows that as # increases, the peak base displacement of the S R - F 1 system first decreases, and remains
a constant for ~ > 0.07. Similarly, for the S R - F 2
system the peak base displacement decreases with an
increase in #, up to #, = 0.1 and remains a constant for
large #1.
The sensitivity of peak deflection responses for
various frictional base isolation systems are also studied.
Trends of variations of peak deflections with changes in
friction coefficient are quite similar to those of the peak
acceleration responses. Additional details may be found
in Ref. 39.
Based on the results presented in this section, it may
be concluded that an increase in the value of friction
coefficient (# or ~,) generally produces higher peak
acceleration and peak deflection, and lower peak
displacement responses. However, small variations in
(or #,) lead only to slight changes in the peak responses
of the structure.
etc 4. The recent data of Ref. 41 suggests that the friction coefficient for teflon-steel interfaces increases with
the slip (relative sliding) velocity and decreases with the
interface pressure. In this section, the effects of velocitydependence of friction coefficient on the performance of
the R - F B I , the P - F , and athe EDF systems are
studied. The N00W component of E1 Centro 1940 earthquake is used as the ground acceleration. A friction
model with linear velocity dependence is considered.
That is, it is is assumed that the dynamic friction coefficient is given as
# = #o + ~lzl
in which #o is the static friction coefficient, ~ is the slip

velocity between surfaces in contact, and ~ is a
parameter which is the rate of variation of/~ with the
sliding velocity. Equation (23) with a range of values of
between 0 to 0.5 s/m is used for analyzing the sensitivity of performances of frictional base isolation
systems to velocity-dependence of friction coefficient.
The values of friction coefficient as listed in Table 1 are
used for/zo in the analysis.
Figure 11 shows the peak acceleration responses at the
top of structure and the peak slip velocity versus ~. It is
observed that the accelerations and the sliding velocities
are not sensitive to the variations in ~. The exception is
the peak sliding velocity of the EDF system which
shows a 50% decrease as ~ increases form zero to
0.5 s/m.
The variation of maximum base displacement with
are shown in Fig. 12. The peak slip displacement,
(s -Y)lmax, for the EDF system is also shown in this
figure. It is observed that both the total base displacement, s Im~x, and the slip displacement of the EDF
system are not sensitive to the variations in ~. The
results for the R - F B I and the P - F systems show
gradual reduction in the peak base displacement
responses as ~ increases. Sensitivities of peak deflection
responses of frictional base isolation systems to velocity
dependence of friction coefficient are also studied. The
results (which are not shown here due to space limitation
but may be found in Ref. 39) show that the variations of
do not have a significant effect on the peak deflection
responses.
1
Peak Accellrotion
......
Peak Sliding Velocity
P-F"
......... .Epr
G
S
~-re,
t,i
,.d
hi
rO
t~J
>
0
Z
Y
<
t,i
10-'[
0.0
Effects of velocity-dependent friction model

It is well known that the Coulomb law of friction is
only an approximation and the friction coefficient between surfaces vary with velocity, normal force and
(23)
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
10
-,eL
0.5
(see/m)
Fig. 11. Effects of velocity - dependent friction coefficient on peak acceleration and peak sliding velocity
responses
"-'0.10
E
EDF (Totol)
0.08
I,,-,
Z
bJ
.................................
0.06
5D_
U~
hl
U'
<)
rn
0.04
Z .................................
~
...........
R-F
"I ~ l ~ x / C R
Z
_o
FBI
COO
LI~'
2 .~
<
v
.====================================
................
=
v 0.02
R-FBI/SR-r
SR-F
/LRB/EDF
i5
o_
,, ~.
(3.
0.00
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
10
0.5
"'
o.o
1.o
2.b
4.0
(sec/m)
Fig. 12. Effects of velocity - dependent friction coefficient on peak base displacement responses
Considering the peak slip velocities for various
systems as shown in Fig. 11, the amount of variations
in friction coefficient for the R - F B I , the P - F , and the
EDF systems are about 0.05 to 0.07, 0.1 to 0.25, and
0.2 to 0.275, respectively. (Note that for the R - F B I
system, eight friction plates are considered and the slip
velocity is divided by eight in equation (23).) Although
these are rather substantial variations in friction coefficient, the results show that the peak acceleration and the
peak deflection responses remain almost unchanged.
Thus, it may be concluded that the peak responses of the
base isolated structure are not sensitive to the variation
of friction coefficient with slip velocity. The Coulomb
law of friction with a constant # (equal to the static coefficient of friction) appears to be capable of describing
the performances of frictional base isolators satisfactorily. A similar observation was noted in Ref. 32.
Effects of natural period of isolation system

The importance of selecting appropriate values of
natural period for the base isolation system is well
known. In this section, the effects of variations in
natural periods of various isolators on the peak responses of structure are studied. A three-story building
described earlier with a fundamental natural period of
0.3 sec and damping of 0.02 is considered and the
accelerogram of El Centro 1940 earthquake is used. The
resulting peak responses are plotted versus the natural
period of the base isolation system, To, in Fig. 1 3 - 1 5 .
Figure 13 shows the acceleration response spectra for
various base isolation systems. It is observed that for
natural periods of isolation system below 1 sec, the peak
acceleration responses for all systems are quite high.
The exception is the S R - F system for which the peak
acceleration remains less than 0.3g. For To > 1.8 sec,
the acceleration response spectrum for the S R - F system
coincides with that for the R - F B I system and takes an
almost constant value of about 0.25g. The peak accelerations for the EDF system are identical to those for the
LRB system for To > 1.5 sec. In this range the peak
acceleration for the LRB/EDF and the NZ systems
decrease rapidly with an increase in To.
Figure 14 shows the peak base displacements for
various base isolation systems versus To. It is observed,
To
. . . . .
5.b
6.0
sec
Fig. 13. Variations of peak absolute accelerations at

the top of structure with natural period of isolation
system
for To < 1.5 sec, the peak base displacement responses

are less than 10 cm for all base isolation systems considered. As To increases, the peak base displacement
for the LRB/EDF system increases sharply, and reaches
a maximum of about 25 cm at To = 2.5 sec. The peak
base displacements for the R - F B I and the S R - F
systems coincide for To > 2 sec and increase only
slightly with To.
The variations of the peak deflections of the structure
with To for different base isolation systems are shown
in Fig. 15. It is noticed that the peak deflections for the
LRB, the NZ, and the R - F B I systems are quite large
for To < 1.5 sec, while that for the EDF system is
about 0.5 to 1 cm. The S R - F base isolation system is
the only system which appears to be insensitive to a
large variation in To. It is also observed that the S R - F
system leads to the lowest structural deflections for
To < 1.5 sec. For To > 2 sec, the peak deflection
responses for the R - F B I and the S R - F systems
become identical and remain approximately a constant
"'0.30
E
v
0.25
r-~, LRB/EDF
/ ' \./f~.\
\\\
Z
hl
m
bJ
0
0.20
n0.15
u3
LR8
EOF I
NZ
. / /
~o.~o
<
SR-F
~...
.-
_~?'~J, ~ /
~- ~ - - - - - - - - - -
R-FBI/SR-F
..-
~ 0.05
w
n
R-FBI
0.00
0.0
1.'0
2.'0
To
4.'0
sec
6.0
Fig. 14. Variations of peak base displacements with

natural period of isolation system
10
10 -~
R-FBI
Z
0
Ld
Ld
.J
w
EDF
,.)
(..)
<:
R-FBI/SR-F
--""~... . . . . . .
..NZ
SR-F
<
(3..
10
-~
0.0
1.0
'\
2.0
To
.................
I..RB/EDF
I
..3.0
4.0
( sec )
5.0
(3-
..-~- :~-
6.0
10 -~
0.00
~-
0.05
-_- : - _ -
O. 10
O. 15
STRUCTURAL DAMPING, ~'l
0.20
Fig. 15. Variations of peak base deflections with

natural period of isolation system

the top of structure with structural damping
of about 0.4 cm. The peak deflection for the LRB/EDF

system decreases sharply for To > 2.5 sec.
The results presented in this section show that the peak
acceleration and the peak deflection responses for the
R - F B I / S R - F , the NZ, and the LRB systems are not
sensitive to variation in To in the neighborhood of the
recommended values for their natural period. However,
the peak responses for the EDF system appear to be
rather sensitive to variation in natural period near
To = 1 sec. The peak acceleration and the peak deflection responses for the S R - F system remain almost constant for the entire range of To considered.
changed. The N00W component of El Centro 1940

earthquake is used and the resulting peak acceleration
responses are shown in Fig. 16 and 17.
Figure 16 shows the peak acceleration responses for
various base isolation systems. It is observed that the
R - F B I / S R - F and the EDF systems are insensitive to
variation in damping coefficients of the isolation system
and lead to almost constant peak acceleration responses
of about 0.3g. For small ~'o, the peak acceleration
responses for the LRB and the NZ systems first decrease
with an increase in ~'o, and reaches a minimum value of
about 0.13g occurring at ~'o = 0.4 for the LRB system
and ~'o = 0.2 for the NZ system. The peak acceleration
then increases with further increase in ~'o. The reason is
that as damping increases the energy dissipation capacity
of the isolator increases; however, for vary large damping ratios, the isolator becomes rather stiff and the
transmitted acceleration increases.
The corresponding results for the peak base displacement and the peak deflection responses (not shown here
but may be found in Ref. 39) show that for practical
range of ~'o, variations in the damping of isolation
system produce only slight variations in the peak structural responses for the LRB and the NZ systems. Furthermore, the effects of variations in damping ratio are
negligible for the frictional systems for the entire range
of ~'o considered.
Figure 17 shows the peak acceleration responses
versus ~'1 for different base isolation systems. The
results for the fixed-base structure is also shown in this
figure for reference. It is observed that the peak
accelerations for the fixed-base structure, the P - F , and
the R - F B I / S R - F systems decrease as ~'~ increases.
Those of the structure with the LRB or the NZ base
isolation systems, however, remain approximately constant with magnitude of less than 0.2g for the entire range
of ~'1 considered. The EDF system also leads to a
roughly constant peak acceleration response of about
0.3g.
The results for variations of the peak base displacement and peak deflection responses for various base
isolation systems with structural damping 39 show that
an increase in structural damping leads to a slight
decrease in peak deflection respsonses for the fixed-base
Effects of dampings of isolation systems and structure

In this section, effects of dampings of the base isolation system and the structure on the peak responses of
a structure with TI = 0.3 sec are studied. In the first
phase, the damping of the structure is kept fixed at
~'~ = 0.02 and ~'o is varied. The entire range of ~'o
from zero to 0.5 are studied for the sake of completeness, although, in practice ~'o is always more than
0.05. In the second phase, the damping of the isolator is
kept at ~'o = 0.08 and the structural damping is
v
Z
o_
EDF
R~/~BI/SR-F
if2
.d
. x
LRB
V
13-
10 " 't
0.0
0.'I
0.12
0.13
0.4
0.5
~o

the top of structure with damping of isolation system
structure and the structure with the P - F and the
R - F B I / S R - F systems. However, variations in structural damping has negligible effets on the peak deflection responses for the LRB, the NZ, and the EDF
systems. Furthermore, the peak base displacements for
all the systems considered are insensitive to variations in
Effects of intensity
To understand the effects of increase in intensity of
ground excitation on performances of various base isolation systems, the N00W component of E1 Centro 1940
earthquake is magnified by a factor of two and is used
as the ground excitation. Thus, the intensity is increased
while the 'frequency content of the ground excitation
remains unchanged. The peak responses for the base
isolated structure and the fixed-base one under the
magnified El Centro 1940 earthquake are evaluated and
the results are described in this section.
Figure 18 shows the acceleration response spectra for
various base isolation systems and for the fixed-base
structure. It is observed that the base isolated structure
experiences much lower peak accelerations when compared with the fixed-base one. It is also noticed that the
peak accelerations of the base isolated structure do not
vary appreciably with variation in T.. The exception is
the EDF system for which the peak acceleration
increases somewhat as TI increases. For this level of
excitation, still the response of the S R - F system is
identical to that of the R - F B I system due to the absence
of sliding in the upper plate of the S R - F system. Comparing Fig. 18 with Fig. 6, it is observed that the peak
acceleration responses for the fixed-base structure, the
LRB, and the NZ systems are doubled when the ground
acceleration is doubled; however, those of the frictional
system have increased only by 25%. For the P - F
system, an increase of about 45 % in the peak acceleration responses is noticed. These figures also show that
the peak accelerations for the LRB and the NZ systems
are about one half of that for the R - F B I / S R - F systems
for the El Centro 1940 ground excitation; however,
these becomes comparable for the magnified El Centro
earthquake.
"'0.40
E
v 0.35
LRB
.........
0.30
L,J
'5
w
(...) 0 . 2 5
EDF
5
(3..
NZ _ .,_',,
0.20
".":T;'-r-.
---~---""~""
0.15
R-FBr/SR-F
0.10
v
a.
0.05
0.00
10 -~
T1
sec
Fig. 19. Variations of peak base displacements of

structure with its natural period for the magnified El
Centro 1940 earthquake
Figure 19 compares the peak base displacement
responses for various base isolation systems under the
magnified E1 Centro earthquake ground excitation. It is
observed that the peak base displacement responses
remain almost constant for the entire range of TI. The
exception is the P - F system for which the peak base
displacement varies between about 12 and 24 cm. This
figure shows that the base displacement is lowest (about
15 cm) for the R - F B I / S R - F systems and highest
(about 30 to 35 cm) for the LRB system. Comparing
Fig. 19 with Fig. 7, it is observed that the peak base
displacement responses for the LRB, the NZ, and the
R - F B I / S R - F systems are roughly doubled when the
intensity of the ground acceleration is doubled.
Figure 20 displays the peak structural deflections for
various base isolation systems and the fixed-based structure under the magnified accelerogram of E1 Centro
1940 earthquake. It is observed that the R - F B I / S R - F
systems lead to the lowest deflections among the base
isolation systems considered; the peak deflections for
the P - F , the LRB, the NZ and the EDF systems are
lO
F-8
1 0 -"
__Q
W
/"
Z
0
P-F
0
(J
-..
.~. . . . . . . . . .
,...... . ..... . ....
,,'"".,
. . . . . . .
~o
<
y
LRB
R-FBI/SR-F
....
NZ
F-
>..<.'.:i".
10 -2_
-FBI/SR-F
NZ
EDF
1 0 -~
10 -~
T1
( sec

the top of structure with its natural period for the
magnified El Centro 1940 earthquake
1 0 -5
10
-'
TI
( sec )
Fig. 20. Variations of peak deflections of structure

with its natural period for the magnified El Centro 1940
earthquake
Performance analysis of aseismic base isolation systems." F.-G. Fan and G. Ahmadi
comparable in the entire range of TI considered. The
peak deflections of the base isolated structure are much
lower than that of the fixed-base one. For example, for
a structure with a fundamental natural period of 0.3 sec,
the base isolated structures lead to peak deflections
which are about five to ten times lower than those for the
fixed-base structure. A comparison of Fig. 8 and 20
shows that the peak deflection responses for the fixedbase structure, the LRB, and the NZ systems are approximately doubled when the intensity of the ground
acceleration is doubled; however, those of the frictional
systems have increased by only about 25 %.
Based on the presented results, it may be concluded
that the frictional base isolation systems are relatively
insensitive to variations in the intensity of ground excitation. As the intensity of the ground excitation is
doubled, the peak responses of the LRB, the NZ, and the
fixed-based structure increase by about 100%. However,
an increase of only about 25 % in the peak acceleration
and peak deflection responses are observed for the frictional systems under the same variation of ground
excitation.
It should be pointed out that the results for the effects
of mass ratio (Ctb) on the peak structural responses are
not presented in here due to the space limitation.
However, it was shown in Ref. 39 that, for practical
range of ab, variations in mass ratio have no significant
effect on the peak responses of the base isolated structure.
(0)
F-B
~
~
- 1
0
-1
6 7 ~
( sec )
I'0 I'1 !2I
I R-FBI
L -.,,,~,~~
"-"
SR-F
_o
tY
t,I
-A
W
,<
RESPONSE TO P A C O I M A DAM E A R T H Q U A K E
To understand the effects of extremely high intensity

ground excitation on the performances of various base
isolation systems, the accelerogram of the S 16E component of Pacoima Dam 1971 earthquake is used in this
section. The peak ground acceleration for this record is
about 1.17g. The recommended values of parameters as
listed in Table 1 for various base isolation systems are
considered in these analyses.
-1
Sample responses
For a structure with a natural period of 0.3 sec,
several absolute acceleration time histories at the top of
structure for various base isolation systems and for the
fixed-base structure are shown in Fig. 21. The ground
acceleration is also plotted in this figure for reference.
It is observed that the fixed-base structure amplifies the
ground acceleration more than three times to about 3.5g.
The acceleration time history for the fixed-base structure
is essentially a narrow-band random process with a
dominant period of 0.3 sec. The acceleration time
history for the LRB system shows a sinusoidal time
variation with a period of about 2 sec. This figure shows
that the acceleration time histories of the R - F B I or the
P - F systems contain many high frequency peaks. It is
also observed that the acceleration responses for the
R - F B I and the EDF systems are generally lower than
those for the LRB, the P - F systems. Figure 21 also
shows that there are small amplitude high frequency
oscillations superposed on the low frequency sinusoidal
variation of the acceleration time history for the EDF
system.
5
t
6 7
( sec )
10 11 12

top of structure for Pacoima dam 1971 earthquake
Using IMSL Fast Fourier Transform routine FCOST,

approximately the first 20 sec acceleration response
time histories at the top of structure are frequency
analyzed. The resulting Fourier spectra for various base
isolation systems together with those of the fixed-base
structure and the accelerogram of Pacoima Dam 1971
earthquake are shown in Fig. 22. It is observed that frequenoes between zero and 5 Hz of the ground excitation
contain considerable energy. It is also observed that the
fixed-based structure amplifies the ground acceleration
to a significant extent, and its Fourier spectrum is
sharply peaked at the frequency of about 3.33 Hz. The
Fourier spectra of the LRB and the EDF systems are
peaked, respectively, at 0.5 Hz and 1 Hz which correspond to the natural frequencies of these systems. The
Fourier spectrum of the R - F B I system, however,
shows a low amplitude broad-band feature with no
distinguishable peak. This is the characteristic of acceleration responses of the sliding systems for which the
friction force scatters the energy into high frequency
regions.
"-"0.70
E
0.65
0
Q)
{.,.
w 0.55
SR-F
P-F
,,1 . . . . . . . . . .
,,,
~':a" " ; = : 7 " . . . . . '4....# -":,',
o 0.50
LRB
I,.iJ
0.60
F-B
0. 0.45
,,.,, /'
.,'" " v '
,"
O9
_.1
F~ 0 . 4 0
R-FBI
Ld
<
<~ 0.35
m
EDF
~ 7
,,, 0 . 3 0
EDF
,,(
0.5
0.0
0.25
~g
0
6
8
10 12 14 16
FREQUENCY ( Hz )
18
0.20
20
10 -'
( sec )
T1
Fig. 22. Fourier spectra of acceleration response at

the top of structure for various base isolation systems for
Pacoima dam 1971 earthquake
Fig. 24. Variations of peak base displacement of structure with its natural period for Pacoima dam 1971 earthquake
Response spectra
Figure 2 4 shows the peak base displacement responses

for various base isolation systems under Pacoima Dam
earthquake. It is observed that the peak base displacements for different systems are comparable and vary between 35 and 50 cm for T, less than 0.8 sec. This figure
also shows the peak base displacement responses are
almost constant for the entire range of T, considered.
The exception is the P - F system for which the peak base
displacement response varies between 37 to 60 cm as
T, increases from 0.5 to 1 sec. It is also observed that
sliding on the upper friction plate of the S R - F system
occur, and the peak base displacements for the S R - F
system are about 5 to 8 cm larger than those for the
R - F B I system.
The peak deflection responses for various base isolation systems are displayed in Fig. 25. This figure shows
that the R - F B I and the S R - F system lead to the lowest
peak deflection responses among the base isolation
systems considered. For a structure with T, = 0.3 sec,
Figure 23 compares the acceleration response spectra

at the top of structure for various base isolation systems
under Pacoima Dam 1971 earthquake. It is observed that
the peak acceleration response for the fixed-base structure varies between 1 to 5g; while those for the base
isolated structure are 0.3 to 0.9g. Among the base isolation system considered, the R - F B I , the S R - F , and the
LRB systems, generally, lead to the lowest peak acceleration. All base isolation systems, except the EDF
system, lead to almost constant peak acceleration
responses. For the EDF system, the peak acceleration
increases as /'1 increases. For /'1 < 0.4 sec, its peak
acceleration is is about 0.25 to 0.4g which is the lowest
among the base isolators considered. This figure also
shows that while sliding occurs in the upper friction
plate of the S R - F system, no significant difference in
the peak acceleration responses between the S R - F and
the R - F B I systems is observed.
10
v
v
oZ 1 0 - I .
o_
n-
w.J
P-F'
b.l
.....
. . . .
LaJ
0
0
<
" ~ '/' /
~'~
,:...,,,
NZ
-I-
" .
,,
Q 10 -L
N~. ,-.-..y-y__L,./
_/.
sR-~
P-F
<:
~x,/
"
"
SR-F
I0
-'
10 "'
1 0 -~
T1
( see )

the top of structure with its natural period for Pacoima
dam 1971 earthquake
10 "'
TI
( sec )

with its natural period for Pacoima dam 1971 earthquake
a peak structural deflection of about 0.6 cm for the
R - F B I and the S R - F systems is observed. The EDF
system generates a peak deflection of about 0.7 cm. The
P - F and the LRB systems lead to a peak deflection of
about 1 cm, and the NZ system leads to a peak deflection of about 1.8 cm. The peak deflection of the fixedbase structure is 8 cm which is about 4 to 14 times those
of the base isolated structure.
systems are highly effective in reducing the peak
transmitted accelerations to the structure and the peak
structural deflections under the high intensity earthquakes. Furthermore, the frictional systems such as the
R - F B I , the S R - F and the EDF systems generally lead
to the lowest peak acceleration and peak deflection
responses.
LRB
/'~
./~ ;
vv v VVi
z
O
,~
_J
"' 1
<~
0
R-FBI
I
-1
40
5'0
415
5'5
( sec )
6'0
65
(b)
RESPONSES TO MEXICO CITY E A R T H Q U A K E
P-F
To study the effects of severe frequency content of

ground excitation, the performances of different base
isolation systems subject to the N90W component of
Mexico City 1985 earthquake are evaluated in this section. This earthquake which had a peak acceleration of
0.17g contained considerable energy at low frequency of
about 0.5 Hz. A structure with a natural period of
0.3 sec and a damping ratio of 0.02 is considered. The
parameters of base isolation systems as listed in Table 1
are used throughout this analysis.
Sample responses
Figure 26 shows several acceleration response time
histories at the top of structure for different base isolation systems as well as for the fixed-base structure for
the time duration of 40 < t < 65 sec. It is observed that
the ground acceleration of Mexico City earthquake
shows a dominant sinusoidal time variation with a rather
long period of about 2 sec. Figure 26 also shows that the
fixed-base structure does not amplify the ground
acceleration to a significant extent. This is due to the
disparity of the dominant frequency of the ground
excitation from the fundamental natural frequency of the
structure. It is also noticed that the LRB system
amplifies the ground acceleration due to the resonance.
Figure 26 also shows that the response time histories for
the R - F B I and the P - F systems contain energy at high
frequency due to the shock loadings; however, the peaks
of these records are rather low. It is of interest to point
out the peculiar sliding behavior of the R - F B I and the
P - F isolators. It is observed that the isolator slides in
one direction for about 1 sec and then slides in the
opposite direction for another 1 sec. The acceleration
response time history for the EDF system is a smooth
time function with its amplitude being of the same order
as that of the ground excitation. It should be mentioned
that in this case sliding occurs in the upper friction plate
of the S R - F system and the acceleration response time
histories of the S R - F system are not identical to those
of the R - F B I system. Nevertheless, the general characteristics of these two systems are quite similar. Therefore, the acceleration response time history of the S R - F
system is not shown in here.
To understand the frequency content of these acceleration time histories, the responses approximately between
,I
(o)
F-B
EDF
o_
uJ
_,J
(.)
0,
--1
I'
40
45
5b
t
5'5
(
sec
6b
65

top of structure for Mexico City 1985 earthquake
35 and 75 sec are Fourier analyzed. The IMSL Fast

Fourier Transform routine FCOST is used in these
analyses. The resulting Fourier spectra are presented in
Fig. 27. The Fourier spectrum of the N90W component
of Mexico City 1985 earthquake is also presented in this
t)
ILL
O3
LRB
....
~.-dL-
F-B
{.d
I---
R-FBI
_J
t2.
<
EDF
L~
1.0
0.5
0.0
Xg
a~" " l
2
FREQUENCY
1'o
( Hz )
14
Fig. 2Z Fourier spectra of acceleration response at

the top of structure for various base isolation systems for
Mexico City 1985 earthquake
figure for reference. It is noticed that the ground acceleration of Mexico City 1985 earthquake has a narrowband spectrum which is sharply peaked at about 0.5 Hz.
For this peculiar seismic ground acceleration, the
Fourier spectra of all systems also have peaks at the frequencies of about 0.5 Hz. In particular, the Fourier
spectrum of the LRB system contains a very high peak
at this frequency due to the resonance. It is also observed
that the Fourier spectrum of the fixed-based structure
has a secondary peak near its natural frequency of
3.33 Hz. Similarly the spectrum of the EDF system
shows a peak at frequency of about 1 Hz. Figure 27 also
shows that the Fourier spectra for the R - F B I system
has a certain amount of energy in the frequency band of
5 to 7 Hz.
"-'1.0
E 0.9
v
0.8
p.
LRB
.-
~0.7
0.6
cL 0 . 5
CO
~0.4
F/R-FBI
bJ
_~-_=_-- . ' . . " "
o.s
m
v
0.2
12.
0.1
..............
P-F ....................
.' /
...........................
EOF___ . . . . . . .
"~ I
O0
10 "'
t
T1
Response spectra
For the accelerogram of Mexico City 1985 earthquake, the peak absolute accelerations at the top of
structure, the peak base displacements, and the peak
deflections for the base isolated structure and the fixedbase one are evaluated and the results are shown in Fig.
28-30.
Figure 28 displays the variations of peak acceleration
responses for various base isolation system with T~. It
is observed that the LRB and the NZ systems considerably amplify the ground acceleration, and lead to
peak acceleration responses of about 0.7 and 0.45g,
respectively. The peak acceleration response of the
fixed-base structure is about 0.2g for small T~, and
varies between 0.3 to 0.6g for/'1 > 0.5 sec. Figure 28
also shows that the peak acceleration response for the
S R - F system is slightly higher than that for the R - F B I
system and these lead to the lowest peak acceleration of
about 0.2g for the entire range of T~ considered. The
peak acceleration for the EDF system increases with TI
but it is generally lower than that of the fixed-base structure.
Figure 29 shows the peak base displacement responses
for various base isolation systems. It is observed that all
of the base isolation systems considered apparently lead
to constant base displacement for the entire range of T].
sec
Fig. 29. Variations of peak base displacements of

structure with its natural period for Mexico City 1985
earthquake
The LRB system generates the highest base displacement response of about 70 cm. The NZ, the R - F B I ,
and the S R - F systems lead to a base displacement of
about 30 cm. It is also observed that the P - F and the
EDF systems lead to peak base displacement responses
of only about 10 cm.
The deflection response spectra for various base isolation systems and for the fixed-base structure are plotted
in Fig. 30. It is observed that the amplitude of the deflection spectra for the LRB and the NZ system are very
high due to resonance. These peak deflections are
several times of that of the fixed-base structure. Figure
30 also shows that the S R - F system leads to the lowest
peak deflection response among the base isolation
systems considered. The peak deflection for the R - F B I
system is somewhat higher than that for the S R - F
system. The peak deflections of the EDF and the P - F
systems are comparable with that of the fixed-base structure. This figure also shows that for a structure with fundamental natural period of 0.3 sec, the peak deflection
1
LRB
. . . . . . . . . . .
E
/ ' -N --- 7-:
F-- B Z 7 ~ //'~X,
~
--
_o
" J I o -'
EOF
~A
~
P-F
~x~ ~ I
-5 :
.:
I-.-
/..
C.)
LO
- ~ . .. ~
~...>~,4.. X .
<
v
,<
R-FBI
CL
1 0 "~
1 0 -'
T1
sec
.- ," ~ /
""
-""
Fig. 28. Variations of peak absolute acceleration at the

top of structure with its natural period for Mexico City
1985 earthquake
R-FBI
I 0 -~
1 0 "'
T1
( sec )

with its natural period for Mexico City 1985 earthquake
Performance analysis o f aseismic base isolation systems: F.-G. Fan and G. Ahmadi
for the fixed-base structure is about 0.7 cm, while those

for the S R - F , the R - F B I , the P - F , and the EDF
systems are about 0.3 to 0.5 cm. Peak deflections of
about 1 cm and 2 cm are observed for the NZ and the
LRB systems, respectively.
The presented results show that, for earthquakes with
considerable energy at low frequency, most base
isolators, do not perform very well. In particular the
LRB and the NZ systems amplify the ground excitation
to a significant extent. The S R - F and the R - F B I
isolators are the only systems which appear to provide
a certain amount of protection.
CONCLUSIONS
Responses of a multi-degree-of-freedom shear frame
with and without base isolation system under several
seismic ground excitation are analyzed. The peak acceleration, the peak base displacement, and the peak deflection of structure under a variety of conditions are
evaluated and the results are used for comparison of performance of various base isolation systems. Sensitivities
of performances of different systems to variations in the
parameters of the isolation systems and the structure and
the intensity and frequency content of the excitation are
studied. Based on the presented results, the following
conclusions may be drawn:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
The transmitted acceleration and column stresses

generated in the structure can be significantly
reduced by the use of properly designed base isolation systems.
An increase in friction coefficient generally leads to
higher peak accelerations and peak deflections, and
lower peak base displacements. However, small
variations in friction coefficient lead only to slight
changes in the peak responses of structure.
The peak acceleration and the peak deflection
responses for the frictional base isolators are insensitive to the velocity-dependence of friction coefficient.
The peak responses are, in general, insensitive to
small variations in the natural period of base isolation systems in the neighborhood of the recommended values except for the EDF system for
which the peak responses vary somewhat with To.
Variations in the structural damping, and damping
of isolators have no significant effect on the peak
acceleration and the peak deflection responses.
The peak responses for the LRB and the NZ
systems vary in direct proportion to the intensity of
earthquakes.
The LRB and the NZ systems are sensitive to the
low frequency energy content of earthquakes.
Frictional systems are less sensitive to severe variations in the intensity and frequency content of
earthquakes.
As noted before, general design criteria for base isolation systems and base-isolated structures were described
in Refs 2 6 - 2 8 . The presented study provides detailed
information concerning peak structural responses for
different base isolation systems for a number of different
earthquakes. Thus, the results may be helpful for the
preliminary selection of the most suitable base isolation

system for a specific structure and site condition. For
example, for sites with histories of earthquakes with
long period energy contents, the use of a rubber bearing
type base isolation system should be avoided. The
presence of a frictional element in the base isolator
system, generally, provides a safety measure against
unpredicted severe variations in intensity and frequency
content of earthquake ground excitations. Furthermore,
frictional elements provide rigidity for the base isolation
system which alleviates the uncomfortable oscillation of
base-isolated structure in winds during normal use.
However, these additional protection features are at the
expense of generation of high frequency excitations at
higher floors during earthquake strong motion which
could be quite damaging to the secondary systems and
equipment housed in the structure.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work is supported by the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New
York at Buffalo under the Grants No. NCEER 86-3021F,
and 87-2007.
REFERENCES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Kelly,J. M. Aseismicbase isolation,Shock Vib. Dig., 1982, 14,

17-25
Kelly,J. M. Aseismicbase isolation:reviewand bibliography,Soil
Dyn. Earthquake Engng., 1986, $, 202-216
Kelly,J. M. and Hodder.S. B. Experimentalstudyof leadandelastomeric dampers for base isolationsystemsin laminatedneoprene
bearings, Bulletin of New Zealand National Societyfor Earthquake
Engineering, 1982, 15. 53-67
Huffmann,G. R. Full base isolationfor eanhqnakeprotectionby
helical springs and viscodampers, Nuclear Engng. and Design,
1985, 84, 331-338
Buckle,1. G. New ZealandSeismicbase isolationconcepts and
their application to nuclear engineering, Nuclear Engng. and
Design, 1985, 84, 313-326
Skinner,R. J., Kelly,J. M. and Heine, A. J. Hystereticdampers
for earthquake-resistant structures, Earthquake Engng. Struct.
Dyn., 1975 3. 287-296
Constantinou,M. C. and Tadjbakhsh,I. G. Hystereticdampersin
base isolation: random approach, ASCE, J, Structural Engng.,
1985, Ill, 705-721
Robinson,W. H. and Tucker, A. G. A lead-rubbersheardamper,
Bull. New Zealand Nat. Soci. Earthquake Engng.. 1977. 10.
151- 153
Chert, D. and Clough, R. W. Earthquake response of structures
with friction sliding motion, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA. 1981

10
II
12
13
14
15
Mostaghel, N. and Tanbakuchi, J. Response of sliding structures to

earthquake support motion, Earthquake Engng. Struct. Dyn., 1983,
11, 729 - 748
Kelly, J. M. and Beucke, K. E. A friction damped base isolation
system with fail-safe characteristics, Earthquake Engng. Struct.
Dyn., 1983, 11, 3 3 - 5 6
Ahmadi, G. and Mostaghel, N. On Dynamics of a structure with
a frictional foundation. J. De Mecanique Theorique et Appliquee,
1984, 3, 271-285
Younis, C. J. and Tadjbakhsh, I. G. Response of sliding rigid structure to base excitation, ASCE, J. Engng. Mech., 1984, 110,
417 -432
Ahmadi, G. Stochastic earthquake response of structures on sliding
foundation. Int. J. Engng. Sci., 1983, 121, 9 3 - 1 0 2
Constantinou, M. C. and Tadjbakhsh, I. G. Response of a sliding
P e r f o r m a n c e analysis o f aseismic base isolation systems: F.-G. Fan a n d G. A h m a d i
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
structure to filtered random excitation, J. Structural Mech., 1984,

12, 401-418
Su, L., Orabi, 1. I. and Ahmadi, G. Nonstationary earthquake
response of a sliding rigid structure, Int. J. Engng. Sci., 1988, 26,
1013-1026
Li, L. Base isolation measure for aseismic building in China, Proc.
8WCEE, San Francisco, July 21-28, Vol. VI, 791-798, 1984
Li, L. Advances in base isolation in China, Presented at the 3rd
International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, June 22-24, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ,
1987.
Mostaghel, N. Resilent-friction base isolator, Report No. UTEC
84-097, The University of Utah, 1984
Mostaghel, N., Hejazi, M. and Khodaverdian, M. Response of
structures supported on resilient-friction base isolator, Proceed.
Third U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Charleston, South Carolina, August 1986, 1993-2003
Mostaghel, N. and Khodaverdian, M. Dynamics of resilientfriction base isolator (R-FBI), Earthquake Engng. Struct. Dyn.
1987, 15, 379-390
Mostaghel, N. and Khodaverdian, M. Seismic response of structures supported on R-FBI system, Report No. UTEC 87-035, The
University of Utah, September 1987
Ikonomou, A. S. Alexisismon seismic isolation levels for translational and rotational seismic input, Proc. 8WCEE, San Francisco,
July 21-28, 1984, Vol. V, 975-982
Guerand, R., Noei-Leroux, J.-P., Livolant, M. and
Michalopoulos, A. P. Seismic isolation using sliding-elastomer
bearing pads, Nuclear Engng. and Design, 1985, 84, 363-377
Su, L., Ahmadi, G. and Tadjbakhsh, I. G. A comparative study of
base isolation systems, ASCE J. Engng. Mech. 1989, 115,
1976- 1992
Tentative seismic isolation design requirements, Base Isolation
Subcommittee of Seismology Committee. Structural Engineers
Association of Northern California (SEAONC), September 1986
Mayes. R. L., et al., Design guidelines for base-isolated buildings
with energy dissipators, Earthquake Spectra, November 1984, 1,
4111-4174
Kariotis, J. C. and Ewing R. D. Tentative guidelines for the design
of buildings with base isolators, ASTM, PVP-V.127, Seismic
Engineering, Recent Advances in Design, Analysis, Testing, and
Qualification Methods, 1987, 501-510
Mostagbel, N., Kelly, J. M. and Mortazavi, A. R. Design procedure for R-FBI Bearings, Report No. UEC 88-031, The University of Utah, March 1988
Mostagbel, N., Lo, S. H. and Buman, E. Design of R-FBI bearings
for seismic isolation, PVP-Vol. 147 Seismic, Shock, and Vibration
Isolation - 1988, edited by H. Chung and N. Mostaghel, June
1988
Hadjian, A. H. and Tseng, W. S. A comparative evaluation of
passive seismic isolation schemes, ATC-17, Seminar on Base Isolation and Passive Energy Dissipation, California, March, 1986
Su, L., Ahmadi, G. and Tadjbakhsh, I. G. A comparative study of
performances of various base isolation systems, Part I: Shear beam
structures, Earthquake Engng. Struct. Dyn., 1989, 18, 11-32
Fan, F.-G., Ahmadi, G. and Tadjbakhsh, I. G. Multi-story baseisolated buildings under a harmonic ground motion - Part I: A
comparison of performances of various systems, Nuclear Engng.
Design. 1990, 123, 1-16
Fan, F.-G., Ahmadi, G. and Tadjbakhsh, I. G. Multi-story baseisolated buildings under a harmonic ground motion - Part II: sensitivity analysis, Nuclear Engng. Design. 1990, 123, 17-26
Derham, C. J. Nonlinear natural rubber bearings for seismic isolation, ATC-17, Seminar on Base Isolation and Passive Energy
Dissipation, California, March. 1986
Tajirian, F.F. and Kelly, J. M. Seismic and shock isolation system
for modular power plants, The 1987 Pressure Vessels and Piping
Conference, California, 1987
Wen, W. K. Equivalent linearization for hysteretic systems under
random excitation, J. Appl. Mech., 1980, 47, 150- 154
International Mathematics and Statistics Library, IMSL Inc., 1987
Fan. F.-G. Base isolation of a Multi-Story Structure - A comparison of performances of various systems under harmonic and
earthquake ground motions, M.S. Thesis, Clarkson Universi~, July
1988
Kragelskii, I. V. Friction and Wear, Butterworths, 1965
Constantinou,M. C., Caccese, J. and Harris, H. G. Frictional
characteristics of teflon-steel interfaces under dynamic conditions,
Earthquake Engng. Struct. Dyn., 1987, 15, 751-759
APPENDIX
In this a p p e n d i x , the p a r a m e t e r s o f the structural m o d a l

used in this study a r e d e s c r i b e d . F u r t h e r m o r e , the corr e s p o n d i n g m o d a l m a t r i x a n d m o d a l e q u a t i o n s a r e also
p r e s e n t e d . A s m e n t i o n e d b e f o r e , the structural m o d e l
c o n s i d e r e d is a t h r e e - f l o o r b u i l d i n g w i t h identical m a s s
f o r each floor, m, and identical c o l u m n stiffness, k. T h e
e q u a t i o n o f m o t i o n o f the b u i l d i n g is g i v e n b y equation
(2) with the m a s s , d a m p i n g and stiffness m a t r i c e s g i v e n
as,
[m] = m
i1001
010
001
-1
-1
-1
-1
[k] = k i - 21
- 21
-1
[cl = c
01
- 01 1
(A1)
w h e r e c is the d a m p i n g coefficient.
T h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g natural f r e q u e n c i e s , o~i, and the
m o d a l m a t r i x , [ ] , are g i v e n b y ,
~01 = J 0 . 1 9 8 0 6 k - - , o ~ 2 = J 1 . 5 5 4 9 6 - -k,
m
m
/
o~3 = , , / 3 . 2 4 6 9 8 --k
m
(A2)
and
[~]
0.59100
0.73697
0.32798
-0.73697
0.32798
0.59100/
0.32798
(A3)
-0.59100 0.73697 J
Using the transformation {x} = [q~] Iql, the equations

of motion in terms of modal coordinates qi may be
restated as
ii3 + 3 . 2 4 6 9 8
c
--
//3 + 3 . 2 4 6 9 8
k
--
q3 =
(~IR?NI(
--~.-~-~-v
~
+~g,-
(A4)
ii2 + 1.55496 -c- //2 + 1.55496 -k- q2 = - 0 . 4 7 3 9 5 ( g + . ~ )
m
m
(A5)
iil + 0 . 1 9 8 0 6 -c- //I + 0 . 1 9 8 0 6 -k- ql = - 1.65595(g +Xg)
m
m
(A6)
w h e r e the s u b s c r i p t s 1, 2, a n d 3 indicate the m o d e s o f
vibration.
171

Peformance Analysis of Aseismic Base Isolation System For A Multi-Story Buildind

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Peformance Analysis of Aseismic Base Isolation System For A Multi-Story Buildind

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Performance analysis of aseismic base isolation

systems for a multi-story building

Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio 43606, USA

Department of Civil Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 12181, USA

separating a building from the ground by a layer of talc

Computational Mechanics Publications 1991

(a) LRB System

(d) R-FBI System

(f) SR-F System

Schematic diagrams of isolation systems

In spite of a large number of studies on performances

~' + 2g'o~0o$+ ~02s + ~

[m]le} + [ c ] l x ] + [k]lx} = - ( ~ ' + ~ g ) [ m ] { l l

where Co and ko are the damping and the horizontal

where mi is the mass of the ith floor, mb is the mass of

Fig. 2. Structural model of a three-story building with

most cases. Note also that the motion of the GERB

liXi "~" -'~g

Equation (8) governs both the sliding and nonsliding

I.~g + 6o2s + ~ Oti.~il < #g

where N is number of base isolators used, and M is total

where the dimensionless hysteretic displacement Z

In equation (6) and (7), F r and Y represent the force

is satisfied, the sliding motion starts.

g + p.gsgnl (~) + ~.~ oti.~i= -g

where sgn~ (~) is defined by equation (9) with coo being

+ 2~oO~o~+ O~2oS+ #gsgnl(~) + ~

+ 2~oO~o~ + o~2Y + #igsgn3(P) + ~

where the relative displacements y and s are defined in

y "~ j~g "~

The criterion for the nonsliding phase to continue is the

c~il < It/g

The formulation given in the previous section is for a

holds. Sliding starts when the lefthand side of (18)

in which 09 is the natural circular frequency and ~"is the

where y is the deflection of the rubber, s is the total

Base Isolation System

Laminated Rubber Bearing (LRB)

Table 1 are used in these analyses. The IMSL Fast

In this section, responses of the base isolated and the

Fig. 3. Sample absolute acceleration responses at the

Fig. 4. Sample absolute acceleration responses at

responds to the natural frequencies of the base isolated

l b 1'2 1'4 1'6 1'8

acceleration responses at various floors for El Centro 1940 earthquake

Figure 8 shows the peak deflection response spectra

Fig. 6. Variations of peak absolute accelerations at the

Fig. 8. Variations of peak deflections of structure with

frequency content of seismic excitation are also studied

Effects of friction coefficient of isolation system

FRICTION COEFFICIENT, /~ (or #1)

Fig. 9. Variations of peak absolute accelerations at the

Fig. 10. Variations of peak base displacements with

in which #o is the static friction coefficient, ~ is the slip

Peak Sliding Velocity

Effects of velocity-dependent friction model

Effects of natural period of isolation system

Fig. 13. Variations of peak absolute accelerations at

for To < 1.5 sec, the peak base displacement responses

Fig. 14. Variations of peak base displacements with

Fig. 15. Variations of peak base deflections with

Fig. 17. Variations of peak absolute accelerations at