Evaluation of Fixed Base vs.

Base Isolated Building Systems

By Sarah A. Smith In partial fulfillment of special topics course CVEN 485 under the supervision of Dr. Joseph M. Bracci,

Abstract
As part of a National Science Foundation project, the cost and performance effects of a building with and without a sliding friction pendulum base isolation system were compared. Inelastic time history dynamic analysis using a series of earthquake ground motions of varying seismic intensity were performed on the fixed base building. The same ground motions were also run on the isolated building using elastic superstructure with nonlinear isolator elements. From the data retrieved from the design of the members it was determined that the isolators reduced the amount of lateral load taken by the structure and therefore member sizes were decreased. Through time history dynamic analysis accurate drift ratios were retrieved for the fixed base building, but due to errors that could not be resolved, comparable data was not found for the isolated building.

Table of Contents
Introduction 1 2 2 5 5 9 9 10 11 13

Fixed Base Building Design Calculations Fixed Base Building Base Isolated Building

Design Calculations Base Isolated Building Cost Comparison

Ground Motions Fixed Base Building Ground Motions Base Isolated Building Conclusion References

Introduction
As part of a National Science Foundation project, the cost and performance effects of a building with and without a sliding friction pendulum base isolation system were compared. A base isolation system works as a damper to decrease the seismic lateral forces on a structure by inserting a Teflon-steel sliding system at the structures foundation. This system isolates the shaking of the ground from the shaking of the structure and minimizes damage to The the first step structure in the

(http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/n97-06.htm).

development of a comparison was to design a three-story steel special moment resisting frame building with a fixed base. Following the design of the fixed base building,

another steel special moment resisting frame building was designed that took into account the reduction of lateral forces due to the isolation system. Inelastic time history dynamic analysis using a series of earthquake ground motions of varying seismic intensity were performed on the fixed base building using a program called IDASS (Inelastic Damage Analysis of Structural Systems, Kunnath 1995). The same ground motions were also run on the isolated building using elastic superstructure with nonlinear isolator elements in ETABS (1997). The output from IDASS gave story drifts which were averaged for the series of varying seismic intensities. ETABS was supposed to have given similar results, but do to errors that could not be resolved, accurate drift data was not retrieved. The following paragraphs examine the design of the buildings, their costs, and performance comparisons.

Fixed-Base Building
The fixed-base building was designed to use as the control building to compare with the isolated building. Using ETABS, the three-story building was modeled and the lateral and gravity loads were applied per the International Building Code (2000). From the output, axial loads, bending moments, and story drift were used as design criteria and it was determined that story drift was the controlling factor. A trial and error process was used until members were found that satisfied the axial, shear, moment, and story drift demands. The shape used for the columns was a modified W21x201 that had another W21x201 split along the web and welded to the web of the intact W21x201 such that the stiffness in both directions was the same. An adequate beam was determined to be a W30x108 section and floor beams used were W14x22.

Design Calculations Fixed Base Building (IBC, 2000)

Seismic Use Group: I Occupancy Importance Factor, Ie: 1.00 Site Class: B From Maps: SS = 2.5g S1 = 1.24g Values of site coefficient: Fa = 1.0 Fv = 1.0 Spectral Response Acceleration: SMS = FaSs = 2.5g SM1 = FvS1 = 1.24 g 5% Damped Design Spectral Response: 2

SDS =

2 SMS = 1.67g 3 2 SM1 = 0.827g 3

SD1 =

Seismic Design Category: D Natural Period: Ta = CThn where:

3/4

CT = 0.035 hn = 13 x 3 stories = 39
Ta = 0.56 sec Calculations to Determine Base Shear Response Modification Coefficient, R = 8 (Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame) CS =

S DS 1.67 = = 0.21 R 8 I 1.00 E S D1 0.827 = = 0.18 R 8 0.56 I Ta 1 E 0.5 S1 0.5 1.24 = = 0.0775 R 8 I 1 E

CSmax =

CSmin =

Therefore use CS = 0.18. Assume: Floor Beams: Main Framing Beams: Columns: Weight of Each Floor: W1 = First floor loads = 1438.66 kips
3

W14x22 W27x84 W24x131

W2 = W3 =

Second floor loads = 1438.66 kips Third floor loads = 1421.6 kips

Total Weight = W1+W2+W3 = 4298.95 kips Base Shear V = CS x W = (0.18)x(4298.95) = 773.8 kips V = 773.8 k

Calculations to Determine Story Shear Forces CVX =

Wxhx k
n

wihi k
i =1

2 1 (0.56 0.5) + 1 = 1.03 (linear interpolation) k= 2 .5 0 .5

w1h1k = (1438.66)(13)1.03 = 20198.5 w2h2k = (1438.66)(26)1.03 = 41245.9 w3h3k = (1421.6)(39)1.03 = 61883.4

n i =1

wihi k = 123327.8

FX = CVX V F1 =
20198.5 773.8 = 126.7 kips 123327.8 41245.9 773.8 = 258.8 kips 123327.8 61883.4 773.8 = 388.3 kips 123327.8

F2 =

F3 = Seismic Load Effect, E:

E = Qe + 0.2SDSD

20 20 = 2 1.0 1 r , max i Ai 90 120 10 i = 0.75 so use = 1.0

i = 2 -

E = Qe + 0.2D

Base Isolated Building

To design the isolated building, response spectra analysis was used for seismically isolated structures as detailed in section 1623 of the International Building Code (2000). Assumptions regarding effective damping and effective period were

determined in order to carry out the design process. Lateral story forces were determined to be much less than those applied to the fixed-base building due to the isolation system, as expected. The building was modeled in ETABS and the gravity and reduced lateral loads were applied. A trial and error approach was used to find steel sections that satisfied axial, shear, moment, and drift demands. It was determined that modified W21x101 columns and W24x68 beams were adequate. Again, W14x22 sections were used for floor beams.

Design Calculations Base Isolated Building (IBC, 2000)

Response Spectra Analysis (S1 > 0.60g) Seismic Use Group: I Occupancy Importance Factor, Ie: 1.00 Site Class: B From Maps: SS = 2.5g S1 = 1.24g
5

Values of site coefficient: Fa = 1.0 Fv = 1.0 Spectral Response Acceleration: SMS = FaSs = 2.5g SM1 = FvS1 = 1.24 g 5% Damped Design Spectral Response: 2 SDS = SMS = 1.67g 3 SD1 =
2 SM1 = 0.827g 3

Seismic Design Category: D

Total Dead Load of Structure, W = 4298.95 Find R1: R1 =

3 R, where R = 8 (Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame) 8

R1 = 3, but Rmax = 2 Therefore R1 = 2 Assume Effective Damping: BD = 15% BD factor = 1.35 Assume Effective Period at Design Displacement: TD = 2.5 sec TM = 3.0 sec Maximum Effective Stiffness, Kdmax

W 4 2 4298.95(4)( 2 ) = = 70.3 kips/in Kd,max = 2 (2.52 )(386.4) TD g

Design Displacement, DD:

g S T 386.4 0.827 2.5 DD = 2 D1 D = = 15.0 in. 2 1.35 BD 4 4 Maximum Displacement, DM:

g 2 S M 1TM 4 DM = = BM 386.4 1.24 3.0 2 4 = 27.0 in. 1.35

Real Damping Value for Sliding System: Radius of curvature: r = TD

2

g 386.4 = 2 .5 2 = 61.2 2 4 4 2

Damping:
MU 2 Damping = where MU = 0.06 ( M + DD U r
0.06 2 Damping = = 12.5% (0.06 + 15 61.2

Use liner interpolation and continued iterations: BM = 1.25 DD = 16.14 DM = 29.0

Structural Elements Above the Isolation System: VS =

kd max DD 70.3 16.14 = R1 2

VS = 567.3 kips Calculation of Story Shear Forces: CVX = Wxhx k

n

wihi k
i =1

2 1 (0.56 0.5) + 1 = 1.03 (linear interpolation) k= 2 .5 0 .5

w1h1k = (1438.66)(13)1.03 = 20198.5 w2h2k = (1438.66)(26)1.03 = 41245.9 w3h3k = (1421.6)(39)1.03 = 61883.4

n i =1

wihi k = 123327.8

FX = CVX V F1 =
20198.5 567.3 = 86.0 kips 123327.8 41245.9 567.3 = 172.1 kips 123327.8 61883.4 567.3 = 255.0 kips 123327.8

F2 =

F3 =

Cost Comparison
Cost comparisons were conducted based on the weight of structural steel. Table 1 shows the breakdown of weight in pounds per square foot on each floor of the buildings. The numbers take into account the weight of the floor beams, main framing beams, and columns.
TABLE 1 Weight of Steel Comparison Fixed-Base Building 15.6 psf First Floor 15.6 psf Second Floor 13.2 psf Third Floor

Isolated Building 9.8 psf 9.8 psf 8.5 psf

From these results, it is clear that there is a significant reduction in lateral loads due to the isolation system which allows members to be smaller and still meet the demands. This reduction in member size equates to a reduction in steel weight. Therefore the cost of the building, taking into account only the steel framing, is much less.

Ground motions Fixed Base Building

The next step was to compare the building performance, namely a comparison of maximum story drift during the same intensity earthquakes. The program IDASS (Kunnath, 1995) was used to run a series of earthquake ground motions on the fixed-base building. Twenty ground motions of an earthquake intensity with a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years , twenty with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years, and twenty with a 50% probability of exceedance in 50 years were used. From the output of these runs, an average maximum story drift was determined and assembled in Tables 2, 3, and 4. The drifts are rather small, but this can be attributed to the additional stiffness required in the building to keep the drift within acceptable limits during the design phase. 9

Table 2 - 2% Ground motions Story 1 Story 2 Story 3 Mean (in.) 2.481 1.421 1.014 Standard deviation (in.) 1.470 0.447 0.276 Coefficient of variation (in.) 0.593 0.315 0.272 Minimum (in.) 0.826 1.029 0.738 Maximum (in.) 6.331 2.886 1.967

Table 3 - 10% Ground motions Story 1 Story 2 Story 3 Mean (in.) 1.334 1.097 0.816 Standard deviation (in.) 1.158 0.331 0.222 Coefficient of variation (in.) 0.868 0.302 0.273 Minimum (in.) 0.345 0.521 0.424 Maximum (in.) 5.643 1.979 1.272

Table 4 - 50% Ground motions Story 1 Story 2 Story 3 Mean (in.) 0.723 0.802 0.619 Standard deviation (in.) 0.607 0.324 0.240 Coefficient of variation (in.) 0.840 0.403 0.388 Minimum (in.) 0.164 0.248 0.202 Maximum (in.) 2.622 1.310 0.992

Ground motions Base Isolated Building

The performance of the isolated building was determined by time history dynamic analysis in ETABS. ETABS has an isolator element that was placed at the base of the columns of the structure. The same ground motions that were used on the fixed base building were used on this building. Tables 5, 6, and 7 show the results from these runs. This information is not what was expected. The drift at the base level should have been much larger than the drifts at stories one, two, and three. All drifts are also much

10

lower than expected. The entries in the tables are in percent drift, but it could not be determined what the units were or what they were relative to.

Table 5 - 2% Ground motions Base Mean 0.1092 Standard deviation 0.0317 Coefficient of variation 0.2906 Minimum 0.0479 Maximum 0.1544

Story 1 0.0882 0.0258 0.2926 0.0386 0.1255

Story 2 0.0466 0.0134 0.2886 0.0209 0.0671

Story 3 0.0276 0.0073 0.2630 0.0125 0.0368

Table 6 - 10% Ground motions Base Mean 0.0666 Standard deviation 0.0282 Coefficient of variation 0.4228 Minimum 0.0203 Maximum 0.1208

Story 1 0.0537 0.0226 0.4211 0.0163 0.0967

Story 2 0.0284 0.0119 0.4175 0.0089 0.0511

Story 3 0.0176 0.0077 0.4393 0.0062 0.0338

Table 7 - 50% Ground motions Base Mean 0.0494 Standard deviation 0.0285 Coefficient of variation 0.5772 Minimum 0.0097 Maximum 0.0969

Story 1 0.0398 0.0231 0.5807 0.0078 0.0784

Story 2 0.0211 0.0121 0.5731 0.0043 0.0414

Story 3 0.0129 0.0067 0.5180 0.0029 0.0234

Conclusion
Two steel special moment resisting frame buildings, a fixed-base and a base isolated, were designed. Comparisons of the weight of structural steel were used to relate the cost of the two buildings. Series of varying earthquake intensities were used to compare the performance of the two structures. General knowledge of how isolation 11

systems work lead to the expectation that the isolated building would weigh less and therefore cost less due to the reduction in lateral loads being applied to the structure. It was also expected that the drift of the isolated building would be less than that of the fixed-base building. The drift was found to be less, but do to program errors or human errors the ETABS results are not correct and a comparison with this data would be inaccurate.

12

References
ETABS Version 6.20 (1997), Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, California. International Code Council, Inc. (2000). International Building Code, Country Club Hills, Illinois. Kunnath, S.K. (1995). Enhancements to Program IDARC: Modeling Inelastic Behavior of Welded Connections in Special Moment Resisting Frames, Report NIST GCR-95-673, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland.

13