CHAPTER 2

LITARATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION:

A common perception on how to resist an earthquake force is by strengthening the structure.

The traditional engineering design strategy based on increasing the design capacity and
stiffness to accommodate foreseeable lateral forces may not be the most efficient solution.
The problem with the latter is that all seismic forces from the foundation will be absorbed by
the superstructure. The base isolation technique is exactly the opposite of traditional
engineering design strategy.

Base isolation is a system that protects a building from the damaging erects of a seismic
movement. If the structure separates form the ground during an earthquake, the ground is
moving but the structure is still dormant. However, this scenario is not realistic. The current
technology that is active and expanding is the introduction of a low lateral stiffness support
that isolates the structure from the ground movement. This technology was introduced as
early as the 1900’s; however, not until the 1970’s did it evolve into the practical strategy for
seismic-resistant design.

2.2 BACKGROUND OF BASE ISOLATION:

In this age of technological evolution, the field of seismic engineering has a reputation for
creative thinking and advanced technology beyond conventional solutions. Seismic isolation
is a fitting technology. In this section we will look at the history of base isolation how and
why it works.

The Earthquake Engineering Research Centre (EERC), now known as the Pacific
Engineering Research Centre (PEER), of the University of California at Berkeley, was the
first institution in the United States to conduct a study on the feasibility of using raw rubber
bearings as base isolators to defend buildings from earthquakes. This was in 1976. The study
undertaken was a combined effort between the EERC and the Malaysian Rubber Producers
Research Association (MRPRA) from the United Kingdom. In the beginning, this study
program was fully financed by the MRPRA and later on by the National Science Foundation
and the Electric Power Research Institute.

The concept of base isolation had been around for quite a while. Most professionals in the
field of structural engineering believed that the idea of using rollers or sliders for base
isolation was totally nonviable and not suitable. The study program started with a simple
three story, twenty ton model. Handmade bearings, produced from very low cost rubber, were
used at the commencement of the research.

Shaking table trials carried on the model established that the application of isolation bearings
was able to decrease the acceleration by a factor up to 10 in equivalence with conservative
designs. The research program proved that the model reacted as a stiff body and all the twist
took place only in the isolation system. This early research directed the need towards a
certain degree of damping in the projected system; due to the tiny extent of the model, the use
of more practical combinations of rubber was ruled out.

In 1978, a five-storied, three bay, forty ton model was used to study base isolation when
commercially produced bearings with increased damping were used. This study, conducted
with the help of five tests, proved that the isolation attained through rubber bearings had the
capacity of considerably decreasing the increase in speed felt by the structure itself. The very
same study also demonstrated that the utilization of extra elements like lead plugs in the
bearings or energy absorbing devices made of steel in the isolation system to enhance the
quantity of damping lessened the capability of the isolation system in decreasing the
acceleration felt by the internal equipment. This directed the study in finding a well-
organized way to add in the damping inside the rubber bearing, and not as a disconnected
element supplemented to the isolation system.

Actually the rubber bearings are effective isolators because they are comparatively effortless
to manufacture, can survive the test of time, are fixed, and are outstandingly resistant to
ecological degradation. Rubber bearings manufactured by binding sheets of vulcanized
rubber to thin reinforcing plates made of steel tend to be supple horizontally, while being
very stiff in the vertical direction. Thus during seismic action, the sheet of bearings secluded
the structure from the horizontal components of ground motion, and the vertical factors
transferred to the building remain intact.

Vertical acceleration does not affect most structures, and the bearings also have the capacity
to isolate the building from undesirable high-rate vertical vibration formed by sources such as
traffic and underground railways.

2.3 PURPOSE OF BASE ISOLATION:

A high proportion of the world is subjected to earthquakes and society expects that structural
engineers will design our buildings so that they can survive the effects of these earthquakes.
As for all the load cases we encounter in the design process, such as gravity and wind, we
work to meet a single basic equation:

CAPACITY > DEMAND

We know that earthquakes happen and are uncontrollable. So, in that sense, we have to accept
the demand and make sure that the capacity exceeds it. The earthquake causes inertia forces
proportional to the product of the building mass and the earthquake ground accelerations. As
the ground accelerations increases, the strength of the building, the capacity, must be
increased to avoid structural damage.

It is not practical to continue to increase the strength of the building indefinitely. In high
seismic zones the accelerations causing forces in the building may exceed one or even two
times the acceleration due to gravity, g. It is easy to visualize the strength needed for this
level of load – strength to resist 1g means than the building could resist gravity applied
sideways, which means that the building could be tipped on its side and held horizontal
without damage.
 Figure 2-1: Design for 1g Earthquake Loads.

Designing for this level of strength is not easy, nor cheap. So, most codes allow engineers to
use ductility to achieve the capacity. Ductility is a concept of allowing the structural
elements to deform beyond their elastic limit in a controlled manner. Beyond this limit, the
structural elements soften and the displacements increase with only a small increase in force.

The elastic limit is the load point up to which the effects of loads are non-permanent; that is,
when the load is removed the material returns to its initial condition. Once this elastic limit is
exceeded the load is removed the material returns to its initial condition. Once this elastic
limit is exceeded changes occur. These changes are permanent and nor-reversible when the
load is removed. These changes may be dramatic – when concrete exceeds its elastic limit in
tension a crack forms – or subtle, such as when the flange of a steel girder yields.

For most structural materials, ductility equals structural damage, in that the effect of both is
the same in terms of the definition of damage as that which impairs the usefulness of the
object. Ductility will generally cause visible damage. The capacity of a structure to continue
to resist loads will be impaired.

A design philosophy focused on capacity leads to a choice of two evils:

1. Continue to increase the elastic

strength. This is expensive and
for buildings leads to higher
floor accelerations. Mitigation
of structural damage by further
strengthening may cause more
damage to the contents than
would occur in a building with
less strength.

2. Limit the elastic strength and

detail for ductility. This
approach accepts damage to
structural components, which
may not be repairable.
Figure 2-2: Ductility.
Base isolation takes the opposite approach, it attempts to reduce the demand rather than
increase the capacity. We cannot control the earthquake itself but we can modify the demand
it makes on the structure by preventing the motions being transmitted from the foundation
into the structure above.

So, the primary reason to use isolation is to mitigate earthquake effects. Naturally, there is a
cost associated with isolation and so it only makes sense to use it when the benefits exceed
this cost. And, of course, the cost benefit ratio must be more attractive than that available
from alternative measures of providing earthquake resistance.

2.4 PRINCIPLE OF BASE ISOLATION:

The basic objective with seismic isolation is to introduce horizontally flexible but vertically
stiff components (base isolators) at the base of a building to substantially uncouple the
superstructure from high-frequency earthquake shaking. The basic concept of base isolation
system is lengthening the natural period of the fixed base building. The benefits of adding a
horizontally compliant system at the foundation level of a building can be seen in Figure 2.3,
(a) using an acceleration response spectrum. Increasing the period of the structure reduces the
spectral acceleration for typical earthquake shaking. Displacements in isolated structures are
often large and efforts are made to add energy dissipation or damping in the isolation system
to reduce displacements as shown in Figure 2.3, (b) using a displacement response spectrum.
The addition of damping to the isolation systems serves to reduce displacements in the
seismic isolators, which can translate into smaller isolators.

a) Acceleration Curve b) Displacement Curve

Figure 2-3: Period Shift Effect.

2.5 BASIC ELEMENTS OF BASE ISOLATION:

 A flexible mounting so that the period of vibration of the building is lengthened

sufficiently to reduce the force response.

 A damper of energy dissipater so that the relative deflections across the flexible
mounting can be limited to a practical design level.

 A means of providing rigidity under low (service) load levels such as wind and
braking force.

2.6 TYPES OF BASE ISOLATERS:

Figure 2-4: Schematic Diagram showing various types of Isolators used throughout the
world.

The most common use of base isolator in building is given below:

1. Laminated Rubber (Elastomeric) Bearing.

2. High Damping Rubber (HDR) Bearing.
3. Lead Rubber Bearing (LRB).
4. Flat Sliding bearings.
5. Friction Pendulum (FPS) System Bearing.
2.6.1 LAMINATED RUBBER (ELASTOMERIC) BEARING:

Elastomeric bearings have been used widely in bridges as bearing pads between the girder
and the supporting structure for many years. Elastomeric bearings have multiple layers of
steel shims and rubber laminated together under high pressure and heat in a mold. Steel shims
prevent lateral bulging of the rubber when axially loaded. They do not resist shear forces and
do not prevent the horizontal deformation of the layered rubbers. Therefore, steel shims
increase the vertical stiffness of isolators but do not increase the lateral stiffness of
elastomeric bearings.

Figure 2-5: Elastomeric Bearings Under Shear Test.

Figure 2.5 shows elastomeric bearings subjected to dynamic shear test. The uneven surface of
the elastomeric bearings shown is due to its steel shims. Generally, elastomeric bearings have
low critical damping resistance, approximately 2% to 3% of critical viscous damping; and
have minimal resistance under service loads. Therefore elastomeric bearings need to be
improved. The result is a high damping elastomeric bearings and the lead rubber bearings.

2.6.2 HIGH DAMPING RUBBER (HDR) BEARING:

As an alternative to elastomeric bearings, high damping rubber bearings provide critical

damping from 10% to 20% at 100% shear strains. The construction methodology is the same
with elastomeric bearings; however, the damping is increased by adding carbon block and
other fillers. In addition, it has an adequate resistance to service loads.

The damping characteristic is in between hysteretic and viscous. The energy dissipation is
linear and quadratic for hysteretic and viscous, respectively. The energy absorption capacity
help reduced the earthquake energy transmitted to the superstructure.

The load capacity of HDRB can be computed using the same method as elastomeric bearings.
The damping value can be computed using the equivalent damping ratios for specific
elastomeric compounds.
2.6.3 LEAD RUBBER BEARINGS (LRBs):

Lead rubber bearings are elastomeric bearings that contain one or more lead plugs inserted
into their preformed holes. The lead provides significant stiffness under service loads and low
lateral loads as compare to elastomeric bearings. Figure 2.6 shows the alternating sheet of
steel shims and rubbers circumscribing a lead core. In addition, the lead serves as energy
dissipation mechanism under severe lateral loads.

Figure 2-6: Lead Rubber Bearing with Layers of Rubber and Steel and Lead Core.

During high lateral loads, the lead yields and the lateral stiffness of the LRB is significantly
reduced. This increases the duration of the period of the structure and thereby serves the
purpose of base isolation system. The bearing is cycled into a hysteretic damping as it
absorbs the energy. LRB has a range of damping from 15% to 30% which is a function of
displacement.

The LRB are the most common base isolator used for isolating midrise buildings. It is usually
designed and optimized according to a specific performance based target design. It combines
the stiffness needed for service loads and low lateral loads while providing the flexibility and
damping needed for high lateral loads. A wide array of damping and stiffness is possible
through the use of LRB. As for the case of HDRB design, the formulas of elastomeric
bearings are suitable for the design of LRB.

2.6.4 FLAT SLIDING BEARINGS:

Flat sliding bearings consist of PTFE (Teflon) disc that slides on a stainless steel plate. They
provide a perfectly plastic hysteresis shape, and adequate stiffness under service loads with
high damping properties. In addition, the coefficient of friction is a function of both pressure
and velocity of sliding. It provides the resistance under service loads. However, it must be
combined with other bearings (i.e. HDRBs, LRBs) because it has no capability to return to its
initial position.
Figure 2.7 shows an assembly of flat sliding bearing, which has the stainless steel plate
supporting the circular disc. There is no other part in the assembly that shows that it has the
capability to return to its initial position. A modified version of flat sliding bearing that has
self-restoring force is the friction pendulum bearings.

Figure 2-7: Assembly of Flat Sliding Bearing.

2.6.5 FRICTION PENDULUM BEARINGS:

The friction pendulum bearings have the same properties as the flat sliding bearings.
However, the sliding surface is concave in shape rather than flat as shown in Figure 2.8. The
hemisphere at the center of the concave surface is the pendulum slider. The spherical concave
surface provides a restoring force to the pendulum slider to return to its initial position.

Figure 2-8: Friction Pendulum Bearing Assembly.

Varying the radius of the concave surface varies the stiffness of the friction pendulum
bearings. In addition, once the coefficient of friction is overcome the lateral movement of the
mass is accompanied by a vertical movement of the mass because of the curved shape of the
slider. As for the case of LRB, the friction pendulum bearings have a wide array of damping
and stiffness design capabilities.

2.7 SELECTION OF BASE ISOLATION TYPE:

No one type of base isolation device is perfect. If it were, all projects would use the same
type of device. Of the types available, following is a summary of their characteristics and
advantages and disadvantages. Each project will have specific objectives and constraints and
so it will need to select devices that best fit the specific criteria.

2.8 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF BASE ISOLATORS:

Table 2-1 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the most commonly used device
types. Note that although disadvantages may apply to a generic type, some manufacturers
may have specific procedures to alleviate the disadvantage. For example, static friction is a
potential disadvantage of sliding bearings in general but manufactures of devices such as the
Friction Pendulum System may be able to produce sliding surfaces that are not subject to this
effect.
Some factors listed in Table 2-1 are not disadvantages of the device itself but may be a design
disadvantage for some projects. For example, the LRBs and HDR bearings produce primary
and secondary (P-∆) moments which are distributed equally to the top and bottom of the
bearing and so these moments will need to be designed for in both the foundation and
structure above the isolators.

For sliding systems the total P-∆ moment is the same but the sliding surface can be oriented
so that the full moment is resisted by the foundation and none by the structure above (or vice
versa).

The advantages and disadvantages listed in Table 2-1 are general and may not be
comprehensive. On each project, some characteristics will be more important than others. For
these reasons, it is not advisable to rule out specific devices too early in the design
development phase. It is usually worthwhile to consider at least a preliminary design for
several type of isolation system until it is obvious which system(s) appear to be optimum. It
may be advisable to contact manufacturers of devices at the early stage to get assistance and
ensure that the most up-to-date information is used.
 TABLE 2-1: DEVICE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

Devices Advantages Disadvantages

1. Low in-structure accelerations. 1. High displacements.
Elastomeric 2. Low cost. 2. Low damping.
Bearings 3. No resistance to service loads.
4. P-∆ moments top and bottom.
1. Moderate in-structure 1. Strain dependent stiffness and
accelerations. damping.
2. Resistance to service loads. 2. Complex analysis.
High Damping 3. Moderate to high damping. 3. Limited choice of stiffness and
Rubber Bearings damping.
4. Change in properties with
scragging.
5. P-∆ moments top and bottom.
1. Moderate in-structure 1. Cyclic change in properties.
Lead Rubber accelerations. 2. P-∆ moments top and bottom.
Bearings 2. Wide choice of stiffness /
damping.
1. Low profile. 1. High in-structure accelerations.
Flat Sliding 2. Resistance to service loads. 2. Properties a function of pressure
bearings. 3. High damping. and velocity.
4. P-∆ moments can be top or 3. Sticking.
bottom. 4. No restoring force.
1. Low profile. 1. High in-structure accelerations.
2. Resistance to service loads. 2. Properties a function of pressure
Friction Pendulum 3. Moderate to high damping. and velocity.
System Bearings. 4. P-∆ moments can be top or 3. Sticking.
bottom.
5. Reduced torsion response.

2.9 ANALYSIS OF ISOLATION SYSTEM:

1) Linear Static Analysis

2) Linear Response Spectrum Analysis
3) Non-Linear Static Analysis
4) Linear Time History Analysis
5) Nonlinear Time History Analysis

2.9.1 Linear Static Analysis:

Linear analysis methods give a good indication of elastic capacity of the structures and
indicate where first yielding will occur. The linear static method of analysis is limited to
small, regular buildings.
2.9.2 Linear Response Spectrum Analysis:

Linear response-spectrum analysis is the most common types of analysis used. This is
sufficient for almost all isolation system based on LRB and / or HDR bearings.

2.9.3 Non-Linear Static Analysis:

In a nonlinear static analysis procedure the building model incorporates directly the nonlinear
force-deformation characteristics of individual’s components and elements due to inelastic
material response. Several methods (ATC40, FEMA273) existing and all have in common
that the nonlinear for –deformation characteristics of the building is represented by a
Pushover curve, i.e. a curve of base shear vs. top displacement, obtained by subjecting the
building model to monotonically increasing lateral forces or increasing displacements,
distributed over the height of the building in correspondence to the first mode of vibration
until the building collapses. The maximum displacements likely to be experienced during a
given earthquake are determined using either highly damped or inelastic response spectra.

2.9.4 Linear Time History Analysis:

Linear Time History Analysis provides little more information than the response spectrum
analysis for a much greater degree of effort and so is rarely used.

2.9.5 Nonlinear Time History Analysis:

Nonlinear Time History Analysis can be used for all isolation systems regardless of height,
size, geometry, location, and Non-linearity of the isolation system.

2.10 PROPERTIES OF ISOLATORS:

The design of base isolator and to calculate properties of isolator

Figure 2-9: Parameters for bilinear modeling of isolator.

2.10.1 Design Displacement (D):

…………………………………………………………… (2.1)

2.10.2 Effective Stiffness (Keff):

………………………………………………………. (2.2)

2.10.3 Energy Dissipated Per Cycle (WD=ED):

………………………………………………… (2.3)

2.10.4 Calculate Yield Strength (Q):

Neglect “DY”

………………………………………………………………………... (2.4)

…………………………………………………………………….. (2.5)

2.10.5 Post Yield Stiffness (K2):

.............................................................................................. (2.6)
K2 is calculated.

2.10.6 Yield Displacement (dy):

…………………………………………………………………. (2.7)
Where,
K1 = 10K2

2.10.7 Correction:

……………………………………………….…. (2.8)
Put the value DY, Then to calculate Q value;
2.10.8 Elastic Stiffness (K1):

Assume,
K1=10K2 ………………………………………………………………………… (2.9)

2.10.9 Effective Damping (βe):

………………………………………..…………… (2.10)

In fixed base structure is not design because the fixed building supports is fixed and it is not a
design but in other case Base isolated building, design of base isolator and therefore to
calculate isolator properties by using formulae (2.1), (2.2), (2.3), (2.4), (2.5), (2.6), (2.7),
(2.8), (2.9), ( 2.10). Then after firstly to calculate load on building column then this load
value is put on the Standard formulae. Isolator property to calculate Effective Stiffness (Keff),
Effective Damping (βe), Post yield stiffness (K2) & Elastic Stiffness (K1), Yield Strength
(Q), post yield stiffness ratio (i) . Finally total value is calculated and this value will be assign
for isolator in Etabs model. The modeling of base isolators has been done in Etabs using link
element type as isolator1.

2.11 APPLICATION OF BASE ISOLATION:

Structures that are midrise in height are the best candidates for base isolation technology.
Base isolation design provides a good substitute for fixed based design in locations where
very strong seismic activities are likely. The initial cost of base isolation might be higher
compared with a fixed based. However, after a seismic event, the cost of repairing a structure
plus the loss in opportunity might be considerably higher.

Most of base isolated structures in the west coast of United States are hospitals. These
facilities must be in operation after a seismic event. The world's first base isolated structure in
the United States is the University of Southern California Hospital, see Figure 2-10. It
remained operational after experiencing the Northridge earthquake in 1994.

Figure 2-10: USC University Hospital.

Other structures that can benefit from base isolation design in the long term are the
manufacturing facilities (i.e. semiconductors) that need to be in operation after a seismic
event; otherwise economic loss is at stake.

In addition, historic structures have benefitted from base isolation technology through
retrofitting. Figure 2-11 shows the installation of base isolators by jacking the columns of San
Francisco City Hall.

Figure 2-11: Base Isolation Retrofitting of San Francisco City Hall.

2.12 PERFORMANCE IN REAL EARTHQUAKES:

The best way to finish up this chapter is to examine the actual performance of isolation
systems in real earthquakes and make sure that we learn from these experiences.

One of the most frequent questions asked by potential users of isolation systems is “Has it
been proved to work in actual earthquakes?” The short answer is a qualified no; no isolated
building has yet been through “The Big One” and so the concept has not been tested to the
limit but some have been subjected to earthquakes large enough to activate the system.

Table 17-1 summarizes the reported performance of structures world-wide during

earthquakes. Many of the structures are not instrumented and so much evidence of
performance is either indirect or anecdotal.

There are features of observed response that can teach us lessons as we implement base
isolation:

 Some structures performed well and demonstrated the reductions in response that
base isolation is intended to achieve. The most successful is probably the USC
Hospital in Los Angeles. Occupants reported gentle shaking during the main shock
and aftershocks of the 1994 Northridge earthquake. The pharmacist reported minimal
to no damage to contents of shelves and cabinets. Other successful installations were
 the Tohuku Electric Power building in Japan, the Stanford Linear Accelerator and
Eel River Bridge in California and several bridges in Iceland.

 At the LA County Fire Command Center, the contractor had poured a reinforced
concrete slab under the floor tiles at the main entrance to the buildings, preventing
free movement in the E-W direction. Apparently the reinforcing was added after the
contractor had replaced the tiles several times after minor earthquakes and did not
realize that this separation was designed to occur. This emphasizes the importance of
ensuring that building operational procedures are in place for isolated buildings.

 The Seal Beach and Foothills buildings demonstrate that accelerations will be
amplified as for a fixed base building for accelerations which do not reach the trigger
point for the system.

 The West Los Angeles residence used an owner-installed system of steel coil springs
and dashpots without a complete and adequate plane of isolation. The springs
allowed vertical movement and the building apparently responded in a pitching
mode. The owner was satisfied with the performance.

 The Matsumura Gumi Laboratory building in Japan did not amplify accelerations as
for a fixed base building but also did not attenuate the motions as expected. The
period of response was shorter than expected and a possible reason for this was the
temperature of the isolators, estimated at 0°C in the unheated crawl space. Potential
stiffening of rubber as temperatures are reduced needs to be accounted for in design
if isolators are in locations where low temperatures may occur.

 Bridges in Taiwan and Kobe were partially isolated, a design strategy often used for
bridges where the system provides energy dissipation but not significant period shift.
The response of these bridges shows benefits in the isolated direction compared to
the non-isolated direction but the reductions are not as great as for fully isolated
structures.

 The dissipaters at the Bolu Viaduct in Turkey were severely damaged due to near
fault effects when the displacement caused impact at the perimeter of the dissipater.
This appeared to be mainly due to large displacement pulses near the fault but may
have been accentuated by use of an elastic-perfectly plastic system rather than the
more common strain hardening system.

In all structural engineering, we need to learn from the lessons which earthquakes teach us.
There is discussion throughout these guidelines on aspects of isolation that can degrade
performance if not properly accounted for. These earthquakes have shown the importance of
attending to all these details.
 TABLE 2-2: EARTHQUAKE PERFORMANCE OF ISOLATED BUILDINGS

Acceleration
Structure System EQ Free Structure Comments
Type Field(g) (g)
1994 Movement estimated at
USC Hospital LRB Northridge 0.49 0.21 up to 45 mm.
No damage.
Continued Operation.
LA County 1994 0.22 E-W 0.35 E-W Minor ceiling damage.
Fire Command HDR Northridge 0.18 N-S 0.09 N-S
Continued Operation.
Center
Seal Beach LRB 1994 0.08 0.15 No damage.
Office Northridge System not activated.
Foothills Law 1994 No damage.
& Justice HDR Northridge 0.05 0.10 System not activated.
Center
No structural damage.
West Los Springs 1994 Some damage at
Angeles Northridge 0.44 0.63 movement joint.
Residence Unusual isolation
system.
Tohuku LRB 1995 No damage.
Electric Power Steel Kobe 0.31 0.11 Movement estimated at
Dampers 120 mm.
Matsumura 1995 Isolators at 0°C, may
Gumi HDR Kobe 0.28 0.27 Have stiffened
Laboratory
Stanford 1989 Not instrumented,
Linear LRB Loma 0.29 0.14 estimated response.
Accelerator Prieta Movement estimated at
100 mm.
Bai-Ho Bridge LRB 1999 0.17 L 0.18 L Longitudinal isolation
PTFE Taiwan 0.18 T 0.26 T only.
Matsunohama LRB 1995 0.15 L 0.20 L Longitudinal isolation
Bridge Kobe 0.14 T 0.36 T only.
PTFE Displacements
Crescent- 1999 exceeded device limit
Bolu moon Turkey 1.0 + of 500 mm, causing
Viaduct Energy damage
dissipater
Estimated acceleration.
Eel River 1992 0.55 L Not Movement estimated at
Bridge LRB Cape 0.39 T measured 200 mm L and 100 mm
Mendocino T.
Minor joint spalling.
Four bridges in M6.6 and Not
Iceland LRB M6.5 in 0.84 measured No damage.
June 2000.