Advances in Control, Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering and Mechanical Engineering
Effects of isolation damping and stiffness on the
seismic behaviour of structures
A. Abrishambaf, G. Ozay
Abstract— As it is known earthquakes uncontrollably occur. As
soon as a seismic activity begins, the ground starts to vibrate and
thereby and release high amounts of energy, some of which absorbed
by the structure. This absorbed energy when exceeds the elastic limit
of structure causes inevitable occurrence of damages. From another
point of view, increase in the strength of the building is not limitless.
Base isolation is another approach, which is different from the above
mentioned. It is based on the concept covering the reduction in the
seismic demands rather than increasing the earthquake resistance
capacity of the structure. With this paper, it is intended to clarify the
seismic performance and optimum bearing with respect to the seismic
demand of the 3, 6 and 9-storied base isolated structures isolated by
lead-rubber bearing, high damping rubber bearing and friction
pendulum system, in order to have materials saving. The comparison
process has been carried out on seismic performances of the
structures with transmitted acceleration, maximum structural
displacement and seismic coefficient. Based on the obtained results,
it could be inferred that the lead rubber bearing represents minimum
transmitted acceleration and seismic coefficient while the friction
pendulum system, due to the high friction of coefficient, minimizes
displacement.
Keywords— Base isolation, damping, earthquake, seismic
isolator, strengthening.
I. INTRODUCTION
A s it is known earthquakes uncontrollably occur. As soon
as a seismic activity begins, the ground starts to vibrate
and thereby and release high amounts of energy, some of
which absorbed by the structure. This absorbed energy when
exceeds the elastic limit of structure causes inevitable
occurrence of damages. Therefore, the demand should be
accepted and made sure that the capacity surpasses it.
However, the internal forces in the structure depend on the
building mass and ground acceleration. When the ground
acceleration increases, the strength of the building must be
raised in order to reduce the structural damages. From another
point of view, increase in the strength of the building is not
Manuscript received October 31, 2010.
A. Abrishambaf is a PhD candidate in Civil Engineering Department,
Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, Via Mersin 10, Turkey.
(phone: +90-392-630-2027; fax: +90-392-630-2869; e-mail:
amin.abrishambaf@cc.emu.edu.tr).
G. Ozay is an Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering Department,
Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, Via Mersin 10, Turkey.
(phone: +90-392-630-2338; fax: +90-392-630-2869; e-mail:
giray.ozay@emu.edu. tr).
ISBN: 978-960-474-251-6
limitless. In fact, in the high seismic zones (near fault) the
transmitted acceleration to the structure exceeds the ground
acceleration one or even two folds. On the other hand, the
strength of a building to resist the ground acceleration means
that the building could resist gravity applied sideways. The
design of a building at that level of strength is neither easy nor
economical. Codes, therefore, allow engineers to use ductility
factors for reducing earthquake forces. Ductility means,
allowing the structural elements to deform beyond their elastic
capacity. In this case, displacements increase with the small
changes in forces. The elastic limit is the load, of which
effects are not permanent. After removing the load, materials
return to their initial characteristics. Once this elastic limit is
exceeded, changes begin to occur in the characteristics of the
material. These changes are considered permanent and non-
reversible following the removal of the load. Ductility usually
causes visible damages on the structures. In the case of the
concrete structures, when concrete exceeds its elastic limit in
tension, cracks form up [1].
Many years ago, civil engineers had been using the old
methods to reduce the level of damages during earthquake. A
medical doctor invented the first seismic isolator in 1909 in
England. For this, he utilised fine sand and mica or talc to put
them as foundation in order to protect a building during
earthquake. Following this English scientist, John Milne, who
was the professor of Mining Engineering in Tokyo, improved
this concept. He utilised balls by putting them in the concave
cast-iron plate. Finally, John Milne tested the said by building
the first isolated building over balls. However, he was not
successful enough. The structure had a small displacement
under wind-load [2]. In the last decades, remarkable
progresses have been achieved, though. The first seismic
isolators were rubber bearings (neoprene) and since many
years ago, they have been utilised as fillers between piers and
girders in the bridge construction. This allows girders to move
freely under thermal changes. They provide two important
requirements, which are very low horizontal stiffness and high
vertical stiffness in order to support the weight of the
structure. Hence, for other engineers the concept has been
changed and it was time to discover new devices and improve
their own ideas. Finally, for nearly four decades, seismic
analysis engineers have been perfecting an unusual and
complex system called seismic isolators. With these, the aim
has been to protect buildings from earthquake, which has now
become a major feature of the new and retrofit buildings.
These seismic isolation systems save thousands of people’s
76
 Advances in Control, Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering and Mechanical Engineering
lives, but unfortunately, the public awareness regarding the
method seems to be negligible [3]. Furthermore, designing
various isolators and the selection of the appropriate isolation
system based on different structural conditions continue to be
of enormous complexity in the seismic isolated structures.
Based on the said, the information about commonly used
isolator types have been discussed in the first part of the study.
The main objective of this study is to present the optimum
isolator according to seismic demand in order to save
materials in the building, through comparing the transmitted
acceleration, horizontal displacement and seismic coefficient
for the three types of bearings (lead rubber bearing, high
damping rubber bearing and friction pendulum systems) in
different buildings (3, 6 and 9-storied).
II. DIFFERENT TYPES OF SEISMIC ISOLATOR
Recently, the number of seismic isolators invented in
various countries has increased, dramatically. Due to the
reason that many structures have been isolated by using lead
rubber bearing (LRB) [4], high damping rubber bearing
(HDRB) [2] and friction pendulum system (FPS) (the most
common types compared to others), they were selected for
isolating the structures used in this research. Moreover,
various researches have been paid off to advantages of these
isolators, which separate them from the other types,
significantly [5].
A. Lead Rubber Bearing
Lead rubber bearings that were first invented in New
Zealand, have been extensively used both in the United States
and in Japan [4]. China has recently joined this group [6].
Through combining laminated rubber bearings (consist of two
thick connection plates, layers of rubber and shims) with one
or more lead plugs that provide damping by elastic
deformation, a perfect isolation system can be achieved (Fig.
1). Therefore one device can support the structure vertically
by providing a horizontal displacement and increasing the
damping of isolation system in desired value. The steel plates
control the lead-shape during large plastic deformation. Thus,
when isolator is subject to a large displacement, the lead insert
is forced by steel shims to deform in shear and absorb energy.
However, these inserted plugs may have effect on the higher
modes in the structure.
Fig. 1 lead rubber bearing
B. High Damping Rubber Bearing
Because of the mentioned disadvantage in lead rubber
bearing, the best method to raise the damping of isolation
system is to insert that as rubber properties. This alternative
ISBN: 978-960-474-251-6
causes the existence of the high damping rubber bearings (Fig.
2).
Connection plate
Rubber layers
Steel shims
Fig. 2 high damping rubber bearing
The Malaysian Rubber Producers Research, an Association
(MRPRA) of the United Kingdom, developed natural rubber
bearings with high damping in 1982. Rubber subjected to
cyclic loading dissipates energy in the form of heat. This
dissipation arises from the internal friction of disentangling
long chain molecules. This also provides the damping ability
to rubber bearings. To increase isolator damping, extra fine
carbon blocks, oils or resins and other proprietary fillers are
mixed with the natural rubber, as extra additives. These
materials, at low shear strain, show high stiffness that causes
stability of the structure when subjected to the wind load. At
large strains, the modulus increases, due to a strain
crystallization process in the rubber, is accompanied by an
increase in the energy dissipation [2].
C. Friction Pendulum System
Producing a sliding action and restoring force could also be
achieved in frictional pendulum systems (FPS). In this system,
restoring force is provided by the concave surface of the
supporting plate. The natural period of the structure is
increased through applying characteristic of the pendulum
thereby the transmitted acceleration is reduced. In this
isolation system, the natural period of structure is determined
by the radius of the slider as independent from the structural
mass. Unlike rubber bearings, for which precisions should be
carried out to minimize torsion effects, the most important
advantages of this isolator are the high torsion capacity and
excess resistance under service loads.
The commonly used type of friction pendulum is triple
pendulum system. They consist of three independent
pendulums in one bearing. The properties of each of the
bearing’s three pendulums are selected to become sequentially
active at different earthquake levels. Bearing displacements
increase at stronger ground motions. The effective pendulum
length (period) and the effective damping increase at larger
displacements, result in lower seismic forces and bearing
displacements. However, it contains of a core covered by two
inner concave sliders and two main spherical surfaces at top
and bottom, as shown in Fig. 3. The core slides along the two
inner sliders while the whole system glides on the main
concave surfaces.
Main Concave
Slider Concave
Fig. 3 friction pendulum system [7]
77
 Advances in Control, Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering and Mechanical Engineering

III. MODELING AND ASSUMPTIONS
The sample buildings are regular in plane with moment
resistance concrete frames of three different heights (3-storied,
6-storied and 9-storied) and separated from base by three types
of seismic isolators: lead rubber bearing, high damping rubber
bearing and friction pendulum systems as shown in Fig. 4-6.
Excel spreadsheets could appropriately be used in designing
LRB and HDRB in order to save time. The dimensions of the
buildings are 17.30 m × 9.4 m in plan and 2.8 m in height for
the first floor and 3.2 m for the other floors. Dead weight load
is 6 kN/m2 for storied floors and 6.6 kN/m2 for the top floor.
According to the Uniform Building Code 97 (UBC 97) [8], for
residential occupancies, the live load is derived as 1.9 (kN/m2)
for all floors. The properties of materials and structural
dimensions are the same in similar storied buildings. The only
difference between these buildings lies in the method of
connecting the base column to the foundation.
Fig 4. 3-D model of 3-storied building
Computer program Etabs nonlinear version 9.1.4 [9] and
UBC 97 code were used to model and analyze the structures.
Each building was analyzed in 3-D model consisting of beam,
column and floor diaphragm. Floors are rigid in their plane but
flexible in out of it. For these 3-D models, three degrees of
freedom, two translations and one rotation, have been
assumed.
A. Selection of Isolation System
From the previous researches it has been found out that the
structural shifted period is one of the most important factors in
designing isolation systems [1]. Furthermore, for the low and
medium rise buildings, the application of isolation system
becomes more appropriate when the structural shifted period
lies in the range of the 1.5-3 seconds (1.5≤ Ti ≤ 3) [10].
Therefore, for designing isolation systems and structures, the
period around 2 seconds is selected to be the main factor.
According to the UBC 97 code, depending on the structural
system, the superstructure above the isolation system should
be designed for the whole of the elastic force, which is
reduced by a ductility factor 2. On the other hand, the total
effective stiffness of the isolation system and the designed
displacement are two important factors affecting the elastic
forces. In the case of designing seismic isolators,
economically, these two parameters should conservatively be
minimized. Consequently, in this research, isolators were
designed according to the provided minimum elastic force as
second factor.
Excel spread sheet is applied for designing LRBs and
HDRBs, however due to the saving of the cost in the mold,
one isolator is designed for the most critical column load in
buildings. The properties of the designed isolators are shown
in the Table. I-III. The main parameters are the effective
stiffness (Keff), effective damping (Deff), maximum
displacement (D), isolator diameter (Di), lead core diameter
(d), height of the isolator (H) and the number of layers (n). In
the case of friction pendulum systems, R, µ and δv represent
the radius, friction coefficient and vertical displacement of the
isolator.

TABLE I
PROPERTIES OF THE DESIGNED LEAD RUBBER BEARING
Keff Deff D Di d H
n
(kN/mm) (%) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Fig 5. 3-D model of 6-storied building 3-storied 0.38 17.6 157 500 60 371 21
6-storied 0.80 19.4 153 620 90 329 18
9-storied 1.24 30.0 138 660 130 329 18

TABLE II
PROPERTIES OF THE DESIGNED HIGH DAMPING RUBBER BEARING
Keff Deff D Di H
n
(kN/mm) (%) (mm) (mm) (mm)
3-storied 0.60 15 176 510 205 16
6-storied 1.26 15 176 620 217 17
9-storied 2.15 15 176 670 230 18

TABLE III
PROPERTIES OF THE DESIGNED FRICTION PENDULUM SYSTEM
Keff Deff D Di R δV
µ
(kN/mm) (%) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
3-storied 0.56 28 143 0.01 350 1000 10
6-storied 1.20 28 143 0.01 400 1000 10
9-storied 1.84 28 143 0.01 450 1000 10
Fig 6. 3-D model of 9-storied building

ISBN: 978-960-474-251-6 78
 Advances in Control, Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering and Mechanical Engineering

B. Various Assumptions seismic coefficients are calculated through considering these

Various assumptions are made for the structures under
consideration:
1) Structures stay almost within the elastic limit during
earthquake excitation. Since the application of isolation
system in structure leads to the reduction of the
earthquake forces, this assumption seems reasonable
enough.
2) All the beam-column joints are rigid.
3) Floors in each story are assumed as rigid diaphragms.
4) Force-deflection behaviors of the superstructures are
assumed as linear with viscous damping.
5) The structures are subjected to the horizontal components
of ground shakings. On the other hand, the vertical effects
of the earthquake are negligible.
assumptions and based on chapter 16 and its corresponding
Appendix, division IV, UBC 97 code.
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this section, three reinforced concrete isolated buildings
are analyzed by various seismic isolators to determine the
optimum cases in accordance with the seismic demands.
Furthermore, running the Etabs program for each building,
story accelerations, isolator displacements and seismic
coefficients are then shown in the graphs in order to reach the
optimum one.
3

IV. RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS AND 2

EARTHQUAKE DATA

Story
LRB
For the estimation of the earthquake load, response HDRB
spectrum dynamic analysis method is applied on the sample 1
FPS
buildings. It is proven that this method of analysis provides
approximate results for linear and non-linear seismic isolators
that are sufficiently precise [12]; and still this method of 0

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105
analysis is recommended in design codes, such as; Uniform
Building Code (UBC 97) and International Conference of Acceleration (cm/s2)
Building Officials 1997, for designing seismic isolated Fig. 9 transmitted acceleration in 3-storied isolated building
structures. On the other hand, through this method, the non-
linearity behaviour of the isolation system is modelled by 6
using bilinear behaviour, which is linearized through effective
stiffness and effective damping (Fig. 7) [13]. Moreover, as 5
illustrated in Fig. 8, each isolation system provides vertical 4
stiffness in vertical direction, effective stiffness and effective LRB
3
Story

damping in horizontal direction. In fact, the horizontal HDRB

effective stiffness that also called secant stiffness is defined as 2
FPS
the slope of a line from point A to point C (Fig. 7). 1

0
65

75

85

95

105

115

125

135
Acceleration (cm/s2)
Fig 10. transmitted acceleration in 6-storied isolated building

9
8
Fig. 7 bilinear modeling of non-linear isolator
7
6
5
Story

LRB
4
3 HDRB
2
FPS
1
0
80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

Fig. 8 definition of linear and nonlinear isolator Acceleration (cm/s2)

It is assumed that all residential buildings (I=1) are located
on high seismic zone (Z=0.3), at a distance of 10 kilometers
from a known seismic fault on rocky soils. The ductility factor
of 2 is derived out for base-isolated structures. Furthermore,
Fig 11. transmitted acceleration in 9-storied isolated building
Fig. 9, 10 and 11 show the transmitted acceleration of 3, 6
and 9-storied buildings for different stories. However, LRB
represents the minimum level of transmitted acceleration
among the others. This is followed by HDRB and FPS,

ISBN: 978-960-474-251-6 79
 Advances in Control, Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering and Mechanical Engineering

respectively. High damping and low effective stiffness that are
provided by LRB, are the most important factors in this
reduction. Comparing the results for LRB and HDRB, the
effect of damping on acceleration in rubber bearings is clearly
illustrated. In fact, rubber bearings signify a relatively lower
horizontal effective stiffness than that of the slider bearings’.
On the other hand, a rubber bearing provides a more specific
damping at lower horizontal stiffness than the friction
pendulum systems (sliders) do. This is clearly shown in the 9-
storied building. In this example, LRB produce 30% damping
in the 1.24 kN/mm horizontal effective stiffness while the
friction pendulum system provide 28% damping in the 1.84
kN/mm effective stiffness. This is the reason for the exertion
of a relatively higher acceleration of the friction pendulum
system to the superstructure. Consequently, an isolation
system minimizes the transmitted acceleration to the
superstructure thereby producing a lower effective stiffness in
higher damping. These two factors are optimized in LRB.
200
friction coefficient, which causes an increase in damping.
Furthermore, the effect of damping in rubber bearings on the
displacement is clear enough when the results of LRB and
HDRB are compared. It should be noted, however, that the
more damping in the isolation system is, the lower
displacement achievement will be.
In a 9-storied building, isolators are subject to more
displacement due to the torsion effects. According to the [9]
investigation conducted, for minimizing the torsion effects
that cause increase in the total displacement, the ratio of the
period of the isolated building to the period of the fixed base
one should be bigger than 2, which in this structure, is
considered to be approximately 2; so, a period more than 2
was more appropriate. Nevertheless, in this situation, FPSs are
seen more appropriate due to minimizing displacement and
high torsion capacity they offer. It should be noted, however,
that most of the isolation systems that minimize displacement,
induce a high-transmitted acceleration and base shear
coefficient to the structure.
0.12

Seismic Coefficient
Dicplacement (mm)

0.1
150
0.08
100 0.06
0.04
50
0.02
0 0
LRB HDRB FPS LRB HDRB FPS
Connection Connection
Fig 12. maximum displacement in 3-storied building Fig 15. seismic coefficient in 3-storied building

200 0.12
Displacement (mm)

Seismic Coefficient

0.1
150
0.08
100 0.06
0.04
50
0.02
0 0
LRB HDRB FPS LRB HDRB FPS
Connection Connection
Fig 13. maximum displacement in 6-storied building Fig 16. seismic coefficient in 6-storied building

300 0.14
Displacement (mm)

Seismic Coefficient

250 0.12
200 0.1
150 0.08
0.06
100
0.04
50 0.02
0 0
LRB HDRB FPS LRB HDRB FPS
Connection Conncetion
Fig 14. maximum displacement in 9-storied building Fig 17. seismic coefficient in 9-storied building

At times, due to the limitation in the seismic gap or in
important buildings like museums (to protect valuable devices
inside building), an isolation system with minimum
displacement is required. Fig. 12, 13 and 14 present maximum
structural displacement for various isolated buildings. As can
be seen from these figures, FPSs minimize the displacement
that is followed by LRBs and HDRBs, respectively. In fact,
the most important factor in this minimization is the high
According to the UBC 97 code, the transmitted elastic base
shear to the superstructure, depends on the effective stiffness
and displacement. Therefore, for reducing the transmitted
shear force, an isolation system with minimum effective
stiffness and displacement, is required. Figures 15, 16 and 17
represent the seismic coefficients for various isolated
structures. It is noted that LRB illustrates the minimum base
shear coefficient, because, they supply a higher damping in the

ISBN: 978-960-474-251-6 80
 Advances in Control, Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering and Mechanical Engineering

lower effective stiffness. This reduction is continued through [5] A. Abrishambaf, G. Ozay, A review of different types of seismic
isolator, International road and structure monthly magazine, no.67,
HDRB and FPS. However, when the seismic coefficients for
pp.86-91, 2009, Iran.
rubber bearings are compared, the effect of damping on [6] H.N. Lin, X.X. Wu, Limitation of height to width ratio for base-isolated
seismic coefficient is noticeable. On the other hand, the higher buildings under earthquake. Wiley Inter Science, The Journal of
damping in the isolation system is, the lower base shear Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, vol.15, pp.277- 287,
2006.
coefficient will be. [7] Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc, Technical characteristics of friction
pendulum bearings, Vallejo, Califronia, 2003.
VI. CONCLUSIONS [8] Uniform building code, International Conference of Building Officials,
5360 Workman Mill Rd, Whittier Colifornia, 90601, USA, 1997.
Designing various isolators and the selection of the [9] Computer and Structures Inc. (CSI), Etabs 2000: Static and Dynamic
appropriate isolation system based on different structural Analysis of Structures, Nonlinear version 9.1.4, Berkeley, CA, 2008.
conditions continue to constitute an enormous complexity in [10] A.T. Colunga, J.L.E. Cruz, Tensional amplification in a symmetric base-
the seismic isolated structures. isolated structures. Elsevier, The Journal of Engineering Structures,
vol.29, pp.237- 247, 2006.
The primary aim of this research was to assess the general [11] T.E. Kelly, B.W.H. Robinson, R.I. Skinner, Seismic isolation for
information about the popular types of seismic isolators. designers and structural engineers. New Zealand: Robinson Seismic
Furthermore, the 3, 6 and 9-storied buildings isolated by Ltd& Holmes Consulting Group.
various seismic isolators, were analyzed in order to evaluate [12] A.K. Chopra, Dynamic of Structures, Second Edition, Prentice Hall,
New Jersey, 2001.
the optimum one in accordance with the seismic demands. [13] X.K. Zou, Integrated design optimization of base- isolated concrete
Consideration was given to the transmitted acceleration, buildings under spectrum loading. Springer, The Journal of Structural
maximum structural displacement and seismic coefficient. Multidisc Optimization, vol.36, pp.493- 507, 2008.
From the trends of the results of the present study, the
following conclusions are drawn:
1) LRBs minimize the transmitted acceleration among other
types and this is followed by HDRBs and FPSs,
respectively. However, an isolation system minimizes the
transmitted acceleration to the superstructure producing
low effective stiffness in relatively higher damping. Both
factors are found in LRBs.
2) In the rubber bearings, the transmitted acceleration to the
superstructure is affected by the damping of the isolation
system. On the other hand, in case of an increase in the
damping of the isolation system, the transmitted
acceleration to the structure is reduced.
3) FPSs minimize the displacement compared to the others.
It is followed by LRBs and HDRBs, respectively.
Therefore, with an increase in the percentage of the
damping in isolation system, the base displacement will
be reduced. From another point of view, most of the
isolation systems presenting a minimum displacement,
offer high acceleration and base shear coefficient.
4) In the rubber bearings, damping affects the isolator
displacement. Displacement decreases with an increased
damping of the isolation system.
5) Implementation of LRBs in the structure, minimize the
seismic coefficient. This is followed by HDRBs and
FPSs. In the rubber bearings, the transmitted elastic shear
forces are influenced by the damping of the isolation
system. The more additional damping in the isolator is,
the more reduction in the transmitted base shear
coefficient will be.

REFERENCES
[1] T.E. Kelly, Base isolation of structures: Design guidelines. Wellington,
New Zealand: Holmes Consulting Group Ltd, 2001.
[2] F. Naeim, J.M. Kelly, Design of seismic isolated structures: From
theory to practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1999.
[3] A. Jacobs, Base isolation: A Review of Engineering in Everyday Life.
Illumin, vol.6 (1), 2008.
[4] R. Park, Improving resistance of the structures to earthquake. Hopkins
Lecture Note. University of Canterbury, New Zealand, 2000.

ISBN: 978-960-474-251-6 81