Retrofitting using Base Isolation Techniques for Masonry Buildings

MASONRY STRUCTURES (CE 625)

By: RAHUL YADAV (Y8127391) SAKET KUMAR (Y8127439) SHUBHAM TRIVEDI (Y8127509)

Instructor: Prof. D.C.Rai IIT KANPUR

Contents
Abstract 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Sliding Friction Isolator Systems . . . 1.2 Elastomeric based systems . . . . . 1.3 Rocking pillar base isolation systems 2 Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Salt Lake City Hall . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 MacKay School of Mines . . . . . . . 3 Inferences and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 5 6 9 11 11 12 15

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

List of Figures
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mathematical Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Rubber bearing isolator components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Schematic layout of the beam connecting the column bases.[Luca et al., 2001] 8 Geometry of Rocking Pillar [Kawamata et al., 2004] . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Movement of Rocking Pillar [Kawamata et al., 2004] . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Building after completion, circa 1900 [Allen and Bailey, 1988] . . . . . . . 12 Typical Isolator installed in the building [Allen and Bailey, 1988] . . . . . 12 Elevation Mackay school of mines [Way and Howard, 1992] . . . . . . . . 13 Building section and isolators Mackay school of mines[Way and Howard, 1992] 13 Isolator system: Bearing [Way and Howard, 1992] . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Isolator system: Sliding [Way and Howard, 1992] . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Abstract
This report covers a literature review on the development and implementation of the base isolation technique for the seismic isolation of historic or old masonry. To preserve the old and historic buildings with minimal changes, the base isolation technique presents a good t to the situation. A basic study of the base isolation is done to understand the underlying concepts involved in this idea as implemented to masonry buildings. The basic idea of base isolation is reviewed with implementation using geosynthetics and marble plates. An advanced technique of base isolation in masonry using short masonry rocking piers is then reviewed. With this background of knowledge, we then review some interesting cases of implementation of this concept in real world projects involving some old masonry buildings. Keywords: Masonry Retrotting; Base Isolation; Sliding Isolator; Rubber Isolator

Retrotting of Historic Masonry Buildings Using Base Isolation

1 Introduction

Retrot of historic structures is of foremost importance as they need to be preserved at all costs. Earthquakes provide a serious hazard that must be dealt with. Old buildings have little seismic resistance as earthquake resistant design was not well understood back then. Many ancient pieces of architecture today stand at the risk of demolition if major earthquakes hit. But due to amount of structural detail and these buildings and the complications in the structure make traditional retrotting very dicult. Moreover, traditional procedures of strengthening often require bringing down certain parts of the structures and major restructuring in others. Such procedures are unacceptable as they damage the architectural beauty of the historic buildings. Base Isolation technique provides an excellent alternative to the conventional strengthening procedures in this case. The basic approach underlying this technique is not to strengthen building, but to reduce the earthquake-generated forces acting upon it. Base isolation ensures no major changes in the structure of the building; rather few changes are required at the foundation level of the building which is less critical as opposed to major changes in the more visible parts of the building. It also ensures the safety of the nonstructural parts of the building which are not considered in the conventional design procedures. Most of the structures in our country are unreinforced masonry. These types of structures suer the maximum damage in earthquakes and also cause most casualties. Hence sucient procedures are necessary for retrot all such highly vulnerable buildings. Base isolation can provide an eective and relatively cheap technique to ensure the safety of weak and inappropriately designed masonry buildings in the country. Mass production and subsidized distribution of base isolation systems by the government can result in a really cheap method improve the performance of many poor buildings in the country. We have discussed the following types of implementations of base isolator systems: 1. Sliding Friction Isolator Systems 2. Elastomeric based Isolator systems 3. Rocking pillar base isolation systems

1.1

Sliding Friction Isolator Systems

Base isolation system based on sliding was rst proposed in 1909 by a doctor Johannes Avetican. These kind of base isolation systems are the simplest kind of base isolators. Isolation was rst considered as the seismic design strategy by the Italian government after the Messimo-Regio earthquake of 1908 which killed around 160,000 people due to collapse of the unreinforced masonry building. URM buildings were the typical building being constructed at that time. He proposed two kinds of base isolators one was interposing the sand layer in the foundation and the another was by providing rollers to the base and apart from these they also specied a design with low height and lateral forces consideration and this design method was used majorly but not the base isolation. Later in after the earthquakes in Bihar(1934) and Dhubai(1930) some of the small masonry buildings which slid on their foundations performed well in the earthquake. Since the elastomeric base systems like rubber bearings may not be that economical as far as smaller buildings are considered , Arya(1984) [Arya, 1984] proposed sliding systems to decouple the structure from the ground. Similar studies on the base isolation was done in China after devastating Tangshan earthquake in 1976. Chinese engineers observed that the some of the masonry buildings survived which slid on the ground (This was not because they were having the sliding isolators but because of the signicant crack at the base due to larger base shear which resulted in around 6cm slip). Dynamics of the structure in such kind of isolators have been done considerably and in most of the cases Coulomb damping is assumed as the energy dissipating mechanism. This energy dissipation through the friction decreases the response of the structure (65% response reductions compared with the a rigidly supported building, P.Nanda). In some of the cases it has also been found that the friction doesnt necessarily implies the reduction in the response, for instance Westermo and Udwadia (1983) studied the periodic response of a linear oscillator on a coulomb friction sliding interface and found that the response may be larger than that for the same xed base model and that the single degree of freedom model had sub-harmonic frequencies generated by sliding interface. Coulomb friction is generally used in these theoretical analysis but is unlikely to be accurate in the real behavior. P.Nanda, Pankaj Agarwal and M.Shrikhande [Nanda et al., 2010] have done similar studies on isolating the structure by providing pure friction based isolation systems. They have used green marble or geosynthetic sheets at the base. Geosynthetic sheets are easily available in the Indian markets and so its a cost eective method. Previous studies have shown many types of friction reducing material are used in the friction based isolators for example sand, grease, oil, mobil oil, Teon etc and they should be having a proper range of friction coecient i.e. it shouldnt be much less and of course shouldnt be large, smaller friction will cause undesirable larger displacement at sliding level. Empirical values suggest a value between 0.05 to 0.15. Teon is a material which has such friction coecient against steel and thats why in the bridges Teon is signicantly used for the seismic isolation. Apart from these in long term use sand crushes after the shock which increases the friction coecient , oils used may get contaminated with dirt , graphite may be aected by the chemicals and so using these materials for reducing the friction is not eective sometimes in long term. While on the other hand geosynthetic/marbles can be a good substitute in the long term. Equations of motions are developed for the calculation of response in the two cases:

1. Non Sliding Mt (xg + xt ) + C xt + Kxt = 0 2. Sliding Top MassMt (xg + xb + xt ) + C xt + Kxt = 0 Bottom MassMb (xg + xb ) C xt Kxt + (Mt + Mb )g sgn(xb ) = 0 where sgn() is the signum function. (3) (2) (1)

Figure 1: Mathematical Model

The non sliding conditioned is determined when the horizontal inertia force does not exceed the opposing friction force, i.e. |C xt + Kxt Mb (xg + xb )| < (Mt + Mb )g (4)

In the present case the to analyze the eect of the ground motion on the isolated structure a synthetic GM compatible with the IS1893(I):2002 is generated with PGA value 0.36g (Maximum Considered Earthquake in zone V). In the result it has been found that the peak absolute acceleration at the roof level was 0.8g in the xed base case while in the isolated structure with geosynthetic it was around 0.4 g which indicates a 50% reduction in the response due to friction isolation.

1.2

Elastomeric based systems

Natural rubber bearings were rst used for the earthquake protection of buildings in 1969 for the Pestalozzi School in Skopje, Macedonia. Characteristic of the isolation systems of this kind, the horizontal motion is strongly coupled to a rocking motion, so 6

that purely horizontal ground motion induces vertical accelerations in the rocking mode. Many a times a steel plate is used as reinforcement inside the bearings which increases the vertical stiness and also it prevents the lateral bulging of the rubber bearings. Such laminated rubber bearings are again classied into Low damping natural and synthetic rubber bearings and high damping rubber bearings.

Figure 2: Rubber bearing isolator components

Low damping rubber bearings have been widely used in the Japan with other damping devices like viscous dampers , frictional devices etc. It contains many thin steel plates (sometimes bars are also used) joined together with vulcanized rubber which results in very large vertical stiness and the lateral stiness is lesser due to less modulus of rigidity of rubber used. The material behavior in the shear is almost linear up to strains level more than 100% , with the damping in the range of 2-3% of the critical. There are many advantages of such a bearing, they are unaected by the rate, temperature history, or aging and are also easy to manufacture. Disadvantage is that a supplementary damping system is generally needed which always requires the use of many connections and also the metal used in it are prone to low cycle fatigue. The rubber isolators have a very simple design procedure. 1. Select a suitable isolation time period (T) for the structure. 2. Determine the required horizontal stiness for the rubber isolators from the isolation time period. 3. Calculate the cross section area for the rubber from the compressive stress requirements from the loads of the superstructure. 4. Estimate the height for the required horizontal stiness for the calculated cross section area. 5. Check for shape factor to determine the nal isolator dimensions. High damping natural rubber bearings are having higher inherent damping and so the need for supplementary damping elements can be eliminated. It was rst made in 1982 by Malaysian Rubber products Research Association of UK. Damping is increased by extra ne carbon blocks. The material is nonlinear at shear strains less than 20% and is characterized by higher stiness and damping which tends to minimize the response 7

under wind loadings and low level seismic loads unlike in case of the low damping rubber bearings which needs foams in the gaps to prevent displacements under wind loads or other secondary smaller loads. Using Rubber bearings for base isolation for retrotting historic buildings: We have reviewed the paper [Luca et al., 2001] titled Base isolation for retrotting historic buildings: Evaluation of seismic performance through experimental investigation by Antonello De Luca, Elena Mele, Javier Molina, Guido Verzeletti and Artur V. Pinto. Base isolation is an exciting prospect in the retrot of monumental buildings. But the exact behavior of the old building material and ancient load transfer systems of system of arches and columns is not very clear. Hence study was focused on studying the behavior of typical arch-column system that is common throughout the monuments in Europe to study the behavior and discuss the possibility of implementing a similar mechanism in the retrot of the major monuments in Europe. This is because arches are good only in compression. This experiment involved the full scale testing of arch-column assemblage sitting on high damping rubber bearing isolators. The model is made of three columns, two complete arches and two external half arches made from stone block masonry. The material for this construction is carefully chosen to represent the actual monumental conditions as closely as possible. The vertical load is simulated by actuators. This typical assemblage is provided with a connection beam at the base of the columns to ensure a uniform action of the isolators at the column bases. The high damping rubbers used for the isolation in this case have high stiness in the vertical direction but the very soft in the horizontal direction. This results in a low natural frequency of the assemblage for vibrations in horizontal direction in the rst mode, thus isolating it from the seismic eects.

Figure 3: Schematic layout of the beam connecting the column bases.[Luca et al., 2001]

The test is performed using pseudo dynamic procedures. The model is full scale but manufacturing the rubber isolators is very expensive, so they have been made to onefourth scale. The superstructure and the isolators are thus tested separately and their interaction is accounted for analytical modeling. The pseudo dynamic procedure involves 8

calculating the displacements from the measured forces and the known quantities of the system and then using the displacements to determine the forces to be applied, hence requiring no shake table in the tests. This procedure is implemented by fast computations so that the calculation time step is same as the implementation time step, resulting in fairly accurate results. The results of this test indicated signicant reductions in the earthquake forces reaching to 15 times less force in some cases. No cracking in the masonry was observed for any of the cases. The lateral displacements at the isolator level were also under the acceptable limits. Hence this test suggests immediate implementation of rubber bearings to isolate major monuments from seismic forces.

1.3

Rocking pillar base isolation systems

This is relatively new technique for isolation of masonry houses. This kind of base isolation technique is easy to implement in the eld. Only to settle down the caisson into a hole dug in the ground nishes the site execution of the isolation foundation. Maintaining the integrity of the structure is the primary requirement during earthquake. Masonry walls should be constructed in RC base beams and the RC lintels should also be provided at the oor levels. These RC members combined with RC oor slabs forms a rigid diaphragm which prevents the out of plane failure of the masonry walls. Restorability of the rockling pillar is generally very weak and so additional damping devices to restrict the excessive motion of the rocking pillars should be provided. The top end of the caisson as shown in the gure acts as a stopper against the excessive rocking motion of the pillar and also rubber cushion is provided against it to relieve the impulse due to collision. One additional advantage of this system of rocking pillar is that its free from torsional vibrations. In rubber bearing base isolators the center of their stiness is matched to the center of mass of the superstructure by properly adjusting the positions of the rubber bearing in the base, to avoid torsional vibrations. But here since the restoring moment of the rocking pillar is proportional to the vertical load, the center of distributed restoring moment automatically coincides with the center of gravity of the masonry structure and so torsional vibrations are avoided. Implementation using rocking piers technique [Kawamata et al., 2004]: This paper explores the possibility of a new form of base isolation suitable for masonry houses. It is suited well for small masonry houses. This is very cheap technique with a pretty simple installation procedure. It involves minimum site execution for the implementation of the isolators at the foundation level.

Figure 4: Geometry of Rocking Pillar [Kawamata et al., 2004]

The isolator includes a rocking pier formed by steel tube lled with concrete and provided with spherical caps at the end contained in a caisson to allow free rocking movement and keep free from any disturbance. The pier is allowed to rock between stainless steel plates at top and bottom. The pier is inserted at the foundation level just below the superstructure columns. The rocking piers require some additional damping to be implemented by applying lead dampers at the top of the rocking pier as the piers have low restorability and can be excited low wind forces.

Figure 5: Movement of Rocking Pillar [Kawamata et al., 2004]

Derivation of Natural Period of the rocking piers: As the pillar rotates by angle ? due to ground motion, the superstructure displaces by, x = 2L (5)

and the eccentricity between the vertical load from the top and the bottom reaction is, e = 2(R L) 10 (6)

Now, if the pillar is supporting a mass m, the moment of inertia acting on the pier is, M = 2mL x And the resisting moment due to the eccentric vertical forces is, M = 2mg(R L) Therefore the equation of motion becomes, L + g(R L) = 0 x Using the relation between x and L, x+ (R L)g x=0 2L2 (10) (9) (8) (7)

So the natural period of this system can be given as, T = 2 2L (R/L 1)g (11)

This period is independent of the mass of the superstructure on top of it. Any torsional vibration is also avoided as the restoring moment is proportional to the vertical load, i.e., the restoring moment passes through the center of mass. The eect of friction is neglected as the rolling on steel plates is expected generate little friction. Results of the testing on a shake table indicate a reduction in story forces of more than 80 percent. The undamped conguration shows large displacements while the dampers result in only small displacements. The dampers also result in eective damping of the vibrations over the undamped case.

Case Studies

We have discussed two case studies where the concept of base isolation was used in order to retrot the structures.

2.1

Salt Lake City Hall

Salt Lake city was constructed in 1890-94 using the unreinforced masonry. This building is situated in the high seismic zone where the expected PGA value was estimated to be as high as 0.55g. Proposal to resist these forces according to UBC like codes requires signicant construction throughout the building, demolishing of the unreinforced walls at many places in the building , shotcreting , extensive anchorage of oor diaphragms. On the other hand seismic base isolation approach requires lesser eorts. Additional dynamic soil tests were also conducted to determine the period of the structure site and it was estimated to be around 1.4 s which was dierent enough from the base isolated building period of 2.5 s which will preclude any resonance between the isolator and the ground. In the nal design 447 bearings were placed on top of the original spread footings with a new concrete structural system built above the bearing to distribute loads to the isolators. 11

Figure 6: Building after completion, circa 1900 [Allen and Bailey, 1988]

Figure 7: Typical Isolator installed in the building [Allen and Bailey, 1988]

A new concrete oor is located above the isolators to act as a rigid diaphragm, connecting all of the new side beams and linking all of the isolators so that they can act together. One of the drawback of such a method is that the whole building remains in the danger if any earthquake comes during the process of removal of walls to install the isolators. To overcome this problem some temporary supporting structures like buttresses should be provided against the building.

2.2

MacKay School of Mines

In appearance, the building has been designed as a national monument. It is constructed mainly of the URM. Conventional strengthening was also suggested but from the preservationist point of view there were denite advantages in the isolation design. According

12

to Douglas Way and Jack Howard paper on phase III retrotting of this building isolation system could lter out most of the earthquake forces and so none of the URM wall required strengthening. As a result many of the original architectural features of the original building could be salvaged.

Figure 8: Elevation Mackay school of mines [Way and Howard, 1992]

Figure 9: Building section and isolators Mackay school of mines[Way and Howard, 1992]

A combination of elastomers and sliding system was developed and tested on the shake table at the Earthquake Engineering Research Center. In this system the interior columns of the structure were carried on Teon on stainless steel sliding elements and the exterior columns on the low damping natural rubber bearings. The elastomeric bearings helped in the re-centering of the structure against the wind loads and other smaller secondary loads and the sliding elements provided damping in the structure. Similar kind of system which was a slight variation was used in the retrotting of the Mackay school of Mines at the university of Nevada.

13

Figure 10: Isolator system: Bearing [Way and Howard, 1992]

Figure 11: Isolator system: Sliding [Way and Howard, 1992]

Isolation system used here is high damping rubber bearings with sliding elements. The building rests on 67 high damping rubber bearings. As already explained rather than including the supplements like fuses and damping gadgets the high damping rubber does everything because it shows high stiness at the low strains and also high damping at low strains. A suspended concrete slab serves as the base oor over which the structure lies and this slab is placed on top of cardboard forms. To provide support for the at slab so that the spans becomes manageable 42 Teon sliders in total have been provided. The sliders were targeted at friction coecient of 0.10 (as already explained that it should be between 0.05 to 0.15). The inplane strength of the URM building was calculated to be reached around 0.25g to 0.4g so to avoid the collapse forces associated with the Maximum Credible Earthquake below this PGA threshold was ltered out during the 3D time history analysis which was done in programs SAP-81 and N-PAD. We can see that base isolation systems can be very eective and suitable for such heritage buildings or other buildings which are URM constructions and are vulnerable to the earthquakes (and also wind loads sometimes) because such isolation systems not only mitigate earthquake damage but most importantly also prevents the original fabric and appearance of the building. Seismic retrotting from inside of the building and base isolation together can be implemented to achieve better safety and mitigation against earthquakes. 14

Inferences and Conclusions

In our review of the state of the art research on use of base isolation as a mechanism to reduce seismic demand forces on vulnerable structures is studied. Base Isolation found to be an exciting prospect in this regard, but one with certain practical limitations. We have focused upon the use of these techniques in monumental buildings made of masonry. We are under obligation to protect our cultural heritage. Historic buildings have complicated elements like arches, domes and vaults whose behavior under earthquake loads is not understood well presently. Retrot of these structures using conventional procedures would thus require a lot of inspection and destructive measures that would disturb the original architecture of the buildings. Techniques like base isolation can be extremely eective; especially complicated elements like domes cannot be analyzed and retrotted by conventional methods. This also ensures the artifacts and relics stored within the monument are guaranteed safety. Such nonstructural components are often neglected in conventional design procedures. The case study also shows successful implementation of the rubber isolation technique in American buildings. The method of base isolation also comes with some serious limitations and practical issues that may restrict immediate use of this technique. The assumptions of unrestricted lateral shift of the structure, and no overturning are not realistic. Stability of these structures under normal loadings like wind and other lateral forces is not directly implied. Additional measures are always required to guard against these issues and can dramatically increase the cost. Exact installation procedures of these isolators can also be extremely cumbersome; especially if historic masonry structures are involved where a lot of walls are present no sti diaphragm is present at bottom to eectively use isolation. The isolation measures only reduce the lateral forces to a certain level, hence some measures to ensure enough out of plane strength and diaphragm strength would always be deemed necessary. The critical issue of an earthquake event during isolator installation is also not answered well enough. This may cause serious controversy in implementing this technique to symbolic architectural monuments in our country. The rubber isolators studied in the case study implementation of this technique do avoid some of these limitations, but involve huge costs which may not be aordable in all countries. Hence we conclude that base isolation is an exciting new way to protect our cultural heritage from earthquake damage. But this technique still has some questions unanswered before we actually proceed to implementing it in our symbolic monuments.

15

Bibliography
[Allen and Bailey, 1988] Allen, E. W. and Bailey, J. S. (August 1988). Seismic rehabilitation of the salt lake city and county building using base isolation. Proceedings of Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,Tokyo. [Arya, 1984] Arya, A. S. (1984). Sliding concept for mitigation of earthquake disaster to masonry buildings. Proceedings of Eight World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. [Kawamata et al., 2004] Kawamata, S., Funaki, N., Hori, N., Fujita, T., and Inoue, N. (August 2004). Base isolation system suitable for masonry houses. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver Canada. [Luca et al., 2001] Luca, A., Mele, E., Molina, J., Verzeletti, G., and Pinto, A. (2001). Base isolation for retrotting historic buildings: Evaluation of seismic performance through experimental investigation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. [Nanda et al., 2010] Nanda, R., Agarwal, P., and Shrikhande, M. (2010). Retrotting of masonry buildings by base isolation. Proc. of Int. Conf. on Advances in Civil Engineering. [Way and Howard, 1992] Way, D. and Howard, J. (1992). Rehabilitation of mackay school of mines with base isolation. Earthquake Engineering, Tenth World Conference, Rotterdam.

16