See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303894971

Design of Base Isolator for R.C.C. Building & Performance Evaluation

Conference Paper · January 2006

CITATIONS READS

0 1,349

3 authors, including:

Sharadkumar P. Purohit
Institute of Technology, Nirma University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
30 PUBLICATIONS   29 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Numerical Investigation on Blast Response of Masonry Wall Panel and Development of its Protection Systems View project

Dynamics properties of building model View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sharadkumar P. Purohit on 10 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Design of Base Isolator for R.C.C. Building & Performance Evaluation
Shri. Ramkrisna V. Darji1 and Prof. S. P. Purohit2
1
Engineer, Jacobs Babtie, Babtie Consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad
Email: [email protected]
2
Asst. Prof., Civil Engg. Dept., Institute of Technology, Nirma University, Ahmedabad
Email: [email protected]
Abstract: The main objective of earthquake engineering is to design and build a structure in such
a way that damage to the structures and its’ contents during earthquake is minimized. The
traditional method’s often results in high floor accelerations for stiff buildings or large inter-storey
drifts for flexible buildings. The concept of base isolation is adopted to reduce such kind of inter-
storey drifts and high floor accelerations. In addition, isolator does not allow the earthquake energy
to enter the building by providing flexibility which decouples it from the earthquake motion.
The paper is aiming towards design of different types of base isolators namely, Lead Rubber
Bearing (LRB), High Damping Rubber bearing (HDR) and Friction Pendulum System (FPS).
A G + 4 symmetric R.C.C. building has been taken for the study. The analysis of the R.C.C.
building has been carried out with the commercially available software ETABS 8.11. The design
of base isolators has been carried out broadly based on the guidelines of IBC 2000 within the spirit
of Indian design standards. In addition to the design of Base isolators, a comparison between Fixed
based & Base isolated R.C.C Building has been carried out in the form of Seismic forces,
displacements & drifts at various levels of building.
Keyword: Fixed based building, Base Isolators, LRB, HDR and FPS, Inter Storey Drifts
Introduction
For structure in high seismicity regions, earthquake loading is considered the most significant and
possibly the most destructive external load, particularly for low to medium rise buildings.
Conventionally, seismic design of buildings is based on the concept of increasing the resistance
capacity of the structures against earthquake by employing shear walls, braced frames or moment
resisting frames. However, these methods of resistance often results in high floor accelerations for
stiff buildings, or large inter-story drift for flexible building.
Modern buildings contain extremely sensitive and costly equipments that have become vital. In
addition, hospitals, communications and emergency centers, police stations and fire stations must
be operational when needed most, immediately after an earthquake. The above mention fact spurs
a question of - how to protect the important buildings? A simple logical answer to the question is -
can the buildings be detached from the ground in such a way that the earthquake motions does not
transferred to the building, or at the least greatly reduced ? This simple logic is feasible in the form
of seismic base isolation of the buildings.
Seismic isolation consist essentially the installation of mechanisms which decouples the buildings,
and/or its content, from partially damaging earthquake induces ground or support motions. This
decoupling is achieved by increasing the flexibility of the system, together with providing
appropriate damping to resist the amplitude of the motion caused by the earthquake. The
advantage of seismic isolation includes the ability to significantly reduce structural and non-
structural damage, to enhance the safety of the building contents, and to reduce seismic design
forces. This potential benefits are greatest for stiff structures fixed rigidly to the ground such as
low and medium rise building, nuclear power plants, bridges etc.
The need for seismic isolation of a structure may arise in any of the following situations:
- increased building safety and post earthquake operability are desired.
- reduced lateral design forces are desired.
- an existing structure is not currently safe for earthquake loads.
Earthquake resistance design of buildings adopted in the practicing field is largely based on codal
procedures. For seismic base isolation codal requirement & procedures has been lay down in IBC
2000, which is widely accepted in practice. However, Indian seismic codes have not mentioned
about seismic base isolations.
Building Configuration
A medium height building of G+4 has been selected to understand the analysis and design of
different types of base isolators. Building chosen is symmetrical and regular in geometry, to reduce
computation efforts. Fig. 1 & Fig. 2 show the plan and 3D view of G+4 building. The building is
symmetric with respect to both the horizontal directions. It has 4 bays in X-direction & 3 bays in
Y-direction, each of 5m in length. All level slabs were taken 150mm thick.

Fig. 1. Plan of G+4 building Fig. 2. 3D view of G+4 building

However, to simulate the real practice of construction for G+4 building, the sizes of columns and
beams were reduced moving from ground floor to the upper floors. The size of beams and columns
along with live load on slab is tabulated in Table 1. All structural members were of M25 grade
concrete and Fe415 steel. The slabs were considered as rigid floor diaphragm.
Table 1: Geometric Properties of Column, Beam and Slab
Floor Column size (mm) Beam size (mm) Live load on slab (kN/m2)
GF 230 × 450 230 × 350 2
st
1 floor 230 × 450 230 × 350 2
nd
2 floor 230 × 400 230 × 350 2
rd
3 floor 230 ×3 50 230 × 350 2
th
4 floor 230 × 230 230 × 350 1.5
The infill panels of the building were modeled through an equivalent strut philosophy. It was
ensured that strut only takes compressive stresses; hence, moment and shear were released at the
junctions of infill with beam-column joint. The property allocated to the strut is of masonry with
Modulus of Elasticity: 3500 kN/m2, Density: 20 kN/m3 and Poisson’s ratio: 0.17, based on
literature references [4].
Analysis of Fixed Base Building
As mentioned earlier, the advantage of base isolation is lengthening of a time period for base
isolated building compared to fixed base building. Therefore initially fixed base building was
modeled in ETABS 8.11. For fixed base building, the translations and rotations of all columns
node at base were suppressed. A free vibration analysis was carried out for eigen-vector solution.
The fundamental time period and mode shapes of the building were obtained. In addition, total
vertical load (DL + LL) was calculated for the entire building, which comes out to be
11187.44 kN. As expected, for the symmetric building vertical loads are more at the core of the
building compare to its’ periphery. The maximum gravity load (DL + LL) obtained to derive the
size of an isolator was 1038.28 kN.
Design of Isolators
A practical seismic isolation system should meet the following requirements.
1. sufficient horizontal flexibility to increase the structural period and spectral demands,
except for very soft soil sites.
2. sufficient energy dissipation capacity to limit the displacement across the isolators to a
practical level.
3. adequate rigidity to make the isolated buildings not much different from a fixed base
buildings under general service loading.
Based on above mentioned requirements and codal procedures, as per IBC 2000 three different
types of isolators, namely, Lead Rubber Bearing (LRB), High Damping Rubber bearing (HDR)
and Friction Pendulum System (FPS), were designed. As per IBC 2000 formulations, the effective
stiffness to provide lateral stability for all types of bearings was calculated. The properties like
damping, hardness, modulus of rigidity, modulus of elasticity and poisons ratio, for rubbers were
considered from Section 1623 of IBC 2000. However, wherever possible, the provision of Indian
seismic code IS: 1893-2002 part-1 was taken into considerations [10].
Building under consideration here requires different size of isolators, as gravity loads acting on all
the columns are varied in magnitude. However, to maintain uniformity and ease of designing,
same size of isolators are advisable for all the column of the building.
The basic equations of stiffness for LRB and FPS system are as follows [10]:
For Lead Rubber Bearing (LRB):
The effective horizontal stiffness of the isolator is
2
W ⎛ 2π ⎞
K ef f = ⎜ ⎟
g ⎜⎝ TD ⎟⎠
The Design Displacement D D is
⎛ g ⎞⎛ S D T D ⎞
DD = ⎜ 2 ⎟⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ 4π ⎠⎝ B B ⎠
The short term yield force Q D is
WD π
QD = = K eff ς eff D D
4D D 2
The pos-yield horizontal stiffness K D is
QD
K D = K eff −
DD
For Friction Pendulum System (FPS):
Radius of curvature of the spherical sliding surface of the isolator is
2
⎛T ⎞
R FPS = g⎜⎜ D ⎟⎟
⎝ 2π ⎠
The total effective stiffness of the isolation system is
WT µWT
∑ K eff = +
R FPS D
The effective damping for the system is
2⎡ µ ⎤
ς eff = ⎢ ⎥
π ⎣µ + D R ⎦
with appropriate notations specified in Section 1623 – IBC 2000.
Using above mentioned equations for stiffness and allied parameter, on exercise, it was found that,
the properties of materials govern the analysis & design of an isolator rather than time period &
weight of the building.
The detail calculations of base isolators are omitted here and final design parameters are listed
only, to avoid much of mathematical formulations, calculations & space. It is important to note
that, analysis & design of all different types of base isolator was done using Excel spreadsheet. In
addition, appropriate checks were obtained as per IBC2000 for finalizing the design of base
isolators. It was observed that the calculations of LRB and HDR are more or less similar except
few parameters because of the variation of damping & strain into the rubber system. Therefore,
only design of LRB was carried out along with FPS system. The design results of LRB and FPS
systems are shown below along with their cross-sectional details in Fig. 3 & Fig. 4:
Lead Rubber Bearing Isolator
Diameter of bearing d 0.6m
Size 0.2m (L) 0.55m (B)
Total ht. of bearing h 0.709m
No. of rubber layers 60
Thickness of individual layer 0.01m
No. of steel plates 59
Thickness of individual plates 0.001m
Thk of top and bott. Cover plates 0.025m
Top cover plate =25mm
Lead core = 60mm

H = 709 mm
Steel plates ts = 1mm

Rubber layers = 10mm

B = 550mm

Fig. 3. Cross-section of Lead Rubber Bearing (LRB) system

Friction Pendulum System Isolator

Radius of curvature of the spherical surface: 2.5 m

Depth of the disk: 1.0 cm
Diameter of the disk: 45 cm

Diameter = 450 mm

50 mm top cover

10 mm

50 mm bottom cover plate

Fig. 4. Cross-section of Friction Pendulum System (FPS)
Modelling of Base Isolator through ETABS 8.11
ETABS 8.11 supports the facility of modeling base isolator in the form of a link with appropriate
properties to be defined. Initially fixed supports of building were detached and links were provided
at all the supports of columns at base. The properties of the links were provided from the
calculations of base isolator design.
Results & Discussions
The free vibration analysis of a fixed base building was carried out. The fundamental time period
and mode shape was obtained as shown in Fig. 5. This result is an input for deciding the target
fundamental time period of a base isolated building, which is approximately about three times of
fixed base fundamental time period.
The fix base building was subjected to gravity loads (DL + LL) along with earthquake forces as
per IS: 1893-2002 (Part I) using equivalent static procedure. The combine effect of DL + LL + EQ
was obtained as shown in Fig. 6.
Fig. 5. First mode T = 1.3275 sec Fig. 6. Magnitude of Forces in fix base building
at ground level
The free vibration analysis of a base isolated building was carried out after the design of different
base isolators and modeled them into ETABS 8.11. The fundamental time period and mode shapes
of base isolated building with LRB system are as shown in Fig. 7 & Fig. 8.

Fig. 7. First mode T = 2.9595 sec Fig. 8. Higher mode T = 0.6121

Similarly, the free vibration analysis was carried out for base isolated building with FPS system.
The fundamental time period and mode shapes of the building with FPS system are shown in Fig.
9 & Fig. 10.

Fig. 9. First mode T = 2.9979 sec Fig. 10 Higher mode T = 0.6130 sec
The base shear for fixed base building and base isolated building was obtained. The base shear
value for fix base building is 305.64 kN. The base shear for base isolated building with LRB
system is 1153.64 kN and for FPS system is 783.12 kN. It has been observed that the base shear
values for base isolated building is more compared to fixed base building. This is because of the
distribution of mass and stiffness which gives the fundamental time period more than 1 sec.
The displacements and story drift for fixed base & base isolated building were obtained and
compared with each other. It has been observed that the displacement at roof of base isolated
building is less compared to fixed base building. However because of flexibility at base the
displacement at base is higher in base isolated building compared to fixed base building. This can
also be well understood by calculating the story drift for fixed base and base isolated building. It
has been observed that the story drift in base isolated building is less compared to fixed base
building. The Fig. 11 below shows the story drift for base isolated building with LRB and FPS
system compared with fixed base building.
 Story Drifts Drifts X FPS
Drifts Y FPS
6

Story levels
Drift x fixed base
4 Drift Y fixed base
Drift X LRB
2
Drift Y LRB
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006
Drifts

Fig. 11. Story Drift for Fixed & Base Isolated Buildings
Conclusions
The following conclusions were drawn out of the present work of comparison of fixed base
building to base isolated building.
¾ The fundamental time period of fixed base building was 1.3275 sec.
¾ The fundamental time period of base isolated buildings with LRB and FPS systems were
2.9595 sec and 2.9979 sec, respectively.
¾ The time period for base isolated buildings are approximately 2.25times higher compared
to fixed base building, which is the first objective of base isolation system called “Period
Shift”.
¾ The base shear value for fixed base building was as low as 305.64 kN, while for base
isolated buildings with LRB and FPS systems were 1153.64 and 783.12 kN, respectively.
¾ The base shear value for fixed base building is approximately 2.5 to 3.5 times lower
compared to base isolated building. The increase in base shear is due to higher time period
(1.3275 sec.) for the building undertaken.
¾ The story drifts for base isolated building with LRB system was more compared to story
drift for base isolated building with FPS system. However, the story drift of fixed base
building was found lower compared to base isolated building.
¾ Based on the values obtained for base shear and story drifts, it is recommended that, the
base isolated system is not effective for buildings with time period more than 1 sec.
¾ The above recommendation is based on the conclusions made through the work of base
isolation by Yeong-Bin Yang, Kuo-Chun Chang and Jong-Dar Yau.
References
1. Petros Komodromos, “Seismic Isolation for Earthquake Resistant Structures”,WIT Press,
Southampton, Boston.
2. Farzad Naeim & Ronald L. Mayes, “Design of Structures with Seismic Isolation”, Seismic
Design Handbook.
3. Yeong-Bin Yang, Kuo-Chun-Chang & Jong-Dar Yau, “Base Isolation”, Earthquake
Engineering Handbook.
4. Code & Commentary on IS:1893-2002 (Part-I), IITK-GSDMA-EQ05-V2.
5. Trevor E. Kelly, “Base Isolation of Structures”, Holmes Consulting Group, New
Zealand.
6. Masayoshi Nakashima, Peng Pan, Dan Zamfirescu & Ruediger Weitzmann, “Post-Kobe
Approach for Design and Construction of Base Isolated Buildings”, Journal of Japan
Association for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 3 , 2004.
7. Sarah A. Smith, “Evaluation of Fixed Base vs. Base Isolated Building Systems”.
8. J. P. Talbot & H. E. M. Hunt, “On the performance of Base Isolated Buildings”, Building
Acoustics, Vol. 7, No.3, 2000.
9. FEMA-274, “Seismic Isolation & Energy Dissipation”.
10. IBC2000, “International Building Code”.
11. ETABS 8.11, Computer & Structures Inc., Berkeley, California.

View publication stats