You are on page 1of 26

ARA INSTITUTE OF CANTERBURY

Seismic performance of base isolated buildings


by

Students’ Names
Vohra ? Huzef Feroz & Talha Naeem
write your full name.. Students’ IDs
99144756 & 99124765

Proposal
Engineering Development Project (MG7101) – BEngTech (Civil)

Supervisor (s)

Supervisor’s name

Hossein Askarinejad

Sponsor / Industry partner


Beca

Department of Engineering and Architectural Studies


Ara Institute of Canterbury
Christchurch, New Zealand

MG7101- BEngTech (Civil) – Proposal Report 2017


Date: 13/04/2018

Declaration

I/We hereby declare that this document has been compiled by myself/ourselves, is original
and has not been copied from other works. Contributions from other works have been stated
and fully acknowledged. I/We understand that the work done and information generated may
be used by Ara for research purposes or any other appropriate purposes, in accordance with
the Ara Policy Manuals.
Below are our individual contributions to this report:

Group member1 Group member2


contribution (%) contribution (%)

50 50

Signature (s):

Full name (s) and ID: Huzef Firoz & Talha Naeem

Date: 13/04/18

MG7101- BEngTech (Civil) – Proposal Report 2017


1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2011, Christchurch witnessed one of the worst earthquake incidents in its history. It
claimed over 185 lives and several thousand injured. The 6.3 magnitude caused many
building to collapse which were previously damaged in the 2010 September earthquake.
Many causalities and deaths were caused to the collapse of structures.

Engineers soon after raised the concern for building structures which could withstand the
excitations from the earthquake and hence decided to put a limit on the number of storeys that
could be built in the city. But after the earthquakes, the Christchurch Women’s Hospital
which is a base isolated 10 storey building, constructed in 2005, remained functional. This
attracted engineers to think about base isolators as a way of providing structures with
resistance to earthquake and thereby reducing to the amount of damage done to a structure.

The purpose of this project is to study the behaviour of isolated structures in comparison to
non-isolated structures. In general, it is known that base isolated structures have a higher
chance of surviving an earthquake compared to non-isolated structures but it is important to
study how a base isolator works and also understanding the pros and cons of this technology.

By using ETABS, a computer modelling software, we can simulate two types of models
(isolated and non-isolate). For isolated structures, the period of vibration would be obtained
by performing dynamic analysis on the model and then by inputting it into the software again,
the response of the structure is obtained. For non-isolated the period of vibration is obtained
from NZS 1170.5, and then the response for it is obtained from the software.

Once the responses from both the models are obtained, an analysis is done which is basically
comparing the bending moments, shear forces and axial forces in each model.

2
CONTENTS
1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 2
2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3
3 Problem Statement, Aim and Objectives ............................................................................ 3
4 Background and Literature Review .................................................................................... 5
4.1 Historical Overview of Base Isolator .......................................................................... 5
4.2 Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 11
Usage of seismic base isolation to reduce the ductility demand from prefabricated
concrete structures - (Sener, Arioglu, & Alper) ............................................................... 11
4.3 Types of Isolators ...................................................................................................... 13
4.3.1 Laminated Elastomeric Bearings ....................................................................... 13
4.3.2 Sliding Bearing isolator ..................................................................................... 16
4.4 Conclusion of different types .................................................................................... 16
4.5 Limitations of Base Isolators..................................................................................... 16
5 Project Methodology ........................................................................................................ 18
6 Project Management ......................................................................................................... 19
References ................................................................................................................................ 20

1
2 INTRODUCTION
Earthquake in New Zealand had been for several years considered as something that was only
of interest to geologist or scientist until the Murchison earthquake in 1929, which had
claimed 17 lives. Due to this incident, engineers now started to realize that structures that are
built should also involve a enough strength so that the structure can resist the effects of
earthquake loading.
In attempts to design structures that are earthquake resistant, engineers started to over design
structures that would provide the strength and rigidity. These designs would involve design
structures with very low periods of vibrations since these structures would have a larger
width to height ratio. Hence, by over designing the structure a very large earthquake would
be required to damage them.
However, In more recent years, be it for economic reasons or building more flexible
buildings or the advent for taller buildings in earthquake dominant areas, a new design
methodology had to be developed that would involve designing structures to the required
loads and not over designing them. (D.M.Lee and C.Medland, 1978) outline the sections of report
here
3 PROBLEM STATEMENT, AIM AND OBJECTIVES
To build a structure that offers resistance to earthquake the most important aspect of the
design is the deformation of the structure within the inelastic range. Therefore effective
earthquake resistance in the structure can be obtained only when the design has the capacity
for internal damping (energy dissipation within the materials of the structure) and for
inelastic deformation.
What the above paragraph indirectly means is that by increasing the ductility of the
structures, it can be effective in resisting/withstanding seismic loadings. There are many
techniques developed over the years to increase the ability of inelastic deformation and the
capacity of hysteretic damping in a structural member. Some of which are:
 By detailing the reinforcing steel in reinforced concrete appropriately, increase in the
ductility of the R/C concrete is possible. However, this would not prevent dynamic
degradation of the R/C concrete under subsequent cycles of harsh inelastic
deformation. (R. I. Skinner and G. H. McVerry, 1975)
 Another method is by using structural steel members with higher ductility. However,
they too would undergo dynamic deteriorations and also reduction in strength due to
local buckling (R. I. Skinner and G. H. McVerry, 1975)
 Also, flexible building frames that suffer post-elastic deformations are eventually
expensive to fix.
Hence, due to the above-mentioned problems there is constant search for techniques that can
increase the lives of new or existing structures by providing the resistance that is required
against strong earthquakes.
Over the past 40 years, engineers have come up with techniques to solve the problem out of
which the most popular is the use of base isolators. In recent years, base isolators that have
been integrated into the design of buildings, bridges and many other structures have caught
3
the attentions of engineers in New Zealand, especially Christchurch after the Feb 2011
earthquake.
Before designing structures with base isolator technology, it is also crucial to understand how
it affects the design of the structures. How the lateral forces will change within the structure?
How the period of vibration changes?
Hence, the aim of this project is to study how these parameters change between a non-
isolated structure and an isolated structure.
And there the objectives of this project are as follows: base-isolated

 Developing a suitable computer models for isolated and non-isolated structures to


carry out the analysis
 Simulation of isolated structures and non-isolated structures
 Analysis of results and comparing the responses
 Perform dynamic analysis to compare the T (period of vibration) of each model.

- Simulation of a typical base isolated frame (2D or 3-D) in Etabs.


- Perform dynamic analysis to compare the T (period of vibration) of each model
- Calculating the seismic forces based on equivalent static method (considering the shift in period
of vibration)
- ETABS simulation - Compare the responses (Bending, shear, etc) between base isolated and Non-
base isolated frames
- Look into the design and comparing the cost between the base isolated and Non-base isolated
designs.

4
4 BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Earthquakes produces forces that act horizontally on a structure and can be characterized into
four types:
 Type 1: Earthquakes with movement in a single direction
 Type 2: Earthquakes which last a longer duration and have an irregular “noise like”
surface motions
 Type 3: Earthquakes which have regular motions along with more than one dominant
periods and also last for longer durations
 Type 4: Earthquakes that are one of the most serve in terms of damage done to the
ground.
By installing base isolators to the base of the structure one of the two following can be
achieved during an earthquake:
 By using flexible elements in the base isolator, the fundamental natural period of the
structure can be elongated to a value that is amply away from the principal period of
the anticipated earthquake. A good example of flexible elements would be
elastomers/rubbers used in laminated rubber bearing base isolators. (Vilaverde, 2009)

 By using sliding bearings in base isolators, which slide across when the lateral loads
acting on the structure during an expected earthquake has surpassed the
predetermined level of loads.
Base isolators are not only limited to the above mentioned ways but are also available in
many other designs which help in providing resistance against earthquake loadings in
different ways (discussed in detail in section 3.2).
Christchurch women’s hospital is one of the first buildings in Christchurch to use base
isolators, but base isolation techniques has still not be accepted completely in New Zealand.
Ironically, base isolators were invented in New Zealand but there are no New Zealand
Standards available for designing isolated structures.
According to Alan and Marc from Stuff NZ and Dr. Richard Sharpe who is the Technical
Director of Earthquake Engineering at Beca, the reason why companies have refrained from
using base isolation technology is due to the overall cost of the project. As the project
increases by 5%, companies may have compromised the design life of the structures in a city
where earthquakes have been common. (Alan Wood and Marc Greenhill, 2014)

4.1 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF BASE ISOLATOR


The idea of base isolation have been contemplated repeatedly for the past hundred years.
Over the period of hundred years, many techniques and methods with alternative design idea
for the base isolation have been proposed, some very innovative and others not so much.
Nevertheless, all these concepts or ideas had only one collective motive that is to protect
these structures from the devastation of earthquakes.

5
In the late 1800’s, An Englishman, professor of mining engineering at the University of
Tokyo, by the name John Milne had proposed the first base-isolation system. Furthermore,
his interest in earthquake engineering led him to develop a number of seismograph.
Apparently, a medical doctor from Scarborough, Johannes A. Calantarients, on the August of
1909 had drafted a letter to the Director of the Seismological Service in Santiago, Chile,
stating that he had already devised a method of protection against earthquake. Further stating
that he had conducted the experiment with balls several years ago before it had been
conducted in Japan, referring to experiments that had been conducted by Milne.
By now, Milne had developed an isolated model of a building. The building model was built
on balls, which consisted of cast iron plates attached to the building and installed above the
balls. The plates were slightly concave and had saucer-like edges on the head of piles. In
1885, Milne portrayed his experiment in a report that he had submitted to the British
Association for the Advancement of Science. In 1886, he submitted another report in which he
recommended an advanced version of his model in which he placed the building on a handful
of cast iron shots, unlike his previous version in which he used 250mm diameter balls. His
advanced version had proven successful under a substantial earthquake.
After the 1891 Nobi’s earthquake that had resulted in the deaths of several thousand lives, a
Japanese by the name K. Kawai had devised a concept for protection against earthquake
through base isolation technology. In 1891, the Journal of Architecture and Building Science
published his paper in which he introduced his system (Kawai, 1891). His system had the use
of log rollers that would be placed underneath the foundation mat. The logs would be laid
over several layers and they would run along in two perpendicular directions as shown in
Figure 1. According to Calantarients letter stated previously, he had devised a new method of
building construction in which the building was constructed on a “lubricated free joint”. By
lubricated he means that a layer of talc, mica or fine sand would lubricate the “free joints”.

Figure 1: K. Kawai's isolation system (Vilaverde, 2009)

By doing this, the building would freely slide during an earthquake due to this free joint as
shown in Figure 2, resulting in the reduction of lateral forces that were induced into the
building due to the earthquake excitations. Furthermore, he claimed that his method of
construction would be perfectly safe for substantial buildings in earthquake prone cities,
considering the fact that due to the presence of these “lubricated free joints” the austerity of

6
the earthquake would be lost. In 1909, he submitted a patent application to the British patent
office.

Figure 2: Calantarients method of construction. (Shaded parts depicts lubrications between foundation and structure)
(Vilaverde, 2009)

Three years ago, before Calantarients submitted his patent, a German by the name Jacob
Bechtold from Munich also made an application for a U.S. patent titled “Earthquake-Proof
Building” in which he stated that the damages that occurs to a building due to the earthquake
is because of the rigid foundation. According to him, if the building was made to rest on a
rigid base plate but the base plate is not in rigid connection with the ground. The rigid base
plate would be made to rest on a balls which would be roughly around 25 cm in diameter
made from a hard rock such as granite, gnesiss or basalt which would have the capacity to
carry the load of the building. Hence, the base plate moves freely over the balls, resulting in
the reduction of the lateral forces induced by the earthquake. Figure 3 shows Jacob’s model
that was submitted in his patent (Appendix A). (Germany Patent No. US845046A, 1906)

Figure 3: Jacob’s model for base isolated structures (Germany Patent No. US845046A, 1906)
Robert W. DeMontalk of Wellington, New Zealand, in 1930 proposed another base isolation
scheme. His patent suggested that the base of the building should be isolated form the rigid
foundation, almost similar to what Bechtold had proposed in 1906, but not exactly the same.
Since Bechtold thought of using balls made from hard materials whereas Robert’s model
consist of bed which would not only isolate the base from the rigid foundation but by

7
choosing the right material for the bed the shocks from the earthquake would be absorbed and
hence minimizing the severity of the excitation caused due to it. (Vilaverde, 2009)
The Italian government started to design earthquake resistant buildings using base isolation
technology after the deadly 1908 Messino-Reggio earthquake, which had killed nearly 58,000
people. A commission, by the Italian government, was delegated to build structure that were
not only earthquake-resistant, but also economic and safe for the country. The commission
came up with two solutions that could tackle the problem.

 First solution consisted of using rollers as supports for the columns or inlay a sand
layer in the foundation, thereby isolating the structure from the ground and hence
allowing the buildings to freely slide horizontally.
 Second proposal for a solution was to add height constraints to the design along
minimum structural design requirements to resist lateral forces in the structure.
The government was sceptical whether isolating structures will be enough for a structure to
withstand to excitations from the earthquake and hence agreed to go with the second
approach of design.
Fudo banks of Shimonoseki and Himeji were the first two buildings in Japan to implement
base-isolation scheme into their design. The isolators used in these buildings consisted of
roller bearings. In 1969, a Swiss structural engineer, K.Stadaucher developed a base isolated
building which was built for the Pestalozzi Elementary School in Skopje, Macedonia.
Stadaucher’s design was the first to use rubber bearings for isolation purpose for a three
storey, R/C building. To resist the loads from the wind, the buildings had seismic fuses made
from glass blocks, a technology which is relatively new to New Zealand (BuildingToday,
2013).
The newly constructed buildings had two major issues. Firstly, even after installing isolators
in the building, during the event of an earthquake the building would rock and bounce even
though the horizontal stiffness of the rubber was the same as the vertical stiffness. Secondly,
the building would bulge sideways due to its weight. The reason why the building
encountered such problems is that the isolator that had been used had only consisted of
rubber.
After 5 years, another isolated building in Mexico City was constructed but this using a
different type of isolator. The isolator consisted of two main elements: two steel disk and a
steel ring encircling more than a hundred 1cm ball bearings. With the help of the steel rings
the displacement of the ball bearings are limited to only 8cm. The isolators were placed
underneath each column of the building.
The city of Sevastopol, Ukraine was the next after Mexico to build a structure on base
isolator. In 1967, it build a seven-storey structure using steel bearings, these bearings were
ellipsoidal shaped. Due to shaped of the bearings, during an earthquake, when the building
would undergo horizontal displacement, the plates would cause the structure to move
vertically thereby providing a restoring force.
G.C. Delfosse, a French engineer, introduced the Gapec Seismic isolation system at the
Centre National de la Rechercher Scientifique in Marseille was introduced. His system was
similar to that used by Stadaucher in 1969, but Delfosse had made improvements to his
8
isolation design. He studied the problems that Stadaucher faced and had proposed an easy
solution. He proposed that by using steel along with rubber, the vertical stiffness of the
isolator would increase. Hence, he came up with the concept of laminated rubber bearings, in
which the bearings that were used were made from thin steel reinforcing, bonded strongly to
sheets of rubber during rubber vulcanization process. Hence, by introducing steel
reinforcements in the rubber, the vertical stiffness of the rubber isolator increases, and hence
the ability of the isolator to withstand the load of the building increased. This solved both the
problems that Stadaucher had faced in his design: One, building bulging on one side of the
isolator under its own load and second, the rocking and bouncing movements of the building
during an earthquake.
It was after Delfosse’s idea of laminated rubber bearing isolator, engineers started using
elastomeric bearings to isolate buildings from vibrations from subway lines, traffic, railways,
etc. Even bridges now included elastomeric bearings in their designs. During the late 1970’s,
Gapec system of isolation was widely used in the construction of a three-storey school and
three houses in cities near Marseille.
A.S. Arya, an Indian engineer, in 1984 designed an isolation system for superstructures in
masonry buildings where the foundation is isolated from the building using black
polyethylene sheet or burnt oil, a nonbonding membrane. This type of isolation is called a
sliding isolation system. During the Dhubai earthquake in 1930 and Bihar earthquake in
1934, Arya noticed that masonry structures or buildings that had slid away or detached away
from the foundation had survived the earthquake as opposed to those that were fixed to their
foundations. Hence, form this he proposed that by designing a mechanism were the structure
would slide or move horizontally from the foundations, the building would have a better
chance of surviving the earthquake (Arya, 1992). Figure 4 gives a rough representation of his

Figure 4: Masonry buildings constructed on sliding elements (Qamaruddin, 1998)

proposed idea of isolation using sliding elements.


Later in 1984, after the devastating 1976 Tangshan earthquake, Chinese engineers noted that
many buildings had developed horizontal cracks at the bottom of the wall. Based on this
9
observation, they figured that due to these cracks the buildings had undergone sliding in the
horizontal direction thereby protecting the building from structural damage. Based on this
technique of isolation they built several smaller buildings. Furthermore, The Earthquake
Strong Motion Observatory built the largest four-story building in Beijing. For this building,
engineers placed a distinctive type of sand between the top of the foundations (that had
terrazzo plates attached to its top) and underneath the base of the wall.
The year 1985 saw the invention of another sliding isolator but with more capability of
restoring force than its predecessors called the friction pendulum system. Discovered by
Victor A. Zayas in 1985, built using spherical sliding surface as shown in Figure 5

Figure 5: Friction pendulum isolator (Shigeki Okamura and Satoshi Fujita, 2007)

The isolators are fitted as shown in Figure 6, during an earthquake the displacement of the
building causes the building to rise due to the shape of the sliding surface and thereby
producing a lifting action in the same way a pendulum acts when undergoing lateral
displacement.

Figure 6: Fitting of sliding friction pendulum system (Lyan-Ywan Lu, Tzu-Ying Lee, Shiang-Yu Juang and Shih-Wei Yeh,
2013)

Marina Apartments in San Francisco, California was the first building to use this system. The
system had to be retrofitted into the building as a part of the reconstruction procedure as it
had been damaged during the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989.
The United States built its first isolated building in 1986, which had installed 98, 400mm
high and 760mm in diameter laminated rubber-bearing isolators over an area of 4200 square
meters. Each isolators had the capacity to withstand lateral displacements of up to 380mm
and carry vertical loads of up to 540 tons. (Gordon P. Warn and Keri L. Ryan, 2012)
Seismic isolation has now become a practical reality and a widely accepted technology in the
earthquake-prone regions. New Zealand has slowly started accepting the technology but still
believes more research has to be done.

10
use Author/date referencing
4.2 LITERATURE REVIEW show details in Ref list
Usage of seismic base isolation to reduce the ductility demand from prefabricated concrete
structures - (Sener, Arioglu, & Alper)

Aim

Comparing the performance (deformations and displacements) of the fixed base structure
with base isolated structure.
No need for subsections.
Method: summarize in two paragraphs
Using computer modelling to compare deformations and displacements of an isolated and
non-isolated structure. The building was modelled in a way to assimilate the various non-
linear behaviours related to material, such as yielding. The report analysed the difference in
base shears, displacement of overall structure from ground to top, accelerations of each floor,
drift of each floor and amount of plastic deformation that occurred in the columns and beams
etc.
Results
Table 1 shows the maximum base shear coefficients. The installation of the base isolators
can reduce the base shear up to three times because a base isolators allows the base of
structure ( top of bearing) to be displaced. In the journal, it is mentioned that the base isolator
performed better than the design estimated due to the structure above having flexible
properties.
Figure 7 shows elevation vs displacement graph. The blue line represents the fix-based
structure and it has no displacement at the bottom but maximum displacement at top. The red
line represents the isolated structure. Even though the maximum displacement is higher for
the isolated structure, it can be seen that the difference from bottom to top is very less and
this is what makes the building safe.

Table 1. Maximum response during specified earthquake

Figure 7: Maximum Displacement Profiles (Sener, Arioglu, & Alper)

11
Figure 8 shows the accelerations of the various floors. The floor accelerations of the isolated
structure is lesser than the non-isolated structure but not by much. This is because the frames
try to limit the accelerations as well but in a less effective and less controlled manner. This is
why base isolators become less effective as the building height increases.

Figure 8: Maximum Acceleration Profiles (Sener, Arioglu, & Alper)

Plastic Rotations
The maximum values were recorded during the computer analysis. Plastic rotations were
measured in radians. Base isolators greatly decrease the plastic deformations as shown in
Figure 9.

Figure 9: Maximum Plastic Rotations in beams and columns (Sener, Arioglu, & Alper)

Conclusion
Reducing the plastic deformations reduces the damage in the superstructure and makes it
more safe. Without the isolation, the prefabricated frame yields to a large extent. Even though
the yielding dissipates the earthquakes energy, it is uncontrolled and destructive. The
structure can survive earthquakes due to high ductility but may end up with very high
repairing cost if columns or beams need replacements (Sener, Arioglu, & Alper)

Only this paper ??


Any other literature review on previous research ?

12 Discussion/graph on period (T) shift at the base isolated


buildings...
4.3 TYPES OF ISOLATORS

4.3.1 Laminated Elastomeric Bearings

These types of isolators have numerous steel plates vulcanised with layers of neoprene
(Figure X). To connect the bearing to the foundation below and superstructure above, thick
steel plates are bonded at the top and bottom of it. To prevent corrosion of the steel a rubber
cover is wrapped around the bearing. (Kerileng & Dundu, 2017).
Laminated rubber bearings are great at handling vertical loads and can also accommodate
large horizontal deformation due to the low shear modulus of rubber. The inserted steel plates
do not increase the low shear modulus. Therefore, laminated rubber bearings can survive big
lateral deformations (Figure 10). They are also easy to maintain due to less parts and covered
steel plates. Development of defects in the rubber is the usual cause of failure but even this
can be avoided with thoughtful manufacturing and quality insurance control.

Figure 10: Isolator undergoing deflection under large loads (AFP News Agency,
2015)

Laminated Elastomeric Bearings are expensive due to the detailed manufacturing process.
The procedure is to cut steel pieces into specified sizes, then to sand blast them and
chemically clean them. After this, they are coated with a compound and the rubber sheets are
laid on them for vulcanization bonding. Thereafter, both the steel plates and the rubber sheets
are put under pressure for a certain time. The final step is to cover the isolator with fire-
resistant covering.
Laminated Rubber Bearings are of mainly three types and are listed below.

4.3.1.1 Low damping rubber bearing

Low damping rubber bearing are manufactured in a similar fashion to general laminated
rubber bearings. Due to their low-damping, other damping devices, such as viscous dampers,
steel bars, lead bars and frictional devices are used in association with the rubber bearing.

13
The advantages of low-damping rubber bearings include the ease of construction, the
mechanical systems not being altered by strain rate, temperature, loading, history or aging.
The only disadvantage is the requirement of additionally damping devices in some cases
(Kerileng & Dundu, 2017).
4.3.1.2 Lead-Rubber Bearings

Invented in New Zealand, 1975, the lead-rubber bearing has been used as an isolator in Japan,
United States and New Zealand. The main difference between the lead-rubber bearings and
low damping rubber bearings is that lead-rubber bearings have a lead plug at the centre of the
bearing see Figure 11).

Figure 11: Components of a lead-rubber bearing isolator (Vilaverde, 2009)


The lead at the centre is a crystalline material that shows an elastoplastic force-deformation
behaviour and yields at a low stress of about 10 Mpa. If the steel plates adequately confine
the lead plug it enables the lead-rubber bearing to dissipate energy a great amount, especially
after the bearing’s shear deformation exceeds the lead plug’s shear yield deformation.
After an earthquake, the lead plug restores the structure back to its original configuration due
to the strain energy stored in it. The point of concern for using lead- rubber bearings is the
non-linearity introduced by the lead plug and the resultant abrupt changes in the bearing’s
stiffness. This may activate a reaction in the higher modes of the structure. This will lead to a
higher acceleration in the places where lead plug is not used. (Kerileng & Dundu, 2017)

4.3.1.3 High-Damping Rubber Bearings

The rubber in high-damping rubber bearings is assembled with highly refined carbons, oils,
resins or is filled up with other solutions, which allows the high-damping ratio. The damping
is neither viscous nor hysteric. At 100% shear strains, the damping is amid 10 and 20 %.
Rubbers with lower durometer hardness are closer to 10 % in terms of their effective
damping and also have a low shear modulus. Rubbers with a high durometer hardness of
about 70-75 have effective damping ratios closer to 20% and have a higher shear modulus.
High-Damping Rubber Bearings are manufactured in a similar way to the previous two
laminated rubber bearings, i.e. similar process of vulcanization and bonding (see Figure 12).
However, the type of rubber is what makes the high-damping rubber bearing stand out. The
Malaysian Rubber Producers’ Research Association of the UK designed the high-damping

14
Figure 12: Components of a High-Damping rubber isolator

rubber bearing in 1982. The rubber used in this rubber bearing had more damping ability,
which made the supplementary damping devices optional.
Figure 13 shows the force vs deformation graph for a high- damping rubber bearing used in
the building for the Foothill Communities Law and Justice in Rancho Cucamonga, California.
As shown in the graph, shear strains lower than 20% are represented by a high stiffness. From
20 – 120 % of shear strains, the shear modulus is adequately constant and less. As strain
further increases, the shear modulus increases because of a strain crystallisation process in the
rubber. This means that high-damping rubber bearings maintain high stiffness against low
loads such as winds and minor earthquakes. The stiffness decreases and the rubber bearing
becomes more active when the earthquake or any horizontal load becomes larger. These

Figure 13: Force vs Deformation graph for High-Damping rubber isolator in Foothills Communities Law and
Justice building (Vilaverde, 2009)

qualities along with its compactness makes it a desirable base isolator. Its response during
low and medium loads can be analysed with linear analysis. For loads above design loads,
bilinear analysis can be done, keeping the post yield stiffness higher than the previous
situation.
The main disadvantage of high-damping rubber bearings is that the materials are affected by
temperature and frequency of loading. Their performance may be dependent on load history
but the properties usually stabilize after the third cycle. (Vilaverde, 2009)

15
4.3.2 Sliding Bearing isolator

Sliding bearings are equipped with a system where there is a minimum amount of force
required for the bearings to slide. Once sliding initiates, the shear forces stop passing on to
the superstructure. Sliding bearings are cheap and not large in size. The cons of the sliding
bearing include its lack of ability to bring the structure back into its place. To overcome this
problem, recentering devices are used hand in hand to make it safe. (Arya, 1992)

4.3.2.1 Friction Pendulum Bearing

Friction Pendulum Bearing, abbreviated as FPB is similar to the sliding bearing isolator
(Figure 5 page 10). The three main components of FPB is the segmented friction slider, a
spherical concave sliding surface and an enclosing cylinder for lateral displacement restraints.
The bearing part of the FPB is between the slider and the base. During an earthquake, the
slider slides along a concave surface to decouple the structure from the ground. Teflon with
3% friction coefficient is applied to the spherical surface for lubrication and corrosion
protection. Seeing that the base of the bearing is concave, the slider returns to the centre,
restoring the structure back into original position due to gravity. When the earthquake comes,
the energy is dissipated by friction between the slider and the spherical surface. The structure
is lifted when this happens. If the period of sliding is large then the base shear decreases and
increases the displacement. Whereas, a smaller period would allow a larger base shear and a
smaller displacement. The effective period of the bearing can be shifted by choosing the right
friction coefficient. It is important to balance it, as making the friction too high will make
isolation system ineffective and making it too low will allow very large displacement, which
could damage the bearing and damage the building (Kerileng & Dundu, 2017). The
disadvantages of this system are that it will be ineffective until a certain level of earthquake
intensity is reached, this is because of the constant time period of the spherical surface.
Furthermore, there is a chance of the isolator period and the excitation period matching. This
can cause resonance and make matters worse.

4.4 CONCLUSION OF DIFFERENT TYPES

Majority of the base isolators discussed can only absorb earthquake energy in 2 dimensions.
i.e. only horizontal directions. However, the friction pendulum can absorb in 3 directions as it
also allows for upward movement. This is perhaps the biggest advantage of the friction
pendulum. However, one of the most popular and efficient isolating system is the laminated
elastomeric bearing as it is simple to model and design and is also very effective is
dissipating earthquake energy. The maintenance requirement for this system is also
negligible.

4.5 LIMITATIONS OF BASE ISOLATORS

As discussed previously, base-isolators have many advantages. They reduce the seismic
forces on the structure during an earthquake by reducing the acceleration. This leads to
minimum damage to the building, whether it be the structure, architecture or
16
furniture/equipments. Base-isolators can be installed in new structures and also be retrofitted
for existing ones. However base-isolators have some disadvantages and it is important to take
these into consideration when designing isolated structures. (Vilaverde, 2009)
 A minimum gap is required for the lateral displacements of the isolators in order to
install a base-isolation system. Therefore, building that lack this clearance cannot be
equipped with one.
 Despite having minimum clearances for installing an isolation system, there is still a
risk of space running out during a larger shake. Any contact with the boundaries can
lead to higher accelerations and more damage.
 Base-isolators do not have large tensile strength, therefore any ascending during the
shake could be disastrous.
 There is insufficient information regarding the effect of time and environmental
factors on the physical and chemical properties of the isolators.
 Some properties of sliding isolators become hard to figure out, such as coefficient of
friction. Especially after some idle time.
 Structural response and analysis of an isolated structure is more intricate due to the
threshold forces for its activation and the non-linear behaviour.
 A base-isolator may be designed incorrectly and the frequency of the structure can
match the frequency of the ground, which can lead to amplification affect, rather than
damping.
 The higher floors can still experience high acceleration due to the non-linear
behaviour.
 Base-isolated structures are more expensive than their fixed base counterparts due to
the its price and instalment cost.
Structures suitable for isolation are
 Broad structures that are not too tall and thus have a low natural period
 Structures located on solid grounds
 Large-weight structures that have more width than height to avoid overturning
moments
 Where base-isolators have enough space to move without collision

Some more papers you should have discussed:

https://www.nzsee.org.nz/db/2004/Paper10.pdf

http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/25/003/25003056.pdf

http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/14_S05-02-007.pdf

17
5 PROJECT METHODOLOGY

Develop model in ETABS

Dynamic Analysis
Model with base isolation (Period of Vibration) Model without base
Isolation

Calculating Seismic Forces Calculating Seismic Forces

Responses Responses

(BMD, SFD and AFD (BMD, SFD and AFD

Compare Responses
(BMD, SFD and AFD)
Some discussions on
design and cost

The purpose of this project is to investigate the concept of base isolators and their effect on
structures. This would involve the design and testing of rigid- base structure and a base-
isolated structure on a software called ETABS.
The chart explains the flow of the project. It begins by developing a certain number of
models in ETABS. Which then branches of into two approaches, one is developing an
isolated model and the other is a non-isolated structures.
To obtain Seismic forces for non-isolated structures, NZS 1170.5 is used. The parameters
taken into consideration are as follows
 Location
 Soil Type
 Number of Floors
18
 Ductility
 Importance level and design life
 Height between floors
 Loading
 T (Period of vibration)
The above parameters when inputted in the formulas mentioned in the NZS 1170.5 will give
us the response of the non-isolated model.
For the isolated structure, these parameters would be assumed depending upon the model
except for the period of vibration of the structure. This is obtained by performing dynamic
analysis of the model. The period of vibration obtained from dynamic analysis will be used as
an input to obtain the response from the isolated model.
Once the responses, which are the Bending moment diagram, the Shear force diagram and the
Axial force diagram, are obtained, they will be compared between the isolated and the non-
isolated model.
And therefore, by doing the analysis, we can study how a base isolator affects the response of
a structure during an earthquake excitation.

6 PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Timeline
As two people working on this project, some parts of the project can be done simultaneously.
From the Gantt chart you can see that management of the project and keeping a journal lasts
from start to end. This is because we have to constantly manage our time and resources to
produce required outcomes and we have to record progress and discussions on the journal.
The Gantt chart shows some overlap between modelling, analysis and conclusion. This means
that there is an iterative process going on. For example we may come up with a new idea
while writing the conclusion or doing the analysis. This will take us back to the modelling
phase and give us more insight for the analysis and conclusion.
Cost
The cost of this project includes the total time spent by the engineers who are working at an
hourly rate of 40$/hr. Furthermore, the cost to buy the software (ETABS) from CSI which
has a subscription fee of around 6000 USD (Standalone License)

19
Appendix

Final Year Project


Huzef and Talha
Ara Institute of Canterbury Project Start: Tue, 3/20/2018
Display Week: 1 Mar 19, 2018 Mar 26, 2018 Apr 2, 2018 Apr 9, 2018 Apr 16, 2018 Apr 23, 2018 Apr 30, 2018 May 7, 2018
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
ASSIGNED
TASK PROGRESS START END M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S
TO

Project Proposal due: Thursday 3/20/18 4/12/18


Into 100% 3/20/18 3/23/18
Background 100% 3/23/18 4/9/18
Methodology 100% 4/9/18 4/10/18
Management 100% 3/20/18 11/12/18
Project Journal 100% 3/20/18 11/12/18
Preliminary Report due: Friday 4/20/18 6/15/18
Design Stage 100% 4/20/18 4/25/18
Modelling 100% 4/25/01 5/30/18
Analysis 100% 5/13/18 6/12/18
Conclusion 100% 5/25/18 6/14/18
Overall report 100% 6/15/18 6/15/18
Presentation due: Wednesday 5/06/2018 13/06/2018
Prepare Slides 100% 5/06/2018 10/06/2018
Prepare Presetation 100% 8/06/2018 13/06/2018
Poster due: Monday 11/1/18 11/12/18
Task 1 11/1/18 11/12/18
Task 2 11/1/18 11/12/18
Final Report due: Friday 6/22/18 11/9/18
Design Stage and research 6/22/18 7/14/18
Modelling 7/15/18 7/30/18
Analysis 7/25/18 8/25/18
Conclusion 8/22/18 9/10/18
Overall report 10/8/18 10/11/18
Presentation due: Tuesday 10/24/18 11/13/18
Prepare Slides 10/24/18 11/13/18
Prepare Presetation 10/24/18 11/13/18
Final Year Project
Huzef and Talha
Ara Institute of Canterbury Project Start: Tue, 3/20/2018
Display Week: 9 May 14, 2018 May 21, 2018 May 28, 2018 Jun 4, 2018 Jun 11, 2018 Jun 18, 2018 Jun 25, 2018 Jul 2, 2018
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
ASSIGNED
TASK PROGRESS START END M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S
TO

Project Proposal due: Thursday 3/20/18 4/12/18


Into 100% 3/20/18 3/23/18
Background 100% 3/23/18 4/9/18
Methodology 100% 4/9/18 4/10/18
Management 100% 3/20/18 11/12/18
Project Journal 100% 3/20/18 11/12/18
Preliminary Report due: Friday 4/20/18 6/15/18
Design Stage 100% 4/20/18 4/25/18
Modelling 100% 4/25/01 5/30/18
Analysis 100% 5/13/18 6/12/18
Conclusion 100% 5/25/18 6/14/18
Overall report 100% 6/15/18 6/15/18
Presentation due: Wednesday 5/06/2018 13/06/2018
Prepare Slides 100% 5/06/2018 10/06/2018
Prepare Presetation 100% 8/06/2018 13/06/2018
Poster due: Monday 11/1/18 11/12/18
Task 1 11/1/18 11/12/18
Task 2 11/1/18 11/12/18
Final Report due: Friday 6/22/18 11/9/18
Design Stage and research 6/22/18 7/14/18
Modelling 7/15/18 7/30/18
Analysis 7/25/18 8/25/18
Conclusion 8/22/18 9/10/18
Overall report 10/8/18 10/11/18
Presentation due: Tuesday 10/24/18 11/13/18
Prepare Slides 10/24/18 11/13/18
Prepare Presetation 10/24/18 11/13/18
Final Year Project
Huzef and Talha
Ara Institute of Canterbury Project Start: Tue, 3/20/2018
Display Week: 18 Jul 16, 2018 Jul 23, 2018 Jul 30, 2018 Aug 6, 2018 Aug 13, 2018 Aug 20, 2018 Aug 27, 2018 Sep 3, 2018
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
ASSIGNED
TASK PROGRESS START END M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S
TO

Project Proposal due: Thursday 3/20/18 4/12/18


Into 100% 3/20/18 3/23/18
Background 100% 3/23/18 4/9/18
Methodology 100% 4/9/18 4/10/18
Management 100% 3/20/18 11/12/18
Project Journal 100% 3/20/18 11/12/18
Preliminary Report due: Friday 4/20/18 6/15/18
Design Stage 100% 4/20/18 4/25/18
Modelling 100% 4/25/01 5/30/18
Analysis 100% 5/13/18 6/12/18
Conclusion 100% 5/25/18 6/14/18
Overall report 100% 6/15/18 6/15/18
Presentation due: Wednesday 5/06/2018 13/06/2018
Prepare Slides 100% 5/06/2018 10/06/2018
Prepare Presetation 100% 8/06/2018 13/06/2018
Poster due: Monday 11/1/18 11/12/18
Task 1 11/1/18 11/12/18
Task 2 11/1/18 11/12/18
Final Report due: Friday 6/22/18 11/9/18
Design Stage and research 6/22/18 7/14/18
Modelling 7/15/18 7/30/18
Analysis 7/25/18 8/25/18
Conclusion 8/22/18 9/10/18
Overall report 10/8/18 10/11/18
Presentation due: Tuesday 10/24/18 11/13/18
Prepare Slides 10/24/18 11/13/18
Prepare Presetation 10/24/18 11/13/18
Final Year Project
Huzef and Talha
Ara Institute of Canterbury Project Start: Tue, 3/20/2018
Display Week: 27 Sep 17, 2018 Sep 24, 2018 Oct 1, 2018 Oct 8, 2018 Oct 15, 2018 Oct 22, 2018 Oct 29, 2018 Nov 5, 2018
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
ASSIGNED
TASK PROGRESS START END M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S
TO

Project Proposal due: Thursday 3/20/18 4/12/18


Into 100% 3/20/18 3/23/18
Background 100% 3/23/18 4/9/18
Methodology 100% 4/9/18 4/10/18
Management 100% 3/20/18 11/12/18
Project Journal 100% 3/20/18 11/12/18
Preliminary Report due: Friday 4/20/18 6/15/18
Design Stage 100% 4/20/18 4/25/18
Modelling 100% 4/25/01 5/30/18
Analysis 100% 5/13/18 6/12/18
Conclusion 100% 5/25/18 6/14/18
Overall report 100% 6/15/18 6/15/18
Presentation due: Wednesday 5/06/2018 13/06/2018
Prepare Slides 100% 5/06/2018 10/06/2018
Prepare Presetation 100% 8/06/2018 13/06/2018
Poster due: Monday 11/1/18 11/12/18
Task 1 11/1/18 11/12/18
Task 2 11/1/18 11/12/18
Final Report due: Friday 6/22/18 11/9/18
Design Stage and research 6/22/18 7/14/18
Modelling 7/15/18 7/30/18
Analysis 7/25/18 8/25/18
Conclusion 8/22/18 9/10/18
Overall report 10/8/18 10/11/18
Presentation due: Tuesday 10/24/18 11/13/18
Prepare Slides 10/24/18 11/13/18
Prepare Presetation 10/24/18 11/13/18
before appendix

REFERENCES
AFP News Agency. (2015). Chilean architecture stands test of earthquakes. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6pxxan8bDg
Alan Wood and Marc Greenhill. (2014, August 06). Base isolation technology rare in
Christchurch. Retrieved from Stuff NZ: http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-
press/business/the-rebuild/10352006/Base-isolation-technology-rare-in-Christchurch
Arya, A. S. (1992). Concept and techniques for seismic base-isolation of structures. In
Proceedings of the Tenth World Confrences on Earthquake Engineering (pp. 6639-
6648). Rotterdam: Balkema.
Bechtold, J. (1906). Germany Patent No. US845046A.
BuildingToday. (2013, November 1). ‘Seismic fuse’ enhances earthquake protection.
Retrieved from Building Today:
http://www.buildingtoday.co.nz/LatestNews/Magazine/tabid/8136/ArticleID/9001/De
fault.aspx
D.M.Lee and C.Medland. (1978). Bsae Isolation - A historical development and the influence
of higher mode responses. Wellington: New Zealand National Society for Earthquake
Engineering.
Gordon P. Warn and Keri L. Ryan. (2012). A Review of Seismic Isolation for Buildings:
Historical. Buildings, 300-325.
Kawai, K. (1891). A Structural method free from earthquake excitation. Journal of
Architecture and Building Science.
Kerileng, K., & Dundu, M. (2017). Base Isolation Systems in Multi-Storey Structures. iCSER
2017 (pp. 203-209). Sydney: Structural Engineering Research.
Lyan-Ywan Lu, Tzu-Ying Lee, Shiang-Yu Juang and Shih-Wei Yeh. (2013). Polynomial
friction pendulum isolators (PFPIs) for building floor isolation . Engineering
Structures, 970-982.
Qamaruddin, M. (1998). A State-Of-The-Art Review of Seismic Isolation Scheme For
Masonry Buidlings. ISET Journal of Earthquake Technolgy, 77-93.
R. I. Skinner and G. H. McVerry. (1975). BASE ISOLATION FOR INCREASED
EARTHQUAKE. Wellington: THE NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING.
Sener, M., Arioglu, E., & Alper, T. (n.d.). Usage of seismic base isolation to reduce the
ductility demand from prefabricated concrete structures.
Shigeki Okamura and Satoshi Fujita. (2007). Motion Analysis of Pendulum Type Isolation
Systems During Earthquakes. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology , 507.
Vilaverde, R. (2009). Seismic Protection with Base Isolation. In R. Vilaverde, Fundamentals
Concepts of Earthquake Engineering (pp. 689-751). Boca Raton: CRC Press.

20