buildings

Article
On the Distribution in Height of Base Shear Forces in
Linear Static Analysis of Base-Isolated Structures
Adamo Zinco 1 , Fernando Fraternali 1 , Gianmario Benzoni 2 and Enzo Martinelli 1, *
1 Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, 84084 Fisciano, Italy; azinco@unisa.it (A.Z.);
f.fraternali@unisa.it (F.F.)
2 Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego, CA 92093-0085, USA;
gbenzoni@eng.ucsd.edu
* Correspondence: e.martinelli@unisa.it; Tel.: +39-089-96-4098




Received: 28 September 2020; Accepted: 29 October 2020; Published: 1 November 2020


Abstract: Although base isolation is nowadays a well-established seismic-protection technique for

both buildings and bridges, and several issues are still open and attract the interest of the research
community. Among them, the formulation of computationally efficient and accurate analysis methods
is a relevant aspect in structural design of seismic-isolated buildings. In fact, codes and guidelines
currently in force in various parts of the world generally include the possibility for designers to utilize
linear-elastic analysis methods based on equivalent linearization of the non-linear force-displacement
response of isolators. This paper proposes a formula for defining the force distribution in height
that should be considered in linear-static analyses to obtain a more accurate approximation of the
actual structural response, supposedly simulated by means of non-linear time history analysis.
To do that, it summarizes the results of a wide parametric analysis carried out on a batch of structures
characterized by three different heights and various properties of base isolators. The reported
results highlight that the equivalent static force distribution provided by both Italian and European
codes tend to underestimate the actual seismic lateral forces acting on base-isolated buildings,
whereas the inverted triangular distribution, proposed in various American codes and standards,
is often conservative.

Keywords: seismic isolation; linear static analysis; vertical distribution of shear forces

1. Introduction
Seismic isolation is based on well-established mechanical principles [1,2] and it is nowadays
widely adopted worldwide both in the realization of new buildings [3,4] and retrofitting existing
ones [5–7]. Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of base isolation in the case of historic
structures with the aim to preserve and reuse the buildings or protect their non-structural elements
and contents [8,9]. A wide variety of seismic isolators are currently available on the market [10,11]
and further devices are being developed and tested in research laboratories [12,13]. Although they are
based on various mechanical phenomena (i.e., elastic response of soft materials, yielding of metals
either in bending or torsion, surface friction, sliding, etc.), the mechanical behavior of seismic isolators
is generally characterized by non-linear behavior [14,15] and, hence, non-linear time history (NLTH)
analyses are needed to consistently simulate the response of base-isolated (BI) buildings subjected to
seismic excitations [16].
However, NLTH analyses are computationally demanding and time consuming, which makes
them unfit for practice-oriented design activities. Therefore, modern codes and guidelines [17–20]
consider both linear and non-linear analysis methods for seismic design of base-isolated buildings.
Specifically, linear static analysis (LSA) is generally permitted with some limitations, depending on the

Buildings 2020, 10, 197; doi:10.3390/buildings10110197 www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2020, 10, 197 2 of 20

properties of both the isolation system (IS) and the building super-structure. It is based on defining
a pattern of horizontal forces and equivalent stiffness and viscous damping for the base-isolation
system [21–24]. According to various structural codes, IS may be modelled by an equivalent linear
visco-elastic behavior with some limitations defined in terms of effective damping ratio, re-centering
capability and invariability of the mechanical properties [15,20].
Various researchers have investigated accuracy and suitability of LSA in design-oriented
simulations of base-isolated buildings [25–27]. Specifically, several studies were intended at assessing
and possibly enhancing the definition of the properties of linearized structural models to be employed
in LSA, especially in the case of bridges [28–30]. Moreover, the use of alternative lateral force patterns
was assessed to perform pushover analyses on BI-structures [31]. However, setting an appropriate
equivalent linearized model is only the first step in LSA procedures for multi-story buildings [32,33],
as they also require a consistent definition of the distribution of equivalent horizontal forces in height.
As a matter of principle, two typical behaviors can be distinguished. On the one hand, if it
is assumed that the base-isolation system is significantly more flexible than the superstructure (the
latter being basically assumed as a rigid body), a uniform distribution can be figured out where the
equivalent static seismic forces Fi at the i-th story can be determined as a function of both the total
design base shear (Vb ) and the story masses mi [17,34]:
m
Fi = V P i  (1)
N
j = 1 mj

On the other hand, other seismic codes, including the US and Chinese ones [20,35,36], assume an
inverted triangular distribution of the base shear Vb that can be described as follows:

mh
Fi = V P i i  (2)
N
j=1 mj hj

However, some studies [37,38] demonstrate that uniform distribution tends to neglect flexibility
of the superstructure and the participation of the higher vibration modes. Conversely, the inverted
triangular force distribution has been found to overestimate the maximum seismic responses of most
BI-buildings, even when the IS exhibits a strong non-linear behavior [39,40].
Therefore, enhanced formulations are also available in the literature to describe the distribution in
height of lateral forces with the aim to take into account relevant parameters, such as the frequency
ratio between BI- and fixed-base structure [41,42], the fundamental period of the superstructure [43],
the modal shape of the latter [42], the non-linearity factor [14] of seismic isolators [44,45] or combination
of some of the above parameters [46–49]. Under the mathematical standpoint, the proposed
formulations are based on either introducing an exponent to hi in Equation (2) [44,46] or combining
Equations (1) and (2) [41,42,48].
This work aims at assessing several formulations available in the scientific literature [41–49],
as well as in codes and standards [17,20,34], for the distribution in height of lateral earthquake-induced
forces to be considered in LSA of base-isolated structures. Specifically, NLTH analyses are carried out
on the numerical models of three reinforced-concrete (RC) frames with three, five and seven stories and
various fundamental periods of vibration at the fixed-base configuration. Various ISs, characterized by
elastic-hardening force-displacement curves, are considered. The parameters describing the isolation
devices range within the interval of relevance in practical applications with the aim to reproduce
the actual behavior of commercial ISs, which may either be realized by lead rubber bearings (LRB),
high-damping rubber bearings (HDRB), low-damping rubber bearings (LDRB) and friction pendulum
bearings (FPB). Regardless of the specific technological solution, the formulation proposed herein
depends on the relevant mechanical properties of the IS under consideration and allows us to analyze
BI-structures by means of LSA in lieu of more time-consuming NLTH analyses, which results in a more
efficient design procedure.
Buildings 2020, 10, 197 3 of 20

The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the types of analysis and the domain of
variation of the relevant parameters considered in this study. Section 3 summarizes the results of the
seismic analyses
Buildings and
2020, 10, shows
x FOR the comparisons between the outcome of NLTH and LSA, the latter
PEER REVIEW 3 of 20being
carried out with lateral forces distributed both uniformly and as an inverted triangle, according to
carried out with lateral
two well-established forcesSection
practices. distributed both uniformly
4 discusses and by
the results as an inverted triangle,
comparing according
the pattern to
of horizontal
two well-established practices. Section 4 discusses the results by comparing the
forces resulting from NLTH analyses with the relevant formulations available in the literature;pattern of horizontal
forces resulting formula
a practice-oriented from NLTH analyses
for lateral withdistribution
force the relevanttoformulations
be adoptedavailable
in LSA isinfinally
the literature;
proposed a as a
practice-oriented formula for lateral force distribution to be adopted in LSA is finally proposed as a
main finding of the present paper. The main results of the work are then remarked upon in Section 5.
main finding of the present paper. The main results of the work are then remarked upon in Section
5.
2. Research Methodology: Parametric Analysis
2. Research
The presentMethodology:
study is based Parametric Analysis
on comparing the results of accurate, yet computationally intensive,
NLTH analyses with
The present the iscorresponding
study onesthe
based on comparing obtained
results ofvia LSA under
accurate, lateral loads
yet computationally supposedly
intensive,
equivalent to the effect of the seismic excitation. The relevant modelling assumptions
NLTH analyses with the corresponding ones obtained via LSA under lateral loads supposedly and analysis
procedures are described into details in the following sections.
equivalent to the effect of the seismic excitation. The relevant modelling assumptions and analysis
procedures are described into details in the following sections.
2.1. Superstructure
2.1. Superstructure
The present study is based on considering a set of three-, five- and seven-story reinforced RC frame
structures.The present study
Specifically, theisattention
based onhas
considering a set of
been focused onthree-, five-
regular and seven-story
buildings reinforced
with invariant RC
horizontal
frame structures. Specifically, the attention has been focused on regular buildings with
stiffness throughout the height of the structure and moderately variable floor mass. The building invariant
horizontal stiffness throughout the height of the structure and moderately variable floor mass. The
models have a rectangular plan and a symmetric distribution of resisting systems. Figure 1 depicts the
building models have a rectangular plan and a symmetric distribution of resisting systems. Figure 1
model of the five-story base-isolated building.
depicts the model of the five-story base-isolated building.

Figure 1. Three-dimensional
Figure 1. Three-dimensionalmodel
modelof
of aa prototype baseisolated
prototype base isolated building
building with
with fivefive stories.
stories.

The following main

The following assumptions
main assumptionsare
aremade
made in
in modelling thesuperstructure:
modelling the superstructure:

i. i. linear-elastic behavior
linear-elastic behavior ofofthe
thesuperstructure, which
superstructure, is generally
which accepted
is generally in BI-structures;
accepted in BI-structures;
ii. ii. rigid diaphragm constraints are set at all floor;
rigid diaphragm constraints are set at all floor;
iii. soil-structure interaction is neglected;
iii. soil-structure interaction is neglected;
iv. torsional effects are also neglected, as the superstructure is regular both in plan and height.
iv. torsional effects are also neglected, as the superstructure is regular both in plan and height.
The plan dimensions are 16.50 m × 13.50 m. The story area is approximately 223 m2 and is divided
The plan equal
into three bays along
dimensions are the X-direction
16.50 m × 13.50 and
m.three
Theequal
storybays
areaalong the Z-direction.
is approximately 223The 2 andheight
mstory is divided
is 3.10 m (Figure 2).
into three equal bays along the X-direction and three equal bays along the Z-direction. The story height
is 3.10 m The mass2).
(Figure is the same at each level, except for base- and roof-levels. Uniform dead loads (G1 and
G2) at the intermediate floor is equal to 7.17 kN/m2, at the base levels 8 kN/m2 and at the roof levels 4.30
Buildings 2020, 10, 197 4 of 20

The mass is the same at each level, except for base- and roof-levels. Uniform dead loads (G1 and
G2 ) atBuildings
the intermediate is equal to 7.17 kN/m2 , at the base levels 8 kN/m2 and at the roof
floorREVIEW
2020, 10, x FOR PEER levels
4 of 20
2 2
4.30 kN/m . Live load (Qk ) is the same for each level and it is equal to 2 kN/m . Moreover, the infill
wallskN/m
2. Live load (Qk) is the same for each level and it is equal to 2 kN/m2. Moreover, the infill walls are
are not considered as structural elements and are modelled with a uniform load of 7.25 kN/m.
not considered as structural elements and are modelled with a uniform load of 7.25 kN/m. Therefore,
Therefore, the total masses of the three-, five- and seven-floor superstructures are 1142 t, 1817 t and
the total masses of the three-, five- and seven-floor superstructures are 1142 t, 1817 t and 2555 t,
2555 t, respectively.
respectively.

Figure
Figure 2. 2. Standardfloor
Standard floorplan.
plan. Dimensions
Dimensionsare
areinin
centimeters.
centimeters.

The superstructure
The superstructure is modelledby
is modelled byelastic
elastic elements
elements whose
whosetransverse
transverse sections are are
sections dimensioned
dimensioned
in such a way that the corresponding fixed-base structure has realistic
in such a way that the corresponding fixed-base structure has realistic fundamentalfundamental vibration periods.
vibration
Specifically, the beam cross-sections are 0.40 m × 0.60 m in the longitudinal direction and 0.40 m ×
periods. Specifically, the beam cross-sections are 0.40 m × 0.60 m in the longitudinal direction and
0.50 m in the transversal direction. At the base level, a greater depth of the beam sections is adopted
0.40 m × 0.50 m in the transversal direction. At the base level, a greater depth of the beam sections
(0.70 m). Conversely, the sizes of column sections vary for the three prototype buildings. A square
is adopted (0.70
shape is m). assumed:
always Conversely,0.40 the
m ×sizes
0.40 mof for
column sections
the 3-story vary for
building, 0.50the
m ×three prototype
0.50 m buildings.
for the 5-story
A square is always assumed: 0.40 m × 0.40 m for the 3-story building, 0.50 m ×
building and 0.60 m × 0.60 m for the 7-story building. The section dimensions are the same frommthe
shape 0.50 for the
5-story building
base and 0.60 m × 0.60 m for the 7-story building. The section dimensions are the same
to the roof.
from the base
Tableto the roof. the cross-section sizes of the structural elements.
1 summarizes
Table 1 summarizes the cross-section sizes of the structural elements.
Table 1. Structural element sections for standard floor.
Table 1. Structural element sections for standard floor.
Building Beam Girder Column
three stories
Building 40 cm × 60
Beam cm 40 cm ×
Girder50 cm 40 cm × 40 cm
Column
five stories 40 cm × 60 cm 40 cm × 50 cm 50 cm × 50 cm
three stories 40 cm × 60 cm 40 cm × 50 cm 40 cm × 40 cm
seven stories 40 cm × 60 cm 40 cm × 50 cm 60 cm × 60 cm
five stories 40 cm × 60 cm 40 cm × 50 cm 50 cm × 50 cm
seven stories 40 cm × 60 cm 40 cm × 50 cm 60 cm × 60 cm
Table 2 reports the main properties of the three-prototype buildings, including the total height
and mass of the buildings, the superstructure-to-base-level mass ratio Ms/Mb and the superstructure
fundamental
Table 2 reportsperiod
the Tmain
bf. properties of the three-prototype buildings, including the total height
and mass of the buildings, the superstructure-to-base-level mass ratio Ms /Mb and the superstructure
Table 2. Main properties of the three structural model in fixed-base configuration.
fundamental period Tbf .
Superstructure Height Total Mass Ms/Mb Period Tbf
2. Main properties9.3
Tablestories
three of m
the three structural
1142 model
t in fixed-base
3.40 configuration.
0.41 s
five stories 15.5 m 1817 t 5.33 0.55 s
Superstructure
seven stories Height
21.7 m Total 2555
Masst Ms /M b
7.34 Period
0.70Tsbf
three stories 9.3 m 1142 t 3.40 0.41 s
In five
NLTH stories
analyses, 2% of15.5
the m
critical damping1817
is tassumed by using
5.33 Rayleigh damping
0.55 s [50–52]
for theseven stories
superstructures, 21.7 m
in addition 2555
to the dissipated t
hysteretic energy7.34 0.70due
at the isolation level s to the
non-linear behavior of the IS.
In NLTH analyses, 2% of the critical damping is assumed by using Rayleigh damping [50–52] for
2.2. Seismic Isolation System
the superstructures, in addition to the dissipated hysteretic energy at the isolation level due to the
non-linear behavior of the IS.
 Buildings 2020, 10, 197 5 of 20

Buildings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 20

2.2. Seismic Isolation System
Nowadays, several types of isolation devices are available in the market, which have been briefly
Nowadays, several types of isolation devices are available in the market, which have been briefly
mentioned in Section 1. Although more sophisticated models can be found in the literature to
mentioned in Section 1. Although more sophisticated models can be found in the literature to simulate
simulate the non-linear response of those devices [53–56], the present study is based on assuming a
the non-linear response of those devices [53–56], the present study is based on assuming a general
general elastic-hardening hysteretic force-displacement law (Figure 3), which, in principle, can
elastic-hardening hysteretic force-displacement law (Figure 3), which, in principle, can represent the
represent the response of three main groups of isolation devices, such as LDRB (or HDRB), LRB and
response of three main groups of isolation devices, such as LDRB (or HDRB), LRB and FPB.
FPB.

Figure
Figure3.3.Force-displacement
Force-displacementcurve
curveofofaatypical
typicalisolation
isolationdevice.
device.

This
Thisbilinear
bilinearforce-displacement
force-displacement relationship
relationship of the isolation
of the systems
isolation is identified
systems by three
is identified by main
three
parameters:
main parameters:the initial stiffness
the initial K1 (before
stiffness yielding/sliding),
K1 (before yielding/sliding), the the
post-yield
post-yield stiffness
stiffnessK2K2andandthe
the
intersection
intersectionQQbetween
betweenthe thepost-elastic
post-elasticbranch branchand andthe thevertical
verticalaxis
axis(Figure
(Figure3).
3).The
Theother
otherparameters
parameters
are
arethetheyield
yieldforce
forceand and displacement,
displacement, Fy F
and Xy, X
y and and the NLTH
y , and the NLTH design displacement
design displacement demand Xd. The
demand Xd .
ratios
The ratios =K
α = Kα2/K 2 /K1 μ
1 and = Xµd/X
and = yXared /Xythe
arepost-yield
the post-yieldhardening
hardening andandductility ratio
ductility of of
ratio thethe
IS,IS,
respectively.
respectively.
Specifically,
Specifically,forforFPB,
FPB,the themechanical
mechanicalbehavior behaviorisisdescribed
describedby byan anelastic-hardening
elastic-hardeningcurve curvewith
withaahigh
high
value
valueof ofthe
theinitial
initialstiffness,
stiffness,KK2 2isisgivengivenby bythe
theW/R
W/Rratio ratioandandthethecharacteristic
characteristicforce
forceQQisisequal
equaltotoυW,
υW,
where
where thethe WW isisthe
theweight
weightsupported
supported by by
thethe bearings,
bearings, R is Rtheiseffective
the effective curvature
curvature radius radius of the
of the concave
concave
surface,surface,
and υ isand υ is the friction
the friction coefficient.
coefficient.
Since
Sinceexisting
existingbuilding
building codescodes tend to propose,
propose, at at least
leastfor
forpreliminary
preliminarydesign
designpurposes,
purposes,the theuse
useof
ofsimplified
simplified models
models and and techniques
techniques that
that facilitate
facilitate thethe analysis
analysis of of seismically
seismically isolated
isolated structures
structures in
in the
the
LSA, LSA,
an an equivalent
equivalent linearization
linearization of the
of the IS non-linear
IS non-linear hysteretic
hysteretic behavior
behavior is assumed,
is assumed, as isolators
as isolators are
are modelled
modelled through
through theirtheir effective
effective stiffness
stiffness KeffKeff
and and effective
effective damping
damping ratio
ratio ξ.ξ.The
Theeffective
effectivestiffness
stiffnessis
isdefined
definedasas the
the secant
secant stiffness
stiffness to the
to the design
design displacement
displacement Xd and
Xd and is related
is related to thetoeffective
the effective
period period
Teq of
Tthe
eq of the BI-building.
BI-building. The hysteretic
The hysteretic dampingdamping ratio
ratio is given is given
by thebyenergy
the energy dissipation
dissipation principle,
principle, basedbased
on the
on the equivalence
equivalence between between
the energy the energy dissipated
dissipated by one by cycleoneofcycle of the bilinear
the bilinear model, EH, model,
and EH, and the
the damping
damping
energy ofenergy of the
the linear linear system,
damped dampedED, system, ED,torelated
related to the maximum
the maximum displacement
displacement value [57]. value [57].
The
Theeffective
effectivestiffness
stiffness K Keffeffand
andthetheeffective
effectivedamping
dampingratio ratioξ,ξ,atatthe
thedisplacement
displacementXXddare arecalculated
calculated
bybythethefollowing
followingequations:
equations:

Fd Fd KK1 X y + K 2 (
X +K (X -X )X d −X y 1+α1 + α(µ − 1)
μ-1
Keff =Keff = = = 1 y 2 d y =K =1 K 1 (3)(3)
Xd Xd Xdd
X μ µ
EH4X4X(yK(K−K1 -K2)()(X d -X y) 2(1-α)(μ-1)

Eξ= = y 1 2 X d −X y = 2(1 − α)(µ − 1) (4)
ξ= H = ED 2πK eff X d2
2 =
πμ 1+α(μ-1) (4)
ED 2πKeff Xd πµ[1 + α(µ − 1)]
In this study, the main IS properties are defined by three fixed a-priori effective values of the
equivalent vibration period Teq, and various values of initial stiffness K1 of the isolators. For the sake
of clarity, the ranges of α and ξ parameters assumed in this study are wider than those typically
associated to the IS in order to get a better knowledge of the BI structural dynamics and evaluated
Buildings 2020, 10, 197 6 of 20

In this study, the main IS properties are defined by three fixed a-priori effective values of the
equivalent vibration period Teq , and various values of initial stiffness K1 of the isolators. For the
sake of clarity, the ranges of α and ξ parameters assumed in this study are wider than those typically
associated to the IS in order to get a better knowledge of the BI structural dynamics and evaluated
the applicability of the formulae over a larger selection. In fact, the α values vary between 0 and 1
and the ξ values, with respect to the limit values of the previous parameter, can increase from 0 to
0.63. On the one hand, the lower effective damping value, related to α equal to 1, represents a linear
behavior, on the other the upper limit, related to α equal to 0, describes an elastic perfectly plastic
curve. It is worth noting that the typical values of ξ parameter range from 0.05 to 0.35.
Table 3 reports the main parameters of the isolation devices employed for the previously described
buildings. In particular, the following parameters are expected to have the most influence on the vertical
distribution of the base shear: effective period of isolated system (Teq ), ductility ratio (µ), initial stiffness
and period (K1 , T1 ), the stiffness ratio (α) and, obviously, the hysteretic damping ratio (ξ).

Table 3. Mechanical properties of the isolation system.

Effective Period [s] 1.5; 2.0; 2.5

Ductility [-] 15; 20; 25
Initial Stiffness [N/mm] 2500; 5000; 7500; 10,000
Damping [-] 0.006–0.55
Stiffness ratio [-] 0.005–0.78

2.3. Ground Motions

The Italian Seismic Building Code [34] defines the response spectra in each point of a network
covering the entire Italian territory. Based on location of the building and the return period of the
seismic events, three parameters, ag , F0 , and Tc * are provided to generate the horizontal elastic
acceleration and displacement spectra. More details (the shape of an acceleration spectrum and the
meanings of the different parameters) can be found in Chapter 3 of NTC 2018 [34].
In this case, to determine the non-linear properties of the isolation system, the target IS deformation
Xd , defined according to the simplified approach suggested by the Italian Building Code, is obtained
from the elastic design spectrum for a reference return period Tr = 975 years. Only the limit state of
collapse prevention (SLC) with a low probability of occurrence of the 5% in the design working life of
50 years is considered as seismic input. The seismic parameters for the design spectra are listed in
Table 4. As for geotechnical parameters, soil type B and topology type T1 are considered.

Table 4. Parameters to define the elastic acceleration spectrum.

Limit State Tr [years] ag /g [-] F0 [-] Tc * [s]

SLO 30 0.062 2.356 0.280
SLD 50 0.084 2.330 0.297
SLV 475 0.270 2.278 0.379
SLC 975 0.368 2.281 0.410

To perform NLTH analysis of the BI buildings under consideration, a set of seven natural
ground motions has been selected by means of the REXELite software [58]. Figure 4 shows the
selected-accelerograms and the corresponding response spectra: the graph demonstrates the limited
scatter of the single signal spectra with respect to the target design spectra assumed in this study.
According to the Italian Code [34], spectro-compatibility is checked in the period range between
0.15 s and 1.2 Teq : the average spectrum is never lower than 10% and higher than 30% of the target
response spectrum.
Buildings 2020, 10, 197 7 of 20
Buildings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 20

4 1.6
Horizontal acceleration response spectra
0
1.4
-4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 1.2
4
1
0

Se(T) [1/g]
-4 0.8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0.6
4

0 0.4
-4
0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
4 0
a [m/s2]

0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

-4
Period T [s]
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0.9
Displacement response spectra
4 0.8
0
0.7
-4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0.6
SDe(T) [m]

4 0.5
0
0.4
-4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0.3

4 0.2
0 0.1
-4
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Time [s] Period T [s]

average spectra reference spectra lower and upper limits

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Ground
Ground motion
motion records and horizontal
records and horizontal elastic
elastic displacement
displacement (S
(SDe
De)) and acceleration (S
and acceleration (See))
response spectra.
response spectra.

2.4. Methods
2.4. Methods
A
A total
totalof of
108108
different bilinear
different curves curves
bilinear to describe
to the isolators
describe thebehavior (3 building
isolators behaviorconfigurations
(3 building
× 3 equivalent periods × 4 initial stiffnesses × 3 ductility values) have been considered
configurations × 3 equivalent periods × 4 initial stiffnesses × 3 ductility values) have been inconsidered
the NLTH
analyses.
in the NLTH A total number
analyses. of 756
A total NLTH of
number analyses
756 NLTHhaveanalyses
been. have been.
In
In this work, one-directional seismic input is considered ininX-direction
this work, one-directional seismic input is considered X-directionandandnono amplification
amplification is
is considered for torsional effects. The considered structures are regular
considered for torsional effects. The considered structures are regular in plan and elevation,in plan and elevation,
which
which
makes makes
torsional torsional effects negligible,
effects negligible, and theand theofstudy
study of bi-direction
bi-direction seismic
seismic input input is the
is beyond beyond
scopethe
of
scope of this paper. The step-by-step procedure followed in this study to derive
this paper. The step-by-step procedure followed in this study to derive the actual lateral forcethe actual lateral force
distributions
distributions is is summarized
summarized below.
below.
Step 1: NLTH analyses of base isolated building configurations by considering a set of seven
Step 1: NLTH analyses of base isolated building configurations by considering a set of seven
spectrum-compatible accelerograms;
spectrum-compatible accelerograms;
Step 2: Average of the maximum story shear values at the different levels derived from the
Step 2: Average of the maximum story shear values at the different levels derived from the selected
selected seven accelerograms;
seven accelerograms;
Step 3: Conversion of the median peak story shears Vi at the i-th level to median lateral force Fi,
Step 3: Conversion of the median peak story shears Vi at the i-th level to median lateral force Fi ,
according to the following equations:
according to the following equations:
NColumn
NColumn
X(i)
Vi = Fj (5)
Vi = Fj ( i ) (5)
j=1
j=1
(6)
Fi =Vi -Vi+1
Buildings 2020, 10, 197 8 of 20

Buildings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 20

Fi = Vi −Vi+1 (6)
where the Fj are the shear forces recorded at the column of each i-th level, Vi and Vi+1 are
where the
the Fj are the
average shear
of the forces recorded
maximum at the at
story shears column
the i-thof and
each(ii-th level,levels
+ 1)-th Vi and Vi+1
and theare the
Fi are
average of the maximum story shears at the
the lateral force applied at the i-th level; i-th and (i + 1)-th levels and the F i are the lateral
force applied at the i-th level;
Step 4: Step 4: Normalization
Normalization of theof story
the story shear
shear andand lateral
lateral force
force distributionsby
distributions bybase
baseshear
shear (assuming
(assuming
Vb =in
Vb = 1), 1),order
in order to focus
to focus on relative
on relative distribution
distribution of force
of force rather
rather than
than their
their values.
values.

3.
3. Results
Results
Displacement demand on
Displacement demand on the
the isolation
isolation system and story
system and story shear
shear forces
forces are the main
are the main factors
factors for
for the
the
design of BI structures: the following subsections report a comparison between the results obtained
design of BI structures: the following subsections report a comparison between the results obtained by
by NLTH
NLTH analyses
analyses andand
LSALSA on the
on the RC RC structures
structures defined
defined in Section
in Section 2. 2.

3.1. Base-Isolated
Base-Isolated (BI) Structure Response: Ground
Ground Motions
Various configurations of
Various configurations of base-isolated
base-isolated buildings
buildings are presented
presented in order to evaluate the dynamic
response obtained for the different seismic inputs. Figure 5 shows the maximum demands in terms
of inter-story drift ratio (IDR). It demonstrates that the maximum inter-story drift ratios obtained
from NLTH analyses are generally below 0.45% in all the the considered
considered structures.
structures. This confirms that
the demand on the isolated structures is lower than the corresponding
corresponding limits of
of the
the elastic
elastic range
range [31],
[31],
linear-elastic model
which is consistent with assuming a linear-elastic model for
for the
the superstructures.
superstructures.

5 7
(a) (b) (c)
6
4
5
Level
Level

3 4

3
2
2

1 1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Drift [%] Drift [%]
row data mean mean ± std

Distribution in
Figure 5. Distribution in height
height of
of the
the maximum
maximum inter-story
inter-story drift
drift ratio
ratio obtained
obtained from
from NLTH
NLTH analyses
for each base-isolated configuration: three-story (a), five-story (b) and seven-story building (c).

Figure 66 reports
Figure reportsthethedistribution
distributionofof story
storyshear Vi V
shear normalized
i normalized with respect
with to the
respect to mean of theofbase
the mean the
shear V
base shear obtained from NLTH analysis.
b Vb obtained from NLTH analysis.
Since the
Since the actual
actual hysteretic
hysteretic response
response of of the
the various
various BI-structures
BI-structures depend
depend on on the
the different
different seismic
seismic
inputs, the values and distribution of the lateral shear forces may vary significantly.
inputs, the values and distribution of the lateral shear forces may vary significantly. As shown in the As shown in
the graphs of the first column in Figure 6, when the BI structure has a low
graphs of the first column in Figure 6, when the BI structure has a low equivalent damping value, the equivalent damping
value, the envelopes
envelopes of shear of shearfor
forces forces
eachfor selected
each selected ground
ground motion
motion (and,
(and, consequently,the
consequently, the average
average
distribution represented by the bold line) present an almost linear distribution as a result of aa base
distribution represented by the bold line) present an almost linear distribution as a result of base
isolation system.
isolation system. By By increasing
increasing the the damping
damping ratio ratio of
of the
the isolation
isolation systems,
systems, more
more seismic
seismic force
force isis
transferred to
transferred to the
the superstructure.
superstructure. The The contributions
contributions of of the
the higher
higher modes
modes become
become significant
significant inin the
the
upper levels so the normalized lateral shear envelope is more bulged (see third
upper levels so the normalized lateral shear envelope is more bulged (see third column of Figure 6). column of Figure 6).
Moreover, although
Moreover, althoughthe accelerograms
the accelerograms havehave
beenbeen
scaledscaled
to be compatible with a selected
to be compatible with aspectrum,
selected
earthquake excitation characteristics and intensity affect the seismic response
spectrum, earthquake excitation characteristics and intensity affect the seismic response of the of the base isolated
base
isolated buildings as well. The first reason is the significant difference in low- and high- periodcontent
buildings as well. The first reason is the significant difference in low- and high- period energy energy
of the scaled
content of thespectrum. In fact, some
scaled spectrum. of the
In fact, some scaled
of theground
scaledmotions
ground have a large
motions haveamount
a largeofamount
energy of in
the high-frequency range and this can trigger the higher-modes response.
energy in the high-frequency range and this can trigger the higher-modes response. The second The second reason is the
equivalent
reason damping
is the ratio.
equivalent For lowratio.
damping damping values,
For low in a classically
damping values, indamped vibrating
a classically linear
damped system,
vibrating
linear system, all modes tend to be mutually orthogonal [2]. In these cases, the dynamic response
becomes first-mode dominated and the influence of the seismic input becomes negligible.
Buildings 2020, 10, 197 9 of 20

all modes tend to be mutually orthogonal [2]. In these cases, the dynamic response becomes first-mode
dominated
Buildings 2020,and
10, xthe
FORinfluence of the seismic input becomes negligible.
PEER REVIEW 9 of 20

2
Level

1 ξ = 0.065 ξ = 0.127 ξ = 0.321

Tis = 2.0 s Tis = 1.5 s Tis = 2.5 s
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5
Vi/Vb

(a) three-story building

5

4
Level

1 ξ = 0.052 ξ = 0.128 ξ = 0.241

Tis = 2.0 s Tis = 1.5 s Tis = 2.5 s
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5
Vi/Vb

(b) five-story building

7

5
Level

1 ξ = 0.053 ξ = 0.136 ξ = 0.273

Tis = 1.5 s Tis = 2.0 s Tis = 2.5 s
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5
Vi/Vb

(c) seven-story building

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Story shear
Story at each
shear level level
at each obtained from the
obtained NLTH
from the analyses under theunder
NLTH analyses seven the
spectrum-
seven
compatible ground motions
spectrum-compatible groundfor different
motions for base-isolated configurations:
different base-isolated configurations.

3.2.
3.2. Equivalent Distribution of Lateral Forces
The
The equivalent
equivalent static story forces resulting from the the LSA
LSA code
code procedures
procedures are are compared
compared with with
those
those obtained from from NLTH
NLTHanalysis.
analysis.According
Accordingtoto EuroCode
EuroCode 8 and
8 and Italian
Italian Building
Building CodeCode [17,34],
[17,34], the
the LSA equivalent lateral forces are distributed over the height of the building
LSA equivalent lateral forces are distributed over the height of the building in proportion to the story in proportion to the
story
masses. masses.
Conversely,Conversely, in USacodes
in US codes a different
different lateral ispattern
lateral pattern assignedis assigned
based on based on antriangular
an inverted inverted
triangular
distribution distribution of story accelerations.
of story accelerations. The results The ofresults
the NLTH of theanalysis
NLTH analysis
executedexecuted in thiscan
in this study studybe
can be utilized to assess the actual accuracy of the two distributions described
utilized to assess the actual accuracy of the two distributions described by Equation (1) and Equation by Equation (1) and
Equation
(2) in terms (2)of inlateral
terms force
of lateral force distribution
distribution employedemployed in LSA. Specifically,
in LSA. Specifically, the maximum the maximum
values of values
Vi and
of V and F
Fi, analytically
i i , analytically defined by Equations (5) and (6), respectively, can
defined by Equations (5) and (6), respectively, can be determined for each NLTH be determined for each
NLTH
analysis analysis
and the andcorresponding
the corresponding average
average value valuecancan be be determinedfor
determined forthethe seven
seven accelerograms
considered
considered in in this
this study.
study. The
The base
base shear
shear VVbb == V
Vi|i=1 canalso
i|i=1can alsobebedetermined.
determined.
The
The diagrams
diagrams reported
reported in in Figure
Figure77show
show(on (onthe thex-axes)
x-axes)the ratiosVVi /V
theratios i/Vbb (left
(leftcolumn)
column)andandFFi /V
i/Vbb

(right
(right column)
column)for forthe
the three
threebuildings
buildingswith
with3,3,5,5, and
and 77 stories.
stories. It is worth highlighting that the resultingresulting
/Vbb gives
FFii/V gives a clear picture of the resulting seismic seismic lateral
lateral force
force distribution,
distribution, which
which can can be
be deducted
deducted
from
from NLTHNLTHanalyses.
analyses.TheThe
dashed and the
dashed anddash-dotted
the dash-dotted lines reported in the same
lines reported in diagrams
the samecorrespond,
diagrams
correspond, respectively, to the uniform acceleration pattern of Equation (1) and the inverted
triangular distribution of Equation (2).
 Buildings 2020, 10, 197 10 of 20

respectively,
Buildings 2020, 10,tox the
FORuniform acceleration pattern of Equation (1) and the inverted triangular distribution
PEER REVIEW 10 of 20
of Equation (2).

ξ = 0.194 ξ = 0.194
1.00 1.00
ξ = 0.031 ξ = 0.031

0.80 0.80
h i / h tot

0.60 0.60

0.40 ξ = 0.031 0.40

ξ = 0.065
0.20 ξ = 0.110 0.20
ξ = 0.155
ξ = 0.194
0.00 0.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Vi/Vb Fi/Vb

(a) three-story building

1.00 ξ = 0.190 1.00 ξ = 0.190

ξ = 0.048 ξ = 0.048
0.80 0.80
h i / h tot

0.60 0.60

0.40 ξ = 0.048 0.40

ξ = 0.088
0.20 ξ = 0.130 0.20
ξ = 0.145
ξ = 0.190
0.00 0.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Vi/Vb Fi/Vb

(b) five-story building

1.00 ξ = 0.160 1.00 ξ = 0.160

ξ = 0.033 ξ = 0.033
0.80 0.80
h i / h tot

0.60 0.60

0.40 0.40
ξ = 0.033
0.20 ξ = 0.055 0.20
ξ = 0.110
ξ = 0.160
0.00 0.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Vi/Vb Fi/Vb

(c) seven-story building

triangular distribution
uniform distribution

Figure
Figure7.7.Story
Storyshear
shearenvelopes
envelopes(left)
(left)and
andlateral
lateralforce
forcedistributions
distributions(right)
(right)obtained
obtainedfrom
fromthe
theNLTH
NLTH
analysis
analysiscompared
comparedwithwiththe
theequivalent
equivalentdistribution
distributionemployed
employedfor forthe
thelinear
linearstatic
staticanalysis
analysis(LSA)
(LSA)
(uniformand
(uniform andinverted
invertedtriangular).
triangular).

Thesynoptic
The synopticview
view of
of the
the diagrams
diagrams depicted
depictedininFigure
Figure77demonstrates
demonstratesthat the
that thedistributions
distributionsof the
of
maximum story shear-forces obtained from NLTH analysis strongly diverge
the maximum story shear-forces obtained from NLTH analysis strongly diverge from the from the conventional
uniform distribution
conventional as the equivalent
uniform distribution as thedamping in damping
equivalent the isolators increases.
in the isolatorsAincreases.
marked bulge at the
A marked
mid-height
bulge at the of the building,
mid-height duebuilding,
of the to the higher-mode contribution, contribution,
due to the higher-mode is observed with a relatively
is observed high
with a
relatively high value of ξ. Compared with the results of the non-linear analysis, the uniformis
value of ξ. Compared with the results of the non-linear analysis, the uniform distribution approach
distribution approach is substantially unconservative. Conversely, the inverted triangular
distribution shows a relatively good correspondence with the shear at the higher stories for medium-
high damping values although it is too conservative for the lower stories.
Buildings 2020, 10, 197 11 of 20

substantially unconservative. Conversely, the inverted triangular distribution shows a relatively good
correspondence with the shear at the higher stories for medium-high damping values although it is
too conservative for the lower stories.
The results of NLTH analysis confirm that both the uniform and the inverted triangular
distributions are unable to characterize the dynamic behavior of base-isolated building. In fact,
the uniform distribution underestimates the maximum shear forces, especially at the upper stories of
the building, even for relatively low equivalent damping ratio values. On the other hand, the inverted
triangular distribution results too conservative for the typical values of common applications (ξ < 0.20).
However, for very high value of equivalent damping ratio (ξ > 0.30) the triangular distribution leads
to an underestimation of lateral force at the top and the mid height of the building.
Therefore, for typical values of ξ the average of nonlinear results under ground motion records
shows that the real distribution falls between these two extremes.

3.3. Effective Height

To better understand the dynamic behavior of an isolated building, the effective height can
return an appropriate indication about the shear force profile, providing the location of the resultant
equivalent force along the height of the building [37,41,49]:
PNstory
Fi hi
heff = Pi=Nstory
1
(7)
j=1
Fj

Figure 8 presents the effective height related to 3-, 5- and 7-story buildings. It is compared with
that calculated from uniform and inverted triangular distribution. The different configurations are
described in terms of equivalent damping ratio of the isolation systems.
Figure 8 confirms that the dynamic response of base-isolated buildings significantly depends on
the degree of non-linearity of the isolation system. For the three superstructures, higher values of the
equivalent damping ratio cause an increase of the effective height: the resulting horizontal force is
applied at a higher point due to the contribution of higher modes that increase the shear forces at the
top level. The effective height for the uniform distribution is equal to 0.436 h, 0.460 h and 0.471 h for
the 3-, 5-, and 7-story building respectively, while for the inverted triangular distribution it is equal to
0.724 h, 0.693 h and 0.682 h, in the same order.
The values highlight that the uniform distribution of lateral forces over the height of the three
structures always underestimates the inertial forces at the upper levels. By contrast, the inverted
triangular distribution provides conservative values of the shear forces for values of the damping ratio
smaller than 0.30 for 3-story buildings, 0.20 for the 5-story buildings and 0.16 for the 7-story buildings.
It should be noted that structures with more levels and a longer period in fixed-base configurations
show effective heights even greater than the values associated with a uniform distribution. Indeed, the
shear envelope is closer to a triangular distribution than to the uniform one, even for small values of
equivalent damping ratio.
Nevertheless, for relatively high values of ξ also the triangular distributions are not suitable.
The greater effective height implies the base shear distribution is more bulged than triangular
distribution. For completeness, if the damping ratio tends to extreme values, non-linear analyses
provide anomalous values of the effective height that becomes greater than the total height.
 Effective height Effective height Effective height

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
0.01 0.01 0.03
0.02 0.01 0.03
Buildings 2020, 10, 197

0.02 0.01 0.04

0.02 0.03

Figure
0.06
0.02 0.04
0.08
0.03 0.04
0.08
0.04 0.05
0.10
Buildings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW

0.04 0.05
0.06 0.11
0.05

Figure8.8.Normalized
0.06 0.12
0.05
0.07 0.13
0.06
0.08 0.13
0.06

Normalizedeffective
0.09 0.14
0.07
0.09
0.16

triangular distribution
0.07 0.10

effectiveheight
0.07 0.16
0.11
0.08 0.11 0.18

heightofofthe
0.09 0.12 0.19

ξ [-]
ξ [-]

ξ [-]
0.10 0.13 0.19

(b) five-story building

(a) three-story building

(c) seven-story building

thebase
0.10 0.14 0.21
0.11 0.15 0.22
0.12 0.15
0.25

baseisolated
0.13 0.17
0.26
0.14 0.18
0.19 0.26
0.16
0.20 0.30
0.16
0.24 0.31
0.17
0.24 0.32

isolatedconfigurations.
0.17

configurations.
0.25

uniform distribution
0.34
0.20
0.25
0.23 0.40
0.30
0.23 0.41
0.33
0.27 0.34 0.42
0.28 0.40 0.43
0.38 0.41 0.50
12 of 20
12 of 20
Buildings 2020, 10, 197 13 of 20

4. Discussion
The alternative lateral force distributions, available in the literature for the base isolated buildings,
are compared to those used by building codes (uniform and inverted triangular) and to the shear force
profiles obtained from NLTHA, in order to investigate their applicability and accuracy.

4.1. Comparison between Different Lateral Distribution

As reported in Section 1, most of the different formulae, obtained for BI structures, are functions
of the non-linearity properties of the IS and superstructure to adapt to various configurations of BI
Systems [43,44,46,47]. As seen in Section 3, a proper prediction can be obtained only by including the
IS characteristics in the lateral force distributions.
In addition, since the main problem in the triangular distribution is that the entire base shear
is transferred to the superstructure and that the story force at the base level is equal to zero,
some distributions consider the influence of the inertia of the base floor [41–43,46,48]. Indeed,
ignoring this story force in distributing the base-shear forces leads to overestimating the forces at higher
levels and overturning the moment on the structure. Therefore, some authors propose distributions
given by a combination of different modes of vibration or by the union of uniform and triangular shear
profiles, while others include concentrated force at the base level.
In particular, Khoshnoudian et al. [49] and Cardone et al. [47] propose a distribution given by
the combination of the first three simplified modal shape accounting for the superstructure period of
vibration and for the non-linearity of the isolation system. Khoshnoudian et al. [48], Lee et al. [41],
and Tsai et al. [42] proposed a combination of the uniform and linear distributions not considering
the IS characteristics but only the superstructure properties. Since the last formulae, developed for
configurations with almost linear isolation system and isolation periods well-separated from the
superstructure period, provide similar values of story shear, in the following, only the Lee’s formula
will be considered as reference.
In the non-linear distribution proposed by Ryan et al. [43], York et al. [46] and Andriono et al. [44],
the exponent “p” [44] or “k” [43], depending on IS parameters, predict with more accuracy the bulging
shape of the shear envelopes due to the several damping values. In fact, the predicted superstructure
force distribution is strongly influenced by effective damping: as the damping increases, the exponent
value becomes greater and the lateral shear envelope becomes more bulged. For completeness,
the distribution is nearly uniform (exponent tends to zero) for a lightly damped system and more than
linear (exponent is greater than the unit) for a highly damped system.
For the sake of simplicity, the improved force distributions are compared to the existing force
distribution used by the codes in Figure 9. The comparison is carried out for the 3-, 5- and 7-story
prototype buildings, equipped with different isolation systems. In order to make it more meaningful,
any of these IS parameters are compatible with those investigated by other authors in their studies.
The charts in Figure 9 refer to a 3-story (a), a 5-story (b) and a 7-story (c) buildings. For every type
of superstructure two different configurations of IS are considered, the first one with a low value of the
equivalent damping ratio, the second one with a medium-to-high value.
As can be observed, for the base isolated configurations analyzed in this study, only some
formulae can accurately predict the effective distribution of the inertial forces over the height of
the superstructure.
In their studies, Lee et al. [41] and Tsai et al. [42], for instance, refer to an equivalent viscous-elastic
model that describes the isolation system with low degree of non-linearity. For this reason, their formulae
underestimate the shear values at the upper level, especially for highly damped systems. The lateral
force distribution proposed by Andriono and Carr [44,45], instead, tends to overestimate the shear
force at the different levels because at the base story the inertial force is equal to 0.
Also the first formula developed by Khoshnoudian et al. [48] provides values too conservative
for slightly damped systems. It becomes even less accurate for the configurations with a greater
number of stories. For a highly damped system, by contrast, it predicts unsafe values of the story
Buildings 2020, 10, 197 14 of 20

Buildings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 20

shears. The same considerations hold also for the second formula [49]. For the structures under
shears. The same
consideration, the considerations hold also
formula by Cardone et al.for[47]
thedoes
secondnot formula
generally[49].
leadFor the structures
to accurate under
predictions.
consideration,
Conversely, therecent
more formula by Cardone
formulations et al.are
[43,46] [47] does
able not generally
to predict lead to accurate
very accurately the shearpredictions.
force at the
Conversely, more recent formulations [43,46] are able to predict very accurately
different levels of the superstructure. The distribution proposed by them fits the shear the shear force
profile at the
even for
different levels of the superstructure. The distribution proposed by them fits the shear
high values of equivalent coefficient damping ratio. However, while for three- and five-story structures profile even
afor high overlap
perfect values ofcanequivalent
be observedcoefficient
between thedamping
results ratio.
of the However, whileand
NLTH analysis forthat
three- and
of the five-story
LSA, for the
structures a perfect overlap can be observed between the results of the NLTH analysis and
seven-story building their distribution is less accurate and underestimates the shear forces at the upper that of the
LSA, for the seven-story building their distribution is less accurate and underestimates
levels. These results may restrict their applicability for building with a number of stories in accordance the shear
forces
with at international
the the upper levels. These results
regulations may restrict their applicability for building with a number of
[17,20].
stories in accordance with the international regulations [17,20].
3 3
Khoshnoudian et al.
KHOSHNONDI [48]
AN et al.2
Cardoneetetal.al. [47]
CARDONE

Yorketet
YORK al.al. [46]
2 2 Ryanetet
RYAN al. al. [43]
Level

Andrionoetet al. [44]

ANDRIONO
al.
Khoshnoudian et al.
KHOSHNONDI [49]
AN et al.1
Leeet et
LEE al. al. [41]
1 1

0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Vi / Vb Vi / Vb

(a) three-story building

5 5
Khoshnoudian et al. [48]
KHOSHNONDIAN
et al.2
4 4 Cardoneetetal.al. [47]
CARDONE

Yorketetal.al.
YORK [46]
Ryanetet
RYAN al.al. [43]
3 3
Level

Andrionoetetal.al.
ANDRIONO [44]
Khoshnoudian et
KHOSHNONDIAN al. [49]
et al.1
2 2 Leeetet
LEE al. al. [41]

1 1

0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Vi / Vb Vi / Vb

(b) five-story building

7 7
KHOSHNONDIA
6 6 NKhoshnoudian
et al.2 et al. [48]
CARDONE et al.
Cardone et al. [47]
5 5 YORK et al.
York et al. [46]
RYAN
Ryanetetal.al. [43]
4 4
Level

Andrionoetetal.al.
ANDRIONO [44]
3 3 Khoshnoudian et
KHOSHNONDIA al. [49]
N et al.1
Leeetet
LEE al. al. [41]
2 2

1 1

0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Vi / V b Vi / V b

(c) seven-story building

mean ASCE 7-10 [20] EuroCode [17]

Figure 9.
Figure 9. Comparison
Comparisonbetween
betweenthetheseveral
severallateral force
lateral distributions
force available
distributions in the
available literature
in the for for
literature the
prototype BI buildings of three-story (a), five-story (b), seven-story (c) equipped with different
the prototype BI buildings of three-story (a), five-story (b), seven-story (c) equipped with different
isolation systems.
isolation systems.

The effective height is a parameter that makes the shape of the lateral force distribution
immediately understandable. Figure 10 shows a comparison in terms of effective heights for a
configuration of each prototype building considering similar values of the equivalent damping ratio.
 Buildings 2020, 10, 197 15 of 20

Buildings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 20

The effective height is a parameter that makes the shape of the lateral force distribution immediately
understandable.
(a) Figure
Effective height 10 shows a comparison
(b) in terms
Effective of effective heights
height (c) for aEffective
configuration
height
of each
Buildings
Khoshnoudian 2020,
et al. [48] 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 20
prototype building considering similarCardone
Khoshnondian et al.2
Cardone et al. [47]
Cardone et al.
values
Khoshnoudian et al. [48]
et al.et[47]
Cardone al.
of the equivalent damping Cardone
ratio.
Khoshnoudian et al. [48]
et al.et[47]
Cardone al.
York et York
al. [46]
et al. York et al. [46] York et al. [46]
Ryan etRyan
al. [43]
et al. RyanRyan
et al.et[43]
al. RyanRyan
et al.et[43]
al.
Andriono et al. [44]
Andriono et al. Andriono et al. [44] Andriono et al. [44]
Khoshnoudian et(a)
al. [49]
Khoshnondian et al.1 Effective height Khoshnoudian
(b) et al.
Khoshnondian et [49]
al.1 Effective height (c)et al.
Khoshnoudian
Khoshnondian et [49]
al.1 Effective height
Lee et al.
Lee[41]
et al. Lee et al. [41] Lee et al. [41]
Khoshnoudian et al.[20]
ASCE 7-10
ASCE
Khoshnondian [48]
7-10
et al.2 Khoshnoudian
ASCE ASCEet al.
7-10 [48]
[20]
7-10 Khoshnoudian
ASCE et al.
7-10
ASCE [48]
[20]
7-10
Cardone
Eurocode
CEN 98;et 8al.[17]
NTC
Cardone [47]
2018
et al. Cardone
Eurocode et 8al.[17]
Cardone et[47]
al. Cardone
Eurocodeet 8al.[17]
Cardone et[47]
al.
York Median
et York
al. [46]
Median et al. York Median
et al. [46] York Median
et al. [46]
Ryan etRyan
al. [43]
et al. RyanRyan
et al.et[43]
al. RyanRyan
et al.et[43]al.
Andriono et al. [44]
Andriono et al.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Andriono et al. [44] 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Andriono et al. [44] 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Khoshnoudian et al. [49]
Khoshnondian et al.1 Khoshnoudian
Khoshnondian et al.
et [49]
al.1 Khoshnoudian
Khoshnondianet al.
et [49]
al.1
Lee et al.
Lee[41]
et al. Lee et al. [41] Lee et al. [41]
ASCE 7-10
3 storey building; ξ = 0.127 5 storey building; ξ = 0.147 7 storey building; ξ = 0.126
ASCE[20] 7-10 ASCE 7-107-10
ASCE [20] ASCE 7-107-10
ASCE [20]
Eurocode
CEN 98; NTC8 [17]2018 Eurocode 8 [17] Eurocode 8 [17]
Median
Median Median Median
Figure 10.0 Effective0.2
height
0.4
of
0.6
the 0.8
different lateral
0
distribution
0.2 0.4
of0.6shear0.8 force available
0
in0.2literature
0.4
for
0.6 0.8

three different base-isolated

3 storey building; ξ = 0.127
configurations: three-story (a),
5 storey building; ξ = 0.147
five-story (b) and seven-story building
7 storey building; ξ = 0.126
(c).
Figure 10. Effective
Effective height height of of the
the different
different lateral distribution of shear force available in literature for
three different base-isolated
base-isolated configurations:
By comparing the effective heights, for three-story
different configurations: three-story
medium (a),
values(a), five-story
five-story (b)(b)
of equivalent andand seven-story
seven-story
damping building
building
ratio, it (c).
can be
(c).
noted that the distribution proposed by Lee et al. [41] provides an underestimation of the effective
By comparing the effective heights, for medium values of equivalent damping ratio, it can be noted
height, while the formulations suggested by Khoshnoudian et al. [49], York at al. [46] and Andriono
that the distributionthe
By comparing proposed
effectivebyheights,
Lee et al. for[41] provides
medium valuesan underestimation
of equivalent damping of the effective
ratio, it height,
can be
et al. [44] overestimate the shear forces at the upper levels, especially in the cases of three- (a) and
while the formulations suggested by Khoshnoudian et al. [49], York
noted that the distribution proposed by Lee et al. [41] provides an underestimation of the effective at al. [46] and Andriono et al. [44]
five-story (b) buildings. It can be observed again that the equivalent distribution of static forces
overestimate
height, shear forces at
while the formulations the upper
suggested bylevels, especiallyetinal.
Khoshnoudian the cases
[49], York of at
three- (a) and Andriono
al. [46] five-story
proposed by Ryan et al. [43] better predicts the seismic response of the base-isolated buildings.
(b)al.
et buildings. It can be the
[44] overestimate observed again that
shear forces at thetheupper
equivalent
levels,distribution
especially inofthe static forces
cases proposed
of three- (a) and by
Ryan et al.(b)
five-story [43]buildings.
better predicts canthe beseismic response
again of thethe base-isolated
equivalentbuildings.
4.2. Statistical Analysis and ItConsiderations observed that distribution of static forces
proposed by Ryan et al. [43] better predicts the seismic response of the base-isolated buildings.
4.2. The
Statistical
results Analysis and Considerations
of the NLTH analysis have demonstrated that, as expected, the superstructure force
distribution
4.2. Statistical
The resultsis strongly
Analysis influenced
of the and
NLTH by the
Considerations
analysis effective
have damping.that,
demonstrated In fact, an apparent
as expected, the correlation
superstructure betweenforce
the damping
distribution ratio and
is strongly the shape
influenced of the
by the shear envelope
effective can
damping. be observed
In fact, in the
an apparent previous charts (Figures
correlation between
The results of the NLTH analysis have demonstrated that, as expected, the superstructure force
7the
anddamping
8). ratio and the shape of the shear envelope can be observed in the previous charts
distribution is strongly influenced by the effective damping. In fact, an apparent correlation between
Figure
(Figures 11 shows
7 and 8). andthe correlation between the relative error of base shear distribution, obtained
the damping ratio the shape of the shear envelope can be observed in the previous charts (Figures
from Figure
a uniform distribution formula and non-linear dynamic analysis results, and the equivalent
7 and 8). 11 shows the correlation between the relative error of base shear distribution, obtained from
damping
a uniform ratio. For the formula
sake of simplicity, the relative error is reported inandterms of story shear force
Figuredistribution
11 shows the correlation and non-linear
between the dynamicrelative analysis
error of results,
base shear the equivalent
distribution, damping
obtained
(Equation
ratio. aFor 8):
the sakedistribution
of simplicity, the relative
from uniform formula and error is reported
non-linear dynamic in terms of story
analysis shear and
results, forcethe
(Equation
equivalent (8)):
i i
damping ratio. For the sake of simplicity, ithe relative F -
NLTHA error F LSA is reported in terms of story shear force
∆F = Fi − Fi (8)
(Equation 8): ∆Fi = NLTHA Fi LSA LSA (8)
Fi LSA
where i indicates the ith level and FNLTH andi FLSA Fi NLTHA - Fi LSA
represent, respectively, the peak of the story shear
whereobtained
i indicates theNLTHA
ith level and F ∆F =
andforce
FLSA provided
represent, respectively, thedistribution
peak of the forstory (8)th
shear
force from the
NLTH static i
F LSA by the uniform the i-
force
level. obtained from NLTHA and the static force provided by the uniform distribution for the i-th level.
where i indicates the ith level and FNLTH and FLSA represent, respectively, the peak of the story shear
force4.0 obtained from NLTHA and (a) the
5.0 static force provided by (b) the uniform
4.0 distribution for the (c) i-
th

level.3.0 4.0 3.0

Level 7
3.0
2.0 2.0
Level 5 Level 6
2.0
1.0
4.0 (a) 3
Level 5.0 (b) 4
Level 1.0
4.0 (c) 5
Level
ΔF [-]
ΔF [-]

ΔF [-]

1.0
0.0
3.0 Level 2 4.0 Level 3 0.0
3.0 Level 4
0.0 Level 7
Level 1 3.0 Level 2 Level 3
-1.0
2.0 -1.0
2.0
-1.0 Level 5 Level 6
Level 0 2.0 Level 1 Level 2
-2.0
1.0 Level 3 -2.0 Level 4 -2.0
1.0 Level 5
ΔF [-]
ΔF [-]

ΔF [-]

1.0 Level 0 Level 1

-3.0
0.0 Level 2 -3.0 Level 3 -3.0
0.0 Level 4
Level 0
0.0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 Level 1 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 Level 2 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 Level 3
-1.0 -1.0
ξ [-] -1.0 ξ [-] ξ [-]
Level 0 Level 1 Level 2
-2.0 -2.0 -2.0
Level 0 Level 1
Figure 11. Relationship between relative
-3.0 -3.0 error of shear force at the varying -3.0 levels and the equivalentLevel 0
Figure
0.00
11.0.20
Relationship
0.40
between
0.60
relative 0.00
error0.20of shear0.40
force0.60
at the varying 0.00
levels0.20
and the0.40equivalent
0.60
damping ratio for three-story (a), five-story (b), and seven-story (c) buildings.
damping ratioξ [-]for three-story (a), five-story (b), and ξ [-] seven-story (c) buildings. ξ [-]

Figure11.
Figure 10Relationship
shows an almost
between linear correlation
relative between
error of shear thethe
forcethe
at relative
varying error of shear
levels forces and the
Figure 10 shows an almost linear correlation between relative error ofand theforces
shear equivalent
and the
effective damping.
damping Passing
ratio for through
three-story the origin,
(a), five-story the relationship
(b), and highlights the suitability of the uniform
effective damping. Passing through the origin, theseven-story (c) buildings.
relationship highlights the suitability of the
distribution for value of ξ near zero and the inadequacy to describe the seismic response of BI structures
uniform distribution for value of ξ near zero and the inadequacy to describe the seismic response of
evenFigure
for relatively
10 showslowanvalues
almost of linear
the effective damping.
correlation between the relative error of shear forces and the
BI structures even for relatively low values of the effective damping.
effective damping. Passing through the origin, the relationship highlights the suitability of the
It can be observed that the slope of the curves is steeper for the upper levels. The negative slopes
uniform distribution for value of ξ near zero and the inadequacy to describe the seismic response of
of the lower levels, instead, underline that the uniform distribution overestimates the shear force of
BI structures even for relatively low values of the effective damping.
these levels while underestimating those of the upper levels with the increase of the damping.
It can be observed that the slope of the curves is steeper for the upper levels. The negative slopes
of the lower levels, instead, underline that the uniform distribution overestimates the shear force of
Buildings 2020, 10, 197 16 of 20

It can be observed that the slope of the curves is steeper for the upper levels. The negative slopes
of the lower levels, instead, underline that the uniform distribution overestimates the shear force of
these levels while underestimating those of the upper levels with the increase of the damping.
Specifically, for slightly and moderately damped systems, the effective shear envelopes fall
between the two distributions recommended by the building codes, though it should be noted that the
inverted triangular distribution is unconservative for highly damped systems, which tends to increase
the superstructure forces. For this reason, in order to provide an accurate lateral distribution of base
shear over the height of superstructure for LSA procedures and preserve the intrinsic simplicity and
practicality of the method, a simplified formula is proposed by Equation (9), given by the combination
of the two formulae used by building codes [15,18]:

mh m
Fi = δ V P i i  + (1 − δ) V P i  (9)
N N
j=1 mj hj j = 1 mj

The accuracy of this force distribution can be related to an easily interpretable variable: the effective
height of the shear forces. Figure 8 has documented a strong correlation between the effective height
and the degree of non-linearity of the IS, expressed in terms of equivalent damping ratio ξ. For practical
purpose, a linear correlation between the effective height and ξ can be detected:

heff = heff,u + θ ξ (10)

where the heff, u is the effective height assessed for uniform distribution.
Thus, the δ parameters can be derived as a function of the equivalent damping ratio in order to
provide an appropriate effective height for the force distribution.
Since the effective height of the proposed distribution can be easily expressed by Equation (11),
by equalizing Equations (10) and (11), δ can be derived from Equation (12):

heff = heff,u (1 − δ) + heff,t δ (11)

where heff,t is the effective height assessed for triangular distribution.

θ
δ = ξ (12)
heff,u − heff,t

In an idealized configuration, where the story mass is the same at the different levels, heff,u and
heff,t reduces to 0.50 htot and 0.67 htot , respectively. Conversely, the expression of h in Equation (11)
covers the case of more general distribution of lateral forces resulting from the variability of relevant
structural parameters.
As shown in Figure 8, the θ coefficient, instead, depends on the number of stories of the
superstructure. It assumes values ranging from 0.93 (for 3-story buildings) to 1.34 (for 7-story
buildings).

5. Conclusions
This study investigated the validity of linear static analysis (LSA) for BI-structures. Specifically,
equivalent lateral force distributions recommended in structural building codes and proposed in the
literature have been examined to evaluate realistic seismic loads in the preliminary analysis and design
of seismic-isolated structures using simplified procedures.
Based on the comparisons between the story-shear envelopes, obtained from NLTH analyses and
the corresponding shear profiles proposed for LSA, considering the different lateral force distributions,
the following conclusions can be drawn:
Buildings 2020, 10, 197 17 of 20

i. the lateral force distribution currently recommended in EuroCode and NTC 2018, which neglects
the contribution of higher modes, significantly underestimates the shear forces at the upper
levels of the superstructures, even when the IS exhibits weakly non-linear response;
ii. the lateral force distribution proposed by ASCE 7–10 provides results that are too conservative
compared with those of dynamic analyses for low and medium equivalent damping ratios;
iii. the degree of non-linearity of the isolation system strongly influences the seismic response of
the base-isolated buildings. As the equivalent damping ratio increases, the shear envelope
increasingly bulges because of more significant higher mode effects;
iv. some formulations available in the literature provide more accurate predictions of the peak
seismic forces throughout the height of buildings and hence of the lateral force distributions
because of their explicit dependence on IS parameters;
v. an accurate vertical distribution can be achieved as a function of the relevant parameters of the
superstructures and isolation systems;
vi. a simplified formula for the vertical distribution of the base shear, combining both uniform and
linear distributions, is proposed as a function of the equivalent damping ratio (Equation (9));
vii. the formula provides slightly conservative seismic story forces, resulting in a more economic
design compared to the procedure of the ASCE and in a safer method than that proposed in
NTC 2018 for buildings that comply with the codes’ limitation.

Finally, the simplicity of the proposed formulation for determining lateral force distribution in LSA
makes them a valid alternative to more computationally intensive NLTH analyses, with a significant
reduction in time and an easier way to check the physical consistency of the analysis results. However,
further research is needed to verify the general applicability of the proposed equations for different
configurations of base-isolated buildings, including different structural types (e.g., shear-wall systems,
masonry building), and different distributions of structural stiffness over height, as well as for a more
diverse set of seismic records.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, G.B. and E.M.; Data curation, A.Z.; Funding acquisition, F.F.;
Investigation, A.Z.; Methodology, F.F. and G.B.; Resources, E.M.; Supervision, G.B.; Validation, E.M.; Visualization,
A.Z.; Writing—original draft, A.Z.; Writing—review & editing, F.F. and E.M. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The first author’s Ph.D. scholarship is granted by the Italian Ministry for Education, University and
Research (MIUR) as part of the program “Dottorati Innovativi a caratterizzazione industriale”, ID DOT 1328490-2,
funded by the European Union (Structural Funding ERDF-ESF for “Research and Innovation” 2014-2020).
The authors are grateful for the support.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations
Fi equivalent lateral force at the i-th level
mi story mass of the i-th floor
Vb total design base shear force
N number of stories
h i , hj height of the i-th and j-th stories -from the base level
Vi shear force at the i-th level/median peak story shear at the i-th level
G1 , G2 self-weight and permanent loads, respectively
Qk live loads
Ms mass of the superstructure
Mb mass of the base level
Tbf fundamental period of vibration of the superstructure assumed fixed at the base
Teq effective fundamental period of the base isolated building
K 1 , K2 initial stiffness of the isolators, post yield stiffness
α stiffness ratio K2 /k1 - post yield hardening
Q intersection force of hysteresis cycle with vertical axis
Buildings 2020, 10, 197 18 of 20

υ friction coefficient of sliding bearings or friction pendulum bearings (FPB)

W weight supported by the bearings
R effective curvature radius of the concave surface of FPB
Xy , Fy yield displacement and force of the isolators
Xd design displacement demand of the IS effective stiffness center
µ ductility ratio Xd /Xy of the isolators
Keff effective stiffness of the isolation system at a displacement Xd
ξ equivalent damping ratio
Tr reference return period of the design spectrum
ag reference peak ground acceleration on type A ground
g acceleration of gravity
F0 amplification factor of the design spectrum
Tc * period at the end of the constant acceleration branch of the elastic spectrum
Se (T) elastic horizontal ground acceleration response spectrum
SDe (T) elastic displacement response spectrum
heff effective height
heff,u effective height for the uniform lateral forces distribution
heff,t effective height for the inverted triangular lateral forces distribution

References
1. Kelly, J.M.; Skinner, R.I.; Heine, A.J. Mechanisms of energy absorption in special devices for use in earthquake
resistant structures. Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthq. Eng. 1972, 5, 63–88.
2. Naeim, F.; Kelly, J.M. Design of Seismic Isolated Structures; John Wiley & Sons: Wellington, New Zealand, 1999.
3. Komodromos, P. Seismic Isolation of Earthquake-Resistant Structures; WIT Press: Southampton, UK, 2000.
4. Nagarajaiah, S.; Xiaohong, S. Response of Base-Isolated USC Hospital Building in Northridge Earthquake.
J. Struct. Eng. 2000, 126, 1177–1186. [CrossRef]
5. Briseghella, B.; Zordan, T.; Romano, A.; Zambianchi, L.; Simone, G.; Liu, T. Lift-up and base isolation as a
retrofit technique for RC existing building. In Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 24–28 September 2012.
6. Briseghella, B.; Zordan, T.; Mazzarolo, E.; Liu, T. Friction Pendulum System as a Retrofit Technique for
Existing Reinforced Concrete Building. Struct. Eng. Int. 2013, 23, 219–224. [CrossRef]
7. Ferraioli, M.; Mandara, A. Base Isolation for Seismic Retrofitting of a Multiple Building Structure: Evaluation
of Equivalent Linearization Method. Math. Probl. Eng. 2016, 2016, 8934196. [CrossRef]
8. Lignola, G.P.; Di Sarno, L.; Di Ludovico, M.; Prota, A. The protection of artistic assets through the base
isolation of historical buildings: A novel uplifting technology. Mater. Struct. 2015, 49, 4247–4263. [CrossRef]
9. Petrovčič, S.; Kilar, V. Seismic Retrofitting of Historic Masonry Structures with the Use of Base
Isolation—Modeling and Analysis Aspects. Int. J. Arch. Herit. 2016, 11, 229–246. [CrossRef]
10. FIP Industriale SpA—Anti-Sesimic Devices. Available online: https://www.fipindustriale.it/ (accessed on
1 July 2020).
11. Freyssinet Products Company Italia. Available online: http://www.fpcitalia.it/ (accessed on
1 September 2020).
12. Cardone, D.; Dolce, M.; Ponzo, F.C. The behaviour of sma isolation systems based on a full-scale release test.
J. Earthq. Eng. 2006, 10, 815–842. [CrossRef]
13. Fenz, D.M.; Constantinou, M.C. Spherical sliding isolation bearings with adaptive behavior: Theory.
Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2007, 37, 163–183. [CrossRef]
14. Lin, J.; Williams, F. An introduction to seismic isolation. Eng. Struct. 1995, 17, 233–234. [CrossRef]
15. Blagoeva, D.; Hurst, R. Application of the CEN (European Committee for Standardization) small punch
creep testing code of practice to a representative repair welded P91 pipe. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2009, 510,
219–223. [CrossRef]
16. Ryan, K.L.; Chopra, A.K. Estimation of Seismic Demands on Isolators Based on Nonlinear Analysis.
J. Struct. Eng. 2004, 130, 392–402. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2020, 10, 197 19 of 20

17. CEN ENV-1-1 European Committee for Standardization. Part 1.1: General rules, seismic actions and rules
for buildings. In Eurocode 8: Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures; CEN ENV-1-1 European
Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 1998.
18. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). UBC: Earthquake regulations for seismic isolated
structures. In Uniform Building Code; International Conference of Building Officials: Whittier, CA, USA, 1997.
19. Federal Emergency Management Agency. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings;
Federal Emergency Management Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 1997; Volume FEMA.
20. American Society of Civil Engineers. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures; ASCE/SE I
7-10 Standard; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2010.
21. Ozdemir, G.; Constantinou, M.C. Evaluation of equivalent lateral force procedure in estimating seismic
isolator displacements. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2010, 30, 1036–1042. [CrossRef]
22. Hwang, J.S.; Sheng, L.H. Effective Stiffness and Equivalent Damping of Base Isolated Bridges. J. Struct. Eng.
1993, 119, 3094–3101. [CrossRef]
23. Liu, T.; Zordan, T.; Briseghella, B.; Zhang, Q. Evaluation of equivalent linearization analysis methods for
seismically isolated buildings characterized by SDOF systems. Eng. Struct. 2014, 59, 619–634. [CrossRef]
24. Dicleli, M.; Buddaram, S. Equivalent linear analysis of seismic-isolated bridges subjected to near-fault ground
motions with forward rupture directivity effect. Eng. Struct. 2007, 29, 21–32. [CrossRef]
25. Nagarajaiah, S.; Reinhorn, A.M.; Constantinou, M.C. 3D-basis: Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of
Three-Dimensional Base Isolated Structures: Part II; Technical Report; NCEER-89-0019; University at Buffalo:
Buffalo, NY, USA, 1989.
26. Ramirez, C.M.; Miranda, E. Simplified analysis for preliminary design of base-isolated structures.
In Proceedings of the 2007 Structures Congress: New Horizons and Better Practices, Long Beach, CA,
USA, 16–19 May 2007; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 2007.
27. Lin, Y.; Miranda, E.; Chang, K.-C. Evaluation of damping reduction factors for estimating elastic response of
structures with high damping. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2005, 34, 1427–1443. [CrossRef]
28. Hwang, J.S. Evaluation of Equivalent Linear Analysis Methods of Bridge Isolation. J. Struct. Eng. 1996, 122,
972–976. [CrossRef]
29. Franchin, P.; Monti, G.; Pinto, P.E. On the accuracy methods for the analysis of isolated bridges. Earthq. Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 2001, 30, 363–382. [CrossRef]
30. Jara, M.; Casas, J.R. A direct displacement-based method for the seismic design of bridges on bi-linear
isolation devices. Eng. Struct. 2006, 28, 869–879. [CrossRef]
31. Bhandari, M.; Bharti, S.D.; Shrimali, M.K.; Datta, T.K. Assessment of proposed lateral load patterns in
pushover analysis for base-isolated frames. Eng. Struct. 2018, 175, 531–548. [CrossRef]
32. Matsagar, V.; Jangid, R. Influence of isolator characteristics on the response of base-isolated structures.
Eng. Struct. 2004, 26, 1735–1749. [CrossRef]
33. Mavronicola, E.; Komodromos, P. Assessing the suitability of equivalent linear elastic analysis of seismically
isolated multi-story buildings. Comput. Struct. 2011, 89, 1920–1931. [CrossRef]
34. Italian Ministry of Infrastructures and Transport. NTC 2018: Aggiornamento delle Norme Tecniche per le
Costruzioni; Gazzetta Ufficiale Serie Generale: Rome, Italy, 2018. (In Italian)
35. International Code Council (ICC). IBC; International Code Council: Falls Church, VA, USA, 2000.
36. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Construction of the People’s Republic of China. GB50011 Code for
Seismic Design of Buildings; China Building Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2010.
37. Lee, D.M.; Medland, I.C. Base isolation-an historical development, and the influence of higher mode
responses. Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthq. Eng. 1978, 11, 219–233.
38. Baghaei, H.; Razani, R. Comparative Study of Linear and Nonlinear Seismic Behavior of Non-Isolated,
Base-Isolated and Top Floor (TMD-Type) Isolated Structural Frames. Civ. Eng. Arch. 2019, 7, 5–16. [CrossRef]
39. Rofooei, F.R.; Ebrahimi, M. Evaluation of the Vertical Distribution of Base Shear Force in Base-Isolated
Structures. Sci. Iran. 1997, 14, 11.
40. Mayes, R.L.; Naeim, F. Design of Structures with Seismic Isolation. In The Seismic Design Handbook; Springer:
Boston, MA, USA, 2001; pp. 723–755.
41. Lee, D.-G.; Hong, J.-M.; Kim, J. Vertical distribution of equivalent static loads for base isolated building
structures. Eng. Struct. 2001, 23, 1293–1306. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2020, 10, 197 20 of 20

42. Tsai, C.S.; Chen, B.-J.; Chiang, T.-C. Experimental and computational verification of reasonable design
formulae for base-isolated structures. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2003, 32, 1389–1406. [CrossRef]
43. Ryan, K.L.; York, K. Vertical Distribution of Seismic Forces for Simplified Design of Base-Isolated Buildings.
New Horiz. Better Pract. 2007, 1–10. [CrossRef]
44. Andriono, T.; Carr, A.J. Reduction and distribution of lateral seismic inertia forces on base-isolated multistory
structures. Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthq. Eng. 1991, 24, 225–237.
45. Andriono, T.; Carr, A.J. A simplified earthquake resistant design method for base-isolated multistory
structures. Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthq. Eng. 1991, 24, 238–250.
46. York, K.; Ryan, K.L. Distribution of Lateral Forces in Base-Isolated Buildings Considering Isolation System
Nonlinearity. J. Earthq. Eng. 2008, 12, 1185–1204. [CrossRef]
47. Cardone, D.; Dolce, M.; Gesualdi, G. Lateral force distributions for the linear static analysis of base-isolated
buildings. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2009, 7, 801–834. [CrossRef]
48. Khoshnoudian, F.; Mehrparvar, B. Evaluation of IBC equivalent lateral response procedure for base shear
distribution of seismic isolated-structures. J. Earthq Eng. 2008, 12, 681–703. [CrossRef]
49. Khoshnoudian, F.; Nozadii, O. Effects of higher modes on vertical distribution of isolated structures under
near field earthquakes. Int. J. Civ. Eng. 2013, 11, 115–124.
50. Petrini, L.; Maggi, C.; Priestley, M.J.N.; Calvi, G.M. Experimental Verification of Viscous Damping Modeling
for Inelastic Time History Analyzes. J. Earthq. Eng. 2008, 12, 125–145. [CrossRef]
51. Ryan, K.L.; Polanco, J. Problems with Rayleigh Damping in Base-Isolated Buildings. J. Struct. Eng. 2008, 134,
1780–1784. [CrossRef]
52. Hall, J.F. Problems encountered from the use (or misuse) of Rayleigh damping. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn.
2006, 35, 525–545. [CrossRef]
53. Mazza, F.; Labernarda, R. Effects of nonlinear modelling of the base-isolation system on the seismic analysis
of r.c. buildings. Procedia Struct. Integr. 2018, 11, 226–233. [CrossRef]
54. Park, Y.J.; Wen, Y.K.; Ang, A.H.S. Random vibration of hysteretic systems under bi-directional ground
motions. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1986, 14, 543–557. [CrossRef]
55. Kikuchi, M.; Aiken, I. An analytical hysteresis model for elastomeric seismic isolation bearings. Earthq. Eng
Struct. Dyn. 1997, 26, 215–231. [CrossRef]
56. Koo, G.-H.; Lee, J.-H.; Yoo, B.; Ohtori, Y. Evaluation of laminated rubber bearings for seismic isolation using
modified macro-model with parameter equations of instantaneous apparent shear modulus. Eng. Struct.
1999, 21, 594–602. [CrossRef]
57. Rosenblueth, E.; Herrera, I. On a kind of hysteretic damping. J. Eng. Mech. Div. 1964, 90, 37–48.
58. Iervolino, I.; Galasso, C.; Cosenza, E. REXEL: Computer aided record selection for code-based seismic
structural analysis. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2009, 8, 339–362. [CrossRef]

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).