ENGINEERING COLLEGE BIKANER

MINI PROJECT REPORT

BUILDINGS WITH BASE ISOLATION TECHNIQUES
STUDENT NAME :- HIMANSHU BISHNOI
ROLL NO.:- 16EEBCE020

Base isolation (BI) system for buildings is introduced to decouple the building structure from potentially damaging
induced by earthquake motion, preventing the building superstructures from absorbing the earthquake energy
 PROJECT REPORT

BUILDINGS WITH BASE ISOLATION TECHNIQUES

HIMANSHU BISHNOI

Roll No. 16EEBCE020

Civil Engineering Department, Engineering College Bikaner , Rajasthan, INDIA

ABSTRACT
Base isolation (BI) system for buildings is introduced to decouple the
building structure from potentially damaging induced by earthquake motion,
preventing the building superstructures from absorbing the earthquake
energy. The mechanism of the base isolator increases the natural period of
the overall structure, and decreases its acceleration response to earthquake /
seismic motion. A steel building with structural rubber bearing is introduced
throughout this study. The study analysis performed to check for the
adequacy of the base isolation against building lateral drift and inter-story
drift as per allowance in National Building Code of Canada 2010. Two
buildings were analyzed using the nonlinear time history response analysis
using the dynamic MODAL analysis for fixed base (FB) building, and
Isolated base (IB) building with rubber bearing. The analysis represents a
case study for symmetric steel building to show the ultimate capacity of the
selected structural bearing, and to make a comparison for the difference
between the isolated base and the fixed base buildings. Initial results show
that the presence of the structural rubber bearing reduces significantly the
vertical displacement, moment and shear generated for the same mode.

Keywords: building, base isolation, rubber bearing, earthquake, dynamics, time history response
INTRODUCTION
Base isolation (BI) is a mechanism that provides earthquake resistance
to the new structure. The BI system decouple the building from the
horizontal ground motion induced by earthquake, and offer a very stiff
vertical components to the base level of the superstructure in connection to
substructure (foundation). It shifts the fundamental lateral period, Ta,
dissipates the energy in damping, and reduces the amount of the lateral
forces that transferred to the inter-story drift, and the floor acceleration. The
Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEONC) published
a simple regulation titled “Tentative Isolation Design Requirements” in
1986, which later was added as provisions in the Uniform Building Code
1997, FEMA 273 with exception of permit to pushover, and International
Building Code IBC2000.
The structural bearing criteria include vertical and horizontal loads, lateral
motion, and lateral rotation that transferred from the superstructure into the
bearing and from the bearing to
substructure. Bearing allows for stress-free support of the structure in terms
of (1) rotation in all directions, (2) deformation in all directions, (3) take
horizontal forces (wind, earthquake). Reducing the effect of the horizontal
forces generated from wind pressure or earthquake load is of great concern
to designers. The structural bearing technique is one of those tools to reduce
the lateral displacement of the building, to increase the structural safety, and
to increase the human comfort during the occurrence of such event. This
study tries of clarify the advantage of the base isolation technique with
respect to buildings since only few researches were done into this area.
Figure 1 shows the schematic diagram for the design process for building
against earthquake loading as governed by the National Building Code of
Canada 2010 part 4. Clause 4.1.1.4 in NBCC 2010 specifies that buildings
and their structural members shall be designed by one of the following
methods (i) analysis based on generally established theory, (ii) evaluation of
a given full-scale structure or a prototype by loading tester or (iii) studies of
model analogues. Throughout this model analogue study the selected
building height will be less than 60 m for regular shape building.
For earthquake resistant construction using base isolation [Raufaste,
1992] it was found that more attention should be paid to four points: 1.
preparation of guidelines for evaluation and approval of base isolation
structures; 2. preparation of guidelines related to the performance of base
isolation devices; 3. facilities to encourage exchange, collection and
dissemination of technical information on the response-control structure; and
4. study of methods of evaluation of performance of response-control
structures. A study run by Sener and Utku for the active-passive base-
isolation systems used for the seismic response control of structures appears
to be effective for small to medium strength earthquakes. Hybrid base
isolation systems, which use an active system together with the passive base
isolation system, may be used to control the response of structures subjected
to larger ground motions created by larger magnitude earthquakes. The
hybrid base isolation system using passive base isolation pads together with
hydraulic type actuators is proposed. The system, placed between the
foundation of the building and its superstructure, is used to minimize the
forces imposed on the superstructure by the earthquake induced ground
motion [Sener and Utku, 1995, 1996, 1998; Pozo et al., 2005]. In application
for the base-isolation system, the Historical buildings have relatively low
height, are usually massive and their natural vibration period is rather low.
Hence if such buildings are located in a seismically active region, using base
isolation systems will be a very effective way for improving their dynamic
response. In some cases the displacements at the base isolation level are
rather big and exceed the allowed limits. In such cases it is recommended to
add dampers to the base isolation system [Iskhakov and Ribakov, 2007].
Analytical seismic responses of structures retrofitted using base isolation
devices are investigated by Matsagar and Jangid for the retrofitting of
various important structures as historical buildings, bridges, and liquid
storage tanks are selected to investigate the effectiveness of the base
isolation in seismic retrofitting. It is observed that the seismic response of
the retrofitted structures reduces significantly in comparison with the
conventional structures depicting effectiveness of the retrofitting done
through the base isolation technique [Matsagar, and Jangid 2008]. Chia-
Ming and Spencer presented development and experimental verification of
an active base isolation system for a seismically excited building and
modeling the complex nature of control-structure interaction (CSI) [Chia-
Ming and Spencer, 2010]. Jung et al. investigated a smart base-isolation
system using magnetorheological (MR) elastomers, which are
a new class of smart materials whose elastic modulus or stiffness can be
adjusted depending on the magnitude of the applied magnetic field. The
results further suggest that the feasibility of using MR elastomers as variable
stiffness elements for enhancing the performance of conventional base-
isolation systems [Jung et al. 2011]. Zhang et al. studied the influence of the
action of coupling earthquake to sliding base-isolation structure for 6 story
building. The results by exemplification show that the peak values of relative
acceleration, relative displacement and inter-storey shear force of sliding
base-isolation structure increase in different degree under the action of
coupling earthquake [Zhang et al., 2011]. Regarding the slide-limited
friction base isolation technology, Zhao and Ma studied the total restoring
force model of isolation device. They analyzed the influential factors such as
friction coefficient, elastic stiffness and yield displacement of displacement-
constraint device on base isolation system [Zhao and Ma 2011]. Spyrakos et
al. investigated and developed 2-DOF (degree-of-freedom) for the effect of
soil- structure interaction (SSI) on the response of the base isolated
multistory building founded on elastic soil layer overlaying rigid bedrock
and subjected to harmonic ground motion [Spyrakos et al. 2009]. Li & Wu
investigated the limitation of height-to-width ration (HWR) for base-isolated
building with elastomeric rubber bearing. It was found that the isolated
building with longer period may have a relatively HWR value: and the
stiffness of the superstructure affects HWR limit value little [Li and Wu
2006]. The main two key conditions, which determine the HWR limit for an
isolated structure, are: (1) the outermost rubber pads of the isolated layer
cannot bear tensile force; (2) the compressive force that the outermost rubber
pads bear cannot exceed their ultimate antipressure strength.
The main objectives of this study work can be stated as follow: (1) To
contribute to the efficient design of structural base isolated techniques for
buildings, (2) To model and investigate a behavior of building with base
isolation.
 BUILDING DESCRIPTION

A two story building made of steel structure [SAP2000 Help, Example

O], as shown in Figure 2, with 3 bays of 30 feet in each direction; the story
height is 12 feet, as shown in Figure
The structural steel has the following spec; the modulus of elasticity E = 29000
ksi (A992Fy50), Poisson ratio equals to 0.3, the beam section is W24x55, the
column section is W14x90. The horizontal slabs are reinforced concrete of
4000 psi and 6 in, 10 in of thickness for the roof and the floor respectively. The
vertical loads for roof is 75 psf for the dead load (DL) and 20 psf for live load
(LL), while for the floor is 125 psf for DL, and 100 psf for LL.

Table 1. High damping bearing Properties

Vertical (axial) stiffness 10,000 k/in

(linear)
Initial shear stiffness in each direction 10 K/in
Shear yield force in each direction 5 kips
Ratio of post yield shear stiffness to initial shear 0.2
stiffness

Diaphragm constraints at each level are assigned to make all diaphragm

rigid. This project was subjected to nonlinear time history analysis, where
seismic load (Multi-Modal Pushover) is applied by SAP2000 for lacc_nor-1
file data in the X-direction and lacc_nor-2 file data in the Y- direction
simultaneously. Each time history is given in units of cm/sec 2, where there
are 3000
time steps, at equal spacing of 0.02 sec, for total of 60 sec. There are 8
acceleration points per line. This building is analyzed under two cases; case
1 with fixed base, and case 2 with isolated base. The rubber isolator has
specification listed in Table 1.

ISOLATED BASE BUILDING

The base isolation extends the fundamental lateral period resulting in

reducing the base shear forces, enhancing the total building drift to the total
height and the inter-story drift if compared with the conventional
foundations [Chopra, 2001; Tedesco et al., 1998; Eggert and Kauschke,
2002]. Figure 3.a depicts the time response history for column B.1 with its
three joints; Joint 13-15, the figure shows that the column from the base to
the roof level moves laterally in a same rate, thus no deflection occurs at the
joint 14, Figure 3.b depicts the B.1 column movement with respect to the
base, and shows that to great extent the column move with base in same
direction. It is worth mention that the change in the fundamental period
changes the moment, and consequently changes the building deformation
shape. It was observed that with the decrease of the natural period, the
structure laterally deforms more. The plastic hinge showed up at the fourth
and fifth period.

FIXED BASE BUILDING

The fixed base for the steel columns relies on the steel plate and
anchored bolts connection, where the reduce of the fundamental lateral
period resulted into increase of the base shear forces, increase of the total
building drift to the total height and the inter-story drift if compared with the
base-isolated foundations. Figure 4.a depicts the time response history for
column B.1 with its three joints; Joint 13-15, the figure shows that the
column from the base to the roof level moves laterally in an independent
rate, thus deflection occurs at the joint 14, Figure
4.b depicts the B.1 column movement with respect to the base, and shows
that Joint 13 move the base while joint 14, and 15 move independently. It is
worth mention that the change in the fundamental period changes the
moment values, and consequently changes the building deformation shapes.
It was observed that with the decrease of the period, the structure laterally
deforms more, with higher rate than that of the base isolated building. The
plastic hinge location appeared from the first mode and change by the
change in MODAL period. It can be located at any point along the span of
member as well as the end of the member.

COMPARISON OF EVALUATION RESULTS

The fundamental lateral period was solved using the finite element
analysis (FEA) software, SAP2000 Ver. 14.1. Table 2 shows that the
fundamental period (T) and the corresponding frequency (ƒ=1/T) for the
Modal participating mass ratio (MPMR) solved for Ritz Vector Analysis for
the steel building under investigation in this study which has two scenarios;
(a) fixed base, and (b) the isolated base. It was found that the natural period
for the isolated base is higher than that of the fixed base by 5.699, 6.337,
6.895, 1.64, 1.766 times for Modal 1 through 5 respectively. The first three
modes were significantly higher, where they absorb more than 95% of the
earthquake-induced load [Taranath, 2005]. Figure 5, shows the natural
vibration modes for the isolated base and fixed base building against the
lateral displacement.
 Moment and shear forces generated from each mode are of great
concern to designers, to predict the failure modes, progressive collapse of
the building, or to add extra bracing to resist such lateral loading.

Table 2. Modal participating mass ratio (MPMR) for fixed and

isolated base building

Mod Period, T [seconds] Frequency, ƒ [Hz]

al Fixed Isolated Fixed Isolated
Mod Base Base Base Base
e
1 0.49310 2.81065 2.0279 0.35578
2 0.35973 2.79750 2.7799 0.35746
3 0.35117 2.42137 2.8476 0.41298
4 0.19916 0.32664 5.0211 3.06147
5 0.14006 0.24728 7.1397 4.04399
Where ƒ ≥ 1 Hz for rigid building, ƒ < 1 Hz for flexible building

Table 3 analyzes the moment (M) and shear (V) values for column B.1 and
its 3 joints under five different MODAL periods (modes) for minor (V3,
M2) and major (V2, M3). Selection the moment and shear values for the
roof, it was found that the moment for the fixed base building is higher than
that of the isolated base building by 51.38, 20455, 0.31, 2.34 and 2.23 for
mode 1
through 5 respectively for the minor (M2), and 70, 106, 66, 13.7, and 2.289
for mode 1 through 5 respectively for the major (M3). Hence the base
isolation enhances the building capacity to resist the earthquake-induced
load, and that reduction in moment could be used towards reducing the
selection members sizes, reducing the total building weight and cost, after
considering the new mass of the building.

Drift is another point of interest to designers and must conform to

code requirements. Table 4 shows the deflections in x, y, z directions for the
edge column B.1 under the different 5 MODAL (periods) for the fixed base
and the isolated base building. The major observation to this table is that the
deflection for the base isolated building doesn’t start from zero, thus reduces
significantly the drift index for the building. For example in studying the
drift index (DI) for MODAL mode 1, the drift index for the isolated base =
(0.46999” – 0.4518”)/288” = 0.063159E- 3 in, while for the fixed base
building DI = (0.7459” – 0”)/288” = 2.589E-3 in, which means that the
deflection in base isolated building is less by 40.99 times than that of the
conventional fixed structure. It worth mention that the building efficiency is
measured by four factors; the shear rigidity index (SRI), bending rigidity
index (BRI), the drift index (DI) and the inter-story drift (ISD) [Taranath,
2005], where the last two criterions can be expressed as following:

[1] ⁄

[2] ⁄

Where Δn is the deflection at the floor; H i is the total height of the building, h i is the
floor height.

The joint reactions in Table 5 are obtained using modal combination applied
individually
to each joint. The joint reactions are represented as R i,m where is (i) is for
the direction, and (m) for mode. The total reaction follows this equation
 [3] √∑

For example the joint reaction, for the isolated base building in X-direction
equals to SQRT (0.6842+0.7482+0.8672) = 1.33 kips, while for the fixed base
building it is equal to SQRT (3.134E-22+37.0542+34.0762+8.258E-
32+66.9032) = 83.727 kips. Apparently, the joint reaction in fixed base
building for column B.1 in X-direction is higher by 62.95 times than that of
the base isolated building. While the base reactions for response spectrum
are computed for each mode and then the modes are combined using
complete quadratic combination (CQC) or square root of sum of squares
(SRSS) modal combination rule:

[4] ∑

[5] √∑

Where for the base reaction, all joint reactions from all columns must be computed
[CSI, 2012].

Alternative simplified analysis simulating the dynamic response of

multi-story building can be done by converting the multi-degree of freedom
(MDOF) system to Single-degree of freedom (SDOF) system once the
equivalent mass and stiffness is obtained [Taranath, 2005].

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the theoretical and modeling findings, the following conclusions can be
drawn:
 The main observation from the modeling study on the accuracy of seismic
effect and lateral load patterns utilized in the Multi-Modal Pushover analysis
(MPA) in predicting earthquake effect showed that the accuracy of the
pushover results depends strongly on the earthquake load path, properties of
the structure and the characteristics of the ground motion.
 The lateral deflection for MDOF for multi-story building can be
represented as SDOF once the equivalent mass and stiffness is
obtained.
 The plastic hinge location varies by the type of loading, and the
change in MODAL period. It can be located at any point along the
span of member as well as the end of the member.
 Drift index and inter-story drift should be predicted using the multi-
modal (SRSS) and the elastic first mode with long period for the
lateral load pattern which corresponds to the average in most cases.
 Base-isolated structure exhibit less lateral deflection, as the lateral
displacement at the base never equals to zero, and less moment values
than the fixed base structure.
 The base isolation decouples the building from the earthquake-
induced load, and maintain longer fundamental lateral period than that
of the fixed base.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Mr Prashant Bhakar for his helpful directions

during the course of this Project. I also appreciate the support from ; library
for support and making the available database for literature review and civil
engineering department for offering the SAP2000 (Ver. 14) to run the modal
analysis.

REFERENCES

Chia-Ming, C. and Spencer Jr., B. F. (2010). "An Experimental Study of

Active Base Isolation Control for Seismic Protection," in Sensors and
Smart Structures Technologies for Civil, Mechanical, and Aerospace
Systems, 8-11 March, USA, p. 76473V (12 pp.).
Chopra, A.R. (2001). “Dynamics of structures.” Prentice-Hall, New Jersy, USA.
CSI. (accessedMarch 2012). “Base reactionsfor response spectrum,”
website:
https://wiki.csiberkeley.com/display/kb/Base+reactions+for+response
+spectrum+analysis
.
Eggert, H., Kauschke, W. (2002). “Structural Bearings,” Ernst & Sohn, Germany.
FEMA. (1997). “NEHRP Guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings, FEMA 273.” Federal Emergency Management Agency,
California, USA
Jung, H.-J.: Seung-Hyun, E.: Dong-Doo, J.: Jeong-Hoi, K. (2011). "Seismic
performance analysis of a smart base-isolation system considering
dynamics of MR elastomers." 55 City Road, London, EC1Y 1SP,
United Kingdom, pp. 1439-1450.
International Code Council. (2000). “International Building Code.” ICC Inc.,
Country Club Hills, IL, USA.
International Conference of Building Officials. (1997). “Uniform Building
Code.” ICBO, Whittier, California, USA.
Iskhakov, I. and Ribakov, Y. (2007). "Modern trends in base isolation
applications for seismic protection of historic buildings." in 10th
International Conference on Studies, Repairs and Maintenance of
Heritage Architecture, STREMAH 2007, June 4, 2007 - June 6, 2007,
Prague, Czech republic, pp. 623-632.
Li, H.-N, and Wu, X.-X. (2006). “Limitation of height-to-width ration for
base-isolated buildings under earthquake.” Structural Design of Tall
Special Building, vol. 15, pp. 277-287.
Matsagar, V. A. and Jangid, R. S. (2008). "Base isolation for seismic
retrofitting of structures." Practice Periodical on Structural Design and
Construction, Vol. 13, pp. 175-185.
National Research Council of Canada. (2010). “National Building Code of
Canada.” NRCC, Ottawa, Canada.
Pozo, F., Ikhouane, F., and Pujol, G. (2006). “Adaptive backstepping control
of hysteretic based- isolated structures.” Journal of Vibration and
Control, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 373-394.
Raufast, N.J. (1992). “Earthquake resistant construction using base
isolation.” U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration,
National Institute of Standards and Technology, USA.
Sener, M. and Utku, S. (1995). "Active-passive base isolation system for
seismic response controlled structures." in Proceedings of the 36th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and
Materials Conference and AIAA/ASME Adaptive Structures Forum.
Part 1 (of 5), April 10- 13, New Orleans, LA, USA, pp. 2350-2359.
Sener, M. and Utku, S. (1996). "Control of torsional modes in buildings
under seismic excitation by adaptive base isolation." Smart Structures
and Materials 1996: Passive Damping and Isolation, Febrary 26-27,
San Diego, CA, USA, pp. 145-156.
Sener, M. and Utku, S. (1998). "Adaptive base isolation system for the
control of seismic energy flow into buildings." Journal of Intelligent
Material Systems and Structures, vol. 9, pp. 104-15.
Spyrakos, C.C.: Koutromanos, I.A.: Maniatakis, Ch.A. (2008). “Seismic
response of base-isolated buildings including soil-structure interaction.”
Soil dynamics and earthquake engineering, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 658-668.
Structural Engineers Association of Northern California. (1986). “Tentative
Isolation Design Requirements, Blue book.” SEONC, California, USA.
Taranath, B.S. (2005). “Wind and Earthquake Resistant Buildings: structural
analysis and design.” Marcel Dekker, New York, USA.
Tedesco, J.W., McDougal, W.G., and Ross C.A. (1998). “Structural
dynamics: Theory and applications.” Prentice Hall, USA.
Zhang Y.: Yuanging, W: Yongjiu, S. (2011). "Parameters optimization of
sliding base-isolation structure under the action of coupling
earthquake." 1st International Conference on Civil Engineering,
Architecture and Building Materials, CEABM, June 18- 20, Haikou,
China, pp. 4021-4027.
Zhao, G.-F. and Ma, Y.-H. (2011). "Parameters study of rural buildings
structures supported on slide-limited friction base isolation system."
Journal of Vibration and Shock, vol. 30, pp. 148-152.
 Table 3. Modal moment and shear values for edge column B.1
Modal 1 Modal 2 Modal 3 Modal 4 Modal 5
H
Moment Shear Moment Shear Moment Shear Moment Shear Moment Shear

288 10.95 -0.146 -0.012 2.4E-4 -3.452 0.047 1104.155 -15.399 -423.458 5.990
144 -10.06 -0.146 0.022 2.4E-4 3.375 0.047 -1110.116 -15.399 437.875 5.990
(V3 ,
M2)
Minor

144 29.27 -0.411 -0.035 5.2E-4 -8.186 0.115 1431.488 -20.376 -536.685 7.627
Isolated-Base

0 -29.27 -0.411 0.040 5.2E-4 8.403 0.115 -1502.657 -20.376 561.644 7.627
Major (V2, M3)

288 4.5E-3 2.3E-4 14.804 -0.19 22.168 -0.28 -0.246 0.022 2765.094 -37.176
144 0.038 2.3E-4 -12.55 -0.19 -18.120 -0.28 2.864 0.022 -2588.261 -37.176
144 -0.086 1.4E-3 32.193 -0.457 49.083 -0.698 -4.993 0.072 3107.763 -45.283
0 0.112 1.4E-3 -33.644 -0.457 -51.388 -0.698 5.389 0.072 -3413.022 -45.283

288 562.661 -7.645 245.464 -3.435 1.067 -0.023 -2586.53 38.47 944.549 -13.976
Minor (V3 ,

144 -538.23 -7.645 -249.23 -3.435 -2.209 -0.023 2921.005 38.47 -1068.03 -13.976
M2)

144 1133.21 -16.52 403.782 -5.849 2.217 -0.023 1862.977 -25.378 -691.367 9.451
0 -1245.9 -16.52 -438.537 -5.849 -1.082 -0.023 -1791.469 -25.378 669.645 9.451
Fixed-
Base

Major (V2, M3)

288 -0.315 0.021 -1569.76 20.652 -1477.367 19.656 3.372 -0.038 -6329.895 94.133
144 2.776 0.021 1404.129 20.652 1353.073 19.656 -2.092 -0.038 7225.272 94.133
144 -3.192 0.031 -2430.91 37.054 -2251.606 34.076 0.841 -8.2E-3 4966.383 -66.903
0 1.321 0.031 2904.872 37.054 2655.291 34.076 -0.348 -8.2E-3 -4667.693 -66.903

H is the building height in [in], M is the moment in [kip-in], V is the shear force in [kip
 Table 4. Joint displacement in column B.1

Modal Joint Fixed Base Isolated Base

Mode [Height] U1 U2 U3 U1 U2 U3
15 [288] -9.2E-14 -0.7459 -0.0032 -2.2E-11 -0.4699 -0.0001
1 14 [144] -5.4E-14 -0.4597 -0.0025 -2.2E-11 -0.4642 -0.0001
13 [0.00] 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.2E-11 -0.4518 -4.8E-5

15 [288] 0.8412 -0.2804 -0.0026 -0.4659 1.9E-11 2.3E-5

2 14 [144] 0.4806 -0.1602 0.0021 -0.4625 1.8E-11 2.1E-5
13 [0.00] 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.456 1.8E-11 1.1E-5

15 [288] 0.7684 1.6E-13 -0.0013 -0.5141 0.1714 6.7E-5

3 14 [144] 0.4362 9.0E-14 -0.001 -0.5088 0.1696 6.0E-5
13 [0.00] 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.4987 0.1662 2.9E-5

15 [288] 1.19E-14 0.5858 0.0073 -3.3E-14 -0.6543 -0.0086

4 14 [144] -1.03E-14 0.5853 0.0043 -1.8E-15 -0.1044 -0.0073
13 [0.00] 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.6E-14 0.5306 -0.0031

15 [288] 0.6114 -0.2038 -0.0062 -0.727 0.2423 0.0066

5 14 [144] -0.6612 0.2204 -0.0034 -0.1064 0.0355 0.0056
13 [0.00] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0025 -0.1926 0.5778

Where U1, U2, U3 are displacement in x, y, z directions respectively in [in]; Height in [in]

Table 5. Joint reactions for column B.1 at the base (Joint 13)

Joint reaction [kip]

Structure Type Type
1 2 3
Modal1 0.000 0.678 0.480
Modal 2 0.684 0.000 -0.108
Modal 3 0.748 -0.249 -0.291
Isolated Base
Modal 4 0.000 -0.796 31.454
Modal 5 -0.867 0.289 -24.722
Gravity 0.000 0.000 361.487
Modal 1 -3.134E-2 16.522 13.514
Modal 2 37.054 5.849 10.948
Modal 3 -34.076 2.291E-2 5.603
Fixed Base
Modal 4 8.258E-3 25.378 -22.900
Modal 5 66.903 -9.451 18.251
Gravity 0.179 0.404 360.799
Directions 1, 2, 3 represent X, Y, Z axis respectively; Gravity load equals to dead and live load
Figure 1. Design procedure for Base Isolation buildings according to NBCC 2005

Joint 15

Joint 13
 Figure 2. 3D Finite element model

a. displacement of column (joint 15, 13) b. displacement of column w.r.t. base

Figure 3. Isolated base building response histories

a. displacement of column (joint 15, 13) b. displacement of column w.r.t. base

Figure 4. Fixed base building response histories

350 350

300 300

250 250
Mode 1
200 200
Height,
Height,

Mode 2
Mode
1 150 150

Mode 100 Mode 4

100
2 Mode 5
Mode 50 50
3
0
0
Mode 0 0.5 1 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
4
Mode
5

-1 -0.5
Displacment, in Displacement, in
a. Isolated base building b. Fixed base building
Figure 5. Natural vibration modes
View publication stats