Structures 42 (2022) 434–448

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Seismic response of isolated structures with an improved model of

the UFREI
Shiv Prakash *, R.S. Jangid
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: An improved formulation of the horizontal shear behavior of the unbonded fiber-reinforced elastomeric isolators
Analytical formulation (UFREI), which predicts both the pre-rollover and the post-rollover behavior considering the effect of the vertical
Unbonded fiber-reinforced elastomeric iso­ load, is proposed. A simplified and computationally inexpensive formulation of the horizontal shear behavior of
lators
the UFREI has also been proposed afterward. Further, these formulations are verified using experimental results
Rollover
Near-fault earthquakes
and compared with the results obtained using the other earlier methods in the recent literature. The horizontal
MR Damper shear behavior predicted by both of the proposed formulations is observed to fit the experimental results very
Shear behavior well. The shear behavior predicted by these formulations is observed to be more accurate than the corresponding
Vertical load predicted by the other formulations from the recent literature. A parametric study characterizing the effect of the
vertical pressure and the initial elastomeric shear modulus on the horizontal shear behavior of isolators is also
carried out. The proposed formulations are further used to model the behavior of the UFREI employed to isolate
the benchmark structure considered in the study.
Supplementary damping devices are further installed alongside the nonlinear UFREI isolation system to
mitigate the excessive displacement demand on isolators under near-fault ground motions. The isolated
benchmark structure is thus coupled with a Magneto-rheological Damper (MRD) with an improved control al­
gorithm for nonlinear isolation systems in three configurations, i.e., semi-active, passive-on, and passive-off. A
comparative study of these configurations shows that MRD in passive-on mode provides the minimum isolators
displacement response, but an overall improved structural response is achieved with MRD in the semi-active
mode of operation.

1. Introduction
Earthquakes have been a major cause of the loss of life and property
in the history of humankind, and major of it is caused due to weak
structures. Base isolation is a seismic mitigation technique that focuses
on reducing the seismic demand on the structures and/or their contents
[1,2] by introducing an element having low horizontal stiffness and high
damping between the ground and superstructure, thus increasing the
period of the structure. Elastomeric bearings are the most common type
of base-isolator being used today. It consists of alternating elastomer
layers stacked with reinforcement layers (generally steel plates). Kelly
[3] evaluated the feasibility and mechanical properties of fiber as
reinforcement in place of steel plates. It discussed the advantages of
using fiber over steel as reinforcement for its implementation in small
buildings in developing countries. These advantages included
manufacturing ease, decreased cost, and being lightweight. Later, Kelly
and Takhirov [4] evaluated the compression stiffness theoretically and
further investigated the horizontal shear behavior of fiber-reinforced
elastomeric isolators (FREI) experimentally. It was also shown that the
FREIs have better isolation efficiency when used unbonded to sub-
structure and superstructure. These types of isolators are called
Unbonded fiber-reinforced elastomeric isolators (UFREI). Moon et al.
[5] tested different fibers using vertical and horizontal loading tests and
found carbon fibers superior to other fibers considered, i.e., nylon and
glass fiber. Several other experimental and analytical studies [6–9] have
been done since to check the efficiency of unbonded and bonded FREI
under several types of horizontal and vertical loading cycles. A signifi­
cant enhancement in the structure’s response as compared to that in
fixed-base structure and isolated structure with SREIs is seen in all the
studies. It is also seen that a properly designed and stable UFREI has
better performance than its bonded counterpart due to the rollover
phenomenon.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: shiv.prakash@iitb.ac.in (S. Prakash), rsjangid@civil.iitb.ac.in (R.S. Jangid).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.06.024
Received 20 April 2022; Received in revised form 4 June 2022; Accepted 8 June 2022
2352-0124/© 2022 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Prakash and R.S. Jangid
It’s not computationally viable to model full-scale bearings every
time; thus, several simplified models which can predict the isolator’s
behavior within an acceptable tolerance limit have been developed. Koh
and Kelly [10] devised a simple mechanical model for elastomeric iso­
lators (SREIs) using a viscoelastic P-Δ model, taking into account both
flexural and shear deformation. Kelly [3] used the simplified approach
to the analysis done by Gent and Lindley [11] and Gent and Meinecke
[12] to analyze the compression stiffness and tilting stiffness of isolators
with rigid and flexible reinforcements. Conventionally, the shear stiff­
ness of the isolator is defined considering the shearing of the elastomer
block of total vertical thickness and an effective plan area. Different
studies assume various amounts of contribution from the rollover sec­
tion to calculate effective area and propose various stiffness formula­
tions for the UFREI. Toopchi-Nezhad [13] assumed a 25% contribution
from the rollover portion to calculate the effective area expression.
Gerhaher et al. [14] assumed the contribution of the rollover section in
the horizontal stiffness to be null but considered the nonlinear variation
of the elastomer’s shear modulus with shear strain. Later, Ngo et al. [15]
combined both nonlinear shear modulus expression [14] and effective
area expression [13] to formulate the lateral stiffness expressions for
UFREI. Russo et al. [16] and Pauletta [17] assumed the effective area to
be an average of the contact areas in the undeformed and deformed
configurations. Recently, Vaiana et al. [18,19] proposed accurate and
computationally efficient phenomenological hysteresis models for the
fiber and steel-reinforced elastomeric bearings. UFREI are generally
designed to keep the isolator displacements below the full-rollover
displacement, but it is seen that the isolators experience significantly
high displacement demand under near-fault earthquakes. Although
there have been several analytical models regarding the horizontal shear
behavior of UFREI, the horizontal shear formulation proposed by Van
Engelen et al. [20] is the only analytical model that predicts the full-
rollover and post-rollover behavior of the UFREI. It assumes the roll­
over section to be a cantilever beam acted on by a follower load which is
found iteratively. This model predicts the horizontal response of the
UFREI without considering the effect of vertical pressure acting on the
isolator on its horizontal behavior. Thus, the incorporation of vertical
load in horizontal shear behavior formulation of UFREI considering both
pre-rollover and post-rollover behavior is still due.
Despite its advantages, isolated structures also have a shortcoming
when it comes to near-fault earthquakes having a high amplitude, long
period, and pulse-like ground motion. As isolators tend to increase the
period of the structure thus, large isolator displacements are encoun­
tered when isolated structures are exposed to near-fault ground motions.
Conventionally, it is mitigated using bigger isolators with high damping
and stiffness characteristics but increasing the size of isolators has an
adverse effect on the acceleration and other responses of the structure
when the isolated structure is exposed to more frequent small to mod­
erate far fault earthquakes [21]. Some innovative isolation systems have
also been proposed earlier for countering the effect of near-fault ground
motions on isolated structures [22,23]. Alternatively, supplementary
damping devices can also be used to mitigate these seismic responses.
Semi-active devices are a class of supplemental damping devices
considered in this study that change their property in real-time to absorb
the incident seismic energy based on the structure’s response like active
devices but do not input energy to the structure, unlike active devices. It
also consumes less power as compared to active devices and retains
passive isolation properties even after a power outage. Semi-active
systems are also more stable and less prone to instability during oper­
ation caused by modeling errors and uncertainties. It has been shown by
various studies [24,25] that properly designed high authority semi-
active control systems can achieve similar performance as active sys­
tems. Several supplementary damping devices have been incorporated
earlier to isolated structures [26–30], but its incorporation to the
structures isolated using the nonlinear UFREI system is still due. MRD is
a semi-active device that is chosen as the supplementary damping device
for this study based on its efficiency seen in various recent studies
435
Structures 42 (2022) 434–448
[31–33].
In the first part of this study, an improved horizontal shear behavior
formulation of the UFREI, including both pre-rollover and post-rollover
behavior, is proposed, which also includes the effect of vertical load on
the shear behavior of the UFREI. A simplified shear formulation is also
proposed, which decreases the computational time required to predict
the full rollover and shear behavior. Further, experimental horizontal
behaviors from previous literature are used to verify the isolator’s
behavior predicted by these formulations. A parametric study charac­
terizing the effect of the vertical load and the initial shear modulus on
the horizontal shear behavior of the UFREI is also carried out. In the
later part of the study, a benchmark structure is isolated using UFREI
and subjected to a wide range of earthquake ground motions, including
near-fault and far-fault ground motions. The horizontal behavior of the
UFREI is modeled using the formulations proposed in the first part of the
study. Supplementary damping devices, i.e., MR Damper with an
improved control algorithm for nonlinear isolation system, are further
incorporated into the isolated structure in various configurations to
mitigate the increased displacement demand on the isolators under
near-fault earthquakes.
2. Horizontal shear formulations of UFREI
The horizontal stiffness of isolators with flexible reinforcements is
conventionally defined as:
GAeff
kh = (1)
tr
where G is the shear modulus of the elastomer; Aeff is the effective plan
area after the rollover; tr is the total thickness of the elastomer. The
effective plan area depends on the amount of the contribution from the
rollover portion, which has been considered in the horizontal stiffness
calculation. Several modifications to this expression in terms of the
rollover section’s contribution to effective shear modulus expression
have been proposed to date. As per the author’s best knowledge, the
horizontal shear behavior model proposed by Van Engelen et al. [20] is
the only model to predict the full rollover and the post-rollover behavior
of a UFREI; still, it doesn’t account for the effect of vertical load on the
isolator’s shear behavior.
In this study, the horizontal shear-behavior model given by Van
Engelen et al. [20] is further modified to incorporate the effect of ver­
tical load on the shear behavior of isolators. The effect of vertical load on
the experimental horizontal behavior of UFREIs has been investigated
previously [34–37], and generally, it has been observed that the hori­
zontal stiffness of UFREI decreases with an increase in vertical pressure.
The effect of vertical pressure on the horizontal shear behavior of the
UFREI is considered in this study using the effective shear modulus ex­
pressions proposed by Ngo et al. [15] for UFREI at different horizontal
deformation levels and vertical loads. A simplified computationally
inexpensive model for the horizontal shear behavior of UFREI is also
proposed and compared. Here onwards, the horizontal shear behavior
formulation proposed by Van Engelen et al. [20] is termed as the earlier
formulation (EF) in this study for brevity.
2.1. Proposed formulation – 1
A deformed UFREI can be broadly divided into three sections, i.e.,
one central section and two rollover sections, one on each end along the
horizontal displacement. The central section deforms in shear with a
UFREI in action while the rollover sections have a combined shear and
bending deformation. The effective shear modulus expressions proposed
by Ngo et al. [15] are further incorporated in the earlier horizontal shear
behavior model [20] to include the effect of vertical force on the UFREI’s
shear behavior. The effective shear modulus is only modified for the
central shear part, which always remains under the influence of the
S. Prakash and R.S. Jangid Structures 42 (2022) 434–448

Fig. 1. Rollover phenomenon of the UFREI.

Fig. 2. Cantilever representation of the rollover section with (a) a follower load (PF-1); (b) a moment (PF-2).

vertical load, while the shear modulus is kept constant for the rollover √̅̅̅
portion. and, pcrit =
2πGSa
√̅̅̅ (6)
Thus, the force–deformation behavior before full rollover is given as. 2 3tr

F = F1 + 2F 2 (2) where a, b, S, and tr are the length, width, shape factor, and total elas­
tomer thickness of the isolator; G is the shear modulus of the elastomer; p
The central section and rollover sections along with the forces, are
is the vertical pressure on the isolator; u is the horizontal displacement
shown in Fig. 1. Here, F1 and F2 are the horizontal force due to the
of the isolator; dRS is the shear deformation of the rollover section under
central shear portion and each of the two rollover sections, respectively,
F2. The bending deformation (dRB) in each of the rollover section is
which are further formulated as.
( ) characterized by assuming the rollover portion to be a cantilever beam
u with a representative follower load V acting on the free end as shown in
F 1 = Geff (b)(a-u) (3)
tr Fig. 2(a). The deformation of the cantilever under the follower load V
( ) can be written as.
G tur (b)dRS { π }
F2 = (4) EIeff φ′′ + Vsin φ + − φ(u) = 0 (7)
2 2
⎧ ⎡ ⎧ ⎫2 ⎤
(8)
′
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ φ (u) = 0; φ(0) = 0; φ(u) = θ; dRB = hθ
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎨ ⎪
⎬ ⎥(
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎢
⎢ p u)
⎪
⎪ G⎣1 − ( ( ) ) ⎥ ⎦ 1 − for 0⩽u⩽1.0tr F 2 = Vsinθ (9)
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ u 2 ⎪
⎪ a
⎪
⎪ ⎩pcrit 1 − a ⎭
⎪
⎪
⎨
⎡ ⎧ ⎫2 ⎤ where EIeff is the effective bending stiffness of the rollover section about
Where, Geff =
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ the bottom pivot point. The effective bending stiffness is assumed to be
⎪ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎢ ⎨ p ⎬ ⎥⎥
( )
equal to the bending stiffness of the elastomer layers in this study. An
⎪
⎪ ⎢ ( ) ⎥ 1− 1.0tr for 1.0tr ⩽u⩽1.5tr
⎪
⎪ G
⎪ ⎣
⎪
⎢ 1 −
⎪p
⎪
( 1.0tr
)2 ⎪
⎪
⎥ a iterative approach, as shown in Fig. 3, is adopted to find the appropriate
⎪ ⎪ crit 1 − ⎪ ⎦
⎪
⎩ ⎪
⎩ a ⎪
⎭ follower load for each displacement increment till convergence. The
horizontal (dHR) and vertical displacement (dVR) of the rollover edge are
(5) calculated as.

Fig. 3. Iterative scheme to find follower load.

436
S. Prakash and R.S. Jangid Structures 42 (2022) 434–448

Table 1
Physical and material properties of the adopted isolators.
Property Foster [38] Ngo et al. (2017) [15] Ngo et al. (2017) [15] Das et al. (2015) [39] de Raaf [40] Toopchi-Nezhad (2008) [6] Osgooei et al. [41]
(A1, B1) (B2)

a × b, mm 63 × 63 250 × 250 310 × 310 100 × 100 70 × 70 70 × 70 76 × 52

h, mm 22.35 100 100 104.9 24 25 22
tr, mm 19 90 90 95 19 19 19
p, MPa 0.5, 1, 2, 3 5.6 5.72 1.2 1.6 1.6 2.02
G, MPa 0.35 0.78, 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.43

∫ ∫
u u
Since the inclusion of the vertical load is done on the central shear
dVR (s) = sinφ ds; dHR (s) = cosφ ds (10)
0 0 portion of the isolator, the full-rollover displacement remains almost the
same as that with the EF. Here onwards, the Proposed formulation – 1
At full-rollover displacement of the UFREI (u = uFR),
discussed above is termed PF-1 in this study for brevity.
dVR (u) ≈ h, and dHR (u) = dFR (11)
Once the full-rollover occurs, the bending deformation stops in 2.2. Proposed formulation – 2
rollover sections, and the whole deformed isolator is assumed to deform
further in shear thus, In the PF-1 above, a differential equation (Eq. (7)) needs to be solved
at each time step till convergence which often requires a cumbersome
F = F1R + 2F2,FR + 2F3 (12) computational process. If a representative external moment is taken in
An extra F3 term is included in the expression to consider the post- place of follower load (Fig. 2(b)) to cause bending deformation in the
full-rollover shear deformation of the rollover sections. For F3 calcula­ cantilever representation of the rollover section, a much simpler dif­
tion, the rollover sections are assumed to be triangular with base and ferential equation needs to be solved at each incremental step, thus
height dimensions as dFR and h, respectively. As the full-rollover will simplifying and improving the speed of the computational process. The
always happen at a horizontal displacement higher than 1.0tr, thus the equation for bending deformation of the cantilever section under an
expression of the effective shear modulus for u > 1.0tr can directly be external moment can be written as.
used. ′
EIeff φ − M = 0 (16)
( )
u
F1R = Geff (b)(a − uFR ) (13) Ms hMu
tr φ(0) = 0; φ(s) = ; Thus, dRB = (17)
EIeff EIeff
F2,FR = F2 (at full − rollover i.e. u = uFR ) (14)
F 2 = M/h (18)
( )
G u− tur FR (b)(dFR ) The simplicity of the computational process can easily be inferred
F3 = (15) from the explicit expression of the rollover bending displacement (dRB),
2
which otherwise was found after solving a differential equation at each

Fig. 4. Comparative force–displacement plots of the experimental results with the results obtained using different shear formulations of the isolators.

437
S. Prakash and R.S. Jangid
Fig. 5. Comparative force–displacement plots of the experimental force values with the results obtained using different shear formulations of the isolators.
time step previously. The rest of the forces are found to be similar as in
the PF-1 explained in the above section till convergence. Here onwards,
the Proposed formulation – 2 discussed above is termed PF-2 in this
study for brevity.
2.3. Validation and discussion
The accuracy of the above-proposed horizontal behavior formula­
tions is further validated by comparing the predicted shear behavior
with eleven experimental data sets from the recent literatures
[6,15,38–41]. The source of the experimental data including the geo­
metric and material details of the isolators for each set, are tabulated in
Table 1. The experimental data sets are thus selected to include a wide
range of isolator dimensions, vertical pressure, and elastomeric shear
modulus. As this study deals with the horizontal behavior of the UFREI
under a static displacement boundary condition dealing with its rollover
characteristics, the backbone curve of the results under dynamic dis­
placements has been adopted from the experimental results whenever
applicable.
2.3.1. Horizontal force–displacement plots
The horizontal shear force in isolators at different displacements is
calculated using the above-proposed methods for each isolator and
loading combination, and it is further compared with corresponding
experimental results from the literature. The comparative plots of the
force values obtained experimentally with the force values calculated
using the EF, the PF-1, and the PF-2 are shown in Figs. 4 and 5. In these
figures, FEX represents the experimental horizontal forces at different
displacement amplitudes adopted from the literature; FEF represents the
horizontal forces calculated using the method proposed by Van Engelen
et al. [20]; FPF-1 represents the horizontal forces calculated using the PF-
1 formulation with improved shear modulus expression and a follower
load; FPF-2 represents the horizontal forces calculated using the PF-2
formulation with an external moment. Root mean square (RMS) error
is calculated with reference to the experimental force values, and the
438
Structures 42 (2022) 434–448
resulting error is normalized with the RMS error value of the FEF to
define an error-index as shown below.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
∑
2
Normalized RMS Error Index (Ẽ RMS ) = ∑ (F-F EX ) (19)
(FEF -F EX )2
An ̃ERMS value lesser than unity means that the shear force values
predicted by the formulation in consideration are closer to the experi­
mental results than that predicted by the EF. As it can be seen in Figs. 4
and 5, the E
̃RMS value is much lesser than the unity for both the PF-1 and
PF-2 formulations in all of the cases except for the de Raaf [40] results.
The bearings used by de Raaf [40] are similar to those by Toopchi-
Nezhad [6] except for the isolator’s height, which is 24 mm for the
former and 25 mm for the latter. The experimental horizontal force
values at each displacement amplitude in de Raaf [40] and Toopchi-
Nezhad [6] cases are also similar except for the force value at the
displacement 2tr where de Raaf [40] case has a significantly higher force
value, thus deviating significantly from both the PF-1 trendline and PF-2
trendline. Despite this deviation in de Raaf [40] results, the error in force
values with the PF-1 and PF-2 formulation with reference to experi­
mental values remains almost similar (E ̃RMS =1) to that with the EF.
Another deviation from the general behavioral trend of the UFREI is
observed in the case of the isolators adopted from Das et al. [39], where
a failure is observed with the EF while the other two formulations show a
positive stiffening behavior. The aspect ratio of the isolators, in this case,
is 0.95, which is too low for it to be stable at higher displacements; thus,
the lateral behavior predicted with the EF is more accurate and nearest
to the original behavior. The positive stiffening behavior with the PF-1
and the PF-2 formulations is observed due to the negative effective
shear modulus obtained with the formula proposed in Eqs. (5) and (13).
Alternatively, the shear modulus is assumed to be constant throughout
the displacement history in EF; thus, no such deviation is observed with
the corresponding formulation. This deviation from the original
behavior is very less significant though, since an aspect ratio lesser than
2.5 is generally avoided to prevent instability [13,42].
S. Prakash and R.S. Jangid Structures 42 (2022) 434–448

Fig. 6. Horizontal shear behavior of the UFREI with change in (a) vertical pressure; (b) initial shear modulus.

Although both PF-1 and PF-2 methods model the shear behavior of
UFREIs more accurately than the EF, a direct comparison of the
̃RMS value for both PF-1 and PF-2 methods shows them to be almost
E using these methods are more accurate than the corresponding with the
similarly accurate. The ̃
ERMS value for the PF-1 is slightly lesser than that
of the PF-2 for most cases but the PF-2 is computationally much cheaper,
given the explicit expression of the dRB. The horizontal behavior calcu­
lation with EF also requires solving the same differential equation at
each time step. The post-rollover behavior predicted by the PF-1 is
observed to lie in between both rest formulations, with the EF and the
PF-2 predicting the stiffest and least stiff horizontal behavior.
2.3.2. Vertical load effect
The effect of vertical pressure on the horizontal shear behavior of the
isolator is very evident in Foster [38] results shown in Fig. 4, where the
experimental horizontal force at a given displacement is seen to decrease
with an increase in the vertical pressure (p (in MPa) = 0.5, 1, 2, 3). Since
the EF is independent of the vertical pressure, the force values are the
same for all four cases. Meanwhile, the PF-1 and PF-2 formulations
consider the effect of vertical pressure; thus, the force values predicted
EF. Although the accuracy of the EF is comparable to other methods at
lower horizontal displacements, it deteriorates and over-predicts the
horizontal shear force as the lateral displacement increases due to the
non-inclusion of the vertical pressure in the formulation.
A parametric study is carried out to assess further the effect of the
vertical load and the initial shear modulus on the horizontal behavior of
UFREI. The UFREI samples used by Osgooei et al. [41] are adopted for
the parametric study, and the PF-1 formulation is used to characterize its
horizontal behavior under a static displacement boundary condition.
The resultant plots with variations in vertical force and initial elasto­
meric shear modulus are shown in Fig. 6(a) and (b), respectively. With
the help of these plots, it can be further inferred that a corresponding
softening and a stiffening behavior is seen with an increase in the ver­
tical pressure and the elastomeric shear modulus, respectively. The

Fig. 7. Force-displacement behavior of UFREI under Northridge (FF), 1994 earthquake ground motion using different horizontal formulations.

439
S. Prakash and R.S. Jangid
Fig. 8. Force-displacement behavior of UFREI under Northridge (NF), 1994 earthquake ground motion using different horizontal formulations.
Table 2
Full rollover displacement predictions.
Full-rollover Displacement Foster Ngo et al. (2017) Ngo et al. (2017)
(uFR) [38] [15] [15]
(A1, B1) (B2)
PF-1 1.68 h 1.69 h 1.69 h
PF-2 1.85 h 1.86 h 1.86 h
softening of the horizontal behavior with an increase in vertical load
increases at higher vertical loads till the isolator buckles, while the
stiffening behavior with elastomeric shear modulus is almost uniform.
The effect of both vertical pressure and initial shear modulus variations
on horizontal behavior is relatively nominal at lower horizontal dis­
placements and becomes more evident at higher displacements. Apart
from the static behavior of the UFREI, the effect of vertical pressure on
the dynamic horizontal behavior of UFREI under real earthquake ground
motions is also investigated. A rigid body structural system with the
same horizontal displacement degree of freedom as the UFREI beneath it
is assumed to ascertain the required vertical pressure on the UFREI. The
isolators and earthquake ground motions used in this study are adopted
respectively from Section 3.1 and Section 3.2 ahead. The resultant
force–displacement plots of the assumed UFREI with different formu­
lations under real seismic excitations can be observed in Figs. 7 and 8.
Since the isolator displacements under the far-fault ground motions are
generally lesser, the UFREI hasn’t reached the full rollover state in Fig. 7.
Meanwhile, the post-rollover behavior of the isolator can easily be seen
in the isolator displacement plots under near-fault ground motion in
Fig. 8. The full-rollover displacement of the designed UFREI can be
referred to from the horizontal behavior plot in Section 3.1. The initial
softening behavior with rollover is seen to be more pronounced in the
horizontal plots predicted by PF-1 as compared to EF, and thus, the
hysteresis plots using PF-1 are skewed clockwise referenced to the EF
plots. This behavior is further seen to increase at higher displacements
and decrease with higher vertical loads. The horizontal behavior of the
UFREI with the PF-2 has been omitted since the behavior is very similar
440
Structures 42 (2022) 434–448
Das et al. (2015) de Raaf Toopchi-Nezhad (2008) Osgooei et al.
[39] [40] [6] [41]
1.69 h 1.67 h 1.66 h 1.68 h
1.87 h 1.84 h 1.83 h 1.86 h
to that of the PF-1 with a higher full rollover displacement. The dynamic
response plots of the UFREI under other ground motions from Section
3.2 are similar and thus not included for brevity.
2.3.3. Full-rollover displacement
The horizontal displacement at which the full-rollover occurs for
various isolators considered in the study for both the methods is pro­
vided in Table 2. The full-rollover displacement is predicted within a
0.5% error for all the isolators. It is observed that the PF-2 predicts a
higher full-rollover displacement than the PF-1. It is also observed that
the full rollover displacement is independent of the vertical pressure and
the initial shear modulus of the elastomer. This behavior is evident from
the same full-rollover displacements obtained for the isolators taken by
Foster [38] under four different vertical loads and the same full-rollover
displacements obtained for the isolators taken by Ngo et al. (2017) [15]
with a different initial shear modulus of elastomers. A similar variation
in full-rollover displacement with vertical load and elastomeric shear
modulus is also observed in the plots given in Fig. 6. Thus, full-rollover
displacements are seen to be only dependent on the geometrical prop­
erties of the UFREI.
As discussed earlier, the aspect ratio is one of the major geometrical
properties of the isolator. It has already been established earlier that a
UFREI with a very low aspect ratio becomes unstable to horizontal
displacement and a UFREI with a very high aspect ratio becomes too stiff
for isolation. Since the UFREI systems have the best efficiency during the
rollover phenomenon with horizontal displacements below the full-
rollover displacement, a parametric study of the effect of the aspect
S. Prakash and R.S. Jangid Structures 42 (2022) 434–448

Fig. 9. Variation of Full-rollover displacement (uFR) with the Aspect Ratio of UFREI.

Table 3
Isolator properties.
Dimension (a × b × h) 313 mm × 313 mm × 125.2 mm
Rubber layer thickness 4.89 mm
Number of elastomer layers 26 (including cover layers)
Shear Modulus, G 0.5 MPa

structures are often prone to high isolator displacements under near-

fault ground motions; thus, supplementary damping devices are used
in conjunction with the isolation system. The isolated benchmark
structure with a supplementary damping device is shown in Fig. 10. The
rotational and vertical degrees of freedom are condensed out from the
full-scale structure to obtain its structural matrices. The first three nat­
ural frequencies of the fixed-base benchmark structure are 9.95, 28.13,
Fig. 10. Base-isolated (BI) benchmark structure with supplementary damp­ and 41.04 rad/s, and the damping ratio of the first mode of the structure
ing device. is two percent. The equation of motion for the base-isolated structure
can be written as follows.
ratio on the full rollover displacement is carried out in this study. Again, [ ] [ ]
M Ẍ + C Ẋ + K[X] + Γn F n = − Iẍg (20)
the isolator designed for the benchmark structure in Section 3.1 is
adopted, and the aspect ratio is varied by varying the isolator’s height.
The isolator’s height is varied by varying the number of elastomer and where, M, C and K are the combined mass, damping, and stiffness
fiber layers, but the thickness of each layer for both the material is kept matrices of the isolated structure, respectively; I = MΓg ; X =
constant. The resulting plots are shown Fig. 9. Although there are fluc­ [xb Xs ]T = [xb X1 ​ X2 ​ X3 ]T ; Fn and Γn are the nonlinear forces due to
tuations in the full-rollover displacements values, a general decreasing the isolator and damper and their positional vector; Γg is the influence
trend is witnessed with an increase in the aspect ratio of the isolator. vector of the earthquake. The force due to the isolator is broken into two
Thus, UFREIs with aspect ratios on the higher side achieve full rollover parts, i.e., linear and nonlinear. Linear force due to isolator is incorpo­
earlier than the ones on the lower side; thus, the isolation efficiency of rated in the K term and the residual nonlinear isolator force term, Frb is
such UFREIs gets limited. These results also support the practical con­ clubbed with other nonlinear forces like damper forces (for uncontrolled
siderations since the UFREI’s height decreases with an increase in its case, Fn = Frb). Eq. (20) can be rewritten in the state-space format, as
aspect ratio. The uFR values are again higher with PF-2 formulations for shown in Eq. (21) below.
all the considered aspect ratios.
Although it is assumed that the stiffening starts at the full rollover, it Ż = AZ + BF n + Eẍg (21)
has been seen that stiffening behavior begins before the full-rollover [ ] [ ]
T T T T
occurrence due to contact at pivotal corners [36,43,44]. This behavior where Z = XT Ẋ = xb XTs ​ ẋb Ẋs ; A =
can easily be seen in the experimental values where the stiffening starts [ ] [ ] [ ]
at displacements lower than the full-rollover displacement predicted by 0
− 1
I
− 1 ; B =
0
− 1 ; E =
0
.
either model. For full-rollover displacement in experimental results, a − M K − M C − M Γn − Γg
range of values from 1.7h for specimens considered by Foster [38] to 2h
for specimens considered by de Raaf [40] has been reported. Thus, the
full-rollover displacement values predicted by the PF-1 act as a lower 3.1. Isolator design and modeling
bound for the actual uFR.
The UFREI used to isolate the above benchmark building is designed
3. Analysis of benchmark structure using the design procedure proposed by Ehsani and Toopchi-Nezhad
[46]. The isolators’ aspect ratio and shape factor are taken as 2.5 and
A full-scale three-story benchmark building [45] is isolated using 16 respectively, and the pressure on the isolators is kept below 3 MPa. A
UFREI and other supplementary damping devices for the seismic total number of 50 isolators are installed, and the final dimensions and
response control study under real earthquake excitations. Isolated properties of the isolators are given in Table 3 below. The isolators have
24 inner elastomer layers of thickness of 4.89 mm each and two outer

441
S. Prakash and R.S. Jangid Structures 42 (2022) 434–448

pulses cause heavy damage to structures, especially ones with higher

time periods like base-isolated structures. Three properties mainly
characterize near-fault ground motions: (i) Peak ground velocity/Peak
ground acceleration (PGV/PGA) greater than 0.1 s; (ii) Pulse period (TP)
greater than 1 s; (iii) Vicinity to the rupture plane (Rrup). A set of eight
earthquake ground motions consisting of both near-fault (NF) and far-
fault (FF) records are selected to consider the variability in the seismic
input [51–52]. The properties of the earthquakes considered in this
study are given in Table 4.

3.3. Magneto-Rheological damper (MRD)

A semiactive MRD is considered a supplemental damping device

candidate here. The damping capabilities of MRD are attributed to the
MR fluid, which changes its rheological property under the application
of the magnetic field. The development of MR Fluid happened in the
Fig. 11. Horizontal shear behavior of the designed isolator. United States in the 1940s. It consists of micron-sized, magnetically
polarizable particles which are dispersed in a medium such as silicone
oil. Several analytical models have been introduced for MRD to date
Table 4
[53–55]. H2/LQG control algorithm is used to optimize the responses by
Properties of the selected earthquake ground motions.
minimizing the weighted response objective functions. It has been
Earthquake Station Magnitude Component Fault vicinity/ shown previously that the mechanical model proposed by Spencer et al.
(MW) Pulse-type
[56] accurately predicts the MRD’s behavior over a wide input range,
Kocaeli, 1999 Ambarli 7.4 EW FF and thus the same is also adopted in this study. A large-scale MRD of
El Centro, Terminal 6.9 NS FF
capacity 20 tons and a dynamic range of ten is adopted for this study
1940 Substation
Loma Prieta, Presidio 7 00 FF [57]. The parameters of the MRD model are adequately scaled to match
1989 the damper deformation behavior [58]. The equation of motion after the
Northridge, Mulholland 6.7 35 FF addition of MRD to the isolated structure remains the same as Eq. (20)
1994 Drive with the addition of damper force into total nonlinear force (Fn = Frb +
Kocaeli, 1999 Yarimca 7.4 NS NF (Fling-step)
Northridge, Rinaldi 6.7 229 NF (Forward-
Fd) since both isolator and MRD are installed at the same level.
1994 directivity)
Loma Prieta, Gilroy Array 5 7 90 NF (Forward- 3.3.1. Control algorithm
1989 directivity) The algorithm used to control the MRD force in this study is based on
Chi-Chi, 1999 TCU052 7.6 NS NF (Fling-step)
the clipped optimal control method [25]. Since the absolute acceleration
of the floors is the most accurate and readily available measurement
cover layers, i.e., top-most and bottom-most layers of half the thickness. during a seismic event, thus feedback signal consists of absolute accel­
The horizontal force–deformation behavior of the designed isolators is eration measurements of floors. As per the state-space equation given in
further modeled using the PF-1 proposed in Section 2.1 with ten percent Eq. (21), the output equation can be written as.
damping. The horizontal shear behavior as per the PF-1 and the PF-2 Y = CX + DF n + ν (22)
proposed in Section 2.1 and Section 2.2 respectively are shown in
Fig. 11 for visualization. here, the additional variables Y and v are the measured output vector
and measurement noise vector, respectively. Other parameters used in
the equation like C and D are defined according to the desired output.
3.2. Earthquake selection
The output vector here consists of the absolute acceleration measure­
ments of the floors and the damper displacement. The damper is placed
It has been seen that the ground motion characteristics in the vicinity
on the lowermost floor of the scaled structure in this study. As the
of an active fault are different from the ground motions recorded far
ground motion is stochastic in nature, the H2/LQG method is used to
from the fault. Ground motion characteristics in a near-fault region are
find the required control force based on the output vector and an
highly dependent on the earthquake’s fault type, magnitude, rupture
appended force feedback loop [31,59–60]. In H2/LQG method, an
mechanism, and position relative to the strike direction of the fault
infinite horizon objective cost function Ĵ is minimized by finding the
[47–50]. The major characteristics of a near-fault ground motion
include the presence of significant vertical ground motion component, optimal control signal. As the problem is stochastic in nature, Ĵ is
directivity effect, fling step effect, long period velocity pulses of high defined as.
amplitude, and hanging wall effect. The directivity effect happens when [∫ τ ]
̂J = lim 1 E (23)
the shear wave velocity is comparable to the velocity of the rupture τ→∞τ
(CX)T Q(CX) + F Tu RF u )dτ
0
front. When the rupture happens in the direction of the site, and the fault
is aligned with the site, it’s known as forward directivity. Forward Due to the presence of noise in the system, a Kalman filter is used to
directivity increases the amplitude of the long period pulses in the obtain the optimal observer. The following algebraic Riccati equations
ground motion, and it is more prominent along the fault-normal direc­ are solved for optimality.
tion. It has also been shown earlier that the fault-parallel component of
AT S + SA-SBR− 1 BT S + CT QC = 0 (24)
the near-fault ground motions can generally be neglected [21]. While
the directivity effect produces a two-way velocity pulse, the fling step
AT + TAT -TCT CT + γEET = 0 (25)
produces a unidirectional velocity pulse of large amplitude causing
permanent ground displacements. The hanging wall effect occurs in the Afterward, the gain matrices K and L are calculated as K =
case of dip-slip faults where the ground motion values are higher on the − R− 1 BT Sand L = SCT and finally the required control force, Fu is
hanging wall side of the fault. These high amplitudes and long-period calculated as.

442
S. Prakash and R.S. Jangid Structures 42 (2022) 434–448

Fig. 12. Flow chart of the nonlinear dynamic analysis.

F u = KX (26) maximum (Vmax); otherwise, the voltage is set to zero. If the applied
force is equal to the required optimal force, then voltage remains
.X = AX + BF n + L(Y − CX − DF n ) (27) unchanged.
V = Vmax H{(F u − Fn )F d } = Vmax H{(Fu − F rb − F d )F d } (28)
Here, L{⋅} is Laplace transform operator. The matrices Q and R are
relatively decided based on the weights given to the control force and
Here, H{•} is Heaviside step function.
the objective response. The matrix Q is selected based on the objective
responses getting minimized. The R matrix is decided iteratively to get
the optimum results. In this study, the top floor acceleration response
3.4. Nonlinear dynamic analysis
and the isolator displacement response constitute the objective functions
for fixed-base structure and base-isolated structure, respectively. It is
Newmark average acceleration method is used to solve Eq. (20) for
seen that MRD has better efficiency when placed on bottom floors; thus,
various devices and building configurations. Although there are better
it is placed at the basement level with isolators for better efficiency. In
non-iterative and dissipative time integrator algorithms [61] available
MRD, force is controlled by varying the voltage applied to the current
for a nonlinear dynamic system, such algorithms mainly consider the
driver. As UFREI is used as the isolation system in this study which is
stiffness nonlinearity in the system. As the behavior of the MRD
highly nonlinear in nature, it needs to be incorporated into the voltage
employed in the study is highly complex and nonlinear in nature and
control algorithm accordingly. Since residual isolator force (Frb) is
directly dependent on the structure’s responses, an iterative procedure
constant for a given displacement increment, thus control to the damper
becomes imminent. Thus, a predictor–corrector iterative method is used
is applied after excluding the Frb from the total required control force
at each step till convergence while Newmark average acceleration
(Fu). Now, if the required optimal force and the applied damper force are
method is used each time to solve the corresponding linear system
in the same direction and the latter is smaller, then the voltage is set to
(including linear isolator stiffness term as discussed earlier). For each

443
S. Prakash and R.S. Jangid Structures 42 (2022) 434–448

Fig. 13. Top floor acceleration history of the benchmark structure with various configurations under (a) Kocaeli (FF), 1999; (b) Kocaeli (NF), 1999 ground motion.

Fig. 14. Maximum top floor acceleration response with different configurations under the rest of the considered ground motions.

444
S. Prakash and R.S. Jangid Structures 42 (2022) 434–448

Fig. 15. Isolator displacement history of the benchmark structure with various configurations under (a) Kocaeli FF), 1999; (b) Kocaeli (NF), 1999 ground motion.

Fig. 16. Maximum isolator displacement response with different configurations under the rest of the considered ground motions.

increment in displacement, forces in the isolator and MRD are calculated
using the models proposed in the above sections. A semi-implicit Runge-
Kutta method is used to find the damper forces developed in the MRD.
The analysis is done in MATLAB [62] with the help of the SIMULINK
toolbox, and the flow chart of the whole process is shown in Fig. 12.
Several uncontrolled and controlled configurations of the structure-
isolator-damper system are considered for the seismic analysis of the
structures. The supplementary damper system used in this study consists
of MRD in its three working modes – Semi-active (SA), Passive-on (P-
ON), and Passive-off (P-OFF). Cases with the benchmark structure with
MRD installed alone are also considered for comparison.
3.5. Benchmark Structure’s response
Three major response parameters discussed in this study are top floor
acceleration, isolator displacement, and the required damper force.
Time-history responses with corresponding amplitudes are plotted for
one of each near-fault and far-fault earthquake for different benchmark

445
S. Prakash and R.S. Jangid
Fig. 17. Force developed in the MRD installed with the various configurations of the benchmark building under far-fault and near-fault earthquakes.
structure’s configurations, and the response amplitudes under the rest of
the earthquakes are plotted as a bar graph for brevity. The response-
history plots and response amplitude plots for the top floor accelera­
tion response are shown in Figs. 13 and 14, respectively. When semi-
active MRD is used standalone without the isolation system, it’s
designed to control the top floor acceleration response of the structure
while it’s designed to control the isolator displacement when clubbed
with isolators. Thus, MRD (SA) is generally seen to have minimum top
floor acceleration response among all three modes, followed by MRD (P-
ON) and MRD (P-OFF), respectively. An overall best acceleration
response is generally achieved with BI configuration, which increases
with the introduction of other supplementary damping devices.
This stiffening behavior in isolated structures is seen due to the
introduction of the dampers, and thus, it is more prominent with the
446
Structures 42 (2022) 434–448
MRD (P-ON) dampers in combination with the isolators. MRD (SA)
dampers are designed to control the isolator displacement in hybrid
configurations, thus the least acceleration response among all hybrid
configurations (i.e., BI + MRD (SA), BI + MRD (P-ON), and BI + MRD (P-
OFF)) is achieved with the least stiff MRD (P-OFF) attached to the iso­
lated structure. Overall, all the hybrid configurations have an improved
lower acceleration response than the corresponding in the uncontrolled
configuration or configurations with MRD implemented as standalone.
Isolator displacement is another important response parameter of the
isolated structures. The exceptionally high isolator displacement
response under near-fault ground motions can easily be seen in the time
history plots and amplitude plots shown in Figs. 15 and 16, respectively.
It can also be observed from these plots that all the hybrid configurations
with dampers attached to the isolated structure decrease the isolator
S. Prakash and R.S. Jangid
displacement response irrespective of the fault location of the earth­
quake. It is observed that the isolated structure clubbed with MRD (P-
ON) mode has the least isolator displacement among all the configura­
tions. Other modes of MRD application, i.e., MRD (SA) and MRD (P-OFF)
are relatively less effective in reducing the isolator response than the
MRD (P-ON); meanwhile, they are cheaper in terms of the required
damper force (Fig. 17). Application of MRD (P-OFF) to the isolated
structure is cheapest in terms of the damper force and gives the highest
isolator displacement among all three modes. MRD in semi-active mode
as a supplementary damping system strikes a balance between the
isolator displacement response reduction and the cost attached with the
required damper force. Semi-active H2/LQG control of the MRD is
relatively less effective in this study due to the highly nonlinear behavior
of the isolators.
4. Conclusions
Base-isolated structures are generally seen to have significantly high
isolator displacement response under near-fault earthquake ground
motions. Due to this high displacement demand on the isolators, the
shear behavior formulations of UFREI need to consider the rollover and
post-rollover behavior. There are very few shear formulations in the
previous literature that discusses the rollover prediction and post-
rollover behavior of the isolators in detail.
In the first part of the study, an improved and simplified horizontal
shear formulation of the U-FREI for the pre-rollover and post-rollover
behavior which also considers the effect of the vertical load, is pro­
posed. The results are further verified and compared with experimental
results and results obtained using older formulations. The later part of
the study investigates the response of an isolated benchmark MDOF
structure under a wide range of earthquake ground motions, including
both near-fault and far-fault earthquakes. The benchmark structure is
isolated using UFREI, and supplemental damping devices are further
employed to restrict the high displacement demands on the isolators.
Three configurations of MR damper with an improved control algorithm
are used as supplementary damping devices in the study. A fixed-base
configuration of the benchmark structure is also investigated for a
comparative study of the structure’s response. The conclusion which can
be drawn from this study are as follows:
1) The force values predicted by the PF-1 and the PF-2 for the horizontal
shear behavior of the UFREI fit the experimental results very well.
Both the formulations consider the effect of rollover and vertical load
on the horizontal behavior of UFREI, and thus, the force values are
more accurate than the force values predicted by the earlier formu­
lation. The PF-2 is also the least computationally expensive among
all the formulations.
2) The PF-2 predicts a higher full-rollover displacement, and the full-
rollover displacement values predicted by PF-1 or EF act as a lower
bound for the actual full-rollover displacement. It is also seen that the
stiffening of the horizontal behavior starts with the initial contact at
a displacement much before the full-rollover displacement. The post-
rollover behavior predicted by the PF-2 is the least stiff among all
three formulations. The full rollover displacement is observed to be
independent of the vertical load on the isolators and the initial shear
modulus of the elastomer, but it is seen to decrease with the increase
in the aspect ratio of the UFREI.
3) The horizontal shear behavior of the isolators is seen to get less stiff
with an increase in vertical load on the isolators and a decrease in the
initial shear modulus of the elastomer. This behavior is relatively
more evident at higher horizontal displacements. The seismic
behavior of the UFREI also showed that the softening due to rollover
is more prominent in the behavior predicted by proposed formula­
tions (i.e., PF-1 and PF-2) as compared to that with the EF. The shear
behavior predicted by the PF-1 and PF-2 is observed to deviate from
the real behavior at higher displacements for unstable isolators with
447
Structures 42 (2022) 434–448
very low aspect ratios. Although these isolators are generally not
used in practice to maintain a stable seismic behavior of the
structure.
4) When MRD is applied standalone to the fixed-base structure, the least
top floor acceleration response is generally achieved with semi-
active control of the damper with the top floor acceleration as the
control objective. BI structure gives the least acceleration response
among all the configurations considered in the study, which often
increases due to stiffening from the introduction of supplementary
damping devices. Thus, MRD (P-OFF) as a supplementary damping
device provides the least top floor acceleration response among the
hybrid configurations, followed by the MRD (SA) and MRD (P-ON)
consecutively as a supplementary damping device.
5) MRD (P-ON) as a supplementary damping device to the isolated
structure gives the least isolator displacement response (especially
under near-fault ground motions), but it is very expensive in terms of
the required control force. MRD (SA) strikes a balance between the
isolator displacement response reduction and the cost related to the
required damper force. MRD (P-OFF) as a supplementary damping
device to the isolation system is the least expensive in terms of
required damper forces, and it gives the highest isolator displace­
ment response among all the considered hybrid configurations.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Pellecchia D, Lo Feudo S, Vaiana N, Dion J, Rosati L. A procedure to model and
design elastomeric-based isolation systems for the seismic protection of rocking art
objects. Comp-Aided Civil Infrastr Eng 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/
mice.12775.
[2] Berto L, Favaretto T, Saetta A. Seismic risk mitigation technique for art objects:
experimental evaluation and numerical modelling of double concave curved
surface sliders. Bull Earthq Eng 2013;11(5):1817–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10518-013-9441-8.
[3] Kelly JM. Analysis of fiber-reinforced elastomeric isolators. J Seismol Earthquake
Eng 1999;2(1).
[4] Kelly JM, Takhirov S. Analytical and experimental study of fiber-reinforced elastomeric
isolators fiber-reinforced elastomeric isolators. Pacific Earthquake Research Center,
University of California, Berkeley; 2001:PEER 2001/11.
[5] Moon B-Y, Kang G-J, Kang B-S, Kelly JM. Design and manufacturing of fiber
reinforced elastomeric isolator for seismic isolation. J Mater Process Technol 2002;
130–131:145–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0924-0136(02)00713-6.
[6] Toopchi-Nezhad H, Tait MJ, Drysdale RG. Lateral response evaluation of fiber-
reinforced neoprene seismic isolators utilized in an unbonded application. J Struct
Eng 2008;134(10):1627–37. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2008)134:
10(1627).
[7] Toopchi-Nezhad H, Tait MJ, Drysdale RG. Shake table study on an ordinary low-
rise building seismically isolated with SU-FREIs (stable unbonded-fiber reinforced
elastomeric isolators). Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2009;38(11):1335–57. https://
doi.org/10.1002/eqe.923.
[8] Al-Anany YM, Tait MJ. Fiber reinforced elastomeric isolators for the seismic
isolation of bridges. Compos Struct 2017;160:300–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compstruct.2016.10.008.
[9] Soleimanlo HS, Barkhordar MA. Effect of shape factor and rubber stiffness of fiber-
reinforced elastomeric bearings on the vertical stiffness of isolators. Trends Appl
Sci Res 2013;8(1):14–25. https://doi.org/10.3923/tasr.2013.14.25.
[10] Koh CG, Kelly JM. A simple mechanical model for elastomeric bearings used in
base isolation. Int J Mech Sci 1988;30(12):933–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-
7403(88)90075-6.
[11] Gent AN, Lindley PB. The compression of bonded rubber blocks. Proc Instit Mech
Eng 1959;173(1):111–22. https://doi.org/10.1243/pime_proc_1959_173_022_02.
[12] Gent AN, Meinecke EA. Compression, bending, and shear of bonded rubber blocks.
Polym Eng Sci 1970;10(1):48–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/pen.760100110.
[13] Toopchi-Nezhad H. Horizontal stiffness solutions for unbonded fiber reinforced
elastomeric bearings. Struct Eng Mech 2014;49(3):395–410. https://doi.org/
10.12989/sem.2014.49.3.395.
[14] Gerharer U, Strauss A, Bergmeister K. Verbesserte bemessungsrichtlinien für
bewehrte elastomerlager. Bautechnik 2011;88(7):451–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/
bate.201101475.
[15] Van Ngo T, Dutta A, Deb SK. Evaluation of horizontal stiffness of fibre-reinforced
elastomeric isolators. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2017;46(11):1747–67. https://
doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2879.
S. Prakash and R.S. Jangid
[16] Russo G, Pauletta M, Cortesia A. A study on experimental shear behavior of fiber-
reinforced elastomeric isolators with various fiber layouts, elastomers and aging
conditions. Eng Struct 2013;52:422–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2013.02.034.
[17] Pauletta M. Method to design fiber-reinforced elastomeric isolators (U-FREIs) and
application. Eng Struct 2019;197:109366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2019.109366.
[18] Vaiana N, Sessa S, Marmo F, Rosati L. An accurate and computationally efficient
uniaxial phenomenological model for steel and fiber reinforced elastomeric
bearings. Compos Struct 2019;211:196–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compstruct.2018.12.017.
[19] Vaiana N, Capuano R, Sessa S, Marmo F, Rosati L. Nonlinear dynamic analysis of
seismically base-isolated structures by a novel opensees hysteretic material model.
Appl Sci 2021;11(3):900. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11030900.
[20] Van Engelen NC, Tait MJ, Konstantinidis D. Model of the shear behavior of
unbonded fiber-reinforced elastomeric isolators. J Struct Eng 2015;141(7):
04014169. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0001120.
[21] Jangid RS, Kelly JM. Base isolation for near-fault motions. Earthquake Eng Struct
Dyn 2001;30(5):691–707. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.31.
[22] Panchal VR, Jangid RS. Behaviour of liquid storage tanks with VCFPS under near-
fault ground motions. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2012;8(1):71–88. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15732470903300919.
[23] Panchal VR, Jangid RS. Seismic response of structures with variable friction
pendulum system. J Earthquake Eng 2009;13(2):193–216. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13632460802597786.
[24] Bani-Hani KA, Sheban MA. Semi-active neuro-control for base-isolation system
using magnetorheological (MR) dampers. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2006;35(9):
1119–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.574.
[25] Wang Y, Dyke S. Modal-based LQG for smart base isolation system design in
seismic response control. Struct Control Health Monitor 2012;20(5):753–68.
https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.1490.
[26] Chen P-C, Tsai K-C, Lin P-Y. Real-time hybrid testing of a smart base isolation
system. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2013;43(1):139–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/
eqe.2341.
[27] Lin PY, Roschke PN, Loh CH. Hybrid base-isolation with magnetorheological
damper and fuzzy control. Struct Control Health Monitor 2007;14(3):384–405.
https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.163.
[28] Prakash S, Jangid RS. Optimum parameters of tuned mass damper-inerter for
damped structure under seismic excitation. Int J Dyn Control. 2022. doi:10.1007/
s40435-022-00911-x.
[29] Ivers DE, Miller LR. Experimental comparison of passive, semi-active on/off, and
semi-active continuous suspensions. SAE Technical Paper Series. Published online
November 1, 1989. doi:10.4271/892484.
[30] Tseng HE, Hedrick JK. Semi-active control laws – optimal and sub-optimal. Veh
Syst Dyn 1994;23(1):545–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/00423119408969074.
[31] Dyke SJ, Spencer BF, Quast P, Kaspari DC, Sain MK. Implementation of an Active
mass driver using acceleration feedback control. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng
1996;11(5):305–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8667.1996.tb00445.x.
[32] Jing C, Youlin X, Weilian Q, Zhilun W. Seismic response control of a complex
structure using multiple MR dampers: experimental investigation. Earthquake Eng
Eng Vibr 2004;3(2):181–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02858233.
[33] Gordaninejad F, Breese DG. Heating of magnetorheological fluid dampers. J Intell
Mater Syst Struct 1999;10(8):634–45. https://doi.org/10.1106/55d1-xaxp-yfh6-
b2fb.
[34] Al-Anany YM, Tait MJ. Experimental assessment of utilizing fiber reinforced
elastomeric isolators as bearings for bridge applications. Compos B Eng 2017;114:
373–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.01.060.
[35] Castillo Ruano P, Strauss A. An experimental study on unbonded circular fiber
reinforced elastomeric bearings. Eng Struct 2018;177:72–84. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.09.062.
[36] de Raaf MGP, Tait MJ, Toopchi-Nezhad H. Stability of fiber-reinforced elastomeric
bearings in an unbonded application. J Compos Mater 2011;45(18):1873–84.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021998310388319.
[37] Strauss A, Apostolidi E, Zimmermann T, Gerhaher U, Dritsos S. Experimental
investigations of fiber and steel reinforced elastomeric bearings: shear modulus and
damping coefficient. Eng Struct 2014;75:402–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2014.06.008.
448
Structures 42 (2022) 434–448
[38] Foster BAD. Base Isolation Using Stable Unbonded Fibre Reinforced Elastomeric
Isolators (SU-FREI). Published online December 2011.
[39] Das A, Dutta A, Deb SK. Performance of fiber-reinforced elastomeric base isolators
under cyclic excitation. Struct Control Health Monitor 2014;22(2):197–220.
https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.1668.
[40] de Raaf M. Experimental study of unbonded fiber reinforced elastomeric bearings;
2009.
[41] Osgooei PM, Van Engelen NC, Konstantinidis D, Tait MJ. Experimental and finite
element study on the lateral response of modified rectangular fiber-reinforced
elastomeric isolators (MR-FREIs). Eng Struct 2015;85:293–303. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.11.037.
[42] Toopchi-Nezhad H, Tait MJ, Drysdale RG. Testing and modeling of square carbon
fiber-reinforced elastomeric seismic isolators. Struct Control Health Monitor 2008;
15(6):876–900. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.225.
[43] Pauletta M, Cortesia A, Russo G. Roll-out instability of small size fiber-reinforced
elastomeric isolators in unbonded applications. Eng Struct 2015;102:358–68.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.08.019.
[44] Thuyet VN, Deb SK, Dutta A. Mitigation of seismic vulnerability of prototype low-
rise masonry building using U-FREIs. J Perform Constr Facil 2018;32(2):04017136.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cf.1943-5509.0001136.
[45] Ohtori Y, Christenson RE, Spencer BF, Dyke SJ. Benchmark control problems for
seismically excited nonlinear buildings. J Eng Mech 2004;130(4):366–85. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9399(2004)130:4(366).
[46] Ehsani B, Toopchi-Nezhad H. Systematic design of unbonded fiber reinforced
elastomeric isolators. Eng Struct 2017;132:383–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2016.11.036.
[47] Housner GW, Trifunac MD. Analysis of accelerograms—Parkfield earthquake. Bull
Seismol Soc Am 1967;57(6):1193–220. https://doi.org/10.1785/bssa0570061193.
[48] Bozorgnia Y, Niazi M, Campbell KW. Characteristics of free-field vertical ground
motion during the northridge earthquake. Earthquake Spectra 1995;11(4):515–25.
https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585825.
[49] Abrahamson NA, Somerville PG. Effects of the hanging wall and footwall on
ground motions recorded during the Northridge earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am.
1996;86(1B):S93-S99. doi:10.1785/bssa08601b0s93.
[50] Teisseyre R, Majewski E, Takeo M. Earthquake source asymmetry, structural media
and rotation effects. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2006. doi:10.1007/3-540-31337-0.
[51] COSMOS Virtual Data Center. www.strongmotioncenter.org. Accessed March 6,
2022. https://www.strongmotioncenter.org/vdc/scripts/default.plx.
[52] PEER Ground Motion Database - PEER Center. Berkeley.edu. Published 2014.
https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/.
[53] Dahl PR. Solid friction damping of mechanical vibrations. AIAA J 1976;14(12):
1675–82. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.61511.
[54] Kwok NM, Ha QP, Nguyen TH, Li J, Samali B. A novel hysteretic model for
magnetorheological fluid dampers and parameter identification using particle
swarm optimization. Sens Actuators, A 2006;132(2):441–51. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.sna.2006.03.015.
[55] Li WH, Yao GZ, Chen G, Yeo SH, Yap FF. Testing and steady state modeling of a
linear MR damper under sinusoidal loading. Smart Mater Struct 2000;9(1):95–102.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/9/1/310.
[56] Spencer BF, Dyke SJ, Sain MK, Carlson JD. Phenomenological Model for
Magnetorheological Dampers. J Eng Mech 1997;123(3):230–8. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(asce)0733-9399(1997)123:3(230).
[57] Spencer BF, Yang G, Carlson JD, Sain MK. “Smart” Dampers forSeismic Protection
of Structures:A Full-Scale Study. In: Second World Conference on Structural Control.
[58] Bharti SD, Dumne SM, Shrimali MK. Seismic response analysis of adjacent
buildings connected with MR dampers. Eng Struct 2010;32(8):2122–33. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.03.015.
[59] Dyke SJ, Spencer BF, Sain MK, Carlson JD. Modeling and control of
magnetorheological dampers for seismic response reduction. Smart Mater Struct
1996;5(5):565–75. https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/5/5/006.
[60] Spencer BF, Suhardjo J, Sain MK. Frequency domain optimal control strategies for
aseismic protection. J Eng Mech 1994;120(1):135–58. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(asce)0733-9399(1994)120:1(135).
[61] Chang SY. Family of structure-dependent explicit methods for structural dynamics.
J Eng Mech 2014;140(6):06014005. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)em.1943-
7889.0000748.
[62] MATLAB. Natick, Massachusetts: The Mathworks Inc.; 2021.