applied

sciences
Article
Study on Structural Robustness of Isolated Structure
Based on Seismic Response
Wenwei Yang 1, * , Chao Bao 1, * , Xiaotong Ma 2 and Shangrong Zhang 1
1 College of Civil and Hydraulic Engineering, Ningxia University, Yinchuan 750021, China;
sr_zhang@nxu.edu.cn
2 School of Civil Engineering, North Minzu University, Yinchuan 750021, China; bfmzdxmxt@163.com
* Correspondence: nxyangww@163.com (W.Y.); baochao@nxu.edu.cn (C.B.)




Received: 23 August 2018; Accepted: 14 September 2018; Published: 18 September 2018


Abstract: The qualitative analysis for structural robustness study subjected to severe earthquakes is
unable to meet engineering requirements, and a quantitative analysis method for structural robustness
is needed to be proposed. The existing analysis methods, such as Incremental Dynamic Analysis
Method and Pushover method, only study the response of the structure directly from the macroscopic
view, rather than focusing on the response of a single component on the structure. Especially for the
construction of isolated structure, the impact of accidental bearing failure on the isolated structure and
the impact of progressive collapse cannot be considered. In this paper, based on the Alternative Load
Path Method, the quantitative analysis method for structural robustness analysis under earthquake
is proposed. The structural robustness of some different vertical irregular isolated structures under
different earthquakes is studied.

Keywords: structural robustness; anti-progressive collapse; alternative load path method; isolated
structure; vertically irregular structure

1. Introduction
Structural robustness is used to represent the ability of a structure to resist a progressive collapse
due to the accidental loads. How to quantitatively analyze the robustness of the structure has been
the focus of the majority of scholars in recent years. The simple and practical quantitative evaluation
methods will be widely used and promoted by the engineering field.
A great deal of research has been taken to work out the quantitative evaluation method of
structural robustness.
A technique termed ‘pushdown analysis’ [1,2] or ‘pull down analysis’ [3] was used to investigate
the robustness of building systems by computing residual capacity of remaining structure. However,
due to the particularity of the isolation bearing, the instability problem of rubber isolators can easily
occur under large axial pressure, or much large displacement is concentrated at the isolation layer,
and therefore, it is difficult to judge its robustness by applying vertical pushing force.
Various quantitative evaluation methods were also proposed. A novel simplified framework for
progressive collapse assessment of multi-storey buildings was suggested [4,5]. The associated concepts
(redundancy and vulnerability) were discussed and interpreted in the general context of robustness
such that the corresponding methodologies can be compared quantitatively using a comparable
scale [6]. A methodology is developed and applied to an existing precast industrial building case study,
and assumed to be prone to seismic and wind hazards [7]. The dynamic response is described using
a basic substructure instead of a global frame that loses a column, and a simplified model is finally
developed for the prediction of the considered system’s dynamic response [8]. A new robustness
definition with several robustness indicators and a framework are proposed to define more accurately

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1686; doi:10.3390/app8091686 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1686 2 of 17

the structural robustness concept of corroded reinforced concrete structures [9]. A reliability-based
framework for quantifying structural robustness considering the occurrence of a major earthquake
and subsequent cascading hazard events is proposed [10]. An experimental asymmetrical two-storey
reduced-scale reinforced masonry shear walls (RMSW) building is tested to failure under simulated
seismic loading, and the robustness indexes quantified for five key robustness indicators (drift ratio,
strength, stiffness, strain energy, and residual drift ratio) can provide a means by which the system-level
performance of RMSW buildings can be measured [11]. A quantitative analysis method of structural
robustness is proposed based on mechanical characteristics of frame structure under earthquake,
and the correctness and practicability of the method were verified with an example [12]. By using
the developed pushdown methods, the reserve load carrying capacity of the damaged structure is
evaluated; the robustness for resisting progressive collapse of the damaged structure is quantitatively
assessed [13]. The influence of different plastic hinge models on the structural nonlinear behavior of
reinforced concrete structures is studied by using different methods [14,15]. The effectiveness and
robustness of a pounding tuned mass damper for vibration suppression of a submerged cylindrical pipe
is studied by doing experiments [16,17]. To examine a structure in terms of its robustness, basics for
the development of measures to quantify structural robustness are formulated, and a quantitative
description of the robustness is proposed [18].
Some other scholars try to use other means to enhance the robustness of the structure [19–21],
but whether the robustness of the original structure is really enhanced or not, and the extent of
structural robustness enhancement are both difficult to evaluate and measure.
There are many methods for structural robustness evaluations, but they are difficult to meet
the engineering requirements [22–25], because of the complex computation process and lack of
practicability. Therefore, it is urgent to establish quantitative analysis indexes and methods of
structural robustness. The existing common analytical methods, such as Incremental Dynamic Analysis
Method and Pushover Method analyze the overall structure from the macro point of view directly,
without focusing on individual components of the response and its failure on the overall structure
of adverse effects. Both the Department of Defense (DoD) (2005) [23] and the General Services
Administration (GSA) (2003) [26] employ the Alternate Path Method to resist progressive collapse of
building structures. It does not need to consider the type of triggering event when the Alternate Path
Method is used, so the methodology is always applied to the models with some columns removed.
In order to evaluate the structural robustness quantitatively, this paper starts with the damage risk
and importance degree of individual components, associating the damage of the members with the
collapse of the whole structure. The typical structures collapse mode-vertical progressive collapse is
analyzed. The corresponding quantitative analysis method of vertical collapse resistance robustness is
put forward, and the method is applied to different vertical irregular base isolation structure models.
The structural robustness of the rubber isolation bearing failure is analyzed.

2. Quantitative Evaluation Method of Structural Collapse Robustness

In this paper, the quantitative evaluation method of structural robustness under earthquake is
proposed, based on the component importance coefficient and the component vulnerability coefficient.
The component importance coefficient, the component vulnerability coefficient, and the robustness
coefficient of the structure are obtained by the two coefficients, and the robustness of the structure is
quantitatively evaluated.

2.1. Component Importance Coefficient

The component importance coefficient is used to reflect the degree of influence of the loss of
bearing capacity of individual members on the bearing capacity of the original structure under extreme
conditions, and the determination of component importance coefficient is the basis for calculating the
structural robustness coefficient.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1686 3 of 17

Without consideration of horizontal loads such as wind and earthquake, this study considers the
coupling effects of various loads during structural collapse. Therefore, the degree of influence of the
failure of the column under the coupling action and the failure of the rubber isolation bearing on the
total energy distribution of the structure is taken as the evaluation index of the importance coefficient.
The concrete calculation method is expressed as:
αi
γi = (1)
max {αi }

1
αi = ∆Ei = (r 0)T Ki (ri ) (2)
2 i
where γi is the component importance coefficient; αi Which is used to show the effect of the failure of
i-th frame column on the total strain energy of the structure; Ki is the stiffness matrix of the i-th frame
column; ri and ri 0 are the displacement vectors of the i-th frame column before and after initial failure.
The Element Stiffness Matrix of the i-th Bottom Column:
12EI
0 − 6EI − 12EI 0 − 6EI
 
l3 l2 l3 l2
EA

 0 l 0 0 − EA
l 0  
 − 6EI 0 4EI 6EI
0 2EI 
l2
Ki =  12EI
 l l2 l 
(3)
 − l3 6EI 12EI 6EI 
0 l2 l3
0 l2

− EA EA
 
 0 l 0 0 l 0 
− 6EI
l2
0 2EI
l
6EI
l2
0 4EI
l

Since the bottom end of the column is connected with the foundation, the displacements generated
at the bottom end of the column before and after the failure are too small to be compared with the
displacement of the top end, and so the displacement vector of the bottom end node can be written as:
 T  

 ui 0 
 
 ui 

vi 0  vi 

  
 

 
 
 


 θ0   
 θ 
i i
ri 0 = ri = (4)
 0 
   0 
 
   
 0 

 



 0



   
0 0
   

Substituting Equation (4) into Equation (2), a formula to calculate the contribution of the base
column to the total energy distribution of the structure is obtained:
 T   
12EI
 u0 0 − 6EI u
1 i 3 2 i
  
 l l
  
EA
αi = vi 0  0 0  vi (5)

2 l
 θ0 − 6EI 4EI
  
i

l2
0 l
 θ 
i

2.2. Component Vulnerability Coefficient

The existing studies are mainly aimed at studying the vulnerability of the entire structure
under severe earthquakes. Structural vulnerability not only depends on the layout of the structure,
the performance of building materials, but also depends on the strength of the key components of
the structure.
Compared with structural vulnerability, component vulnerability is used to reflect the probability
of failure of components under external loadings. For a single member, if the load effect caused by a
certain load is significantly less than the resistance of the component, the damage risk of the component
under this loading is relatively low, the component vulnerability coefficient is also small; on the
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1686 4 of 17

other side, this load increases the risk of damage to the component is large, and the corresponding
vulnerability coefficient is greater.
In the process of structural collapse, the axial force, shear force and bending moment load also
appear together. Considering that the proposed method is too sensitive to the variation of the variables,
the corresponding improvements are made. The damage coefficient ϕi is calculated as follows:
     
V M N
ϕi = p +p +q (6)
V0 M0 N0

where each coefficient shown in Equation (7) can be calculated as:


4k 4k2
 p = − ( k −1)2 , q = ( k −1)2


n + m −1 (7)
k= n2 − n

 Nb Mb
 n= N0 , m = M0

where V, M and N are the shear force, bending moment and axial force respectively.
M0 and N0 are the ultimate load-carrying capacity of the normal section and the ultimate
load-carrying capacity of the axial compression under pure pressure, respectively, when the element is
purely bent. The calculation method is shown in Equation (8):

M0 = f yAs (h0 − a0s ) 

(
(8)
N0 = 0.9ϕ f y0 A0s + f c A

V0 is the shearing capacity of oblique section of pure shears, and the calculation method is based
on the relationship between shear force and external load. The concrete calculation is shown in
Equations (9) and (10). In general, the shear capacity is calculated according to Equation (9). When the
members are subjected to concentrated loads, or subjected to complex loads but the shearing force
caused by the concentrated load at the bearing portion is more than 75% of the total shear value,
the shear bearing capacity of the member can be calculated according to Equation (10):

Asv
V0 = 0.7 f t bh0 + 1.25 f yv h0 (9)
s
1.75 Asv
V0 = f t bh0 + 1.0 f yv h0 (10)
λ + 1.0 s
In the bottom frame, when a frame column loses its bearing capacity, the adjacent frame column
is changed from the original axial compression state to the eccentric compression state. When the
longitudinal reinforcement of the tension zone is produced, the calculation methods of ultimate
load-carrying capacity Mb and ultimate load-carrying capacity Mb are shown in Equations (11) and (12),
respectively:
Nb = α1 f c bh0 ξ b (11)
   
h ξ
Mb = f y As h0 − a0s − Nb − as + α1 f c bh20 ξ b 1 − b


(12)
2 2
where f c and f t are the axial compressive strength and the axial tensile strength, respectively; f y and
f yv are the tensile strength of longitudinal reinforcement and stirrup; Ayv is the total cross-sectional
area of stirrups in the same section; h0 is the cross-section effective height; b is the section width; ξ b is
the relative height of the compression zone of the section.

2.3. Structural Robustness Coefficient

The component vulnerability coefficient reflects the damage risk of structural members under
load, while the component importance coefficient reflects the effect of different component failure on
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1686 5 of 17

the original structure response. The two are not necessarily related to each other, but they are different
from the focus of the performance of the structure and the link between the components. Therefore,
when evaluation of the robustness of the structure of the two together is considered, the evaluation of
the structural robustness is also considered. Based on this idea, a quantitative evaluation method of
structural robustness was proposed which comprehensively considers the vulnerability coefficient and
importance coefficient of components. However, the robustness calculation method is easily affected
by the small variation of the variables; therefore, a further simplification is considered in this paper:

1
R= n (13)
∑ ( ϕ i γi )
i =1

where R is structural robustness coefficient; ϕi and γi are the vulnerability coefficient and the
importance coefficient respectively; n is the entire number of components to be analyzed. According to
the above analysis, it can be seen that when the structure is under heavy loading, the vulnerability
coefficient of each component is small, which means the component is not easily destroyed, and the
importance coefficient of the corresponding component is also small, which means the damage of the
component to the whole structure and the robustness of the entire structure under heavy loading will
be strengthened, and the probability of the failure of the structure will be reduced.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 17
3. Model Analysis of Vertical Irregular Structure
shown in Figures 1 and 2, respectively, the shaded area in the figure is used to indicate the location
3.1. Model Design
of the upper tower.
Based
To study on the
the structure
differencerobustness
of the relative position
to against of the upper
progressive collapsetower and
of the the lower
bottom framepodium,
column
three typical models
and isolation bearingofafter
the vertical irregular
failure, the irregularities
analysis object needs aretodesigned,
include all which are model
the bottom frameA, Model
columns B
and Model C, respectively. Model podium and tower are three layers, podium
and all the isolation bearings, but considering the symmetry of the model plane layout, in order to and tower are 4 spans
and
avoid2 spans.
doubleThe columnthe
counting, spacing
model is is
6 m. The bottom
simplified layer of
in terms is 3.6
them high, andcharacteristic:
symmetry the rest layerstheare model
all 3.3 m
A
high. We adopt
is a plane C30 concrete
bidirectional and HRB400
symmetry model, toandconstruct beams,
the original columns
structure is and reinforced
divided into 8 longitudinal
symmetrical
members. The frame-column
axes Parameters section
of the same part of the 1st–3rd
to analyze; ModelfloorB is of the tower
a plane is 550 mm
symmetric × 550
model, mm,isthe
which other
divided
columns
into two of the frame
parts with theis 500
samemm × 500 mm,bythe
parameters theframe beam is
symmetry 550 and
axis, mm part× 300 ofmm,
themseismic isolation
is studied. The
beam
modelfor C isthe 650 mm × 300
symmetrically mm. Thealong
distributed 3D plots of structures
its plane diagonally and structural
across plane information
all conditions, as well as onlyare
shown
part of in
itsFigures
model. 1Theandinitial
2, respectively,
failure casestheof
shaded
bottom area in the figure
columns is used bearing
and isolation to indicate
arethe location of
numbered, as
the upper
shown tower. 3.
in Figure

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 1. The 3D plots of structures.
Figure 1. structures. (a) Model A; (b) Model
Model B;
B; (c)
(c) Model
Model C.
C.

To study the structure robustness to against progressive collapse of the bottom frame column
and isolation bearing after failure, the analysis object needs to include all the bottom frame columns
and all the isolation bearings, but considering the symmetry of the model plane layout, in order to
avoid double counting, the model is simplified in terms of the symmetry characteristic: the model A is
a plane bidirectional symmetry model, and the original structure is divided into 8 symmetrical axes
Parameters of the same part to analyze; Model B is a plane symmetric model, which is divided into
two parts with the same parameters by the symmetry axis, and part of them is studied. The model C is

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 2. Structure plane layout and distribution of cases. (a) Model A; (b) Model B; (c) Model C.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1686 6 of 17

symmetrically distributed along its plane diagonally across all conditions, as well as only part of its
(a) (b) (c)
model. The initial failure cases of bottom columns and isolation bearing are numbered, as shown in
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 3. Figure 1. The 3D plots of structures. (a) Model A; (b) Model B; (c) Model C.
Figure 1. The 3D plots of structures. (a) Model A; (b) Model B; (c) Model C.

(a)(a) (b)
(b) (c) (c)
Figure 2. Structure plane layout and distribution of cases. (a) Model A; (b) Model B; (c) Model C.
2. Structure plane layoutand
anddistribution
distribution of
Figure
Figure 2. Structure plane layout ofcases.
cases.(a)
(a)Model
ModelA;A;
(b)(b)
Model B; (c)
Model B;Model C. C.
(c) Model

(a) (b) (c)

(a)Figure 3. Isolation bearing layout. (a)

(b)Model A; (b) Model B; (c) Model C.(c)
3.2. Base Isolated Structure
Figure Model Design
3. Isolation bearing layout. (a) Model A; (b) Model B; (c) Model C.
Because the model is the base isolation structure, special seismic isolation design is needed to
select the appropriate type of isolation bearing, and to determine the rational form of isolation bearing
layout. The layout of the seismic isolation bearings is shown in Figure 2. The rubber isolation bearing
pressure stress limit is 12 MPa, the specific parameters of the bearing are summarized in Table 1.
When the stiffness center of the isolation layer does not coincide with that of the upper structure,
it is necessary to consider the torsional coupling effect of the structure. The severe torsional effect
can also cause damage to the bearing away from the center and even endanger the safety of the
whole structure. The results show that, regardless of whether the center of the upper structure
deviates from the center of mass, as long as the isolation center coincides with the center of gravity
of the upper structure, it can no longer pay much attention to the torsion effect of the isolation layer.
Therefore, controlling the eccentricity of isolation structure is also an important link in the design of
isolation structure. The eccentricity of three kinds of vertical irregularly isolated structures is calculated
respectively, as shown in Table 2.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1686 7 of 17

Table 1. Parameters of rubber isolation bearing.

Performance Indicators Parameters LRB400 LRB500 LRB600

Exterior diameter 420 mm 520 mm 620 mm
Size parameters Effective diameter 400 mm 500 mm 600 mm
Bearing height 130 mm 170 mm 185 mm
Standard surface pressure 12 MPa 12 MPa 12 MPa
Axial parameters Axial stiffness/(kN·mm−1 ) 1481 1640 2312
Axial bearing capacity/kN 1507 kN 2356 kN 3391 kN
Yield load 40.2 kN 62.6 kN 90.4 kN
Pre-yield shear stiffness/(kN·mm−1 ) 7.180 8.040 9.260
100% 0.718 0.801 0.926
lateral performance Post-yield stiffness/(kN·mm−1 )
250% 0.615 0.679 0.783
100% 1.750 1.777 2.270
Equivalent stiffness/(kN·mm−1 )
250% 0.960 1.406 1.697
100% 0.23 0.23 0.230
Equivalent damping ratio
250% 0.170 0.170 0.170
Ultimate performance Maximum horizontal displacement 220 mm 275 mm 330 mm

Table 2. Eccentricity of the isolation layer.

Center of Mass Stiffness Center Eccentric Eccentricity

Models Direction
Coordinates/m Coordinates/m Distance/m Ratio/%
X 12.000 12.000 0 0
A
Y 12.000 12.000 0 0
X 12.000 12.000 0 0
B
Y 10.744 10.737 0.007 0.061
X 10.744 10.775 0.031 0.269
C
Y 10.744 10.775 0.031 0.269

It can be seen from Table 2 that the eccentricity ratios of the three models are small in both
directions. It is indicated that the center of the isolation structure coincides with the center of the upper
structure, and the structure will not show significant tensional coupling effects under the horizontal
earthquake. Therefore, the bearing layout is reasonable.

3.3. Finite Element Model

The finite element models were established by using the software SeismoStruct [27]. The accuracy
and efficiency of the software were both high and non-linear, and the calculated data could be
monitored in real-time during the whole processing. In this section, the Mander concrete model
and the Menegotto–Pinto model [27] are used to simulate the concrete and the steel bar, respectively.
The stress–strain curves are shown in Figure 4. The bilinear follow-up model is used to simulated
lead-rubber isolating bearings, the force-displacement loop is shown in Figure 5.
In the SeismoStruct software, the so-called fiber approach to represent the cross-section behavior is
used, where each fiber is associated with a uniaxial stress–strain relationship. The sectional stress–strain
state of beam-column elements is then obtained through the integration of the nonlinear uniaxial
stress–strain response of the individual fibers in which the section has been subdivided. Distributed
inelasticity frame elements can be implemented with two different finite elements (FE) formulations:
the classical displacement-based (DB) ones, and the more recent force-based (FB) formulations. In a
DB approach the displacement field is imposed, meanwhile in a FB element equilibrium is strictly
satisfied and no restraints are placed to the development of inelastic deformations throughout the
member. The inform FB formulation is always exact, since it does not depend on the assumed
sectional constitutive behavior. In fact, it does not restrain in any way the displacement field of the
element. In this sense the formulation can be regarded as always “exact”, the only approximation
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1686 8 of 17
be monitored in real-time during the whole processing. In this section, the Mander concrete model
be monitored in real-time during the whole processing. In this section, the Mander concrete model
and the Menegotto–Pinto model [27] are used to simulate the concrete and the steel bar, respectively.
and the
being Menegotto–Pinto
introduced by modelnumber
the discrete [27] are of
used
theto simulate the
controlling concrete
sections and
along thethe steel bar,
element thatrespectively.
The stress–strain curves are shown in Figure 4. The bilinear follow-up model is used toaresimulated
used for
Thenumerical
the stress–strain curves are
integration. In shown
summary,in Figure
the 4. The
frame bilinearoffollow-up
structures this paper model
are is used to
simulated by simulated
using the
lead-rubber isolating bearings, the force-displacement loop is shown in Figure 5.
lead-rubber isolating
firm FB element. bearings, the force-displacement loop is shown in Figure 5.
400 0
400 0
300
300 -5
200 -5
200
-10
100
Stress/MPa

Stress/MPa
-10
100
Stress/MPa

Stress/MPa
0 -15
0 -15
-100
-100 -20
-20
-200
-200 -25
-300 -25
-300
-400 -30
-400 -0.008 -0.006 -0.004 -0.002 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 -30 -0.008 -0.006 -0.004 -0.002 0.000 0.002
-0.008 -0.006 -0.004 -0.002 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 -0.008 -0.006 -0.004 -0.002 0.000 0.002
Strain Strain
Strain Strain
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 4. Stress–Strain Curve of Reinforced and Concrete. (a) Stress–strain relationship of
Figure 4. Stress–Strain Curve
4. Stress–Strain Curve of of Reinforced and Concrete. (a) Stress–strain
Concrete. (a) Stress–strain relationship
relationship of
reinforcement; (b) Stress–strain relationship of concrete.
reinforcement; (b) Stress–strain
Stress–strain relationship
relationship of
of concrete.
concrete.

Figure 5. Force-Displacement Curve of Isolating Bearings.

Figure 5. Force-Displacement Curve of Isolating Bearings.
Figure 5. Force-Displacement Curve of Isolating Bearings.
4. Seismic Response Analysis of Structures Based on Seismic Response
In the SeismoStruct software, the so-called fiber approach to represent the cross-section
In the
the SeismoStruct software, the so-called fiber itapproach
usuallyto representtothe cross-section
behavior is process
In of seismic
used, where each design
fiber isofassociated
the structure, with a isuniaxial necessary
stress–strain ensure that The
relationship. the
behavior
appearance is used,
of the where
plastic each
hinge fiber
in the is associated
frame beam with
precedesa uniaxial
the framestress–strain
column, relationship.
that is, the The
“strong
sectional stress–strain state of beam-column elements is then obtained through the integration of the
sectionalweak
column stress–strain
beam”, state
so that of beam-column
theresponse
frame column elementslittle
is thenas obtained throughhinge,the integration of the
the
nonlinear uniaxial stress–strain of the as individual possible
fibers inplastic
which the section to prevent
has been
nonlinear
emergence uniaxial stress–strain response of the individual fibers in which the section has been
subdivided.ofDistributed
plastic frame due to more
inelasticity plastic
frame columncan
elements failure occurred in a with
be implemented progressive collapsefinite
two different [28].
subdivided.
In addition toDistributed
the seismic inelasticity
structure offrame
the elements
rubber can beit implemented
structure, is necessary to with
ensure two different
that the finite
isolation
elements (FE) formulations: the classical displacement-based (DB) ones, and the more recent
elementsis (FE)
bearing still formulations:
safe and reliablethe underclassical
the displacement-based (DB) ones, and the more recent
earthquake.
force-based (FB) formulations. In a DB approach the displacement field is imposed, meanwhile in a
force-based
However, (FB) formulations.
due to the small In a DB
horizontal approach
stiffness the displacement field inis the
imposed, meanwhile in a
FB element equilibrium is strictly satisfied and of nothe isolationare
restraints layer,
placed tousetheofdevelopment
spare load path of
FB element
method equilibrium is strictly satisfied and is no restraints are lateral
placed to the development of
inelasticfor analysis,
deformations forthroughout
the isolation thebearing,
member. it Thedifficult
informtoFBavoid formulationmovement and rotation,
is always exact, since it
inelastic
thus deformations throughout the member. The inform FB formulation is always exact, since it
doesaffecting
not depend the analysis results. sectional
on the assumed constitutive behavior. In fact, it does not restrain in any
does Considering
not depend on the
that the assumed
seismic sectional constitutive behavior. Intofact, it does not restrain in any
way the displacement field of theisolation
element. structure
In this senseis mainly used
the formulation reduce
can betheregarded
damage degree
as alwaysof
way
the the displacement
upperthe
structure, field of the
the seismic response element. In this
of the upper sense the
structureformulation
under can
the same be regarded as always
“exact”, only approximation being introduced by the discrete number of theearthquake
controllingissections
one of
“exact”,
the the only approximation beingbasedintroduced by the discrete number of the controlling sections
along the element that are used for the numerical integration. In summary, the frame structures of
main technical indexes. Therefore, on the standby load path method, the robust analysis of
along
the the element thatis are used for the numerical integration. In summary,of thethe frame structures of
thisisolated
paper arestructure
simulated quantitatively
by using the firm analyzed by the
FB element. seismic response superstructure.
this paper are simulated by using the firm FB element.
4.1. AnalysisResponse
4. Seismic Methods and Procedures
Analysis of Structures Based on Seismic Response
4. Seismic Response Analysis of Structures Based on Seismic Response
In order to study the robustness of the frame structure under the horizontal seismic effects,
In the process of seismic design of the structure, it is usually necessary to ensure that the
In the force
the internal process
and oftheseismic
horizontal design
seismic of response
the structure,
of the it is usually
frame necessary effects
under earthquake to ensure that the
are analyzed.
appearance of the plastic hinge in the frame beam precedes the frame column, that is, the “strong
appearance of the plastic hinge in the frame beam precedes the frame column, that is, the “strong
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1686 9 of 17

In order to analyze the damage degree of each component under different intensity earthquakes
and its influence on the robustness of the structure, three different intensity of ground motions were set
up for analysis, which are, the number of seismic accelerations, the design of basic seismic acceleration
and rare earthquake acceleration, respectively.
When the importance coefficient of the component is analyzed, the difference of the seismic
response between the original structure and the remaining structure is determined by introducing the
alternate load path method, and the influence of the corresponding component failure on the seismic
response of the original structure is obtained. The alternate load path method cannot only be modeled
when the existing building is repaired [29–31], but also for structural qualitative or quantitative
robustness assessment [28,32,33].
The concrete steps are as follows: Firstly, the seismic action of different strength is applied to
the original structure, and the corresponding vulnerability coefficient is determined according to the
internal force and bearing capacity of each member and according to Section 2.2. At the same time,
the response value of the original structure under different intensity earthquakes is calculated. Secondly,
the seismic response is applied to the remaining structures corresponding to each working condition,
and the response under different intensity seismic excitation is determined. Then, the component
importance coefficient is calculated by Section 2.1. Finally, the structural robustness coefficient is solved
by using the calculated component vulnerability coefficient and component importance coefficient.

4.2. Selection of Ground Motion Records

There is a strong uncertainty in the ground motion, and the effect of this uncertainty on the
structural response is even greater than the uncertainty of the structure itself [34–36], so it is necessary
to ensure the rationality and accuracy of the dynamic time history analysis, and the ground motion
record must first be properly selected. The uncertainty of the ground motion is mainly due to the
spectral characteristics of the ground motion record, the holding time and the peak value, and the
number of the ground motion records.
How to select the ground motion record and the choice of what kind of ground motion records
will directly determine the accuracy of the analysis results. At present, there are two main methods of
selecting ground motions for domestic and foreign scholars: the selection method based on design
response spectrum, and the seismic record selection method of seismic station and information.
This paper focuses on the analysis of the robustness of the structure by seismic excitation. The seismic
action is only used as external excitation. As a result, three ground motion records were selected from
the far field recorded and near field recorded in ATC-63, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Ground Motion Record.

Station Information Ground Motion Parameters

Earthquake
No. Earthquake Events Station Fault Distance PGA PGV Duration
Magnitude
Name (km) (gal) (cm/s) (s)
acc-1 Northridge-01 6.69 CDMG24278 20.72 568.3 46.51 39.88
acc-2 Chi-chi 7.62 TCU095 45.29 711.6 56.24 89.97
acc-3 Loma Prieta 6.93 USGS 1662 76.97 259.8 32.03 39.18
acc-4 N.Palm Springs 6.06 USGS-5072 4.24 602.2 32.91 20.03
acc-5 Imperial Valley-06 6.53 USGS-5054 6.20 686.1 53.86 27.62
acc-6 Chi-chi 7.62 CHY028 8.72 790.4 71.98 89.97

5. Structural Robustness Analysis of Isolated Bearing Failure

In this paper, the seismic response of three vertical irregularly isolated structures under earthquake
excitation is analyzed. The component importance coefficient and the component vulnerability
coefficient of the initial failure component corresponding to each working condition are calculated,
and the structural robustness is studied on the basis of this.
5. Structural Robustness Analysis of Isolated Bearing Failure
In this paper, the seismic response of three vertical irregularly isolated structures under
earthquake excitation is analyzed. The component importance coefficient and the component
vulnerability coefficient of the initial failure component corresponding to each working condition
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1686 10 of 17
are calculated, and the structural robustness is studied on the basis of this.

5.1. Component
5.1. Component Importance
Importance Coefficient
Coefficient
Figures6–8
Figures 6–8model
model A, model
A, model B andB model
and model
C rubberC isolation
rubber isolation bearing
bearing failure withfailure with the
the importance
importance
of of the
the coefficient coefficient
curve. curve.
It can be seen Itfrom
can the
be seen from
figures thatthe
thefigures that the
importance importance
coefficient of thecoefficient
component of
the component
increases with theincreases
increasewith theearthquake
of the increase of intensity.
the earthquake intensity.
It is found It is found
that with thatfailure,
the initial with the initial
there is
afailure,
certainthere is a certain
deviation betweendeviation between
the center of thethe center of
structure andthethestructure and
center of the center
gravity, of gravity,
and the and
“eccentric”
the “eccentric”
isolated isolated
structure structure
will have willdegree
different have different
of torsiondegree
underof the torsion under the earthquake.
earthquake.

0.5 0.25
Far-field earthquake Far-field earthquake
Average value of far-field earthquakes Average value of far-field earthquakes
Component Importance Coefficient

Component Importance Coefficient

Near-field earthquake Near-field earthquake
0.4 0.20
Average value of near-field earthquakes Average value of near-field earthquakes

0.3 0.15

0.2 0.10

0.1 0.05

0.0 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Cases Cases

(a) Frequent earthquakes (b) Fortification earthquake

0.15 Far-field earthquake
Average value of far-field earthquakes
Component Importance Coefficient

Near-field earthquake
Average value of near-field earthquakes
0.10

0.05

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6
Cases

(c) Rare earthquakes

Figure 6. Component
Figure 6. Component importance
importance coefficient
coefficientcurves
curvesof
ofmodel
modelA.
A.

Moreover, when the intensity of the seismic action increases, the torsional effect of the structure
increases, which leads to some differences in the seismic response between the remaining structure
and the original structure, reflected by the component importance coefficient. Therefore, the greater
the importance coefficient of the component is obtained, the greater the effect of the failure of the
component on the seismic response of the original structure may have. In addition, it can be seen from
the figure in the near-field seismic effect of component that the importance coefficient is generally
slightly larger than the far-field seismic action of the component importance coefficient, which also
shows that the near-field seismic excitation under the remaining structure of the center of gravity and
the deviation from the heart caused by the torsion effect is more significant.
It is found that the seismic isolation bearing with high importance coefficient is mainly distributed
in the area far from the isolation layer. The main reason is that the failure of these isolation bearings
will cause the isolation layer between the heart and the center of mass to produce a certain spacing, so
that the remaining structure encountered when the earthquake occurred when the phenomenon of
torsional coupling. The large number of bearings, the torsion effect caused by the failure of a single
 Far-field earthquake Far-field earthquake
Average value of far-field earthquakes

Component Importance Coefficient

Average value of far-field earthquakes

Component Importance Coefficient

0.4 Near-field earthquake Near-field earthquake
Average value of near-field earthquakes 0.15 Average value of near-field earthquakes

0.3
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1686 0.10 11 of 17
0.2

0.05
bearing is no longer significant with the increase of the overall translational effect of the structure
0.1
under earthquake excitation.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17

0.0 0.00
0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0.20 1 2Far-field
3 4earthquake
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Far-field earthquake
Cases Casesearthquakes
Average value of far-field
Component Importance Coefficient

Average value of far-field earthquakes

Component Importance Coefficient

0.4 Near-field earthquake Near-field earthquake
(a) Frequent earthquakes
Average value of near-field earthquakes 0.15 (b) Fortification earthquake
Average value of near-field earthquakes
0.15
Far-field earthquake
0.3
Component Importance Coefficient
Average value of far-field earthquakes
Near-field earthquake
0.10
Average value of near-field earthquakes
0.2
0.10
0.05
0.1

0.0 0.05 0.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Cases Cases

(a) Frequent earthquakes (b) Fortification earthquake

0.00
0.15
1 Far-field
2 3 4earthquake
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Component Importance Coefficient

Average value of far-field

Cases earthquakes
Near-field earthquake
(c) value
Average Rareof earthquakes
near-field earthquakes
0.10
Figure 7. Component importance coefficient curves of model B.

Moreover, when the intensity of the seismic action increases, the torsional effect of the structure
increases, which leads to some0.05differences in the seismic response between the remaining structure
and the original structure, reflected by the component importance coefficient. Therefore, the greater
the importance coefficient of the component is obtained, the greater the effect of the failure of the
component on the seismic response
0.00 of the original structure may have. In addition, it can be seen
from the figure in the near-field1seismic
2 3 4 effect
5 6 7of 8component
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
that the importance coefficient is
Cases
generally slightly larger than the far-field seismic action of the component importance coefficient,
(c) Rare
which also shows that the near-field seismic earthquakes
excitation under the remaining structure of the center of
gravity and the deviation from
Figure 7.
Figure the heart
7. Component caused
Component importanceby the torsioncurves
importance coefficient
coefficient effectof
curves ismodel
of moreB.
model significant.
B.

0.7 0.4
Moreover,
Far-fieldwhen the intensity of the seismic action increases,
earthquake theearthquake
Far-field torsional effect of the structure
Average value of far-field earthquakes Average value of far-field earthquakes
0.6
increases, which leads to some differences in the seismic response between the remaining structure
Component Importance Coefficient
Component Importance Coefficient

Near-field earthquake Near-field earthquake

and the original structure,
Average value reflected
of near-field 0.3
earthquakes by the component importance
Averagecoefficient. Therefore,
value of near-field earthquakes the greater
0.5
the importance coefficient of the component is obtained, the greater the effect of the failure of the
0.4
component on the seismic response of the original structure may have. In addition, it can be seen
0.2
from0.3the figure in the near-field seismic effect of component that the importance coefficient is
generally slightly larger than the far-field seismic action of the component importance coefficient,
0.2 also shows that the near-field seismic excitation under the remaining structure of the center of
which 0.1
gravity
0.1 and the deviation from the heart caused by the torsion effect is more significant.
0.0
0.7 0.0
0.4
1 Far-field
2 3 4earthquake
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 Far-field
2 3 4earthquake
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Average value of far-field earthquakes Average value of far-field earthquakes
0.6
Component Importance Coefficient

Cases
Component Importance Coefficient

Near-field earthquake
Cases
Near-field earthquake
(a) Frequent
Average earthquakes
value of near-field earthquakes 0.3 (b) Fortification
Average earthquake
value of near-field earthquakes
0.5
Figure 8. Cont.
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0 0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Cases Cases
(a) Frequent earthquakes (b) Fortification earthquake
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1686 12 of 17
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 17

0.20
Far-field earthquake
Average value of far-field earthquakes

Component Importance Coefficient

Near-field earthquake
0.15 Average value of near-field earthquakes

0.10

0.05

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Cases
(c) Rare earthquakes
Figure 8.
Figure 8. Component
Component importance
importance coefficient
coefficient curves
curves of
of model.
model.

In
It addition,
is foundthe three
that themodels
seismicin the largest bearing
isolation component of the
with highimportance
importance of the main component
coefficient is mainly of
the bearing isinmainly
distributed the areadistributed
far fromawaythe from the isolation
isolation layer
layer. The of the
main towerisofthat
reason the tower near the
the failure of lower
these
part of the tower bearing area, such as bearing 4 of Model A, bearing 4 of and
isolation bearings will cause the isolation layer between the heart and the center of mass to producebearing 13 of Model B,
and bearing
a certain 15 of Model
spacing, so that C. theThe failure of
remaining these bearings
structure of the when
encountered upperthe mass leads to the
earthquake destruction
occurred when
of
thethe load transferofpath
phenomenon of thecoupling.
torsional inertial force
The of the number
large upper mass, which also
of bearings, the causes
torsionaeffect
large caused
deviation by
between the center of the isolation layer and the center of mass of the upper structure,
the failure of a single bearing is no longer significant with the increase of the overall translational resulting in the
complex force
effect of the of the restraining
structure bearing,excitation.
under earthquake and then have a detrimental effect on the shock absorbing
effectIn
of the isolated structure. Therefore,
addition, the three models in the it is the maincomponent
largest reason for the of distance between the
the importance of heart and
the main
the superstructure of the isolation layer to be controlled during the design stage
component of the bearing is mainly distributed away from the isolation layer of the tower of the of the isolation design.
Therefore,
tower nearitthe is necessary
lower part toof
reduce or avoid
the tower the unfavorable
bearing area, such asfactors
bearing that affect
4 of Modelthe A,
cushioning
bearing 4effect.
of and
bearing 13 of Model B, and bearing 15 of Model C. The failure of these bearings of the upper mass
5.2. Component Vulnerability Coefficient
leads to the destruction of the load transfer path of the inertial force of the upper mass, which also
causes a large
Figures deviation
9–11 show thebetween the center
vulnerability of the isolation
coefficient curveslayer
of theand the failure
initial center of mass ofbearing
isolation the upper in
structure,
each resulting
condition underinearthquake
the complex forceItof
action. cantheberestraining
seen that the bearing, and then
vulnerability have a of
coefficient detrimental
the same
effect onbearing
seismic the shock
underabsorbing effect earthquake
the near-field of the isolated structure.
is larger than Therefore,
that of the it is the main
far-field seismic reason forand
action, the
distance between the heart and the superstructure of the isolation layer to
the gap between the two is increasing with the increase of the seismic action intensity. This is mainly be controlled during the
design by
caused stagetheof the isolation
near-field seismicdesign. Therefore, such
characteristics, it is necessary
as the speed to of
reduce
large or avoid
pulse, thethe unfavorable
rupture of the
factors thateffect
directional affect caused
the cushioning effect.
by the near-field ground vibration of these unique properties are usually
leading to the structure of the more serious damage and damage the main reason.
5.2. Component Vulnerability
The vulnerability Coefficient
coefficient of the isolation bearing is related to the plane position of the bearing,
and the vulnerability coefficient
Figures 9–11 show the vulnerability of the bottom of thecurves
coefficient tower of is better thanfailure
the initial that ofisolation
the underpinning
bearing in
bearing, and the vulnerability coefficient of the bearing is generally larger than
each condition under earthquake action. It can be seen that the vulnerability coefficient of the same that of the bearing and
the vulnerability of the bearing is larger than that of the angular bearing. It
seismic bearing under the near-field earthquake is larger than that of the far-field seismic action, andindicates that the risk of
damage in the bearing
the gap between is the
the two largest, thewith
is increasing vulnerability
the increase coefficient of the bearing
of the seismic is generally
action intensity. larger
This than
is mainly
that
caused by the near-field seismic characteristics, such as the speed of large pulse, the rupture ofrisk
of the bearing and the vulnerability is larger than that of the bearing, which indicates that the the
of damage ineffect
directional the bearing
causedisby thethelargest. Especially
near-field ground when the impact
vibration of individual
of these near-field earthquake
unique properties are usually
is used, the
leading bearing
to the vulnerability
structure of the more coefficient will be significantly
serious damage and damageincreased, and this time making the
the main reason.
entireThe
isolation structure becomes unsafe.
vulnerability coefficient of the isolation bearing is related to the plane position of the
This and
bearing, is because when a certain
the vulnerability isolation of
coefficient bearing by the internal
the bottom force isisover
of the tower its carrying
better than that capacity
of the
and damage or even failure, the load will be assigned to the surrounding
underpinning bearing, and the vulnerability coefficient of the bearing is generally larger than that ofbearing, and the internal
force of theseand
the bearing bearings will also increase
the vulnerability of the significantly
bearing is largerand thethansame
thatmay beangular
of the destroyed, and then
bearing. appear
It indicates
similar
that thetorisk
theoffailure
damage of the failure
in the bearingmode, endanger
is the largest,the theentire isolationcoefficient
vulnerability layer and of thethestructure
bearingof is
the security.
generally larger than that of the bearing and the vulnerability is larger than that of the bearing,
which indicates that the risk of damage in the bearing is the largest. Especially when the impact of
individual near-field earthquake is used, the bearing vulnerability coefficient will be significantly
increased, and this time making the entire isolation structure becomes unsafe.
 This
This isis because
because when
when aa certain
certain isolation
isolation bearing
bearing by
by the
the internal
internal force
force is
is over
over its
its carrying
carrying capacity
capacity
and
and damage
damage or or even
even failure,
failure, the
the load
load will
will be
be assigned
assigned toto the
the surrounding
surrounding bearing,
bearing, and
and the
the internal
internal
force
force of these bearings will also increase significantly and the same may be destroyed, and then
of these bearings will also increase significantly and the same may be destroyed, and then
appear
appear similar
similar to
to the
the failure
failure of
of the
the failure
failure mode,
mode, endanger
endanger the
the entire
entire isolation
isolation layer
layer and
and the
the structure
structure
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1686 13 of 17
of
of the
the security.
security.

0.5
0.5 0.7
0.7
Coefficient

Coefficient
0.6
VulnerabilityCoefficient

VulnerabilityCoefficient
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.3

ComponentVulnerability
ComponentVulnerability

0.4
0.4

0.2 0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2 Far-field
Far-field earthquake

Component
Far-field
Far-field earthquake
Component

earthquake earthquake
0.1
0.1 Average
Average value
value of
of far-field
far-field earthquakes
earthquakes Average
Average value
value of
of far-field
far-field earthquakes
earthquakes
0.1
0.1 Near-field
Near-field
Near-field earthquake
earthquake Near-field earthquake
earthquake
Average
Average value
value of
of near-field
near-field earthquakes
earthquakes Average
Average value
value of
of near-field
near-field earthquakes
earthquakes
0.0
0.0 1 0.0
0.0 1
1 22 33 44 55 66 1 22 33 44 55 66
Cases
Cases Cases
Cases
(a)
(a) Frequent
Frequent earthquakes
earthquakes (b)
(b) Fortification
Fortification earthquake
earthquake
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
Coefficient
VulnerabilityCoefficient

0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
ComponentVulnerability

0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
Component

Far-field
Far-field earthquake
earthquake
0.2
0.2 Average
Average value
value of
of far-field
far-field earthquakes
earthquakes
0.1 Near-field
Near-field earthquake
earthquake
0.1 Average
Average value
value of
of near-field
near-field earthquakes
earthquakes
0.0
0.0
11 22 33 44 55 66
Cases
Cases
(c)
(c) Rare
Rare earthquakes
earthquakes
Figure
Figure9.9.
Figure Component
9.Component vulnerability
Componentvulnerability coefficient
vulnerabilitycoefficient curves
coefficientcurves of
curvesof model
ofmodel A.
modelA.
A.

0.5
0.5 0.7
0.7
Coefficient

Coefficient
VulnerabilityCoefficient

0.6
VulnerabilityCoefficient

0.4 0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.3
ComponentVulnerability

ComponentVulnerability

0.4
0.4

0.2
0.2 0.3
0.3
Far-field
Far-field earthquake
0.2
0.2
Component

Component

earthquake Far-field
Far-field earthquake
earthquake
0.1
0.1 Average
Average value
value of
of far-field
far-field earthquakes
earthquakes Average
Average value
value of
of far-field
far-field earthquakes
earthquakes
Near-field
Near-field earthquake
earthquake 0.1
0.1 Near-field
Near-field earthquake
earthquake
Average
Average value
value of
of near-field
near-field earthquakes
earthquakes Average
0.0 Average value
value of
of near-field
near-field earthquakes
earthquakes
0.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0.0
0.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Cases
Cases Cases
Cases
(a)
(a) Frequent
Frequent earthquakes
earthquakes (b)
(b) Fortification
Fortification earthquake
earthquake
Figure 10. Cont.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1686 14 of 17
Appl.
Appl. Sci.
Sci. 2018,
2018, 8,
8, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 14
14 of
of 17
17

1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9

Coefficient
VulnerabilityCoefficient
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6

ComponentVulnerability
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
Component Far-field
Far-field earthquake
earthquake
0.2
0.2 Average
Average value
value of
of far-field
far-field earthquakes
earthquakes
0.1
0.1
Near-field earthquake
Near-field earthquake
Average
Average value
value of
of near-field
near-field earthquakes
earthquakes
0.0
0.0 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 10
10 11
11 12
12 13
13 14
14 15
15
Cases
Cases
(c)
(c) Rare
Rare earthquakes
earthquakes
Figure 10.
Figure10.
Figure Component
10. Component vulnerability
Componentvulnerability coefficient
vulnerabilitycoefficient curves
coefficientcurves of
curvesof model
ofmodel B.
modelB.
B.

0.5
0.5 Coefficient 0.7
0.7
Coefficient

0.6
VulnerabilityCoefficient
VulnerabilityCoefficient

0.4 0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.3 0.4
ComponentVulnerability
ComponentVulnerability

0.4

0.2 0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2 Far-field
Far-field
Far-field earthquake Far-field earthquake
Component
Component

earthquake earthquake
0.1
0.1 Average
Average value
value of
of far-field
far-field earthquakes
earthquakes Average
Average value
value of
of far-field
far-field earthquakes
earthquakes
0.1
0.1 Near-field
Near-field
Near-field earthquake
earthquake Near-field earthquake
earthquake
Average
Average value of near-field earthquakes
value of near-field Average
earthquakes Average value of near-field earthquakes
value of near-field earthquakes
0.0
0.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0.0
0.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Cases
Cases Cases
Cases
(a)
(a) Frequent
Frequent earthquakes
earthquakes (b)
(b) Fortification
Fortification earthquake
earthquake
1.0
1.0
Coefficient

0.9
VulnerabilityCoefficient

0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
ComponentVulnerability

0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3 Far-field
Far-field earthquake
Component

0.2
0.2 Average
earthquake
Average value
value of
of far-field
far-field earthquakes
earthquakes
0.1
0.1 Near-field
Near-field earthquake
earthquake
Average
Average value
value of
of near-field
near-field earthquakes
0.0
0.0 earthquakes
11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 10
10 11
11 12
12 13
13 14
14 15
15
Cases
Cases
(c)
(c) Rare
Rare earthquakes
earthquakes
Figure
Figure 11. Component
11. Component
Figure11. vulnerability
Componentvulnerability coefficient
vulnerabilitycoefficient curves
coefficientcurves of
curvesof model
ofmodel C.
modelC.
C.

Therefore,
Therefore, for
Therefore, for the
for the larger
the larger vulnerability
larger vulnerability of
vulnerability of the
of the isolation
the isolation bearing
isolation bearing should
bearing should be
should be set
be set to
set to protect
to protect the
protect the
the
corresponding
corresponding measures to reduce the risk of accidental failure. On the other hand, in the designof
corresponding measures
measures to
to reduce
reduce the
the risk
risk of
of accidental
accidental failure.
failure. On
On the
the other
other hand,
hand, in
in the
the design
design of
of
the
the isolation
isolation structure,
structure, due
due to
to the
the calculation
calculation of
of the
the dynamic
dynamic time
time history
history analysis,
analysis,
the isolation structure, due to the calculation of the dynamic time history analysis, results are usually results
results are
are usually
usually
due
dueto
due todifferences
to differencesin
differences inthe
in theselection
the selectionof
selection ofground
of groundvibration
ground vibration records
vibration recordshave
records haveaaagreater
have greaterdifference.
greater difference. Therefore,
difference. Therefore,
Therefore,
under
under the condition of permissible conditions, it is necessary to select more
under the condition of permissible conditions, it is necessary to select more different types of
the condition of permissible conditions, it is necessary to select more different
different types
types of
ofground
ground
ground
motion
motion records in combination with the conditions of the site and the basic period of the structure, so
records in combination with the conditions of the site and the basic period of the structure, so
as
as to
to ensure
ensure the
the safe
safe and
and reliable
reliable operation
operation of of the
the structure
structure under
under earthquake
earthquake action.
action.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1686 15 of 17

motion records in combination with the conditions of the site and the basic period of the structure,
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 17
so as to ensure the safe and reliable operation of the structure under earthquake action.
5.3. Structural
5.3. Structural Robustness
Robustness Coefficient
Coefficient
Based on
Based on the
the importance
importance coefficient
coefficient and
and vulnerability
vulnerability coefficient
coefficient of
of the
the isolated
isolated bearing,
bearing, the
the
structural robustness coefficient is calculated. In order to visualize the relationship
structural robustness coefficient is calculated. In order to visualize the relationship between the between the
structural robustness
structural robustness coefficient
coefficient and
and the
the external
external seismic
seismic stimulus,
stimulus, the
the three-dimensional
three-dimensional curve
curve isis
plotted, as shown in Figure
plotted, as shown in Figure 12. 12.

Figure 12. Curves of structural robustness coefficient.

Figure 12. Curves of structural robustness coefficient.
Figure 11 shows that the structural robustness coefficients of the three models is decreased
Figure 11 shows that the structural robustness coefficients of the three models is decreased with
with the increase of the seismic excitation, and the structural robustness coefficient of the near-field
the increase of the seismic excitation, and the structural robustness coefficient of the near-field
earthquake is generally smaller than the structural robustness coefficient of the far-field seismic action.
earthquake is generally smaller than the structural robustness coefficient of the far-field seismic
The structural robustness coefficient of model A is the largest under the same intensity earthquake,
action. The structural robustness coefficient of model A is the largest under the same intensity
and the structural robustness coefficient of model C is the smallest, which indicates that the structural
earthquake, and the structural robustness coefficient of model C is the smallest, which indicates that
robustness depends not only on its own characteristics, such as arrangement form, construction
the structural robustness depends not only on its own characteristics, such as arrangement form,
measures, but also related to external action.
construction measures, but also related to external action.
As a key component connecting the upper structure and the lower structure or foundation,
As a key component connecting the upper structure and the lower structure or foundation, the
the normal operation of the isolation bearing has a significant effect on the structure. Therefore, In the
normal operation of the isolation bearing has a significant effect on the structure. Therefore, In the
process of structural design and construction, the compressive bearing capacity, horizontal displacement,
process of structural design and construction, the compressive bearing capacity, horizontal
anti-overturning capacity, the tensile performance under rare earthquakes, and the connection structure
displacement, anti-overturning capacity, the tensile performance under rare earthquakes, and the
should be strictly controlled in order to ensure its long-term, safe and reliable serviceability.
connection structure should be strictly controlled in order to ensure its long-term, safe and reliable
serviceability.
6. Conclusions
Through the above analysis, the following conclusions can be drawn:
6. Conclusions
(1) The robustness
Through of vertical
the above irregularly
analysis, isolated
the following structures can be drawn:
conclusions quantitatively analyzed using the
method proposed in this paper. Although it cannot make an absolute quantitative evaluation for
(1) The robustness of vertical irregularly isolated structures can be quantitatively analyzed using
one structure, the relative superiority of building schemes can be evaluated.
the method proposed in this paper. Although it cannot make an absolute quantitative
(2) The robustness of the structure is not dependent on the nature of the structure itself, but also
evaluation for one structure, the relative superiority of building schemes can be evaluated.
with the external load of the structure, and the structural robustness decreases with the outward
(2) The robustness of the structure is not dependent on the nature of the structure itself, but also
enhancement of the external function. It is possible to improve the structural robustness to
with the external load of the structure, and the structural robustness decreases with the
outward enhancement of the external function. It is possible to improve the structural
robustness to different extent by rationally arranging the structure, improving the bearing
capacity of each component, reducing the external effect, and reducing the adverse effect of the
component failure on the original structure.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1686 16 of 17

different extent by rationally arranging the structure, improving the bearing capacity of each
component, reducing the external effect, and reducing the adverse effect of the component failure
on the original structure.
(3) It is important to ensure that the safety work of the isolated bearings is effective against the
overall structure. It is suggested that reasonable protection measures should be set for the isolated
bearings with high risk of extreme accident load, that is, the vulnerability coefficient is larger,
and the potential risk of isolation bearing with large component importance coefficient should be
eliminated or reduced.

Author Contributions: W.Y. and C.B. are co-first authors. C.B. and X.M. analyzed the data. C.B. and W.Y. wrote
the paper, W.Y. and S.Z. revised and finalized the paper.
Acknowledgments: This research was funded by: [Natural Science Foundation of China] grant number
[No. 51468054 and 51608283]; [The Project of Key Research and Development of Ningxia Province] grant
number [No. 2016KJHM38 and 2018BEG03009]; [Ningxia Higher Education Research Project] grant number
[No. NGY2016150]; ([Natural Science Foundation of Ningxia] grant number [No. 2018AAC03121]; [Project of
Excellent Paper of Ningxia University (Natural science)]; [Ningxia Higher Education School First-class Discipline
Construction Funding Project] grant number [No. NXYLXK2017A03]. The authors are grateful for this
financial support.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Khandelwal, K.; El-Tawil, S. Pushdown resistance as a measure of robustness in progressive collapse analysis.
Eng. Struct. 2011, 33, 2653–2661. [CrossRef]
2. Fascetti, A.; Kunnath, S.K.; Nisticò, N. Robustness evaluation of RC frame buildings to progressive collapse.
Eng. Struct. 2015, 86, 242–249. [CrossRef]
3. Liu, M.M.; Pirmoz, A. Energy-based pulldown analysis for assessing the progressive collapse potential of
steel frame buildings. Eng. Struct. 2016, 123, 372–378. [CrossRef]
4. Izzuddin, B.A.; Vlassis, A.G.; Elghazouli, A.Y.; Nethercot, D.A. Progressive collapse of multi-storey buildings
due to sudden column loss—Part I: Simplified assessment framework. Eng. Struct. 2008, 30, 1308–1318.
[CrossRef]
5. Vlassis, A.G.; Izzuddin, B.A.; Elghazouli, A.Y.; Nethercot, D.A. Progressive collapse of multi-storey buildings
due to sudden column loss—Part II: Application. Eng. Struct. 2008, 30, 1424–1438. [CrossRef]
6. Brett, C.; Lu, Y. Assessment of robustness of structures: Current state of research. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.
2013, 7, 356–368. [CrossRef]
7. Asprone, D.; De Risi, R.; Manfredi, G. Defining structural robustness under seismic and simultaneous actions:
An application to precast RC buildings. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2016, 14, 485–499. [CrossRef]
8. Comeliau, L.; Rossi, B.; Demonceau, J.F. Robustness of steel and composite buildings suffering the dynamic
loss of a column. Struct. Eng. Int. 2012, 22, 323–329. [CrossRef]
9. Cavaco, E.S.; Casas, J.R.; Neves, L.A.C.; Huespe, A.E. Robustness of corroded reinforced concrete
structures—A structural performance approach. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2013, 9, 42–58. [CrossRef]
10. Ribeiro, F.L.A.; Barbosa, A.R.; Neves, L.C. Application of reliability-based robustness assessment of steel
moment resisting frame structures under post-mainshock cascading events. J. Struct. Eng. 2014, 140, A4014008.
[CrossRef]
11. Ashour, A.; El-Dakhakhni, W.; Shedid, M. Experimental evaluation of the system-level seismic performance
and robustness of an asymmetrical reinforced concrete block building. J. Struct. Eng. 2016, 142, 04016072.
[CrossRef]
12. Bao, C.; Du, Y.F.; Liu, Y.; Xu, T.N.; Wang, G.F. Study on seismic robustness of structure. China Earthq. Eng. J.
2015, 37, 660–666.
13. Lu, D.G.; Cui, S.S.; Song, P.Y.; Chen, Z.H. Robustness assessment for progressive collapse of framed structures
using pushdown analysis methods. Int. J. Reliab. Saf. 2011, 6, 15–37. [CrossRef]
14. López-López, A.; Tomás, A.; Sánchez-Olivares, G. Behaviour of reinforced concrete rectangular sections
based on tests complying with seismic construction requirements. Struct. Concr. 2016, 17, 656–667. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1686 17 of 17

15. López-López, A.; Tomás, A.; Sánchez-Olivares, G. Influence of adjusted models of plastic hinges in nonlinear
behaviour of reinforced concrete buildings. Eng. Struct. 2016, 124, 245–257. [CrossRef]
16. Jiang, J.; Zhang, P.; Patil, D.; Li, H.; Song, G. Experimental studies on the effectiveness and robustness of a
pounding tuned mass damper for vibration suppression of a submerged cylindrical pipe. Struct. Control
Health Monit. 2017, 24, e2027. [CrossRef]
17. Wang, H.; Song, G. Fault detection and fault tolerant control of a smart base isolation system with
magneto-rheological damper. Smart Mater. Struct. 2011, 20, 085015. [CrossRef]
18. Starossek, U.; Haberland, M. Measures of structural robustness—Requirements and applications.
In Proceedings of the Structures Congress 2008: Crossing Borders, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 24–26 April 2008.
19. Dinu, F.; Dubina, D.; Marginean, I. Improving the structural robustness of multi-story steel-frame buildings.
Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2015, 11, 1028–1041. [CrossRef]
20. Cassiano1a, D.; D’Aniello, M.; Rebelo, C.; Landolfo, R.; da Silva, L.S. Influence of seismic design rules on the
robustness of steel moment resisting frames. Steel Compos. Struct. 2016, 21, 479–500. [CrossRef]
21. Charmpis, D.C.; Kontogiannis, A. The cost of satisfying design requirements on progressive collapse
resistance–Investigation based on structural optimisation. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2016, 12, 695–713. [CrossRef]
22. Starossek, U.; Asce, M.; Haberland, M. Disproportionate Collapse: Terminology and Procedures. J. Perform.
Constr. Facil. 2010, 24, 519–528. [CrossRef]
23. Department of Defense. Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse; Department of Defense: Washington,
DC, USA, 2005.
24. Starossek, U.; Haberland, M. Approaches to measures of structural robustness. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2011,
7, 625–631. [CrossRef]
25. Li, L.L.; Li, G.Q.; Jiang, B.; Lu, Y. Analysis of robustness of steel frames against progressive collapse. J. Constr.
Steel Res. 2018, 143, 264–278. [CrossRef]
26. U.S. General Services Administration. Progressive Collapse Analysis and Design Guidelines for New Federal Office
Buildings and Major Modernization Projects; Central Office of the GSA: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
27. SeismoSoft. SeismoStruct—A Computer Program for Static and Dynamic Nonlinear Analysis of Framed
Structures. SeismoSoft. 2013. Available online: http://www.seismosoft.com (accessed on 23 August 2018).
28. Guðmundsson, G.V. Simplified Progressive Collapse Assessment of Steel-Frames Buildings due to Column
Loss-Influence of Dynamic Column Damage; Imperial College London: London, UK, 2007.
29. ASCE 41-06. Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings; Structural Engineering Institute of the American
Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2006.
30. Adam, J.M.; Parisi, F.; Sagaseta, J.; Lu, X. Research and practice on progressive collapse and robustness of
building structures in the 21st century. Eng. Struct. 2018, 173, 122–149. [CrossRef]
31. Huber, J.A.J.; Ekevad, M.; Girhammar, U.A.; Berg, S. Structural robustness and timber buildings—A review.
Wood Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 13, 1–22. [CrossRef]
32. Izzuddin, B.A. Mitigation of progressive collapse in multi-storey buildings. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2012, 15,
1505–1520. [CrossRef]
33. Wang, T.; Zhang, L.; Zhao, H.; Chen, Q. Progressive collapse resistance of reinforced-concrete frames with
specially shaped columns under loss of a corner column. Mag. Concr. Res. 2015, 68, 435–449. [CrossRef]
34. Choi, E.; DesRoches, R.; Nielson, B.G. Seismic fragility of typical bridges in moderate seismic zones.
Eng. Struct. 2004, 26, 187–199. [CrossRef]
35. Pan, Y.; Agrawal, K.; Ghosn, M.; Alampalli, S. Seismic fragility of multi-span simply supported steel highway
bridges in New York State. II: Fragility analysis, fragility curves, and fragility surfaces. J. Bridge Eng. 2010,
15, 462–471. [CrossRef]
36. Gokkaya, B.U.; Baker, J.W.; Deierlein, G.G. Estimation and impacts of model parameter correlation for
seismic performance assessment of reinforced concrete structures. Struct. Saf. 2017, 69, 68–78. [CrossRef]

© 2018 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/).