Behavior of structure with

VFPI during near-field

ground motion

Prof. Girish Malu

Prof. Dr. Pranesh Murnal
 Base Isolation
Basic Approach –
 Not to strengthen the structure, but to reduce the
forces acting upon it.
Isolation (Separation) –
 Foundation and super structure – isolated
 No transmission of EQ forces in super structure, i.e.
Isolation deflects the earthquake energy
 Forces in structural members reduced substantially
Behavior of Base Isolated
Structure

Fig.1 : Behavior of Base Isolated Structure

“Large displacements at base mass level is
inherent characteristics of base-isolation
technology”
 Behavior of Fixed Base &
Base Isolated Structure
Fixed Base
Base Isolated

Fixed Base
Base Isolated

Acc Disp

T T

Fig.2 : Response Spectra

Brief History of Base Isolation
Extensively used for mechanical system
For civil structures relatively new
concept
Initially developed to avoid
displacement of high rise structure due
to wind forces.
In early stage rollers, layers of sand
used as base isolation
The first patent applied in year 1800
 Brief History - Continue
First use of rubber in Elementaty School
in Skopje, Macedonia, America.
Blocks are completely unreinforced –
Results in bulgining of blocks due to
weight of building.
Building bounce and rocks in an EQ.
New technology, materials & advanced
systems makes it an effective tool to
minimize EQ effect,
Modern Base Isolation System

Base Isolation System

Elasomeric Sliding Combined

LRB & NZ PF, FPS & VFPI R-FBI & SRF
Sliding Isolation System
Works on principle of pure friction.
Two stainless steel plates slides over
each other.
For initiation – Intensity of exciting
force > frictional force of isolator.
During EQ isolator displacement is of
stick-slip nature.
For increasing efficiency, glass fibers
introduced.
 Types of Sliding System

Pure Friction (PF)

Friction Pendulum System (FPS)

Variable Frequency Pendulum Isolator

(VFPI)
 Pure Friction System
Based on the mechanism of sliding
friction.
The horizontal frictional force offers
resistance to motion & dissipates
energy.
The use of sand layer or a roller in the
foundation is the simplest example of
this system.
 Advantages and
Disadvantages of PF System

Advantage – Can be used for all kinds

of sites.
Disadvantage – Large sliding of isolator
and less restoring force results in large
residual displacement.
Friction Pendulum System (FPS)

Advancement of PF system to overcome

main drawback of restoring force of PF.
Based on well known principle of
pendulum motion.
Sliding surface is spherical.
The restoration force is developed due
to gravitational acceleration.
Friction Pendulum System (FPS)

Fig. 3 : Friction Pendulum System

Advantages & Disadvantages
of FPS

Advantages:
 Reduce high frequency stick-slip motion.
 No effect of weight of structure on
response of isolator.
Disadvantage:
 Needs to be designed for specific level of
ground excitation.
 Variable Frequency
Pendulum Isolator (VFPI)

Best combination of FPS & PF system

Combines advantages of both systems
& overrules the disadvantages.
In PF system- Flat sliding surface.
In FPS- Spherical sliding surface.
In VFPI- Elliptical surface.
Geometry of Sliding Surface

FPS – Spherical

VFPI – Elliptical

PF – True Flat

Fig. 4 : Geometry of Sliding Surface

FBD of VFPI Sliding Surface
Y

W – Weight of Structure
N – Normal Reaction
fR – Restoring Force

W = mg
Equation:
x
y = f(x)
fR

 N
O X

Fig. 5 : Free body diagram of sliding surface

 VFPI Description
Geometry of VFPI as shown in fig. 4
y  f (x)
Horizontal restoring force due to
weight of the structure
dy
f R  mg
dx
Spring force in terms of spring stiffness
and the deformation
f R  k ( x )x
VFPI Description - Continue
Spring force (restoring force) in terms
of total mass of the system and
oscillation frequency
f R  m 2b ( x ) x
In FPS oscillation frequency is constant
g/R
In VFPI it kept variable by taking
advantage of elliptical sliding surface
 2b ( x )   2I 1  x2 a2
VFPI Description - Continue
where,
 i 2 = gb/a2 = Initial Frequency
 (at zero displacememt)

a & b - semi-major and semi-minor

axes respectively
Geometry of sliding surface of VFPI is
expressed as
 d 2  2 d x sgn( x) 
y  b 1  
 d  x sgn( x) 

VFPI Description - Continue

The isolator frequency at any sliding

displacement can be expressed as
 2
 2b ( x )  I
(1  r ) 2 1  2r
Where,
r  x sgn( x ) d
VFPI Description - Continue
As such
Ratio b/d2 governs the initial frequency
of the isolator.
1/d = FVF (Frequency Variation Factor)
For comparison of FPS and VFPI the
oscillation frequency and force –
deformation hysteresis graph are as
shown in Fig. 6a & 6b respectively.
Properties of VFPI and FPS

FPS (Tb = 2.0 s)

(a) 0.2 (b)
VFPI (TI = 2.0 s)
b / I

1.0

Normalised Isolator Force

0.1
Frequency Ratio -

0.0
0.5
-0.1

-0.2
0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2
Sliding Displacement (m) Sliding Displacement (m)

Fig. 6 : Properties of VFPI and FPS

Mathematical Formulation

The total motion consists of two

phases
Non-sliding phase –
 Structure behaves as conventional fixed
base structure.
Sliding Phase –
 When excitation force exceeds frictional
force, structure enters in sliding phase.
 Non Sliding Phase
Equations of motion in this phase are,
xr  2 oo x r  o2 xr   xg
and
xb  constant, x b  x b  0
The structure is classically damped in
this phase and hence can be readily
solved by usual modal analysis
procedures.
Initiation of Sliding Phase

Condition for the beginning of sliding

phase is,

xr  xg  b2  xb  xb  g

where, = mass ratio

m

m  mb
 Sliding Phase

Once the inequality is satisfied, the

structure enters into sliding phase.

The degree of freedom (DOF)

corresponding to the base mass also
experiences motion.
Sliding Phase - Continue

The equations of motion for top and

bottom mass are respectively,
xr  2 oo x r  o2 xr   xb  xg

and

xr  xb  b2  xb  xb   xg  g sgn  x b 

 Direction of Sliding

Structure starts sliding in a direction

opposite to the direction of the sum of
total inertia force and restoring force at
the isolator level. So, we have

xr  xg  b  xb 
  2

sgn  x b   
x r  xg  b2  xb 
Direction of Sliding - Continue

At the end of a sliding phase,

x b  0
The structure may enter a non-sliding
phase, reverse its direction of sliding, or
have a momentary stop and then
continue in the same direction.
Properties of Example Structure

Single Storey Shear Structure

Lumped mass model

Period of Structure = 0.5 sec

Details of Earthquake Records
Used in this Study
Table 1 : Details of Earthquake

Sr. Name of Designation Magnitude Distance of PGA Duration

No. Earthquake Source (Km) (g) (sec)
1 Tabas 1978 NFR - 01 7.4 1.2 0.900 50
2 Loma Prieta, 1989, NFR - 02 7.0 3.5 0.718 25
3 Loma Prieta, 1989, NFR - 03 7.0 6.3 0.686 40
Lex Dam
4 C. Mendocino, 1992, NFR - 04 7.1 8.5 0.638 60
Petrolia
5 Erzincan, 1992 NFR - 05 6.7 2.0 0.432 21
6 Landers, 1992 NFR - 06 7.3 1.1 0.713 50
7 Northridge, 1994, NFR - 07 6.7 7.5 0.890 15
Rinaldi
8 Northridge, 1994, NFR - 08 6.7 6.4 0.732 60
Olive View
9 Kobe, 1995 NFR - 09 6.9 3.4 1.088 60
10 Kobe, 1995, NFR - 10 6.9 4.3 0.786 40
Takatori
 Comparative Study of
VFPI, FPS and PF (Storey Acc)
Absolute Acceleration Top Storey

6
4
Acceleration (m/sec )
2

2
VFPI
0
FPS
-2
PF
-4

-6
-8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Excitation Time (sec)

Fig. 7 : Time History curve of Absolute Acceleration of Top

Storey
for NFR-07 [VFPI (Ti = 2s, FVF = 2), FPS (T = 2s), PF]
 Comparative Study of
VFPI, FPS and PF (Sliding Disp)
Sliding Displacement

0.6

0.4
Displacement (m)

0.2
VFPI
0 FPS
PF
-0.2

-0.4

-0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Excitation Time (sec)

Fig. 8 : Time History curve of Sliding Displacement of Isolator

for NFR-07 [VFPI (Ti = 2s, FVF = 2), FPS (T = 2s), PF]
 Average Storey Acceleration
Response of Example System
Table 2 : Average absolute acceleration of top storey (m/sec 2) for VFPI, Ti = 1 s

NFR NFR NFR NFR NFR NFR NFR NFR NFR NFR Avg.
FVF
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 Acc.
1 6.725 13.995 12.139 8.879 7.138 4.684 10.869 7.906 13.467 15.291 10.109
2 6.925 8.295 7.705 6.219 6.947 3.935 7.299 7.319 7.979 7.739 7.036
3 5.330 6.142 6.011 5.551 4.872 3.348 5.627 5.463 5.416 6.026 5.379
4 3.894 4.705 5.004 4.639 4.271 2.885 4.529 4.535 5.057 4.883 4.440
5 3.417 3.851 3.626 3.296 3.856 3.192 3.900 3.596 4.064 4.239 3.704
6 3.281 3.354 2.193 2.874 3.558 2.779 3.542 3.374 3.548 4.161 3.266
7 2.968 2.722 3.303 1.939 3.279 1.897 3.282 3.322 2.838 3.001 2.855
8 2.771 2.424 2.352 1.760 2.936 2.087 3.009 3.002 3.192 2.192 2.573
9 2.687 2.006 2.879 1.758 2.530 2.370 2.712 2.633 3.208 2.407 2.519
10 2.565 1.896 1.960 1.519 2.073 2.537 2.539 2.107 3.019 2.234 2.245
Average Sliding Displacement
Response of Example System
Table 3 : Average peak sliding displacement (m) for VFPI, Ti = 1 s

NFR NFR NFR NFR NFR NFR NFR NFR NFR NFR Avg. Sliding
FVF
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 Disp.
1 0.256 1.211 0.708 0.323 0.342 0.126 0.640 0.329 0.898 1.533 0.637
2 0.525 1.654 0.841 0.456 0.499 0.153 0.687 0.630 0.583 1.365 0.739
3 0.447 1.631 0.867 0.630 0.662 0.195 0.597 0.704 0.749 0.719 0.720
4 0.454 0.951 0.571 0.652 0.781 0.271 0.499 0.767 0.797 0.794 0.654
5 0.432 1.055 0.531 0.801 0.807 0.391 0.399 0.706 0.730 0.566 0.642
6 0.537 1.109 0.614 0.909 0.764 0.637 0.371 0.670 0.678 0.725 0.701
7 0.619 1.220 0.683 1.001 0.686 1.012 0.386 0.641 0.497 0.921 0.767
8 0.657 1.313 0.739 1.069 0.622 1.388 0.399 0.553 0.772 1.930 0.944
9 0.701 1.396 0.785 1.114 0.583 1.602 0.409 0.544 0.635 0.889 0.866
10 0.958 1.573 0.823 1.191 0.547 1.755 0.418 0.415 0.654 0.753 0.909
Plot of Average Response VFPI Ti = 1s

Avgerage Absolute Acceleration Top Strorey Average Sliding Displacement

11 1
10 0.95
9
)
2

0.9
8
0.85

Avg. Disp. (m)

Avg. Acc. (m/sec

7
0.8
6
0.75
5
4 0.7
3 0.65
2 0.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
FVF FVF

Fig. 3 : Average Absolute Acceleration of Top Fig. 4 : Average Sliding Displacement for
Storey for VFPI, Ti = 1 sec VFPI, Ti = 1 sec
Plot of Average Response VFPI Ti=1.5s
Avgerage Absolute Acceleration Top Strorey Average Sliding Displacement

5 1.1

4.5
1
)
2

4
0.9
Avg. Acc. (m/sec

3.5

Avg. Disp. (m)

3 0.8
2.5
0.7
2

1.5 0.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
FVF FVF

Fig. 5 : Average Absolute Acceleration of Top Fig. 6 : Average Sliding Displacement for
Storey for VFPI, Ti = 1.5 sec VFPI, Ti = 1.5 sec
Plot of Average Response VFPI Ti = 2s
Avgerage Absolute Acceleration Top Strorey Average Sliding Displacement

2.9 1
2.7 0.95
)
2

2.5 0.9

Avg. Disp. (m)

Avg. Acc. (m/sec

2.3 0.85
2.1 0.8
1.9 0.75

1.7 0.7
1.5 0.65
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
FVF FVF

Fig. 7 : Average Absolute Acceleration of Top Fig. 8 : Average Sliding Displacement for
Storey for VFPI, Ti = 2 sec VFPI, Ti = 2 sec
 Average Response of Example
System for FPS and PF
Table 4 : Average absolute acceleration of top storey (m/sec 2), FPS (T=2s) & PF

Isol NFR NFR NFR NFR NFR NFR NFR NFR NFR NFR Avg.
ator 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 Acc.
FPS 5.934 25.277 13.031 6.572 5.856 4.255 7.000 7.030 10.816 43.382 12.915
PF 1.908 1.724 1.957 1.576 1.621 1.512 2.052 1.714 2.422 1.709 1.820

Table 5 : Average sliding displacement (m) for FPS (T = 2 s) and PF

Isol NFR NFR NFR NFR NFR NFR NFR NFR NFR NFR Avg. Sliding
ator 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 Disp.
FPS 0.467 0.914 0.755 0.507 0.457 0.309 0.536 0.539 0.682 0.971 0.614
PF 0.729 1.292 0.785 0.996 0.403 1.173 0.511 0.517 0.651 0.874 0.793
Comparative Study of Average
Responses
Table 6 : Comparative study of average responses

Effective Average absolute acceleration Average sliding

Isolator
FVF of top storey (m/sec2) displacement (m)
FPS T = 2 s -- 12.915 0.614
PF -- 1.820 0.793
VFPI Ti = 1 s 5 3.704 0.642
VFPI Ti = 1.5 s 6 2.106 0.875
VFPI Ti = 2 s 7 1.743 0.879
 Conclusion
The parameters of VFPI can be chosen
such that it is effective in reducing both
acceleration and sliding displacement
response of structures when compared
to the FPS and PF isolator.
The VFPI has wide choice of parameters
that can be chosen to suit the design
requirements.
 Conclusion Continued….
VFPI parameters can be chosen such
that it is effective under the action of
near-field ground motions.
As initial period of VFPI increases, it
controls storey acceleration but
increases sliding displacement.
Vice versa as initial period of VFPI
decreases, it controls sliding
displacement but increases storey
acceleration.
Conclusion Continued….

This is due to higher initial period gives

flatter surface of isolator as compared
to lower initial period.
Higher values of FVF are more effective
for lower initial period. Vice versa lower
values of FVF are more effective for
higher initial period.