Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 1715–1737 | Cite as

Generation of synthetic accelerograms for telecommunications equipment: fragility assessment of a rolling isolation system

  • Mohammad Hadikhan Tehrani
  • Philip Scott HarveyJrEmail author
Original Research


This paper assesses the safety of a double conical rolling isolation system designed for protecting telecommunications equipment using a probabilistic approach. Due to the limited number of input accelerograms in the GR-63-CORE guideline for telecommunications equipment (only one), eight different filters are optimized to best capture the required response spectrum. The fitted filters are incorporated into an easy-to-implement framework, which is used to generate several suites of accelerograms for the probabilistic analyses. The results of these analyses are analyzed and discussed to reveal the shortcomings of the GR-63-CORE guideline, which in general are the limited number of accelerograms and ignoring the potentially important low frequency accelerations in the prescribed accelerogram. It is shown that the prescribed accelerogram may not be representative of excitations that are expected to be experienced by telecommunications equipment or the isolation systems protecting them, and is, hence, not conservative. Moreover, the results of the probabilistic analyses are presented in the form of fragility curves that can guide the design of rolling isolation systems.


Synthetic accelerogram Kanai–Tajimi filter Stochastic process Spectral matching Rolling isolation system Fragility curve Signal processing 



This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. NSF-CMMI-1663376. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.


  1. Alhan C, Şahin F (2011) Protecting vibration-sensitive contents: an investigation of floor accelerations in seismically isolated buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 9(4):1203–1226. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alotta G, Di Paola M, Pirrotta A (2014) Fractional Tajimi-Kanai model for simulating earthquake ground motion. Bull Earthq Eng 12(6):2495–2506. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ASCE/SEI 7-16 (2017) Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures. Am Soc Civ Eng Google Scholar
  4. Astroza M, Ruiz S, Astroza R (2012) Damage assessment and seismic intensity analysis of the 2010 (Mw 8.8) maule earthquake. Earthq Spectra 28(S1):S145–S164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baggio S, Berto L, Favaretto T, Saetta A, Vitaliani R (2015) Seismic isolation technique of marble sculptures at the accademia gallery in Florence: numerical calibration and simulation modelling. Bull Earthq Eng 13(9):2719–2744. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Batou A, Soize C (2014) Generation of accelerograms compatible with design specifications using information theory. Bull Earthq Eng 12(2):769–794. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biondi G, Massimino MR, Maugeri M (2015) Experimental study in the shaking table of the input motion characteristics in the dynamic SSI of a SDOF model. Bull Earthq Eng 13(6):1835–1869. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boore DM, Goulet CA (2014) The effect of sampling rate and anti-aliasing filters on high-frequency response spectra. Bull Earthq Eng 12(1):203–216. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chadwell C, Brennan K, Porter M (2009) Seismic hazard mitigation of wine barrel stacks. In: Structures congress 2009: don’t mess with structural engineers: expanding our role, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  10. Chopra AK (2012) Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  11. Clough RW, Penzien J (2003) Dynamics of structures, 3rd edn. Computers and Structures Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. D’Amico M, Puglia R, Russo E, Maini C, Pacor F, Luzi L (2017) SYNTHESIS: a web repository of synthetic waveforms. Bull Earthq Eng 15(6):2483–2496. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dolce M, Cardone D, Palermo G (2007) Seismic isolation of bridges using isolation systems based on flat sliding bearings. Bull Earthq Eng 5(4):491–509. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eberhard MO, Baldridge S, Marshall J, Mooney W, Rix GJ (2013) Mw 7.0 Haiti earthquake of January 12, 2010: USGS/EERI advance reconnaissance team report. BiblioGovGoogle Scholar
  15. Gavin HP (2017) The Levenberg–Marquardt method for nonlinear least squares curve-fitting problems.
  16. Gidaris I, Taflanidis AA, Lopez-Garcia D, Mavroeidis GP (2016) Multi-objective risk-informed design of floor isolation systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45(8):1293–1313. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harvey PS Jr, Zéhil GP, Gavin HP (2014) Experimental validation of a simplified model for rolling isolation systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(7):1067–1088. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harvey PS Jr, Gavin HP (2013) The nonholonomic and chaotic nature of a rolling isolation system. J Sound Vib 332:3535–3551. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harvey PS Jr, Gavin HP (2015) Assessment of a rolling isolation system using reduced order structural models. Eng Struct 99:708–725. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoang N, Fujino Y, Warnitchai P (2008) Optimal tuned mass damper for seismic applications and practical design formulas. Eng Struct 30(3):707–715. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. IBM (2010) Power7 information: vibration and shock. Systems hardware information.
  22. Iemura H, Taghikhany T, Jain SK (2007) Optimum design of resilient sliding isolation system for seismic protection of equipments. Bull Earthq Eng 5(1):85–103. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Iwatsubo T (1998) Damage to industrial equipment in the 1995 hyogoken-nanbu earthquake. Nucl Eng Des 181(1–3):41–53. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Javidialesaadi A, Wierschem NE (2018) Optimal design of rotational inertial double tuned mass dampers under random excitation. Eng Struct 165:412–421. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jennings PC, Housner GW, Tsai NC (1968) Simulated earthquake motions. California Institute of Technology, PasadenaGoogle Scholar
  26. Jeon BG, Chang SJ, Kim SW, Kim NS (2015) Base isolation performance of a cone-type friction pendulum bearing system. Struct Eng Mech 53:227–248. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kanai K (1957) Semi-empirical formula for the seismic characteristics of the ground. Bull Earthq Res Inst 35:309–325. Google Scholar
  28. Kelly JM (1986) Aseismic base isolation: review and bibliography. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 5(4):202–216. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kemeny ZA (1997) Ball-in-cone rolling isolation systems U.S. Patent 5599106Google Scholar
  30. Khoshnoudian F, Ahmadi E, Kiani M, Hadikhan Tehrani M (2015a) Collapse capacity of soil-structure systems under pulse-like earthquakes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44(3):481–490. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Khoshnoudian F, Ahmadi E, Kiani M, Tehrani MH (2015b) Dynamic instability of soil-SDOF structure systems under far-fault earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 31(4):2419–2441. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Konstantinidis D, Makris N (2010) Experimental and analytical studies on the response of 1/4-scale models of freestanding laboratory equipment subjected to strong earthquake shaking. Bull Earthq Eng 8(6):1457–1477. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee D, Constantinou MC (2018) Combined horizontal–vertical seismic isolation system for high-voltage-power transformers: development, testing and validation. Bull Earthq Eng. Google Scholar
  34. Levenberg KA (1944) A method for the solution of certain non-linear problems in least squares. Q Appl Math 2:164–168. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lopez Garcia D, Soong TT (2003a) Sliding fragility of block-type non-structural components. Part 1: unrestrained components. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32:111–129. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lopez Garcia D, Soong TT (2003b) Sliding fragility of block-type non-structural components. Part 2: restrained components. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32:131–149. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marin-Artieda C, Han X (2015) Experimental developments in isolation/energy dissipation platforms for the seismic protection of equipment in multistory facilities. In: Second ATC & SEI conference on improving the seismic performance of existing buildings and other structures, ASCE, San Francisco, CA, USA, pp 509–523.
  38. Marquardt D (1963) An algorithm for least-squares estimation of nonlinear parameters. SIAM J Appl Math 11(2):431–441. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Masaeli H, Khoshnoudian F, Tehrani MH (2014) Rocking isolation of nonductile moderately tall buildings subjected to bidirectional near-fault ground motions. Eng Struct 80:298–315. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Olsen MJ, Cheung KF, Yamazaki Y, Butcher S, Garlock M, Yim S, McGarity S, Robertson I, Burgos L, Young YL (2012) Damage assessment of the 2010 Chile earthquake and tsunami using terrestrial laser scanning. Earthq Spectra 28(S1):S179–S197. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pan Y, Ventura CE, Liam Finn W (2018) Effects of ground motion duration on the seismic performance and collapse rate of light-frame wood houses. J Struct Eng 144(8):04018112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Petrone C, Magliulo G, Manfredi G (2016) Floor response spectra in RC frame structures designed according to Eurocode 8. Bull Earthq Eng 14(3):747–767. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Raghunandan M, Liel AB (2013) Effect of ground motion duration on earthquake-induced structural collapse. Struct Saf 41:119–133. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Saha SK, Matsagar VA, Jain AK (2016) Seismic fragility of base-isolated water storage tanks under non-stationary earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng 14(4):1153–1175. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stone R (2008) Damaged university mourns its dead-and plans fast recovery. Science 320:1145. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tajimi H (1960) A statistical method of determining the maximum response of a building structure during an earthquake. In: Proceedings of the 2nd world conference on earthquake engineering, pp 781–797Google Scholar
  47. Tehrani MH, Khoshnoudian F (2014) Extended consecutive modal pushover procedure for estimating seismic responses of one-way asymmetric plan tall buildings considering soil-structure interaction. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 13(3):487–507. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tehrani MH, Harvey PS Jr, Gavin HP, Mirza AM (2018) Inelastic condensed dynamic models for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Eng Struct 177:616–629. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Telcordia (2012) NEBS requirements: physical protection. GR-63-CORE, Telcordia Technologies, Inc., Piscataway, NJGoogle Scholar
  50. Tsai C, Tsou CP, Lin YC, Chen MJ, Chen WS (2006) The material behavior and isolation benefits of ball pendulum system. In: ASME 2006 pressure vessels and piping/ICPVT-11 conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp 19–25.
  51. Tsai C, Lin YC, Chen WS, Su H (2010) Tri-directional shaking table tests of vibration sensitive equipment with static dynamics interchangeable-ball pendulum system. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 9(1):103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vargas R, Bruneau M (2009) Experimental response of buildings designed with metallic structural fuses. ii. J Struct Eng 135(4):394–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zargar H, Ryan KL, Marshall JD (2013) Feasibility study of a gap damper to control seismic isolator displacements in extreme earthquakes. Struct Control Health Monit 20(8):1159–1175. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zargar H, Ryan KL, Rawlinson TA, Marshall JD (2017) Evaluation of a passive gap damper to control displacements in a shaking test of a seismically isolated three-story frame. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46(1):51–71. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zayas VA, Low SS, Mahin SA (1990) A simple pendulum technique for achieving seismic isolation. Earthq Spectra 6(2):317–333. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil Engineering and Environmental ScienceUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA

Personalised recommendations