Advertisement

Effect of displacement restraint on the collapse performance of seismically isolated buildings

  • Shoma Kitayama
  • Michael C. Constantinou
Original Research
  • 46 Downloads

Abstract

This study investigates the effect of displacement restraint on the collapse performance of seismically isolated buildings. The displacement restraints considered are stiffening triple Friction Pendulum (FP) bearings and moat walls. The study is based on 6-story perimeter frame seismically isolated buildings designed with special concentrically braced frames (SCBF) and special moment resisting frames (SMF) for a location in California using the minimum criteria of ASCE/SEI 7-10 and ASCE/SEI 7-16 and also using enhanced designs. Results from pushover analysis and nonlinear response history analysis demonstrate that proper designs require a balance between the value of RI for the design of the superstructure and the displacement capacity of the isolators. The paper shows that isolation systems with sufficient displacement capacity before engaging the displacement restraint and a RI factor consistent to that displacement capacity may have an acceptable collapse risk. Values of the design parameters for the superstructure and the displacement capacity and behavior of the isolation system for achieving acceptable collapse risk are presented.

Keywords

Seismic isolation ASCE/SEI 7 standard Friction pendulum isolator Moat walls Displacement restraint Collapse probability 

Notes

References

  1. ASCE/SEI 7 (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, VA, USAGoogle Scholar
  2. ASCE/SEI 7 (2017) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, VA, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. Bao Y, Becker TC (2018) Effect of design methodology on collapse of friction pendulum isolated moment-resisting and concentrically braced frames. J Struct Eng 144(11):04018203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bao Y, Becker TC, Sone T, Hamaguchi H (2018) To limit forces or displacements: collapse study of steel frames isolated by sliding bearings with and without restraining rims. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2018(112):203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. CEN, European Committee for Standardisation (2009) European Standard EN15129: Anti-seismic devicesGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen CH, Mahin SA (2012) Performance-based seismic demands assessment of concentrically braced steel frame buildings. PEER 2012/103, December, 2012; Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, PEERGoogle Scholar
  7. Elkady A, Lignos DG (2014) Modeling of the composite action in fully restrained beam-to-column connections: implications in the seismic design and collapse capacity of steel special moment frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(13):1935–1954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elsesser E (1986) A survey of seismic structural systems and design implications. In: ATC-17, Proceedings of a seminar and workshop on base isolation and passive energy dissipation. San Francisco, CA. March 12–14Google Scholar
  9. FEMA (2000) Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame buildings. Report FEMA 350, 2000; Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. FEMA (2009) Quantification of building seismic performance factors. Report FEMA P695. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. Fenz DM, Constantinou MC (2008) Spherical sliding isolation bearings with adaptive behavior: theory. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37(2):163–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haselton CB, Baker JW, Liel AB, Deierlein GG (2011) Accounting for ground-motion spectral shape characteristics in structural collapse assessment through an adjustment for epsilon. J Struct Eng 137(3):332–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kelly JM (1991). Dynamic and failure characteristics of Bridgestone isolation bearings. University of California, Berkeley. Earthquake Engineering Research Center. UCB/EERC-91/04Google Scholar
  14. Kelly JM, Beucke KE (1983) A friction damped base isolation system with fail-safe characteristics. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 11(1):33–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kitayama S, Constantinou MC (2018a) Seismic Performance assessment of seismically isolated buildings designed by the procedures of ASCE/SEI 7. MCEER-18-0004, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NYGoogle Scholar
  16. Kitayama S, Constantinou MC (2018b) Collapse performance of seismically isolated buildings designed by the procedures of ASCE/SEI 7. Eng Struct 164:243–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Masroor A, Mosqueda G (2015) Assessing the collapse probability of base-isolated buildings considering pounding to moat walls using the FEMA P695 methodology. Earthq Spectra 31(4):2069–2086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McKenna FT (1997) Object-oriented finite element programming: frameworks for analysis, algorithms and parallel computing. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  19. NIST (2010) Evaluation of the FEMA P-695 Methodology for quantification of building seismic performance factors. NIST GCR 10-917-8. Technical Report, prepared by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  20. Sabelli R, Roeder CW, Hajjar JF (2013) Seismic design of steel special concentrically braced frame systems—a guide for practicing engineers. NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 8, NIST GCR 13-917-24Google Scholar
  21. Shao B, Mahin SA, Zayas V (2017) Member capacity factors for seismic isolators as required to limit isolated structure collapse risks to within ASCE 7 stipulated structure collapse risk limits. Project draft report. Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Materials Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  22. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, 131 Ketter HallUniversity at Buffalo, State University of New YorkBuffaloUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, 132 Ketter HallUniversity at Buffalo, State University of New YorkBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations