Base and Hanging Isolation System

  • Junbo Jia


The base isolator was scientifically proposed by Skinner et al. (Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 3(3):161–201, 1975, [1]) as shown in Fig. 23.1. It possesses the following essential elements (Buckle and Mayes in Earthq Spectra 6(2):161–201, 1990, [2]): (1) a flexible mounting so that the period of vibration of the total system is lengthened sufficiently to reduce the force response; (2) a damper or energy dissipater so that the relative deflections between the building and ground can be controlled to a practical design level; (3) a means of providing rigidity under low (service) load levels due to mild wind and minor seismic ground motions.


Ground Motion Isolation System Strong Ground Motion Base Isolation Rubber Layer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Skinner RI, Beck JL, Bycroft GN (1975) A practical system for isolating structures from earthquake attack. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 3(3):161–201Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buckle I, Mayes R (1990) Seismic isolation: history, application, and performance—a world view. Earthq Spectra 6(2):161–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allen E (1999) Fundamentals of building construction materials and methods, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhou F (1983) Experimental investigations of solid state steel energy absorbers for earthquake resistant structures. University of British Columbia, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhou F (1997) Anti-seismic control of engineering structures. China Seismological Press, Beijing (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Piersol A, Paez T (2009) Shock and vibration handbook, 6th edn. McGraw-Hill Education, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stanton J, Scroggins G (1990) Stability of laminated elastomeric bearings. J Struct Eng ASCE 116:1351–1371Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jangid R, Datta T (1985) Seismic behavior of base isolated buildings: a state of art review. Proc Civ Eng Struct Build 110:186–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kelly JM (1990) Base isolation: linear theory and design. Earthq Spectra 6(2):223–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kunde MC, Jangid RS (2003) Seismic behaviour of isolated bridges: a-state-of-the-art review. Electron J Struct Eng 3:140–170Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Product and Technical Information (2008) MAURER Seismic Isolation Systems with Lead Rubber Bearings (MLRB)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nishi T, Kelly JM, Zhou F (2009) Rubber structural mounts save lives during earthquakes. ISO Focus, Geneva, pp 26–28Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Monti MD, Ferguson WG, Robinson WH (1995) Lead as a cyclic motion damper. NZNSEE Pac Conf Earthq Eng 3:323–330Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhang R (2000) Seismic isolation and supplemental energy dissipation. In: Chen W-F, Duan L (eds) Bridge engineering handbook. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Robinson WH (1998) Passive control of structures, the New Zealand experience. ISET J Earthq Technol 375(4):63–75Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Monir HS, Nomani H (2011) Application of lead rubber isolation systems in the offshore structures. In: Proceedings of the international multi conference of engineers and computer scientists, vol 2, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ou JP, Xu L, Li QS, Xiao YQ (2007) Vibration control of steel jacket offshore platform structures with damping isolation systems. Eng Struct 29(7):1525–1538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhou F (1997) Seismic response control of engineering structures. China Seismological Press, Beijing (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jia J (2014) Essentials of applied dynamic analysis. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Galef AE (1968) Bending frequencies of compressed beams. J Acoust Soc Am 44(8):643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bokaian A (1988) Natural frequency of beams under compressive axial loads. J Sound Vib 126(1):49–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Amba-Rao CL (1967) Effect of end conditions on the lateral frequencies of uniform straight columns. J Acoust Soc Am 42:900–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rivin EI (1999) Stiffness and damping in mechanical design. Marcel Dekker Inc., New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hsiang-Chuan T (2004) Compression stiffness of infinite-strip bearings of laminated elastic material interleaving with flexible reinforcements. Int J Solids Struct 41:6647–6660CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Naeim F, Kelly JM (1999) Design of seismic isolated structures. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jiao Z, Zhou F, Li X (1995) Finite element analysis of ultimate capacity for layered rubber bearings. Research Report of Huanan Construction Institute, Beijing (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    International Building Code, International Code Council, 2015Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    International Conference of Buildings Officials (1997) Earthquake regulations for seismic-isolated structures. Uniform Building Code, Appendix Chapter 16, Whittier, CAGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yang YB, Huang WH (1998) Equipment–structure interaction considering the effect of torsion and base isolation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 27:155–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kilar V, Koren D (2009) Seismic behavior of asymmetric base-isolated structures with various distributions of isolators. Eng Struct 31:910–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Narasimhan S, Nagarajaiah S, Johnson EA, Gavin HP (2006) Smart base isolated building part I: problem definition. Struct Control Health Monit 13:573–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Erkus B, Johnson EA (2006) Smart base-isolated benchmark building part III: a sample controller for bilinear isolation. Struct Control Health Monit 13:605–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kelly JM (1997) Earthquake design with rubber. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Braun C (2009) The sliding isolation pendulum: an improved re-centering bridge bearing. Steel Constr 2(3):203–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Priestley MJN, Seible F, Calvi GM (1996) Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Steiner F, Elsesser E (2004) Oakland City Hall repair and upgrades. Publication No. 4, series on applied seismic design of buildings, EERI, Oakland, CAGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nagarajaiah S, Sun X (2000) Response of base-isolated USC Hospital Building in Northridge earthquake. J Struct Eng ASCE 1177–1186Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kawashima K (2012) Damage of bridges due to the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on engineering lessons learned from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shustov V (1994) Briefing on the 1994 Northridge earthquake experience: seismic isolation. California State University NorthridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    PEER (2001) KRON 4 News broadcast from March 1, 2001 on the current Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center/UC Berkeley shaking table experiments, Project, no. 5051999, San Francisco, CA.
  41. 41.
    Chopra AK, De la Llera JC (1996) Accidental and natural torsion in earthquake response and design of buildings. In: 11th World conference on earthquake engineeringGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zayas VA, Low S, Mahin S (1990) A simple pendulum technique for achieving seismic isolation. Earthq Spectra 6:317–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Matta E, De Stefano A (2009) Robust design of mass-uncertain rolling pendulum TMDs for the seismic protection of buildings. Mech Syst Signal Process 23:127–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Al-Hussaini TM, Zayas VA, Constantinou MC (1994) Seismic isolation of multi-story frame structures with friction pendulum isolators. Technical report 94-007. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at BuffaloGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zayas VA, Constantinou MC, Tsopelas P, Kartoum A (1996) Testing of friction pendulum seismic isolation bearings for bridges. In: Proceedings of the fourth world congress on joint sealing and bearing systems for concrete structures, Sacramento, California, Sept 1996Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Constantinou MC, Tsopelas P, Kim YS, Okamoto S (1993) NCEER-Taisei corporation research program on sliding isolation systems for bridges: experimental and analytical study of friction pendulum system. Report no. 93-0020, National Center for Earthquake Engineering, State University of New York at Buffalo, Nov 1993Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mokha AS, Constantinou MC, Reinhorn AM (1990) Experimental study and analytical prediction of earthquake response of a sliding isolation system with a spherical surface. Report no. NCEER 90-0020, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, Oct 1990Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zayas VA, Low S (1993) Seismic isolation retrofit of a historic building. In: Proceedings of national earthquake conference, Central United States Earthquake Consortium, Memphis, TennesseeGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zayas V, Low S, Bozzo L, Mahin S (1989) Feasibility and performance studies on improving the earthquake resistance of new and existing buildings using the friction pendulum system, UCB/EERC-89/09, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zayas VA, Low SS, Mahin SA (1987) The FPS earthquake resisting system, experimental report. Report No. UCB/EERC 87/01, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, June 1987Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zayas V, Piepenbrock T, Al-Hussaini T (1993) Summary of testing of the friction pendulum seismic isolation system: 1986–1993. In: Proceedings of the ATC-17-1 seminar on seismic isolation, passive energy dissipation and active control, Applied Technology Council, San Francisco, Mar 1993Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zayas VA, Low SS, Mahin SA (1989) Shake table testing of a friction pendulum seismic isolation system, seismic engineering: research and practice. The American Society of Civil Engineering, Structural Congress, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lambrou V, Constantinou MC (1994) Study of seismic isolation systems for computer floors. Technical report NCEER-94-0020, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, July 1994Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Constantinou MC (1996) Research on longevity and reliability of sliding seismic isolation systems. NCEER highway project technical report, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at BuffaloGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    CERF Report: HITEC 98-07 #40370 Evaluation findings for Earthquake Protection Systems, Inc. Friction pendulum bearings, Sept 1998Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Earthquake Protection Systems (2003) Technical characteristics of friction pendulum bearing. Earthquake Protection Systems Inc., VallejoGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Constantinou MC, Mokha AS, Reinhorn AM (1990) Teflon bearings in base isolation: modeling. J Struct Eng 116:455–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Tsopelas P, Constantinou MC, Okamoto S, Fujii S, Ozaki D (1996) Experimental study of bridge seismic sliding isolation systems. Eng Struct 18(4):301–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Constantinou MC (2004) Friction pendulum double concave bearing. NEES reportGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Tsai C, Chiang T, Chen B (2005) Experimental evaluation of piecewise exact solution for predicting seismic responses of spherical sliding type isolated structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34:1027–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kim YS, Yun CB (2007) Seismic response characteristics of bridges using double concave friction pendulum bearings with tri-linear behaviour. Eng Struct 29(11):3082–3093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Fenz DM, Constantinou MC (2008) Spherical sliding isolation bearings with adaptive behavior: theory. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37:163–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Du XL, Han Q, Qi LK et al (2010) Multi-spherical sliding isolation bearing with adaptive behavior. Chinese Patent ZL2009201783677Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Fadi F, Constantinou MC (2010) Evaluation of simplified methods of analysis for structures with triple friction pendulum isolators. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39:5–22Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Morgan TA, Mahin SA The optimization of multi-stage friction pendulum isolators for loss mitigation considering a range of seismic hazard. In: The 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Liu W, Han Q, Du X, Qi L (2012) Design principle and theoretical model of multi-spherical sliding isolation bearing. J Disaster Prev Mitig Eng 32(4):417–422 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Wang YP (2002) Fundamentals of seismic base isolation. In: International training programs for seismic design of building structures, Taipei, pp 139–148Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (2014) Reliability of offshore structure—current design and potential inconsistencies. OGP report no. 486Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Clarke CSJ, Buchanan R, Efthymiou M (2005) Structural platform solutions for seismic arctic environments—Sakhalin II offshore facilities, offshore technology conference, HoustonGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Taylor AW (2004) Primer on seismic isolation. ASCE, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
  72. 72.
    Sharma A, Jangid RS (2011) Influence of high initial isolator stiffness on the seismic response of a base-isolated benchmark building. Int J Struct Stab Dyn 11(6):1201–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Malhotra PK (1999) Response of buildings to near-field pulse-like ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28:1309–1326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Jangid RS, Kelly JM (2001) Base isolation for near fault ground motion. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 30:691–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aker SolutionsBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations