ARTICLE IN PRESS

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28 (2008) 293304

www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Pushover analysis of base-isolated steelconcrete composite structures

under near-fault excitations
C.P. Providakis
Applied Mechanics Laboratory, Department of Applied Sciences, Technical University of Crete, GR-73100 Chania, Greece
Received 14 March 2007; received in revised form 18 June 2007; accepted 19 June 2007

Abstract

In the present study, the seismic behavior of steelconcrete composite structures isolated by base-isolation devices under near-fault
earthquake excitations is numerically investigated. The seismic analysis is performed by means of the static non-linear (pushover)
analysis procedure conducted on two ve-storey three-dimensional (3-D) buildings with steel columns and steelconcrete composite slabs
and beams. The present 3-D building examples are assumed to be located at a near-fault area in order to take into account the effect of
strong ground motion on the isolation devices. The results of this study allowed the verication of the adequacy of the attachment
isolation system as well as the comparison of the behavior of the seismic-protected building with or without bracings to the unprotected
buildings with or without bracings, showing the benets of the application of the isolation devices, the limitations and the characteristics
of their performance.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Composite structures; Pushover analysis; Base isolation; LRB isolation devices; Near fault; FEM; Braced frames

1. Introduction cially relevant. Moreover, the inherent ductility possessed

For building systems, steelconcrete composite struc-
tures are known as the most economical solution to the
diverse engineering design requirements of stiffness and
strength. This type of construction has become a common
feature in multistory steel frame buildings in several
countries. In Greece, steelconcrete construction type is
increasingly popular in structural applications, especially
for high-raised industrial buildings. The simplest form of
those steelconcrete composite structures comprise a bare-
steel frame of common H-type section columns supporting
I-type section beams which in turn, support the overlaid
composite oor slab. On the other hand, the composite
oor slab consists of cold-formed proled steel sheets
which act not only as the permanent formwork for an in
situ cast concrete slab but also as the appropriate tensile
reinforcement [14]. For buildings required to resist earth-
quake loads, this economical structural solution is espe-
Tel.: +30 2821 37637; fax: +30 2821 37866.
E-mail address: cpprov@mred.tuc.gr
by composite members allows a greater level of energy
dissipation to be achieved, further increasing their applic-
ability to seismic-resistant structures.
The fundamental period of a common size building is
usually within the range of the predominant period of the
earthquake ground motions. This leads to high dynamic
amplication effect almost in ranges close to the resonance
and thus, signicant inertial forces can be expected to
introduce on the building in the mean of a strong ground
motion. This can be avoided by using a base isolation
system in the foundation level of the buildings [5].
However, near-fault (NF) earthquake strong ground
motions which characterized by large amplitude, long
period, and pulse type of excitation tend to produce large
isolator displacements. Accommodating these large dis-
placement capabilities in the bearings requires they must be
of considerable size. But these costly isolator geometries
are in contradiction with the main purpose of seismic
isolation to gain a more economical design solution by
mitigating the forces transferred to the substructures.
Moreover, in some cases, base seismic isolation in NF

0267-7261/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.06.012
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
294 C.P. Providakis / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28 (2008) 293304
areas has been found to offer only limited performance
benets compared to regular buildings. Thus, one may
conclude that the application of seismic base-isolation
systems to buildings seems to be virtually impractical as a
stand-alone seismic mitigation procedure in NF sites [6].
The combination of conventional base-isolation systems
with advanced supplemental passive viscous energy
absorbing devices such as viscous uid dampers [7] and
semi-active or active energy absorption devices such as
magnetorheological dampers [8] was found to be an
effective and alternate solution to improve the seismic
behavior of base-isolated buildings under NF strong
ground motions. But, these advanced isolation systems
are generally expensive and at present are not commonly
used for seismic protection of buildings in Greece, mainly,
due to lack of experience of state departments in using such
devices, requirements of a continuous source of power at
the building site for semi-active and active isolation
systems and maintenance associated with such devices that
may be exposed to severe environmental effects at the
building site. Thus, to investigate the effect of base-
isolation system on the seismic performance of steelcon-
crete composite buildings, a conventional isolation system
of the common leadrubber bearing (LRB)-type is
considered in the present study.
Inelastic time-history analysis that denes with sufcient
reliability the forces and deformation demands in every
element of the structural system is well known as the
proper methodology of performance evaluation. However,
this methodology needs the availability of knowledge and
practices as far as the seismic loading, the structural
modeling of all the important elements, the soilstructure
interaction and the material properties are concerned. We
should recognize that at this time we have not adequately
developed those capabilities [9]. Taking into account these
limitations, the non-linear static response or pushover
analysis, in the recent NEHRP guidelines [10] has been
considered as relatively simple but quite efcient non-linear
methodology to evaluate the performance state of the
structural system [11]. Although pushover analyses of
concrete structures and steel structures have been carried
out by many researchers and designers, at present, to the
authors knowledge, pushover analyses for the seismic
analysis of base-isolated steelconcrete composite struc-
tures are rarely reported in the technical literature. In the
present study, the pushover analysis is used to estimate the
expected seismic performance of steelconcrete composite
buildings which are base isolated by LRB devices by
evaluating their strength and deformation demands in NF
earthquake strong ground motions and comparing these
demands to available capacities at the desired performance
levels. The estimation of the performance level of the LRB-
isolated buildings is based on the assessment of important
performance parameters evaluated by pushover analysis of
the buildings subjected to monotonically increasing lateral
forces according to UBC 1997 [12] with an invariant
height-wise distribution until a pre-determined target
displacement is reached. The pushover analysis is per-
formed, in this study, by using the nite element program
ETABS2000 [13] which accomplishes the pushover analysis
procedure in a piece-wise linear fashion. Through the
implementation of pushover analysis, plastic hinges are
inserted in the nite element model as limit states are
attained in successive elements according to the procedures
prescribed in FEMA 273 [10] and ATC-40 [14] documents
for 3-D buildings.
Herein, the seismic response of steelconcrete composite
buildings isolated by LRB isolators under NF earthquake
strong ground motions is investigated. The specic
objectives of the present study may be summarized as: (i)
to investigate seismic performance limits of LRB base-
isolation system on composite buildings, (ii) to study the
seismic behavior of braced as compared to unbraced
composite buildings in combination with appropriate levels
of base isolation for upgrading earthquake resistant design
and (iii) to examine the efciency of pushover analysis in
analyzing base-isolated steelconcrete composite buildings
under NF excitations.
2. Modeling and assumptions
In the present study, two ve-story steelconcrete
composite 3-D buildings, buildings A and B, respectively,
as shown in Figs. 1 and 2 have been considered. Both
buildings have the same oor plan with four longitudinal
bays by four transverse bays as depicted in Fig. 3. The size
of the longitudinal and transverse bays is 6 m each. The
height of the rst oor is 4 m while that of the rest of the
oors is 3 m as depicted in elevation plan of buildings A
and B in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. The columns are made
of H-type steel proles while the oor systems consist of a
steel deck supporting lightweight concrete slab with the
steel sheeting placed transverse to the beam (Fig. 6). The
oor slabs are connected by shear studs to the supporting
beams of the composite frames with cross-section proper-
ties summarized in Table 1. The concrete grade is C16/20
Fig. 1. Three-dimensional model of building A.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.P. Providakis / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28 (2008) 293304
Fig. 2. Three-dimensional model of building B.
Fig. 3. Floor plan of buildings A and B.
while the structural steel grade is S355 with mechanical
properties shown in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
Actually, the only difference between buildings A and B
is that building B is a V-braced version of building A with
bracings located along the x-axis at frames 1 and 5 as
shown in Fig. 3. The bracings in building B are constructed
of S355 steel and are of hollow square box section.
Steelconcrete composite slabs will be able to transmit the
effects of the design seismic action with sufcient over-
strength to the various lateral load-resisting systems to
which they are connected. The columns, beams and
bracings are of equal dimensions for each oor while
smaller dimensions are employed in the upper stories.
295
It is assumed that all beamcolumn joints are fully
rigid and possess resistances which are sufciently large
in comparison with their connected members to prevent
the occurrence of yield. Connection exibility is there-
fore not taken into account. The dead load is G 5 kN/m2
for all the oors except the top oor where the dead
load was considered as G 2 kN/m2. The live load is
Q 2 kN/m2 for each oor of both buildings A and
B. Thus, the total mass of both buildings A and B is
considered as equal to 3711 kN s2/m assuming that
V-bracings in building B have little effect on the total
mass of its dynamic system.
For the non-linear static procedure or pushover analysis,
the computer program ETABS2000 [13] was used to
predict the building responses. Each building is idealized
by a 3-D model consisting of columns, beams and bracings,
as well as oor diaphragms. Each oor diaphragm is
assumed rigid in its own plane but exible out of it.
Because of the rigidity, each oor has three common
degrees of freedom: two translations and one rotation.
However, the individual steel columns can have axial
deformations and be able to bend about strong and weak
axes. The bracing members of the models are considered as
axially loaded members either in tension or compression.
Beams and columns have been modeled using 3-D
beamcolumn elements that allow for the formation of
plastic hinges at concentrated points near their ends. The
models of both A and B buildings used centerline
dimensions while the mass considered as concentrated at
the center mass of each oor. Column bases assumed xed
while in the base-isolated building cases which have been
investigated in the present analysis we assumed that
buildings are supported by isolation devices, one below
each column base.
2.1. Modeling of LRB isolators
The rubber-based bearings isolation system consists of
layers of rubber and steel with the rubber being vulcanized
to the steel plates for the horizontal exibility and the
vertical stiffness. In this paper, LRB isolator case will be
investigated with a typical conguration shown in Fig. 7.
This isolator consists of a lead-plug insert which provides
its characteristic hysteretic energy-dissipation effect
[5,15,16]. Therefore, LRB system is able to support the
structure vertically, to provide the horizontal exibility
together with the restoring force, and to provide the
required hysteretic damping. The introduction of LRB
isolators in the present non-linear dynamic analysis was
achieved by activating the ISOLATOR1 (ISO1) non-linear
link element capability of ETABS2000 software. These
specic isolators provide hysteretic damping through the
yielding of the lead core. The behavior of LRB isolators
was simulated by the use of the bilinear hysteretic model of
Park et al. [17] as proposed in Nagarajaiah et al. [18] and
implemented in nite element program ETABS2000 taking
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
296 C.P. Providakis / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28 (2008) 293304

Fig. 4. Elevation plan of building A.

Fig. 5. Elevation plan of building B.

into account the following mechanical properties (as shown

tc in Fig. 8):
hs
wr
 elastic stiffness (ke),
hr  yield strength (Fy), and
 post-yield stiffness ratio (kp/ke).
Sr
The elastic stiffness ke is dened as the ratio of the yield
Fig. 6. Details of a steelconcrete composite slab and beam support. strength to the yield displacement as expressed in the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.P. Providakis / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28 (2008) 293304 297

Table 1 given by the equation

Geometrical details of composite slab and shear studs of buildings A and B
Q Apb sypb , (2)
Characteristic dimensions of composite slabs and shear studs
where Apb is the area of lead core and sypb is the yield
hs (m) 0.1524 strength of lead core (ranging between 7 and 8.5 MPa). The
Sr (m) 0.3048 effective stiffness keff is dened as the ratio between the
wr (m) 0.1524
maximum force, occurring at the maximum LRB isolator
tc (m) 0.0889
hr (m) 0.0762 displacement D, and the displacement D
Fm
keff . (3)
D
The above equations were then introduced in a single
Table 2
Mechanical properties of concrete material spreadsheet to obtain, through a preliminary equivalent
static analysis procedure [16], the basic mechanical proper-
Mechanical properties of concrete material ties of LRB isolator by initially giving the applied design
Modulus of elasticity, E 27.5  103 kN/m2
vertical load, its geometry and maximum design displace-
Poisson ratio, n 0.2 ment D. The fundamental isolation period was also selected
Compression strength, fc 16,000 kN/m2 to be in the range of 1.52.5 s. Since, the mechanical
properties of LRB isolator have been computed, an
iterative procedure was then performed to comply with
Table 3 the code requirements for the stability and strength of LRB
Mechanical properties of steel material isolators. In this procedure, the isolators were also designed
to follow some additional recommendations and practical
Mechanical properties of steel material
limitations in exural and shear deformation, buckling,
Modulus of elasticity, E 2.1  108 kN/m2 vertical compression and tension as proposed in the works
Poisson ratio, n 0.3 of Kelly [5,16]. The design parameters considered here are
Tension strength, fu 510,000 kN/m2 the ratio of the characteristic strength Q over the total
weight W (Q/W), the yield force Fy, the isolator diameter
D, the lead core diameter d, the number of the rubber
Lead core Steel layers layers n and the layer thickness t. Hence, by appropriately
changing the LRB isolator height and keeping constant the
Natural rubber

other design parameters, three different sets for each

buildings A and B were investigated using isolator
diameters d 840, 935 and 1022 mm with a ratio of the
characteristic strength Q to the total structure weight W:
Q/W 8.3%, 10.3% and 12.4%, respectively, as shown in
Table 4. The iterations of the preliminary design analysis
are performed in such a way that the maximum displace-
ment computed from ETABS2000 nite element analysis in
the last step of iteration is almost identical to the selected
maximum design displacement keeping the fundamental
isolation period in the selected range. Some typical
Cross section of elastometallic bearing equivalent hysteretic curves for LRB isolators after
successive preliminary analyses of their geometrical dimen-
withlead core(LRB) sions and subsequently after incorporation of their
mechanical properties in ETABS2000 software are plotted
Fig. 7. Typical conguration of LRB isolator.
in Fig. 9 for the case of LRB isolation system of building A
with Q/W 8.3%.
equation ke Fy/Dy, while the post-yield stiffness kp is
given by the formula [5] 3. Pushover analysis under near-fault loading
G  Ar
kp f L, (1) To investigate the performance of buildings A and B
tr under NF excitations, an earthquake strong ground
where G is the shear modulus of the rubber, Ar is the cross- motion loading is considered and assessed against UBC
sectional area of the rubber layers, tr is the total thickness 1997 [12] code provisions. More specically, it was
of rubber consisting of n layers and the factor fL is equal to considered: Seismic zone 4, Source A with a fault distance
1.5. The characteristic strength Q (at zero displacement) is o 2 km (the most severe NF category in the code) and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
298 C.P. Providakis / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28 (2008) 293304

Force-Displacement Diagram of Equivalent LRB - Q/W= 8.3% - T= 2,40

400
Fm
300
Kp
Q 200
Fy
Force F 100 Kef
Ke
0
Dy
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
-100

-200

ef -300

-400
Displacement

Fig. 8. Forcedisplacement diagram for a non-linear LRB link element of ETABS2000.

Table 4
Investigated cases for LRB isolation systems

No. of layers Fundamental period, T(s) Effective stiffness, Keff (kN/m) Elastic stiffness, Kel (kN/m) Max design displacement (mm)

Q/W 8.3%; core diameter, 140 mm; bearing diameter, 840 mm; yielding force, Fy 139.21 kN; post-yielding stiffness, Kp/Kel 0.115
22 2.40 3.578 20.336 100
30 2.50 2.747 14.913 120
39 2.60 2.236 11.471 135
57 2.764 1.675 7849 160
80 2.94 1.311 5.592 185
Q/W 10.3%; core diameter, 156 mm; bearing diameter, 935 mm; yielding force, Fy 172.84 kN; post-yielding stiffness, Kp/Kel 0.115
31 2.40 3.592 17.890 100
43 2.50 2.762 12.898 120
55 2.59 2.296 10.084 135
75 2.72 1.808 7.395 160
100 2.86 1.466 5.546 185
Q/W 12.4%; core diameter, 171 mm; bearing diameter, 1022 mm; yielding force Fy 207.64 kN; post-yielding stiffness, Kp/Kel 0.115
43 2.40 3.614 15.432 100
60 2.49 2.805 11.059 120
84 2.59 2.271 7.899 135
108 2.70 1.856 6.144 160
155 2.85 1.486 4281 185

Soil type SD. Source A is code-dened as a fault with a high
rate of seismic activity (slip rate X5 mm per year) that is
capable of producing even a MX7.0 earthquake event.
Recent NEHRP provisions [10] gave the directions that,
for a specic earthquake, each one building has enough
capacity to withstand a specied roof displacement, called
as target displacement which is, actually, an estimate of the
likely building design roof displacement. Those provisions
indicate that the target displacement can be estimated by
the following equation:
T 2e
dt C 0 C 1 C 2 C 3 S a , (4)
4p2
where Te is the effective fundamental period of the building
in the direction under investigation dened by using a
secant stiffness at a base shear force equal to 60% of the
yield force, C0 is a factor which combines the spectral
displacement with the expected maximum elastic displace-
ment at the roof level, C1 is a factor which relates the
expected maximum inelastic displacement and the linear
elastic response displacements as in the following:
C 1 1:0
for T e T 0 : characteristic period of spectral response; 5
 
1:0 R  1T 0 =T e
C1 for T e oT 0 , (6)
R
where R is equal to the ratio R Sa =g=V y =W 1=C 0 ,
Sa is the spectral acceleration, Vy is the yield strength, C2 is
a factor which represents the effect of stiffness reduction on
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.P. Providakis / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28 (2008) 293304 299

400 T=2,40 T=2,50

T=2.60

Force (KN)
T=2.76
300 T=2.94

200

100

0
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
-100 Displacement (mm)
=28% -200

=26% -300
=23.6%
=21.9% -400
=20.4%

Fig. 9. Bi-linear simulation of the hysteretic behavior of an LRB isolator with Q/W 8.3%.

the maximum displacement response and C3 is a factor b

which represents the increased displacements obtained
from dynamic second order effects.
To accomplish the seismic performance of buildings A
and B using pushover analysis, a target displacement,
corresponding to UBC 1997 design spectra, was estimated
in accordance with Eq. (10). Then, a pushover analysis
procedure was performed under a pre-determined load
pattern to achieve the target displacement. In the present
paper, an inverted triangular lateral load distribution is
applied in x-direction (denoted herein as Fx) which is
proportional to the values of factor CU given by the
following equation (UBC 1997):
W x hx
C U X Pn , (7)
i1 W i hi
where C UX is the lateral load distribution factor, Wi and hi
are the weight and height of the ith oor above the base,
respectively, and n is the number of oors. The lateral load
Fx is then given by the equation
F x V base  F t C Ux ,
where Ft 0.07TVbase, when fundamental structural per-
iod T40.7 s and Ft 0, when To0.7 s; Vbase is the base
shear which is dened according to UBC 1997 as
CVI
V base W,
RT
where the seismic coefcient Cv is a function of the zone,
source, fault distance and soil type (computed as 0.64Nv
where the near-source factor Nv equals 2 for source A with
a fault distance o2 km); I is the importance factor (selected
as 1.25); and R is the force reduction coefcient (selected
as 8.5).
To perform the pushover analysis, the following
assumptions were adopted: (i) possible plastic hinges
usually form at the ends of beams and columns under
earthquake actions; (ii) for beam elements, plastic hinges
are caused by uniaxial (strong axis) bending moments; and
M/My
a
C
1
B LS CP
IO
E
D
c
A
0
/y
Fig. 10. Typical momentrotation curve in pushover analysis.
(iii) for column elements, plastic hinges are caused by axial
loads and bi-axial bending moments (strong and weak
axis).
(8) The material model used in the pushover analysis is
based on the provisions of FEMA 273 [10] and ATC-40
[14] documents dening force (moment)displacement
(rotation) criteria for the plastic hinges used in the
pushover analysis. Fig. 10 presents the typical force
(moment)displacement (rotation) relation proposed by
(9)
those documents. The points A, B, C, D and E dene the
forcedisplacement relation of the hinge while the points
IO, LS and CP dene the performance acceptance criteria
for the hinge (points IO, LS and CP stand for Immediate
Occupancy, Life Safety and Collapse Prevention, respec-
tively). The values assigned to each of these points vary
depending on the type of member as well as many other
parameters dened in the ATC-40 and FEMA-273 docu-
ments.
To simplify the present pushover analysis of steelcon-
crete composite beams, it is assumed that user-dened
momentrotation curves similar to those dened for steel
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
300 C.P. Providakis / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28 (2008) 293304

column are applied to simulate the plastic hinges. The steelconcrete composite structures (buildings A and B,
typical momentrotation curve for the beam and column respectively) with the xed-base building ones.
elements is shown in Fig. 11. The target displacement is,
also, chosen equal to 4% (0.64 m) of the total height of 4.1. Loaddeformation relationship
both buildings A and B. If this target displacement is
reached, the pushover analysis is terminated. The lateral load resistant capacity of a building can be
represented by the base-shear versus top-oor displacement
graph which is very useful in estimating the seismic
4. Results behavior of a building in a pushover analysis. The capacity
curves obtained in the pushover analysis procedure are
In this section, results of the pushover analysis are shown in Figs. 12 and 13 for different number of rubber
presented and discussed. Comparisons are made of layers and for buildings A and B, respectively. In these
predicted by ETABS2000 program story drifts, base shear gures, comparisons are made between the xed-base and
and plastic hinge formation to compare the seismic LRB base-isolated composite buildings A and B. The
behavior of LRB base-isolated braced and unbraced results that correspond to the xed-base buildings are
denoted by WOUT ISOLATOR. The label ISO 5 LRB
M/My
C(6.5,1.195) 840 in the above-mentioned gures refers to an LRB
B(0,1) isolation device which has a bearing cross-section diameter
1 D 840 mm and ve rubber layers.
As shown in Fig. 12, the termination of the pushover
D(6.5,0.4) analysis of building A is caused by exceeding the target top
displacement (0.64 m) for all LRB isolator cases. The xed-
E(8.5,0.4)
base case in building A is characterized by a pushover
0 A(0,0) analysis termination caused by the formation of plastic
A'(0,0) /y hinge mechanisms for the whole structure. Member failure
D'(-6.5,-0.4)
initiates for the xed-base case of building A of the
E'(-8.5,-0.4) pushover analysis at displacements in excess of 0.6 m.
From Fig. 12, one can also observe that the different LRB
-1 isolation cases has similar effect on the capacity curve
B'(0,-1) which yields to the conclusion that the seismic behavior of
building A is not sensitive to these variations in LRB
C'(-6.5,-1.195)
isolators properties. As also shown in Fig. 12, the base-
Fig. 11. Typical momentrotation curve as used in present pushover isolated building A reached the target displacement in a
analysis. relative low base shear. Consequently, the introduction of

25000
WOUT ISOLATOR
22500 ISO 1 LRB 840
ISO 2 LRB 840
20000 ISO 3 LRB 840
ISO 4 LRB 840
17500
ISO 5 LRB 840
Total base shear

15000

12500

10000

7500

5000

2500

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Displacements

Fig. 12. Capacity curve for building A as a function of LRB base isolators (diameter D 840 mm and Q/W 8.3%).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.P. Providakis / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28 (2008) 293304 301

110000
WOUT ISOLATOR
100000
ISO 1 LRB 840
ISO 2 LRB 840
90000
ISO 3 LRB 840
ISO 4 LRB 840
80000
Total base shear ISO 5 LRB 840
70000

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Displacements

Fig. 13. Capacity curve for building B as a function of LRB base isolators (diameter D 840 mm and Q/W 8.3%).

base-isolation devices in the composite building A, allow

WOUT ISOLATOR
the achievement of target displacement without reducing 6 ISO 1 LRB 840
the seismic resistance of the building. ISO 2 LRB 840
ISO 3 LRB 840
As concerns the seismic behavior of the braced 5 ISO 4 LRB 840
composite building B which is presented graphically in ISO 5 LRB 840
Fig. 13, it can be observed that the ultimate base shears 4
decrease remarkably in the pushover analysis as a result of
story level

bracing. The trends of the capacity curves are similar with 3

those obtained for building A in changing the LRB
isolation devices properties while the initiation of the
member failure for the xed-base building B is observed at
the seventh iteration step of the pushover analysis at
displacement in excess of 0.38 m. As shown in Figs. 12 and
13, the ultimate base shears increase with the introduction
of bracings in building B and therefore, it can be concluded
that the effect of bracing affects the seismic behavior of
composite buildings seriously. Fig. 13 also shows that the
initial stiffness values and yield base shears of the braced
building B are higher than those resulted for the unbraced
building A, and that the termination of the pushover
analysis for the xed-base case of braced buildings is
caused by exceeding the target top displacement.
4.2. Final story drifts
The story drifts (relative displacements of each story
relative to base) for the xed-base and LRB base-isolated
building A at the moment of termination of the pushover
analysis are shown in Fig. 14. From this gure, it can be
observed that the story drifts of the rst and second stories
of the base-isolated case are remarkably higher than those
in the xed-base case of building A reaching a peak value
of 58 mm at the rst oor. This reduction in the horizontal
stiffness of the building A is a common characteristic of all
2
1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
story drift (mm)
Fig. 14. Story drift for building A as a function of height from the base
and LRB base isolators (diameter D 840 mm and Q/W 8.3%).
base-isolated systems, which is actually, a limiting factor
for their application in NF strong ground motions cases
where it may cause failure of the isolation system. On the
contrary, it may be shown from Fig. 14 that the
implementation of an LRB base-isolation system in
building A leads to a substantial reduction of the story
drifts for the upper oors. As expected, it is also observed
that, by comparing the behavior of story drifts as a
function of the change of the ratio Q/W of LRB devices,
although the trend of the story drift variation is somewhat
similar to each other, the specic use of LRB isolators with
one rubber layer results in higher displacements.
The effect of incorporating the contribution of bracing
in the computations of story drifts of steelconcrete
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
302 C.P. Providakis / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28 (2008) 293304

6 Table 5
WOUTISOLATO Plastic hinge formation in each step of pushover analysis of xed-base
5 ISO 1 LRB 840 building A
ISO 2 LRB 840
ISO 3 LRB 840 Pushover Performance level-xed-base building A
4 ISO 4 LRB 840
story level

iteration
ISO 5 LRB 840
step B-IO IO-LS LS-CP CP-C C-D D-E 4E
3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 3 104 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 160 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 5 175 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 6 89 88 0 0 0 0 0
story drift (mm) 7 48 137 0 0 0 0 0
8 42 137 8 0 0 0 0
Fig. 15. Story drift for building B as a function of height from the base 9 48 120 19 0 6 0 0
and LRB base isolators (diameter D 840 mm and Q/W 8.3%). 10 48 120 17 0 2 0 6
11 48 120 17 0 0 0 8
composite buildings can be considered as noticeable 12 48 120 17 0 0 0 8
13 48 120 2 0 15 0 8
through Fig. 15 as concerns the xed-base and LRB 14 48 112 0 0 0 0 33
base-isolated case of building B. A remarkable observation 15 48 112 0 0 0 0 33
is that the story drift, for the xed-base case of building B, 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
has a signicant reduction as compared to the story drifts
represented in unbraced building A. The story drifts of the
LRB base-isolated case of building B are relatively higher
in the rst oor and present a smaller standard deviation Table 6
over the height of the building B. Plastic hinge formation in each step of pushover analysis of ISO 1 LRB
840 base-isolated building A

4.3. Plastic hinge distribution Pushover Performance level-ISO 1 LRB 840 (building A)
iteration
step B-IO IO-LS LS-CP CP-C C-D D-E 4E
Tables 57 present the progressive occurrence and extent
of the plastic behavior of the building A at various 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
performance levels for the present pushover analyses. This 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
can be best seen in the related plastic hinge pattern shown
3 64 0 0 0 0 0 0
in Figs. 1618 for the xed-base and LRB base-isolated 4 82 0 0 0 0 0 0
building A with one and ve rubber layers (e.g., ISO 1 LRB 5 112 8 0 0 0 0 0
840 and ISO 5 LRB 840 cases, respectively) at the moment 6 88 72 0 0 0 0 0
of termination of pushover analyses. Plastic yielding rst 7 80 80 0 0 0 0 0
8 80 80 0 0 0 0 0
occurs at rst oors beam members as seen in Table 5 for
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
the xed-base case and Tables 6 and 7 for the LRB-isolated
cases. With increasing the lateral loads, plastic hinges occur
at both end sections of some beams in the second up to fth
oor reaching plastic yielding at this step. Subsequently,
Table 7
the number of plastic hinges at the end sections of the rest Plastic hinge formation in each step of pushover analysis of ISO 5 LRB
composite beams increases continually. Finally, the push- 840 base-isolated building A
over analysis terminates due to exceeding of the target top
displacement. At this step, as shown in Figs. 1618, the Pushover Performance level-ISO 5 LRB 840 (building A)
iteration
extent of plastic hinges at rst oor beams develops step B-IO IO-LS LS-CP CP-C C-D D-E 4E
sufciently, while the rest of the plastic hinges of the second
to the fth oors beams also develop to a certain extent. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Therefore, it can be drawn the conclusion that the weak 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
section of the unbraced building A should be the rst oor 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
beams which may reach in critical conditions due to the 4 64 0 0 0 0 0 0
effect of NF strong ground motion and it is necessary to 5 80 0 0 0 0 0 0
strengthen them in engineering applications, e.g., by adding 6 104 0 0 0 0 0 0
supplemental damping devices [19,20]. 7 112 8 0 0 0 0 0
8 104 40 0 0 0 0 0
As shown in Figs. 1618, the increase of the number of 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rubber layers leads to a delay in forming new plastic hinges.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.P. Providakis / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28 (2008) 293304 303

For example, the use of ISO 1 LRB 840 isolation device

introduces eight plastic hinges in IO-LS performance level
of the fth pushover step while the use of ISO 5 LRB 840
device introduces the same number of plastic hinges in the
same performance level, but, in the seventh step of the
pushover analysis.
Similar results are also presented in Figs. 19 and 20 for
the braced composite building B. The plastic hinges also
rst occur at rst oor beam members but the number of

Fig. 16. Plastic hinge formation for xed-base building A at the

termination of pushover analysis.

Fig. 19. Plastic hinge formation for xed-base building B at the

termination of pushover analysis.

Fig. 17. Plastic hinge formation for ISO 1 LRB 840 base-isolated building
A at the termination of pushover analysis.

Fig. 18. Plastic hinge formation for ISO 5 LRB 840 base-isolated building Fig. 20. Plastic hinge formation for ISO 1 LRB 840 base-isolated building
A at the termination of pushover analysis. B at the termination of pushover analysis.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
304 C.P. Providakis / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28 (2008) 293304
plastic hinges is signicantly reduced as compared to that
obtained at the termination moment of the pushover
analysis of unbraced composite building A. From the
inspection of Figs. 19 and 20 it can be observed that the
extension of the plastic hinges for the braced composite
building B is limited at the lower two oors while the
plastic hinges for unbraced composite building A are
extended to three more oors over the rst one. This is
more pronounced in the case of the implementation of ISO
1 LRB 840 base-isolation device for the building B as
compared to the implementation of ISO 1 LRB 840 base-
isolation device for the building A.
5. Conclusions
In the present paper, the seismic behavior of various
kinds of LRB base-isolated steelconcrete composite
buildings under NF earthquake excitation has been
investigated by using the pushover analysis. The seismic
responses of the different composite buildings have been
compared and some concluding remarks can be obtained
as follows:
1. The use of base-isolation systems is effective in limiting
the base shear of the building excited by NF earth-
quakes but, unfortunately, increases the story drift of
the rst oor beam members.
2. The eventual increase in story drift of the rst oor
members close to the base-isolation level under NF
excitations may be a critical concern for certain isolator
device choices.
3. The addition of bracing elements increases the seismic
performance of buildings eliminating the plastic hinge
formation and reducing the story drift by a factor of
more than 1.5.
References
[1] Patric M, Hogan TJ, Firkins A. Composite oor systems in
commercial buildings. In: Proceedings of the third conference on
steel development, AISC, Melbourne, Australia, May 1988. p. 5466.
[2] Mathys JH. Multistory steel buildingsa new generation: the current
scene. Struct Eng 1978;65A(2):4751.
[3] Wright HD, Evans HR, Harding PW. The use of proled steel
sheeting in oor construction. J Construct Steel Res 1987;7(4):
27995.
[4] Evans HR, Wright HD. Steelconcrete composite ooring deck
structures. In: Narayanan R, editor. Steel concrete composite
structures: stability and strength. London: Elsevier; 1988. p. 2152.
[5] Kelly JM. Earthquake-resistant design with rubber. London: Springer;
1997.
[6] Kelly JM. Role of damping in seismic isolation. Earthquake Eng
Struct Dyn 1999;28(1):320.
[7] Makris N, Chang S. Effects of damping mechanisms on the response
of seismically isolated structures. PEER report 1998/06. Berkeley,
CA: Pacic Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of
Engineering, University of California; 1998.
[8] Saharsrabudhe S, Nagarajaiah S. Semi-active control of sliding
isolated bridges using MR dampers: an experimental and numerical
study. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2005;34(8):96583.
[9] Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS. Static pushover versus dynamic analysis of
RC buildings. Eng Struct 2001;23(5):40724.
[10] FEMA 273/274. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings. Federal Emergency Agency, 1997.
[11] Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDP. Pros and cons of a pushover
analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Eng Struct 1998;20(46):
45264.
[12] UBC. Structural engineering design provisions. In: Proceedings of the
uniform building code, international conference of building ofcials,
1997.
[13] ETABS2000. Berkeley, CA: CSI: Computers and Structures Inc.;
2002.
[14] ATC. Seismic evaluation and retrot of concrete buildings. Report
ATC-40, Applied Technology Council, 1996.
[15] Naeim F, Kelly JM. Design of seismic isolated structures, from
theory to practice. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 1999.
[16] Kelly TE. Base isolation of structures: design guidelines. Report,
Holmes Consulting Group Ltd., 2001.
[17] Park YJ, Wen YK, Ang AH-S. Random vibration of hysteretic
systems under bi-directional ground motions. Earthquake Eng Struct
Dyn 1986;14(4):54357.
[18] Nagarajaiah S, Reinhorn AM, Constantinou MC. Nonlinear
dynamic analysis of three-dimensional base isolated structures (3D-
BASIS). Technical report NCEER-89-0019. New York: National
Center of Earthquake Engineering Research, SUNY Buffalo;
1989.
[19] Providakis CP. Effect of LRB isolators and supplemented viscous
dampers on seismic isolated buildings under near-fault excitations.
Eng Struct 2006, submitted for publication.
[20] Hussain S, Lee D, Retamal E. Viscous damping for base isolated
structures. Technical report, 1998.