Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

The 3rd International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation 2016 (ICEEDM-III 2016)

Seismic Behavior of Base-Isolated Residential House with Various Soil


Type in High Seismic Regions by Nonlinear Time-History Analysis
Tavioa,*, Hidajat Sugihardjoa, Yudha Lesmanaa
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology (ITS), Surabaya, Indonesia

Abstract
The main reason of using the base isolation system in a building is to improve its structural safety against the
earthquakes. Various response spectrum corresponding to different soil conditions should be considered so that the
application of low-cost base isolation system for residential buildings can be optimized. The effect of various soil
conditions on response spectra should be considered in the seismic analysis of the buildings in order to obtain an
effective period and the most suited soil condition for base-isolated buildings. Typical single- and two-story reinforced
concrete residential houses were examined to study the impact of the isolation ratio and various soil conditions. The
three-dimensional models of the houses were analyzed using SAP2000 software under ultimate load (ultimate limit state
condition) and based on the nonlinear time history that involved various soil conditions, i.e. rock (B), soft rock (C), stiff
soil (D), and soft soil(E) as stipulated by the code. The results, derived by a step-by-step procedure, show that houses
with low-cost base isolation system performed better with a fundamental period approximately 2 seconds, related to floor
acceleration, isolator displacement, base shear, and internal force ratio. It is found that soft soil is not recommended for
base isolated structures. It can be shown that the results of displacement, floor acceleration, base shear, and internal force
ratio of this type of soil are significantly greater and different than other types of soils. In other words, the base isolation
system is not effective and recommended for houses on soft soils.
Keywords: effective period; isolated structures;isolation ratio; low-cost base isolation system;nonlinear time history
analysis;residential buildings.

1. INTRODUCTION

The research and numerous applications in the field of seismic base isolation system have undoubtedly proved that
this system of alternative seismic protection is extremely effective in minimizing the damage of certain type of buildings
during seismic action [1-3]. Base isolation has emerged as a viable structural option in seismic zones to reduce the
vulnerability of structural systems subjected to earthquakes. The major application of seismic isolation is on rigid
structural systems located on firm or relatively firm soils, as these structural systems usually have short natural periods
that make them vulnerable to earthquakes in such sites [4]. The strength level of isolated structure are given by assuming
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tavio_w@yahoo.com
value for the isolation ratio (I=TI/TF), TF and TI being the fundamental period of fixed-base structure and the
fundamental vibration period of the isolated structure, respectively [5].
In this research, one- and two- storey are investigated according to type of soil. It is carried out to analyze the effect of
soil on the building behavior in order to know the single effective period and the most suited soil for isolated structure.
The effect of soil condition was related to the different of its response spectrum according to Indonesia Earthquake Code
[6], especially for high seismic zone. In the previous analysis, it has obtained the range effective of isolation ration. Then
in this research, the structures were analyzed based on its effective of isolation ratio, begin 3 to 7 and 3 to 5 for one
storey and two storey, respectively.
The main reason of using base isolation system is to enhance structural safety and integrity against serve the
earthquakes. The application of the current base isolation is not still possible for residential building, which has much
lighter weight than a multi-story, due to unavailable of the current base isolation for low horizontal stiffness. The
different of response spectrum on each soil should be ensured, that the using low-cost base isolation for residential
building will result an optimum design in term of cost and life safety. Several characteristics for optimum design are
displacement, floor accelerations, base shear and internal element forces. Those all should be compared to each soil type
in order to obtain the optimum design.
The above consideration suggest that the performance of low rise building (housing) utilized base isolation, needs to
be explored in order to pursue an optimal design and safety level. The structures were analyzed with different horizontal
stiffness of isolator, by using the effective range of the isolation ratio and in different response spectra according to soils.
In this paper a non linier time history analysis method is carried out to observe the response of base-isolated reinforced
concrete frame structures subjected to earthquakes.

2. STRUCTURAL MODEL CONSIDERED

For sake of clearness, a typical residential buildings, whose symmetric reinforced concrete framed structure are shown
in plan in Fig. 1a, is considered. The plane frame is assumed as test structure for the numerical investigation.
Two cases, respectively with one and two storey, are studied. For sake of brevity, only isolated test structures are
schematically shown in Fig. 1(b) and (c); a rigid girder is supposed to be placed on the isolators, at the base of the framed
structures.
Primarily, the reinforced concrete frames with fixed-base have been designed according to the Indonesia building code
[5], assuming: high risk seismic region; Aceh (PGA peak ground acceleration 0.9g); soil profile B (stiff soil).
A cylindrical compressive strength of 25 N/mm2 for concrete and yield strength of 320 N/mm2 for steel have been
assumed. The design has been carried out to comply also with additional rules, in particular that imposing in a node the
global strength of the columns greater than that of the girders. The main properties of the structure are shown in Table 1.
The base-isolated frames are designed assuming the same strength level of the corresponding fixed-base frames, but
considering the different strength distribution throughout each isolated framed structure according to its vibration modes
(substantially the first mode). Different values of the isolation ratio are considered; in particular, assuming I = 1, the
case of the fixed-base structure comes out. The variation of I value is obtained selecting suitable values of the isolator
stiffness properties as specified below.
The most important mechanical property of the isolation is horizontal stiffness. It derived by assuming the target of
fundamental period according to mass and isolation ratio, (Eq. 1).

2
 2 
K H  m    (1)
 Ti 
where m is the axial force, and Ti is the target fundamental period according to isolation ratio. The fundamental period of
test structure and the effective elastic stiffness of isolator, resulting from different values of the isolation ratio, are shown
in Table 2.
K1 K2 K1

3000
+7.0

K3 K4 K3

3000
+3.5 +3.5
K3 K4 K3
3000

K1 K2 K1

3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000

(a) (b) (c)

Fig 1. Analytical Models of Isolated Frames: (a) Plan View; (b) Elevation of One-Storey Building;
and (c) Elevation of Two-Storey Building

Table 1. Member Section Dimension (in cm)

Storey Columns Girder Beam

(a). One-storey frames


Base - 15 x 25 -
1 15 x 15 - 15 x 25

(b). Two-storey frames


Base - 15 x 25 -
1 20 x 20 - 15 x 25
2 20 x 20 - 15 x 25

3. MODELING APPROACH

Typical 1- and 2 story buildings were designed according to Indonesia Building Code [7] for the loading and
dimensions described in the previous section. A three-dimensional model of each structure is created in SAP2000
v14.2.2 [8], to carry out ultimate state (ultimate load) and nonlinear time history analysis (service load). There were four
type of soil that consider in this paper, they were rock (B), soft rock (C), stiff soil (D) and soft soil (E) [6], as shown on
Table 3.
The ultimate state was carried out in order to derive the internal members force, particularly for beam element, with
ultimate load combinations. The compare of internal force between isolated structure with fixed based structure would
describe how extremely effective in using base isolation on the structure. The internal forces decrease significantly by
following the increasing of isolation ratio of base isolation.
The service load condition used to analyze the performance of building under earthquake load by using non linier time
history analysis. The results; (displacement of isolator, floor acceleration and base shear); were obtained and analyzed in
each type of soil in order to compare each other. The main aim of analysis was to determine the optimum single
fundamental of the structure related to the type of soil conditions.
It is possible to satisfy the performance criteria of optimum design by using base isolation on the structure based on
internal forces, displacement of isolator, floor acceleration and base shear. In order to guaranty the performance
structure, the displacement of isolator was restricted about 150 mm for isolated structure and the different of internal
element forces does not exceed than 1.5 times of fixed base element. The different of reduction factor (R) in the ultimate
concept, between fixed base and isolated, should be considered in order to determine the optimum design of isolated
structure.
The response spectra of site was derived according to Indonesian earthquake code [9], that involves four types of soil
conditions, as shown in Fig. 2.
Fig 2. Response Spectra of Aceh with Various Soils

Table 2. Site Classification

Sites Class Vs N Su (kPa)


No
1 B-Rock 750 to 1500 N/A N/A
2 C-Very dense soil and soft rock 350 to 750 >50 > 100
3 D-Stiff soil 175 to 350 15 to 50 15 to 100
4 E- Soft clay soil < 175 < 15 < 50

4. GROUND MOTION SELECTED

Seven ground motion records, list in Table4 and Fig. 3, were selected. The parameters that need to be considered in
identifying the scenario are those that have the most influence on ground motion spectral shape [10], in the following:
a. Magnitude Dependence; In order to derive the magnitude influence on response spectral shape, the magnitude
ranging about 4.9 to 7.9 in the NGA database.
b. Distance; predominant period shifts to higher values with increase in distance from the fault for the given
earthquake. For particular event, predominant period shifts from about 0.35 sec at the closes distance (0-20km) to 1.2
second at farthest fault distance (120-140 km).
c. Soil Condition; the spectral shape also depends on the site conditions. Predominant period of the spectra from rock
soil type is generally lower than the soft soil type. The average spectral shape of Vs30 for rock soil is 180-360 m/sec less
than the soft one of 540-720 m/sec.
The best way to avoid a biased sample is to select a random sample. This process statically allows us to treat the
spectrum of this random sample as the "true" target spectrum. Therefore in selecting candidate records for nonlinear time
history analysis, one needs to carefully identify records whose spectral shapes are close to each other.

Fig 3. Selected Ground Motion


Table 3. Selected Earthquake The Ground Motions
Distance Vs30 PGA
No Earthquake Year Station Magnitude
[Km] (m/s) (g)
1 Tabas, Iran 1978 Tabas 7.4 2.1 767 0.85
2 San Fernando 1971 Pacoima 6.1 1.81 2016 1.12
3 Northridge 1994 Alhambra - Fremont School 6.7 35 549.75 0.10
4 Landers 1992 Lucerne 7.3 2.19 1369 0.72
5 Morgan Hill 1984 Anderson Dam (Downstream) 6.2 3.22 488.7 0.40
6 Loma Prieta 1989 APEEL 10 - Skyline 6.9 41.7 391.91 0.45
7 Italy 1980 Bagnoli Irpinio 6.9 8.14 649.67 0.15

5. GROUND MOTION SCALING PROCEDURE

According to ASCE 7-10 standard [11], the period range ordinate of the target spectrum of isolated structure were
0.5TD to 1.25TM. The target pseudo-acceleration spectrum for the buildings site was taken as the median of the 5
percent damped pseudo-acceleration response spectra corresponding to the average of the horizontal components of the
unscaled records, related to Indonesia earthquake code. The pseudo-acceleration spectrums of the seven-ground motion
were derived by using commercial program [12] based on characteristic of soil, as shown in Figs. 4 to 7.
Least Square Method, scaling technique used to match the spectrum, was proposed by Kalkan and Chopra [10]. Under
this method, the input acceleration was multiplied by a scalar that minimizes the weighted sum of the errors between the
ground motion spectra and the target spectrum. In order to obtain a minimum scale factor for each of seven records,
residuals between the record's scaled spectrum and target spectrum is minimized between 0.2TI and 1.5TI trough a
method of least square whereby square of sum of residuals is expressed as

   Ai  SF. Ai 
n
2
(2)
i 1

where Ai and Ai are the target spectral acceleration and record's (unscaled) spectral acceleration, respectively. The
symbol ith is spectral period, and n is the number of periods (log spaced) covered between 0.5TD to 1.25TM. The aim is
to find the value of SF that minimizes the error.

 n   n 
SF    Ai Ai  /   Ai Ai  (3)
 i 1   i 1 
Note that Eq. 3, yields an optimal scaling factor to ensure the record’s scaled spectrum match closely the target spectrum
between0.2TI and 1.5TI. The scaled factor of record ground according to Eq. 3, are shown in Tables 5 to 8.
Table 4. Scaling Factor of Ground Motion (Rock)
One Storey Two Stories
No Earthquake Year Station Magnitude
X Y X Y
1 Tabas, Iran 1978 Tabas 7.4 0.923 0.758 0.980 0.626
2 San Fernando 1971 Pacoima 6.1 0.418 0.628 0.374 0.661
3 Northridge 1994 Alhambra - Fremont School 6.7 3.013 5.808 3.049 6.917
4 Landers 1992 Lucerne 7.3 0.675 1.559 0.544 1.479
5 Morgan Hill 1984 Anderson Dam (Downstream) 6.2 2.451 1.014 3.269 1.760
6 Loma Prieta 1989 APEEL 10 - Skyline 6.9 0.595 0.844 0.993 1.345
7 Italy 1980 Bagnoli Irpinio 6.9 1.733 1.225 1.557 1.035

Table 5. Scaling Factor of Ground Motion (Soft Rock)


One Storey Two Stories
No Earthquake Year Station Magnitude
X Y X Y
1 Tabas, Iran 1978 Tabas 7.4 1.199 0.986 1.276 0.815
2 San Fernando 1971 Pacoima 6.1 0.544 0.816 0.487 0.861
3 Northridge 1994 Alhambra - Fremont School 6.7 3.916 7.548 3.969 9.002
4 Landers 1992 Lucerne 7.3 0.878 2.026 0.708 1.925
5 Morgan Hill 1984 Anderson Dam (Downstream) 6.2 3.184 1.318 4.254 2.291
6 Loma Prieta 1989 APEEL 10 - Skyline 6.9 0.773 1.096 1.293 1.751
7 Italy 1980 Bagnoli Irpinio 6.9 2.253 1.593 2.027 1.347
Table 6. Scaling Factor of Ground Motion (Stiff Soil)
No Earthquake Year Station Magnitude One Storey Two Stories
X Y X Y
1 Tabas, Iran 1978 Tabas 7.4 1.355 1.123 1.470 0.939
2 San Fernando 1971 Pacoima 6.1 0.621 0.919 0.561 0.992
3 Northridge 1994 Alhambra - Fremont School 6.7 4.427 8.518 4.574 10.375
4 Landers 1992 Lucerne 7.3 0.999 2.295 0.816 2.218
5 Morgan Hill 1984 Anderson Dam (Downstream) 6.2 3.589 1.489 4.904 2.640
6 Loma Prieta 1989 APEEL 10 - Skyline 6.9 0.868 1.228 1.490 2.018
7 Italy 1980 Bagnoli Irpinio 6.9 2.562 1.815 2.336 1.553

Table 7. Scaling Factor of Ground Motion (Soft Soil)


No Earthquake Year Station Magnitude One Storey Two Stories
X Y X Y
1 Tabas, Iran 1978 Tabas 7.4 1.718 1.535 2.295 1.479
2 San Fernando 1971 Pacoima 6.1 0.837 1.152 0.873 1.537
3 Northridge 1994 Alhambra - Fremont School 6.7 5.578 10.553 7.134 16.301
4 Landers 1992 Lucerne 7.3 1.342 2.945 1.283 3.467
5 Morgan Hill 1984 Anderson Dam (Downstream) 6.2 4.369 1.749 7.674 4.082
6 Loma Prieta 1989 APEEL 10 - Skyline 6.9 1.017 1.419 2.311 3.116
7 Italy 1980 Bagnoli Irpinio 6.9 3.372 2.478 3.656 2.437

Fig 4. Response Spectra (Rock Soil) Fig 5. Response Spectra (Soft Rock Soil)

Fig 6. Response Spectra (Stiff Soil) Fig 7. Response Spectra (Soft Soil)

6. RESULTS

The aim of this paper was to determine the single effective period of isolated structure for residential housing. A
numerical investigation was carried out by assuming the isolation-ratio as shown in Table 3. The ground motion
generated to match the design spectrum are considered for studying the dynamic behavior of the structure subjected to
strong earthquake with different soil conditions. The results which follow are derived as an average value of these seven
ground motions.
Base upon on the comparative study of floor acceleration and base share, the structure has a similar pattern as down
trend form as shown in Figs. 8 and 9. It shows that the earthquake force induced to the building, would be decreased
drastically by absorbing mechanism of isolator. On other words, the structure which used base isolation would generate a
lower internal force than fixed base structure. The increasing isolation ratio, it would be followed with the decreasing
internal forces of element structure but the capability displacement of isolator should be considered. The decreasing of
floor acceleration was not still sufficient to satisfy the requirement of human comfort condition therefore the higher
damping should be provided to achieve the target.
It can be seen from the above that the phenomena of base share and acceleration guarantee to us for the effective of
using base isolation on the structure. But it was not still enough to derive the single effective value of fundamental period
for isolated structure (residential housing). Therefore, other characteristic should be added to be considered. They were
displacement of isolator and comparative internal force between isolated with fixed structures. As shown in Fig. 10, the
displacement shows the uptrend followed with increasing isolation ratio. However, the defining of single effective period
was restricted with the maximum of shear strain (100 percent) of isolator (150 mm). In the other side, the comparison of
internal forces, in this case bending moment of beam, show down trend followed with increasing isolation ratio. The
parameter Mu*/Mu, as shown in Figure 11, was ratio between bending moment for isolated structure to bending moment
for fixed based structure for beam element. We intended to present that the increasing isolation ratio would be followed
by decreasing internal member force. In this case we were restricted the top limit for value of Mu*/MU about 1.5 Since
the value about 1.5 satisfies for all structures in every soil condition except soft soil. However, it does not mean that
isolated structure would be cheaper than fixed based because the different of reduction factor (R) on ultimate load
combinations.

7. CONCLUSIONS

This paper presents the result of the residential building, one- and two storey, with various soil conditions. The aim of
this research is to determine a single value of the effective period for residential building. According to illustrate above,
the following conclusions associated to with analysis are:
1. The main consideration in order to define the single effective period of those structures was displacement of
isolator, because it related to the stability of building. Therefore, one storey, the most effective of the isolation
ratio was defined about 5. It means that the building would has the fundamental period about 2seconds for all
soil conditions except soft soil
2. In order to simplification of analysis, the most effective period of two storey was desired to be approached with
one storey that was about 2sec for all soil conditions except soft soil. Therefore, the most effective isolation ratio
for two storey was 3. It means that the building would have the fundamental period about 2.1 s. Although if we
considered according to the ratio of internal force, it was not classified but it still can accepted. Then, the most
effective period for one storey and two storey buildings was about 2 s.
3. According to all soil conditions, soft soil does not recommended for isolated structure. It can be shown that the
result of displacement, floor acceleration, base shear and internal force ratio, has a significantly different than
other soils. In other words, soft soil is not effective and not recommended for isolated structure.
4. Based on the result of internal force ratio between isolated and fixed based, it shows that internal forces of
isolated structure were greater than fixed based structure. It does not means that isolated structure would be more
economic than the fixed based system because the reduction factor (R) at ultimate load combinations were
different (R; isolated structure is 2).

Fig 8. Base Shear of Isolated Structures Fig 9. Floors Acceleration of Isolated Structures
Fig 10. Displacement of Isolator Fig 11. Bending Moment Ratio of Beam

Actually, the increasing of isolation ratio was better for our building. However, it was restricted with capability of
isolator to deform in horizontal direction. So, the capability of isolator should be improved if we would like to achieve a
greater isolation ratio.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The study is a part of a multiyear research project entitled “Development of Low-Cost Rubber Base Isolation for
Residential Houses in Highly-Seismic Regions,” funded by the Indonesian Ministry of Research and Technology and
Higher Education through the Program of the Excellent Research of Universities (PUPT) under contract number
003246.191/IT2.11/PN.08/2015. The authors express their sincere gratitude for all the support received.

REFERENCES

[1]. Kilar, V.; and Koren, D. 2009. “Seismic Behavior of Asymmetric Base Isolated Structure with Various
Distributions of Isolators,” Engineering Structures 31: 910-921.
[2]. Lesmana, Y.; Tavio; and Sugihardjo, H., “Finite Element Analysis of Perforated – Reinforced Elastomeric
Isolators (PREIs) under Pure Lateral Loading,” The 3rd International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and
Disaster Mitigation 2016 (ICEEDM-III 2016), 1-2 August 2016, Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia.
[3]. Sugihardjo, H.; Tavio; and Lesmana, Y., “Behavior of a Base-Isolated Residential House in a Highly Seismic
Region,” International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, ISSN 0973-4562, © Research India Publications,
http://www.ripublication.com/ijaer.htm (accepted for publication).
[4]. Colunga, A. T.; and Gomez-Soberon, L. 2002. “Torsional Response of Base Isolated Structures due to asymmetris
in the superstructure,” Engineering Structures 24: 158-1599.
[5]. Vulcano, A. 1998. “Comparative Study of The Earthquake and Wind Dynamic Response of Base-Isolated
Building,” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamic: 74-76.
[6]. SNI Committee 1726. 2012. “Tata Cara Perencanaan Ketahanan Gempa untuk Gedung dan Non Gedung”, SNI
1726:2012.
[7]. SNI Committee 2847. 2013. “Persyaratan Beton Struktural untuk Bangunan Gedung”, SNI 2847:2013.
[8]. CSI. SAP2000 v.14.2.2 “Linear and nonlinear static and dynamic analysis and design of three-dimensional
structures. Berkeley: Computer & Structures, Inc; 2008.
[9]. http://puskim.pu.go.id/Aplikasi/desain_spectral_indonesia_2011/.
[10]. Kalkan, E.; and Chopra, A. K. .2010. “Practical Guidelines to Select and Scale Earthquake Records for Nonlinier
Response History Analysis of Structure,” Open-File Report. U.S Department of the Interior and U.S. Geological
Survey.
[11]. American Society of Civil Engineers, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and other Structures,” ASCE/SEI 7-
10, Reston, VA; 2010.
[12]. Seismosoft v5.1.2 “Earthquake Engineering Software Solutions,” Italy: Seismosoft Ltd.VAT; 2015.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen