Effect of Different Scaling Methods on Seismic Isolator Behavior

Abstract

This study investigated the maximum displacement, force, and acceleration values occurring at the isolation level in structures with lead rubber bearings using nonlinear response history analyses. Earthquake records used in the dynamic analysis were scaled with four different methods. In order to perform bi-directional analysis, both horizontal components of the earthquake records were applied to the isolation units simultaneously. In the analysis, the loss of strength (deterioration) due to the heating in the lead core due to the cyclical motion has been considered. In addition, in seismic isolated structures, five periods (Tiso=2.5s, 2.75s, 3.0s, 3.25s, and 3.5s) representing the isolation period, and four characteristic strength ratios (Q/W=0.75, 0.90, 0.105 and 0.120) representing the strength of the isolation unit were taken into account. As a result of the study, 10-13% change was observed in the maximum acceleration and displacement values at the isolation level due to different scaling methods. In addition, there was a 3% change in force results, and no significant difference occurred.

Keywords

• Lead rubber bearing
• Scaling methods
• Seismic isolation
• OpenSees.

References

1. Naeim, F., and Kelly, J. M. (1999). Design of seismic isolated structures : from theory to practice. John Wiley.
2. Turkish Building Earthquake Code (TBEC), Principles for the design of buildings under earthquake, Ankara, Turkey, 2018.
3. Eurocode8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance- Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, EN 1998-1, 2004.
4. American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute, 2016. Minimum Design Loads For Buildings And Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16, Reston, V.A.
5. Bommer JJ, Acevedo AB. The use of real earthquake accelerograms as input to dynamic analysis. J Earthq Eng 2004;8:43–91.
6. Nau JM, Hall WJ. Scaling Methods for Earthquake Response Spectra. J Struct Eng 1984;110:1533–48.
7. Shome N, Cornell CA, Bazzurro P, Carballo JE. Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear responses. Earthq Spectra 1998;14:469–500.
8. Malhotra PK. Strong-motion records for site-specific analysis. Earthq Spectra 2003;19:557–78.

9. Weng Y.T., Tsai K.C., Chan Y.R. A ground motion scaling method considering highermode effects and structural characteristics. Earthq Spectra 2010;26:841–786.
10. Kwong NS, Chopra AK, Mcguire RK. A framework for the evaluation of ground motion selection and modification procedures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2015;44:795–815.
11. Marasco S, Cimellaro GP. A new energy-based ground motion selection and modification method limiting the dynamic response dispersion and preserving the median demand. Bull Earthq Eng 2018;16:561–81.
12. Kottke A, Rathje EM. A Semi-Automated Procedure for Selecting and Scaling Recorded Earthquake Motions for Dynamic Analysis. Earthq Spectra 2019;24:911–32.
13. Zhang R, Wang D, Chen X, Li H. Weighted and Unweighted Scaling Methods for Ground Motion Selection in Time-history Analysis of Structures. J Earthq Eng 2020:1–36.
14. Eren N, Sucuoğlu H, Pinho R. Interstory drift based scaling of earthquake ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2021;50:3814–30.
15. Kalkan E, Chopra AK. Modal-Pushover-Based Ground-Motion Scaling Procedure. J Struct Eng 2011;137:298–310.
16. Huang Y-N, Whittaker AS, Luco N, Hamburger RO. Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performance-Based Assessment of Buildings. J Struct Eng 2011;137:311–21.
17. Pant DR, Maharjan M. On selection and scaling of ground motions for analysis of seismically isolated structures. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2016;15:633–48.
18. Michaud D, Léger P. Ground motions selection and scaling for nonlinear dynamic analysis of structures located in Eastern North America. Can J Civ Eng 2014;41:232–44.
19. Pant DR. Influence of scaling of different types of ground motions on analysis of code-compliant four-story reinforced concrete buildings isolated with elastomeric bearings. Eng Struct 2017;135:53–67.
20. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees), 2021. Version: 3.3.0, Software, University of California, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, California, 2021. http://opensees.berkeley.edu.
21. Alhan C, Şahin F. Protecting vibration-sensitive contents: An investigation of floor accelerations in seismically isolated buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 2011;9:1203–26.
22. Robinson WH. Lead-Rubber Hysteretic Bearings Suitable for Protecting Structures During Earthquakes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1982;10:593–604.
23. Ozdemir G, Dicleli M. Effect of lead core heating on the seismic performance of bridges isolated with LRB in near-fault zones. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2012;41:1989–2007.
24. Charleson, A.; Guisasola, A. Seismic Isolation for Architects; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2017.
25. Ozdemir G, Constantinou MC. Evaluation of equivalent lateral force procedure in estimating seismic isolator displacements. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2010;30:1036–42.
26. PEER Ground Motion Database-Beta Version With special thanks to: Technical Report for the PEER Ground Motion Database Web Application. 2010.
27. Öztürk, H. Effects of Lead Core Heating on the Response of Isolated-Base and Fixed-Base Regular and Irregular Reinforced Concrete Structures. Buildings 2022, 12, 1087. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081087