The Next Generation of Seismic Isolation

Going Beyond Seismic Design Dominated by Earthquakes

Paper:
The Next Generation of Seismic Isolation
Going Beyond Seismic Design Dominated by Earthquakes
Mitsuo Miyazaki
Dynamic Design Inc.
ISE Building 3F, 1-16 Sumiyoshi-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan
[Received July 11, 2008; accepted August 19, 2008]
Seismic isolation can provide superior building safety
and dynamic response during strong earthquakes,
however, performance is only assured below the de-
sign earthquake intensity level. This paper opens
with a study of observed strong, near-source ground
motions and long-period earthquake waves proposed
by researchers. Through the examination of a wide-
range of earthquake response and input energy spec-
tra, up to a period of 100 seconds, the most suitable
range of damping values and isolation periods are
found. The optimal period range is further conrmed
by evaluating earthquake-wave amplication features
during propagation from bedrock to the ground sur-
face. Three types of next-generation seismic isolation
systems are proposed along with new parameters to
evaluate the dynamic response of seismically isolated
structures. By comparing the dynamic response per-
formance of four isolation systems, including a con-
ventional 4-second period system, the superior seis-
mic performance of the three next-generation isolation
systems is conrmed. The paper shows the direction
for a new generation of seismically isolated structures,
with periods exceeding 10 seconds, and which mini-
mize the elastic strain energy stored in the structure.
Seismically isolated structures possessing these prop-
erties will survive strong earthquake input regardless
of the uncertainty inherent in earthquake ground mo-
tions.
Keywords: seismic isolation, seismic design, response
spectrum, strong earthquake ground motion, long period
structure
1. Introduction
The history of research on the seismic isolation of
structures dates back to John Milne [1], the father of
modern seismology, more than 120 years ago. The rst
modern era implementation of seismic isolation, was
the William Clayton Building [2] in Wellington, New
Zealand, completed in 1981, and which used an isolation
system of lead-rubber bearings.
In Japan, a seismically-isolated, two-story house was
built in 1983 [3] and the BCJ (Building Center of Japan)
design review for seismically isolated buildings started
in 1985 [3]. In the nearly 30 years since then, more
than 2,000 seismically isolated buildings have been con-
structed in Japan.
The author developed a design method for isolated
buildings using lead-rubber bearings (LRB) in Japan [4],
and designed Japans rst LRB isolated building, the
Oiles Technical Center [5] in 1985. Through research
and development experience and the design of about 100
isolated buildings over more than 20 years, the author be-
lieves that it is time for seismic isolation to evolve to a
new generation.
The paper rst reviews the basic concepts of seismic
isolation and presents an overviewof the status of seismic
isolation of structures, followed by a clarication of is-
sues still requiring improvement by studying the features
of strong earthquake ground motions. To overcome the
challenges which still exist, the paper seeks to dene an
evolutionary direction for seismic isolation, and proposes
several next generation concepts for seismic isolation sys-
tems.
2. Basic Concept of Seismic Isolation: Conven-
tional Understanding
2.1. Basic Seismic Isolation Concept
A seismically-isolated building has an isolation story
(also referred to as an isolation layer) with extremely low
horizontal stiffness and high horizontal deformation ca-
pacity. During earthquake shaking, horizontal deforma-
tion is concentrated in the isolation story and almost all
earthquake input energy is absorbed by the isolation de-
vices. As the superstructure is not required to absorb in-
put energy, little or no superstructure damage results. By
prescribing appropriately low levels of horizontal strength
(or resistant force) in the isolation story, earthquake in-
ertia forces can generally be limited to less than 0.2W
(where W is the total building weight), and the horizon-
tal response acceleration of each oor can be kept below
0.2g (where g is the acceleration of gravity). As a re-
sult, seismic isolation can provide protection for the en-
tire structure, including contents and equipment, without
damage while maintaining the function and asset value
of the building even when subjected to strong earthquake
shaking.
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.3 No.6, 2008 479
Miyazaki M.
(a) Acceleration Response (b) Displacement Response
Fig. 1. Basic Principles of Seismic Isolation [8].
2.2. Explanation of the Basic Mechanism
The basic principles of seismic isolation are conven-
tionally understood and explained in two ways. The rst
explanation focuses on a structures response performance
with reference to the shape and properties of the response
spectrum, and the second explanation focuses on the role
of the isolation components in realizing the response per-
formance.
2.2.1. Period Shift and Increased Damping Concept
The rst explanation uses period shift and increased
damping to position the structure in a more favorable lo-
cation on the response spectrum as its basic justication
[68]. Most ordinary buildings are low- to medium-rise
buildings, of 15-stories or less and a natural period less
than 1 to 1.5 seconds. Such short-period structures often
experience severe earthquake acceleration responses. By
adding a exible isolation story, i.e., low horizontal stiff-
ness and high deformation capacity, the natural period of
the structure is lengthened, resulting in what is called a
Period Shift. With reference to Fig. 1, an appropriate
period shift will result in a signicant reduction in the ac-
celeration response of the structure.
Lengthening a buildings natural period, however,
makes the response displacement larger, so the damping
capacity, i.e., the energy absorption capacity of the isola-
tion story, must be increased to minimize the deformation
of the isolation story. Period shift and damping increase
are thus basic seismic isolation principles, rst advocated
by Ian Buckle et al. [68] and now widely accepted.
2.2.2. Flexible and Stiff Element Complex Structure
Concept
The second concept explains seismic isolation in terms
of the components of the isolation system. The isola-
tion system consists of two major components: isolators
and dampers. With reference to Fig. 2, the isolators sup-
port the building weight, and provide the lateral exibil-
ity through their low stiffness and large deformation ca-
pacity, i.e., the isolators are exible components, which
realizes a period shift according to the explanation in the
previous section. The dampers, in contrast, absorb input
earthquake energy and play the role of Increased Damp-
ing in the rst concept above. A typical damper is a steel
(a) Flexible Element (b) Stiff Element (c) Q- Relationship
Fig. 2. Force-Deformation Q- Relationship of Complex
Structure of Flexible and Stiff Elements [9].
or metal hysteretic damper, with high initial stiffness and
absorbs energy through plastic deformation after yielding,
i.e., dampers are stiff elements. Akiyama termed the sys-
tem which has both components the Flexible and Stiff
Element Complex Structure, in connection with a his-
torical dispute in Japan known as the Flexible or Rigid
Dispute in the 1920-30s [9, 10, 14].
Akiyama explains the energy absorption mechanism in
a seismically isolated structure as follows: the input en-
ergy is rst stored in exible element (i.e., isolators) as
elastic strain energy, then the energy is gradually absorbed
by the damper (or stiff element) during cyclic deforma-
tions. For this reason, a seismically isolated structure can
absorb almost all the input energy in the isolation story
alone.
2.3. Current Status of Seismic Isolation: Actual Pe-
riod Range and Damping Capacity
Most seismically isolated buildings in Japan to date
have (tangent) periods in the range of 3-4 seconds, while
the structures xed-base periods are around 1 second or
shorter, with the exception of tall isolated buildings ex-
ceeding about 20 stories. Broadly speaking, the period
range of isolated structures in Japan is 2-6 seconds [11].
(Note; Isolation period in this paper is generally expressed
by tangent period.)
In terms of damping capacity, the isolation story gener-
ally has equivalent viscous damping constant of about 15
to 30 % [11], as response displacement (due to increasing
earthquake shaking) increases the damping constant de-
creases in general, due to the primarily hysteretic nature
of the damping.
3. Seismic Isolation: Capabilities and Issues
3.1. General Evaluation of Seismically-Isolated
Buildings in Japan
The Japanese building code requires that buildings
should not collapse in a strong level 2 earthquake (max-
imum design earthquake) with a maximum ground veloc-
ity of 50-60 kine (cm/s). The code aims to provide life
safety while accepting structural damage in level 2 ground
motions. Since the seismic force induced by level 2 earth-
quake is much higher than design force required by the
code, conventional base-xed buildings cannot avoid suf-
fering damage in a level 2 earthquake.
480 Journal of Disaster Research Vol.3 No.6, 2008