R E P O R T

Hamilton Telephone +64 7 856 4849 Facsimile

MASHAD CRISIS CENTRE

+64 7 856 2397 Internet Address

www.holmesgroup.com

DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF SEISMIC ISOLATION SYSTEM

Unit 1b 300 Grey Street PO Box 4283 Hamilton East Hamilton 3247 New Zealand

Offices in Auckland Wellington Christchurch Queenstown San Francisco

R E P O R T

Hamilton

CONTENTS

Telephone +64 7 856 4849

1 2 3

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................... 2 2.1 REFERENCES .................................................................................. 2 ISOLATION SYSTEM DESIGN ..................................................................... 3 3.1 SELECTION OF ISOLATOR TYPE ............................................................. 3 3.2 SEISMIC PARAMETERS ....................................................................... 4 3.3 ISOLATOR LAYOUT ........................................................................... 6 3.4 ISOLATOR LOADS ............................................................................ 7 3.5 ISOLATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ....................................................... 7 3.6 SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE ........................................................... 11 LEAD RUBBER BEARING DESIGN PROCEDURE.......................................... 13 4.1 DEFINITIONS ............................................................................... 13 4.2 VERTICAL STIFFNESS AND LOAD CAPACITY ............................................ 14 4.2.1 VERTICAL STIFFNESS ................................................................ 14 4.2.2 COMPRESSIVE RATED LOAD CAPACITY .......................................... 15 4.2.3 TENSILE RATED LOAD CAPACITY .................................................. 16 4.2.4 BUCKING LOAD CAPACITY ....................................................... 17 4.3 LATERAL STIFFNESS AND HYSTERESIS PARAMETERS FOR BEARING ................... 18 BEARING DESIGN CALCULATIONS .......................................................... 21 5.1 MATERIAL PROPERTIES ..................................................................... 21 5.2 DESIGN LOADS ............................................................................ 21 5.3 BEARING DIMENSIONS................................................................... 21 5.4 BEARING PROPERTIES ..................................................................... 22 5.5 SERVICEABILITY LOAD LIMIT STATE ........................................................ 23 5.6 SEISMIC LOAD LIMIT STATE ............................................................... 24 5.7 VERTICAL STIFFNESS ....................................................................... 25 5.8 SPRING PROPERTIES FOR ETABS ANALYSIS ............................................ 26 ANALYSIS OF ISOLATED BUILDINGS ........................................................ 27 6.1 EQUIVALENT LINEAR ANALYSIS ........................................................... 27 6.1.1 ETABS ANALYSIS .................................................................. 27 6.1.2 CHECK FOR UPLIFT .................................................................. 27 6.1.3 VERTICAL LOAD DISTRIBUTION .................................................... 28 6.1.4 MAXIMUM VERTICAL LOADS....................................................... 31

Facsimile +64 7 856 2397 Internet Address

www.holmesgroup.com

Unit 1b 300 Grey Street PO Box 4283 Hamilton East Hamilton 3247 New Zealand

Offices in Auckland Wellington Christchurch Queenstown San Francisco

P A G E

SUMMARY OF ISOLATION DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ........................ 32

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 3-1 5% DAMPED ACCELERATION SPECTRUM........................................ 4 FIGURE 3-2 5% DAMPED DISPLACEMENT SPECTRUM ........................................ 5 FIGURE 3-3 ISOLATOR LAYOUT ........................................................................ 6 FIGURE 3-4 INDIVIDUAL ISOLATOR HYSTERESIS .............................................. 10 FIGURE 4-1 : LEAD RUBBER BEARING HYSTERESIS............................................ 19

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 3-1 MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR DEVICES................................................. 3 TABLE 3-2 ISOLATOR LOADS............................................................................. 7 TABLE 3-3 UBC AND AASHTO DAMPING COEFFICIENTS................................... 9 TABLE 3-4 ESTIMATED SEISMIC PERFORMANCE............................................... 12 TABLE 5-1: ISOLATOR DIMENSIONS (MM) ....................................................... 22 TABLE 5-2: BEARING PROPERTIES (KN, MM UNITS) .......................................... 22 TABLE 5-3: GRAVITY LOAD LIMIT STATE ........................................................... 23 TABLE 5-4: SEISMIC LIMIT STATE DESIGN BASIS LOAD ..................................... 24 TABLE 5-5: SEISMIC LIMIT STATE FOR MAXIMUM CAPABLE LOAD..................... 25 TABLE 5-6 VERTICAL STIFFNESS (UNITS KN, MM)............................................. 25 TABLE 5-7 ETABS PROPERTIES (UNITS KN,MM) ................................................. 26 TABLE 6-1 DBE ISOLATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE........................................ 27 TABLE 6-2 VERTICAL LOADS ............................................................................ 29 TABLE 6-3 SUMMARY OF VERTICAL LOADS...................................................... 31

P A G E

INTRODUCTION
Auckland

This report presents the design and evaluation of a seismic isolation system for Mashad Crisis Centre. Design is generally in accordance with the United States Uniform Building Code (UBC) except for parameters such as level of seismic load which are taken from the Iranian earthquake code. The building is a 1 storey with 1 basement floor structure. Details of the building layout and structural system are provided in a separate report. The design process for the seismic isolation system was iterative, with a number of configurations and isolation system designs considered. This report details only the final isolation system selected. The structural design was based on an equivalent linear elastic analysis using the computer program ETABS.

Te l e p h o n e

64 9 522 4596

Fa c s i m i l e

64 9 522 4572

Email Address

holmes@hcgak.co.nz

67 Davis Crescent

PO Box 99-450

Newmarket

Auckland

New Zealand

Offices in

We l l i n g t o n

Christchurch

Queenstown

Australia

P A G E

PROJECT REQUIREMENTS

2.1

REFERENCES

A complete reference list is as provided in the project specifications. References used in these calculations are: [1] [2] Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings 3rd Edition, Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Islamic Republic of Iran Uniform Building Code Appendix Division III Earthquake Regulations for SeismicIsolated Structures, UBC, American Association of Building Officials, Whittier, CA, 1997. Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design, AASHTO, American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, Washington D.C, 1991 and 1999. SAP2000 - Integrated Finite Element Analysis References Manual, A Habibullah, Computers and Structures, Inc. Berkeley, CA 1997 and later revisions. Teflon Bearings in Aseismic Base Isolation : Experimental Studies and Mathematical Modeling, A Mokha, M C Constantinou and A M Reinhorn, State University of New York at Buffalo, Technical Report NCEER-88-0038, December, 1988. Base Isolation of Structures Design Guidelines, Holmes Consulting Group, Revision 0, July 2001 Seismic Isolation for Designers and Structural Engineers, T E Kelly, R I Skinner and B W.H. Robinson, 2010

[3] [4] [5]

[6] [7]

P A G E

3 3.1

ISOLATION SYSTEM DESIGN SELECTION OF ISOLATOR TYPE

The isolation system selected was based on lead-rubber bearings. These devices are compact, cost effective and provide variable damping within a single compact unit. The building has a fixed base period of about 0.8 seconds which was a little bit higher than expected to a 2 storey structure, but the building is situated in a high level of relative seismic hazard zone and is an essential government facility which will make it suitable for base isolation. Material properties of the devices used are listed in Table 3-1.

TABLE 3-1 MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR DEVICES

Elastomer Properties Shear Modulus Ultimate Elongation Material Constant, k Elastic Modulus, E Bulk Modulus Damping Lead Yield Strength Teflon Coeff of Friction Gravity TFE Properties Vertical Stiffness Lateral Stiffness Coeff of Friction - Lo Vel Coeff of Friction - Hi Vel Coefficient a

KN,mm 0.0004 6.5 0.87 0.00135 1.5 0.05 0.008 0.1 9810 5000 2000 0.04 0.1 0.9

MPa 0.4 6.5 0.87 1.35 1500 0.05 8.00 0.10 9810 5000000 2000000 0.04 0.10 0.9

P A G E

3.2

SEISMIC PARAMETERS

The site specific response spectra provided by the client was based on the Iranian Code. It was assumed that the code defined the Design Basis Earthquake (DBE). The Maximum Capable Earthquake (MCE) was assumed to be equal to 1.5 x DBE. Figures 3-1 and 3-2 plot the acceleration and displacement spectra for 5% damping for DBE and MCE. These curves formed the basis of the isolation system design.

FIGURE 3-1 5% DAMPED ACCELERATION SPECTRUM

1.20 Acceleration (g) 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 Period (seconds) 4.00 DBE MCE

P A G E

FIGURE 3-2 5% DAMPED DISPLACEMENT SPECTRUM

Displacement (mm)

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0.00 1.00

DBE MCE

2.00

3.00

4.00

Period (seconds)

P A G E

3.3

ISOLATOR LAYOUT

Various configurations for the building were investigated and the final layout of isolator types was as shown in Figures 3-3. The building has 60 lead-rubber bearings (LRBs) in total.

FIGURE 3-3 ISOLATOR LAYOUT

P A G E

3.4

ISOLATOR LOADS

The design and evaluation of the performance of the isolation system is a function of: 1. The number of isolators of each type. 2. The total seismic load on isolators of each type. The total seismic load is based on dead load plus seismic live load, which is G+0.2Q for these buildings. For individual isolator evaluation, the maximum loads under gravity conditions and seismic conditions are also required. Table 3-2 lists the loads of the buildings.

TABLE 3-2 ISOLATOR LOADS

Type Number of Bearings Number of Prototypes Average DL + SLL Maximum DL + LL Maximum DL + SLL + EQ Total Seismic Weight

LRB 60 2 780 1262 1156 46800

3.5

ISOLATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

The isolation system design is an iterative process whereby isolator properties are adjusted to obtain the performance required of the system. For these buildings, the performance objective was to minimise design base shear. For a building with low wind loads, the base shear design coefficient is the higher of two values:

P A G E

1. The yield force of the isolation system times 1.5. 2. The elastic base shear coefficient under DBE load divided by the Structural Behaviour Factor, R. For isolated buildings R=2 to ensure essentially elastic response. The most effective design will be one in which the design shear coefficient required by each of these conditions are approximately equal. The design and evaluation of the isolation system is based on the total stiffness and damping values of the system. The steps involved in this evaluation are: Step 1. Select isolator plan sizes based on maximum gravity load. Set a trial number of rubber layers and lead core size. Step 2. The shear force in the bearing at a specified displacement is:

Fm = Q d + K r
where Qd is the characteristic strength and Kr the yielded stiffness. For a lead rubber bearing these are a function of the rubber thickness and lead core size. For a sliding bearing Qd = P and Kr = 0.0, where is the coefficient of friction and P the vertical load. From the maximum forces an average, or effective, stiffness can be calculated as:

K eff =
Step 3.

Fm

The sum of the effective stiffness of all bearings allows the period of response to be calculated as:

Te = 2

W gK eff

P A G E

Step 4 The effective damping is calculated from the hysteresis loop area. For lead rubber bearings the hysteresis area is calculated at displacement level m as:

A h = 4Q d m y

For slider bearings, Qd is equal to the friction force and the loop area is

A h = 4Q d m
from which the equivalent viscous damping is calculated as:

1 2

A h K 2 eff

The damping then allows the damping coefficient, B, to be obtained from UBC, as shown in Table 3-3:

TABLE 3-3 UBC AND AASHTO DAMPING COEFFICIENTS

<2% B 0.8 Step 5.

5% 1.0

10% 1.2

20% 1.5

30% 1.7

40% 1.9

>50% 2.0

The isolator displacement can be calculated from the effective period, equivalent viscous damping and spectral acceleration as:

S T m = a 2e 4 B

The displacement calculated from the effective period and damping in Step 5 is then compared with the displacement assumed in calculation of stiffness properties in Step 2. Values are adjusted until convergence is obtained. Once convergence is achieved, the performance of the system is evaluated and, if necessary, the isolator details in Step 1 are modified and the process repeated.

P A G E

1 0

Figure 3-4 shows the form of the hysteresis loops provided by the isolator.

FIGURE 3-4 INDIVIDUAL ISOLATOR HYSTERESIS

300 200 100 0 -300 -200 -100 -100 -200 -300 SHEAR DISPLACEMENT (mm) 0 100 200 300 400

LRB SHEAR FORCE (KN)

-400

P A G E

1 1

3.6

SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE

The iterative design procedure described above was completed for the building in this project, and performance of the final design was as summarised in Table 3-4. An explanation of the parameters in Table 3-4 is as follows: 1. The effective period was targeted as approximately 2 seconds under MCE, with actual value of 1.97 seconds. The period was slightly shorter under DBE motions, 1.74 seconds. 2. Maximum displacement at this period was 160 mm for DBE and 306mm for MCE. 3. The total maximum displacements, which include an allowance for torsion was 184 mm for DBE and 352 mm for MCE. 4. The elastic base shear coefficient, VB, based on R=1, was 0.213 for DBE and 0.317 for MCE. 5. The design base shear coefficient, VS, based on R=2, was 0.106 for DBE. 6. The yield force was approximately 5% of the building weight and so the minimum design coefficient based on 1.5FY was 0.146. 7. The governing design coefficient, the higher of the two above, was governed by 1.5Fy. 8. Equivalent viscous damping was 26.6% for DBE and reduced for MCE motions to 18.6%. This provided damping coefficients B from a minimum of 1.44 to a maximum of 1.62. 9. The restoring force is defined as the difference in elastic force coefficient from 0.5 to 1.0 times the design displacement. This varied from 0.123W, well above the minimum allowable value from UBC of 0.025W.

P A G E

1 2

TABLE 3-4 ESTIMATED SEISMIC PERFORMANCE

Effective Period TD TM Displacement DD DM Total Displacements DTD DTM Force Coefficient Vb / W Force Coefficient Vs / W 1.5 x Yield Force / W Wind Force / W Governing Design Coefficient Base Shear Force Damping eff Damping Coefficients BD BM Restoring Force at DD at 0.5DD Difference (to be > 0.025)

Block A DBE MCE 1.74 1.97 160 306 184 352 0.213 0.317 0.106 0.146 0.000 0.146 6833 26.6% 18.6% 1.62 1.44 0.245 0.122 0.123

P A G E

1 3

LEAD RUBBER BEARING DESIGN PROCEDURE

The design procedure described in the previous section of the report was based on lead-rubber bearing properties calculated using the procedures given in this section. On completion of the design, these procedures were also used to check the capacity of the isolators, as described in the following section.

4.1

DEFINITIONS

Ab Ag Ah Apl Ar B E Eb Ec E f Fm g G Hr I k Kd Keff Kr Ku Kv Kvi n p

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Bonded area of rubber Gross area of bearing, including side cover Area of hysteresis loop (Also termed EDC = energy dissipated per cycle) Area of Lead core Reduced rubber area Overall plan dimension of bearing Elastic modulus of rubber 3.3 to 4.0 G depending on hardness Buckling Modulus Effective Compressive Modulus Bulk Modulus (usually assumed as 290 ksi) Factor applied to elongation for load capacity 1 / (Factor of Safety) Force in bearing at specified displacement Acceleration due to gravity Shear modulus of rubber (at shear strain ) Height free to buckle Moment of Inertia of Bearing Material constant (0.65 to 0.85 depending on hardness) Yielded stiffness of lead rubber bearing = Kr Effective Stiffness Lateral stiffness after yield Elastic Lateral stiffness Vertical stiffness of bearing Vertical stiffness of layer i Number of rubber layers Bonded perimeter

P A G E

1 4

P Pcr P Qd Si ti tsc tsh Tpl Tr W m y u c sc sh sr u y

4.2

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Applied vertical load Buckling Load Maximum rated vertical load Characteristic strength (Force intercept at zero displacement) Shape factor for layer i Rubber layer thickness Thickness of side cover Thickness of internal shims Thickness of mounting plates Total rubber thickness Total seismic weight Applied lateral displacement Maximum applied displacement Yield displacement of lead rubber bearing Equivalent viscous damping Minimum elongation at break of rubber Compressive Strain Shear strain from applied vertical loads Shear strain from applied lateral displacement Shear strain from applied rotation Minimum elongation at break of rubber Applied rotation Lead yield stress

VERTICAL STIFFNESS AND LOAD CAPACITY

The dominant parameter influencing the vertical stiffness, and the vertical load capacity, of an elastomeric bearing is the shape factor. The shape factor of an internal layer, Si, is defined as the loaded surface area divided by the total free to bulge area:

Si =
4.2.1

B 4t i

for square and circular bearings

VERTICAL STIFFNESS

The vertical stiffness of an internal layer is calculated as

P A G E

1 5

K vi =

Ec A r ti

where the apparent compressive modulus, Ec, is a function of the shape factor and material constant as follows:

E c = E 1 + 2kS 2 i

In the equation for vertical stiffness, a reduced area of rubber, Ar, is calculated based on the overlapping areas between the top and bottom of the bearing at a displacement, , as follows:

A r = A b 1 B

for square bearings

A r = 0.5B 2 sin 1 B for circular bearings where

(B

When the effective compressive modulus, Ec, is large compared to the bulk modulus E (generally about 2000MPa or 290 ksi) then the vertical deformation due to the bulk modulus is included by dividing Ec by 1 + (Ec /E) to calculate the vertical stiffness. This effect is used to calculate vertical deformations in the bearing but not the shear strains due to vertical load.
4.2.2 COMPRESSIVE RATED LOAD CAPACITY

The vertical load capacity is calculated by summing the total shear strain in the elastomer from all sources. The total strain is then limited to the ultimate elongation at break of the elastomer divided by a the factor of safety appropriate to the load condition. The shear strain from vertical loads, sc , is calculated as

sc = 6S i c
where

P A G E

1 6

c =

P K vi t i

If the bearing is subjected to applied rotations the shear strain due to this is

B 2 sr = 2t i Tr
The shear strain due to lateral loads is

sh =

Tr

For service loads such as dead and live load the limiting strain criteria are

f u sc

where f = 1/3 (Factor of safety 3)

And for ultimate loads which include earthquake displacements

f u sc + sh where f = 1.0 (Factor of safety 1)

Combining these equations, the maximum vertical load, P, at displacement can be calculated from:

P =
4.2.3

K vi t i (f u sh ) 6S i

TENSILE RATED LOAD CAPACITY

For tension loads, the stiffness in tension depends upon the shape of the unit, as in compression, and is approximately the same as the compression stiffness. Therefore, the same equations are used as for compressive loads except that the strains are the sum of absolute values. When rubber is subjected to a hydrostatic tension of the order of 3G cavitation may occur. This will drastically reduce the stiffness. Although rubbers with very poor tear strength may rupture catastrophically once cavitation occurs, immediate failure does not generally take place. However, the subsequent strength of the component and its stiffness may be effected. Therefore, the isolator design is generally based on ensuring that tensile stresses do not exceed 3G under any load conditions.

P A G E

1 7

4.2.4

BUCKING LOAD CAPACITY

For bearings with a high rubber thickness relative to the plan dimension the elastic buckling load may become critical. The buckling load is calculated using the Haringx formula as follows: The moment of inertia, I is calculated as

B4 I= 12 I=

for square bearings

B 4
64

for circular bearings

The height of the bearing free to buckle, that is the distance between mounting plates, is

H r = (nt i ) + (n 1)t sh
An effective buckling modulus of elasticity is defined as a function of the elastic modulus and the shape factor of the inner layers:

E b = E(1 + 0.742S 2 i )
Constants T, R and Q are calculated as:

T = E bI

Hr Tr

R=

GA g Tr Hr

Q=

Hr

From which the buckling load at zero displacement is:

P A G E

1 8

0 = Pcr

R 4TQ 2 1 1+ 2 R

For an applied shear displacement the critical buckling load at zero displacement is reduced according to the effective "footprint" of the bearing in a similar fashion to the strain limited load:
0 Pcr = Pcr

Ar Ag

The allowable vertical load on the bearing is the smaller of the rated load, P, or the buckling load.
4.3 LATERAL STIFFNESS AND HYSTERESIS PARAMETERS FOR BEARING

Lead rubber bearings, and elastomeric bearings constructed of high damping rubber, have a nonlinear force deflection relationship. This relationship, termed the hysteresis loop, defines the effective stiffness (average stiffness at a specified displacement) and the hysteretic damping provided by the system. A typical hysteresis for a lead-rubber bearing is as shown in Figure 3.1. For design and analysis this shape is usually represented as a bilinear curve with an elastic (or unloading) stiffness of Ku and a yielded (or post-elastic) stiffness of Kd. The post-elastic stiffness Kd is equal to the stiffness or the elastomeric bearing alone, Kr. The force intercept at zero displacement is termed Qd, the characteristic strength.

Q d = y A pl
The theoretical yield level of lead, y, is 1.5 ksi but the apparent yield level is generally assumed to be 1.15 to 1.4 ksi, depending on the vertical load and lead core confinement.

P A G E

1 9

FIGURE 4-1 : LEAD RUBBER BEARING HYSTERESIS

The post-elastic stiffness, Kd, is equal to the shear stiffness of the elastomeric bearing alone:

Kr =

G A r Tr

The shear modulus, G, for a high damping rubber bearing is a function of the shear strain , but is assumed independent of strain for a lead-rubber bearing manufactured from natural rubber and with standard cure. The elastic (or unloading) stiffness is defined as:

Ku = Kr
12 A pl K u = 6 .5 K r 1 + A r

for elastomeric bearings

K u = 25K r

for lead-rubber bearings

P A G E

2 0

For lead rubber bearings, the first formula for Ku was developed empirically in the 1980s to provide approximately the correct stiffness for the initial portion of the unloading cycle and to provide a calculated hysteresis loop area which corresponded to the measured areas. The bearings used to develop the original equations generally used rubber layers and dowelled connections. By the standard of bearings now used, they were poorly confined. A database of test results from more recent projects has shown that the latter formula for Ku provides a more realistic estimate. The shear force in the bearing at a specified displacement is:

Fm = Q d + K r
from which an average, or effective, stiffness can be calculated as:

K eff =

Fm

The sum of the effective stiffness of all bearings allows the period of response to be calculated as:

Te = 2

W gK eff

Seismic response is a function of period and damping. High damping and lead rubber bearings provide hysteretic damping. For high damping rubber bearings, the hysteresis loop area is measured from tests for strain levels, , and the equivalent viscous damping calculated as given below. For lead rubber bearings the hysteresis area is calculated at displacement level m as:

A h = 4Q d m y

from which the equivalent viscous damping is calculated as:

1 2

Ah K 2 eff

P A G E

2 1

BEARING DESIGN CALCULATIONS

The lead rubber bearings used in the building have the same dimensions and internal construction. Design of these are described in this section of the report.

5.1

MATERIAL PROPERTIES

The detailed design of the isolation system was performed using an EXCEL spreadsheet based on the design procedures given in the preceding section. The properties of the elastomer used were as listed in Table 3-1.
5.2 DESIGN LOADS

The design vertical loads are the load combinations listed in Table 3-2. The requirements for bearing design (based on AASHTO Specifications) are for a factor of safety of 3.0 under gravity loads, 1.33 under DBE loads and 1.0 under MCE loads.
5.3 BEARING DIMENSIONS

The bearing dimensions are as given in Table 5-1. The plan dimensions, internal construction and lead core sizes were set to meet dimensional limitations and provide the specified stiffness and energy dissipation. All isolators are circle in plan shape.

P A G E

2 2

TABLE 5-1: ISOLATOR DIMENSIONS (MM)

Plan Dimension Layer Thickness Number of Layers Lead Core Size Total Height

Typical Lead-Rubber Isolator 620 10 18 110 274

5.4

BEARING PROPERTIES

The properties of each bearing were calculated using the formulas from Section 4 and are as listed in Table 5-2.

TABLE 5-2: BEARING PROPERTIES (KN, MM UNITS)

Gross Area, Ag Bonded Dimension Bonded Area Plug Area Net Bonded Area Total Rubber Thickness Bonded Perimeter Shape Factor Characteristic Strength, Qd Shear Modulus (50%) Yielded Stiffness Kr For LRB, Coefficient on Kr Coefficient on Ap/Ar Elastic Stiffness Ku Yield Force Yield Displacement Moment of Inertia

Typical Lead-Rubber Isolator 301907 600 282743 9503 273240 180 1885 14.5 76.0 0.0004 0.65 6.50 12.00 5.99 85.3 14.25 6.362E+09

P A G E

2 3

Height Free to Buckle Effective Buckling Modulus Constant T Constant R Constant Q

Typical Lead-Rubber Isolator 214.0 0.212 1.602E+09 95.1 0.0147

5.5

SERVICEABILITY LOAD LIMIT STATE

The vertical stability criteria require a factor of safety on the elongation at break of at least 3 under maximum vertical loads. Table 5-4 summarises the calculation of the maximum strain in the rubber under the load condition of DL+LL.

TABLE 5-3: GRAVITY LOAD LIMIT STATE

Factor on Eu Applied Vertical Load Applied Displacement Applied Rotation Shape Factor, Si Constant k Elastic Modulus, E Compressive Modulus, Ec Reduced Area Vertical Stiffness, Kvi Compressive Strain, ec Compressive Shear Strain, esc Displacement Shear Strain, esh Rotational Shear Strain, esr Total Strain Allowable Strain Buckling Load, Pcr Status

LRB 0.33 1262 0 0 14.5 0.87 0.0014 0.495 282743 13994 0.009 0.78 0 0 0.78 2.17 5684 OK

P A G E

2 4

5.6

SEISMIC LOAD LIMIT STATE

The seismic displacement is used to evaluate the seismic load limit state in the bearings. The total shear strain is calculated from compression plus the strain due to applied displacements. A factor is applied to the ultimate elongation, eu, equal to the reciprocal of the safety factor. Tables 5-4 and 5-5 list the calculations for the seismic displacement from DBE and MCE earthquakes respectively.

TABLE 5-4: SEISMIC LIMIT STATE DESIGN BASIS LOAD

LRB Applied Vertical Load 1156 DBE Displacement, DD 160.3 Factor on DD 1.15 Applied Displacement 184.3 Applied Rotation 0 Shape Factor, Si 14.5 Constant k 0.87 Elastic Modulus, E 0.0014 Compressive Modulus, Ec 0.495 Reduced Area 173913 Vertical Stiffness, Kvi 8608 Compressive Strain, ec 0.013 Compressive Shear Strain, esc 1.17 Displacement Shear Strain, esh 1.02 Rotational Shear Strain, esr 0 Total Strain 2.19 Allowable Strain 4.88 Buckling Load, Pcr 3496 Status OK

P A G E

2 5

TABLE 5-5: SEISMIC LIMIT STATE FOR MAXIMUM CAPABLE LOAD

Applied Vertical Load MCE Displacement, DD Factor on DD Applied Displacement Applied Rotation Shape Factor, Si Constant k Elastic Modulus, E Compressive Modulus, Ec Reduced Area Vertical Stiffness, Kvi Compressive Strain, ec Compressive Shear Strain, esc Displacement Shear Strain, esh Rotational Shear Strain, esr Total Strain Allowable Strain Buckling Load, Pcr Status

LRB 1156 305.9 1.15 351.8 0 14.5 0.87 0.0014 0.495 84489 4182 0.028 2.4 1.95 0 4.36 6.50 1698 OK

5.7

VERTICAL STIFFNESS

Table 5-6 lists the calculation of the vertical stiffness for each bearing type.

TABLE 5-6 VERTICAL STIFFNESS (UNITS KN, MM)

Kvi Kv Bulk Modulus Kb Vertical Stiffness, Kv

Typical Lead-Rubber Isolator 13994 777 1.5 585

P A G E

2 6

5.8

SPRING PROPERTIES FOR ETABS ANALYSIS

The calculated properties of the isolators were used to assemble springs properties to be used as input for analysis using the ETABS computer program, as listed in Tables 5-7, 5-8 and 5-9 for the three buildings. For the lead-rubber isolators (ISOLATOR1) , the vertical, K1, the elastic stiffness, K2 and K3, and the ratio of elastic to yielded stiffness, RK2 and RK3 are calculated as part of the design procedure, see Tables 5-2 and 5-6. For an equivalent linear analysis an effective stiffness, KE2, and effective damping, DE2, are defined. The effective stiffness and damping are defined at the estimated DBE displacement (Table 3-4) using the equations provided in Section 4 of this report. Damping is reduced by 5% to account for the damping incorporated in the modal analysis.

TABLE 5-7 ETABS PROPERTIES (UNITS KN,MM)

P A G E

2 7

ANALYSIS OF ISOLATED BUILDINGS

The analysis and design of the isolated building was based on an equivalent elastic analysis using the computer program ETABS and spring properties as listed in the preceding section.
6.1 6.1.1 EQUIVALENT LINEAR ANALYSIS ETABS ANALYSIS

Calculations and design of the superstructure from the ETABS analysis are reported separately. Only the results which are used to verify the design of the isolation system are reported here. Table 6-1 compares the centre of mass displacements (DD), maximum displacements including torsion (DTM) and base shear force from the ETABS analysis for each building with the equivalent values predicted by the design procedure. In all cases the results are very close, which indicates that the assumption of a rigid building on a flexible isolation system is reasonable for the building.

TABLE 6-1 DBE ISOLATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

Displacement DD (mm) Total Displacements DTD (mm) Base Shear Force (KN)

ETABS X Direction 157 176 7578

ETABS Y Direction 157 177 7579

Design Procedure (Table 3-4) 160 184 6842

6.1.2

CHECK FOR

UPLIFT

Initial run of the ETABS analysis for the un-isolated structure showed uplift/tensile forces on the perimeter of the buildings foundation. The problem with uplift forces is that lead-rubber bearings were not ideal for tension because of the limitation of rubber to resist tensile stresses, thus, we run a check on the isolated structure to verify the presence of uplift forces in the bearings.

P A G E

2 8

6.1.3

VERTICAL LOAD DISTRIBUTION

Tables 6-2 list the axial load on each isolator for the building. The table lists the following load combinations from the ETABS analyses: 1. G+0.2Q-E. This is the most likely load minimum load (tension) on the isolators, based on the dead load plus seismic live load plus earthquake upward load. 2. G+0.2Q+E. This is the most likely load maximum load (compression) on the isolators, based on the dead load plus seismic live load plus earthquake downward load. 3. 0.8G-E. This is the extreme minimum load (tension) expected on any isolator, based on UBC combinations. 4. 1.2G+1.0Q+E. This is the extreme maximum load (compression) expected on any isolator, based on UBC combinations. The loads listed in Tables 6-2 are for the MCE, taken as 1.5 times the ETABS results for the DBE. As seen in the tables, the ETABS analysis shows no uplift forces present on the isolated structure. Even though in reality there may be a probability of some tensile/uplift forces in some of the bearings, the LRBs have its inherent properties to resist those minimal forces.

P A G E

2 9

TABLE 6-2 VERTICAL LOADS

Col 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

G+0.2QE 216 595 601 601 595 215 187 831 999 997 997 998 842 215 567 971 993 995 995 992 998 596 662 1059 963 915 915 962 998 600 661 1060

G+0.2Q+E 512 755 751 751 754 512 501 848 1010 1008 1008 1009 860 511 744 999 995 998 998 994 1010 754 841 1098 983 951 951 983 1009 750 840 1097

0.8GE 135 456 463 463 456 134 110 638 763 762 762 763 645 134 432 740 758 760 760 758 763 457 507 807 732 693 693 732 763 463 507 808

1.2G+Q+E 626 961 955 955 959 625 610 1142 1380 1377 1377 1379 1157 624 946 1365 1363 1368 1368 1362 1380 959 1068 1492 1351 1320 1320 1351 1379 954 1067 1490

P A G E

3 0

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

888 672 672 888 999 600 595 999 962 915 915 962 1000 596 214 842 1000 1000 1000 1000 842 215 215 595 601 601 595 215

926 675 675 924 1008 750 754 1011 983 950 950 983 1010 753 511 860 1010 1008 1008 1010 860 511 511 755 751 750 754 512

677 509 509 677 764 463 457 763 731 692 692 731 764 457 133 645 764 764 764 764 645 134 134 456 463 463 456 134

1261 945 945 1259 1378 954 960 1382 1351 1319 1319 1351 1381 958 624 1158 1381 1379 1379 1381 1158 624 625 960 955 954 959 625

P A G E

3 1

6.1.4

MAXIMUM VERTICAL LOADS

The detailed results listed above in Tables 6-2 are used to derive maximum loads on each isolator type, as listed in Table 6-3. These are for the MCE level of load. 1. Maximum compression on any lead-rubber bearing 1492 KN for ETABS. 2. Maximum tension on any lead-rubber bearing 0 KN for ETABS.

TABLE 6-3 SUMMARY OF VERTICAL LOADS

G+0.2QE MIN 187

G+0.2Q+E MAX 1098

0.8GE MIN 110

1.2G+Q+E MAX 1492

The aim of the isolation system configuration was to avoid tension on the leadrubber bearings at DBE levels of load and allow only small tensions under MCE loads. Applied tension tests on elastomeric bearings have shown that the bearings tensile stiffness was approximately linear to a strain of 10% (5.6 mm elongation) at a stress of 4.0 MPa. The stiffness then reduced due to cavitation and failure occurred at a strain of 150% (84 mm elongation) and stress of 5.5 MPa.

P A G E

3 2

SUMMARY OF ISOLATION DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE

The Mashad Crisis Centre have a number of characteristics which make them well suited to isolation, in particular, their location on a stiff soil profile, relatively short natural period, and building importance category. This makes for a straightforward seismic isolation design. The squat configuration of the building (low height & large footprint) makes it an ideal structure for lead-rubber bearings wherein the probability of uplift forces would be minimal. The isolation system used comprised mainly lead-rubber bearings. The isolation system design set a target of an isolated period of approximately 2 seconds. On a stiff soil site there is little benefit to be gained by a longer isolated period as the design base shear force is governed by the yield level of the isolation system. The system as designed provided isolation periods under the design earthquake of 1.74 seconds, which produced displacements of 184 mm. The elastic base shear coefficients (R = 1) was 0.213, about 20% the elastic base shear coefficient of 1.0 for a non-isolated building on the same site. An isolated structural behaviour factor of R = 2 was used for design of the superstructure, providing a design base shear coefficient of 0.146 for the building. The building analysis procedure used the equivalent elastic analysis procedure, based on a response spectrum approach using effective linear spring values for the isolators. The building analysis also checks the likelihood of an uplift force during a MCE event level of earthquake and found out that the possibility was nil (where MCE was defined as a seismic load 1.5 times the design earthquake level). Although tension forces are not desirable in lead-rubber bearings, tests have shown that they are linear elastic in tension to stresses of 4 MPa, which corresponds to 1131 for the 620 mm square bearings used in this project. We conclude from these calculations and analyses that the isolation system as design for the Mashad Crisis Centre provides a safe and effective method of improving the earthquake performance of the structures.