Effective live load mass for storage buildings on friction-pendulum isolators

Abstract This paper presents the results from finite element models of based-isolated storage buildings subjected to ground motion excitation and supporting rigid blocks with the possibility to slide. Main components of the models were first compared and calibrated with the results from numerical solutions, finite element software, and shake table tests. The successfully verified finite element models were then used to assess ASCE 7–16 design provisions for the treatment of storage loads as seismic weight in base-isolated structures. The analyses included multi-story shear buildings of different heights and three-dimensional buildings of three-stories with both regular and irregular plans under combined horizontal and vertical ground excitation. Alternative low and high friction between the rigid blocks (representing the storage live load) and the floor deck were evaluated in the analyses as well as the effect of light versus heavy storage live loads. Ground excitation consisted of 100 records, covering scenarios that range from low to high seismic risk. The combination of cases included in the parametric study led to thousands of nonlinear time history analyses. Selected engineering design parameters (EDP) to conduct the evaluation consisted of isolator deformation and maximum force demands in the lateral load resting system. Calculated EDPs from the detailed models (accounting for inelastic response of the lateral load resisting system coupled with potential sliding of rigid blocks) were compared with calculated EDPs from simplified models with no blocks but having additional floor mass equal to 25% of the design live load. The latter models represented analysis conditions that ASCE 7–16 minimum provisions would allow in consulting practice. This study demonstrates that using the Standard’s minimum provision can lead to: i) significant underestimations of the deformation demand and thus unconservative designs of base isolators; ii) significant underestimations of design forces, and consequently, improper design of the lateral load resisting elements. In order to address these issues, a simple expression recently developed by the authors to estimate the portion of the design live load as seismic weight was also evaluated. It is shown that using the portion of the live load given by this equation in the simplified models with no blocks but having additional floor mass produce very similar EDPs as those obtained from the detailed models with sliding blocks and thus representing a significant improvement over the existing ASCE 7–16 minimum provisions when applied to base-isolated storage structures.

[1]  Assessment of the Effective Seismic Mass for Low-Rise Framed Shear Buildings Supporting Nearly Permanent Live Loads , 2018, Journal of Structural Engineering.

[2]  Dimitrios Konstantinidis,et al.  Seismic response of sliding equipment and contents in base‐isolated buildings subjected to broadband ground motions , 2015 .

[3]  R. S. Jangid,et al.  Base isolation for near‐fault motions , 2001 .

[4]  Masayoshi Nakashima,et al.  Full‐scale shaking table test of a base‐isolated medical facility subjected to vertical motions , 2013 .

[5]  Pol D. Spanos,et al.  Rocking of Rigid Blocks Due to Harmonic Shaking , 1984 .

[6]  Roberto Villaverde,et al.  Effect of Building Nonlinearity on Seismic Response of Nonstructural Components: A Parametric Study , 2008 .

[7]  Peter Fajfar,et al.  A Nonlinear Analysis Method for Performance-Based Seismic Design , 2000 .

[8]  Atsuo Kakehi,et al.  Full‐scale shaking table test for examination of safety and functionality of base‐isolated medical facilities , 2011 .

[9]  G. Housner The behavior of inverted pendulum structures during earthquakes , 1963 .

[10]  Juan C. Reyes,et al.  Estimating Seismic Demands for Performance-Based Engineering of Buildings , 2009 .

[11]  Samit Ray Chaudhuri,et al.  Fragility of Bench-Mounted Equipment Considering Uncertain Parameters , 2006 .

[12]  Nicos Makris,et al.  Experimental and analytical studies on the response of freestanding laboratory equipment to earthquake shaking , 2009 .

[13]  A R Chandrasekaran,et al.  LIVE LOAD EFFECT ON DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF STRUCTURES , 1969 .

[14]  Stephen H. Crandall,et al.  Accumulated Slip of a Friction-Controlled Mass Excited by Earthquake Motions , 1974 .

[15]  Masahiro Kurata,et al.  Disorder and damage of base‐isolated medical facilities when subjected to near‐fault and long‐period ground motions , 2014 .

[16]  Dimitrios Konstantinidis,et al.  Shake table investigation on the seismic performance of hospital equipment supported on wheels/casters , 2017 .

[17]  J. Paul Smith-Pardo,et al.  Evaluation of the effect of containers on the seismic response of pile-supported storage structures , 2016 .

[18]  R. S. Jangid SEISMIC RESPONSE OF SLIDING STRUCTURES TO BIDIRECTIONAL EARTHQUAKE EXCITATION , 1996 .

[19]  Andre Filiatrault,et al.  Performance-based seismic design of nonstructural building components: The next frontier of earthquake engineering , 2014, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration.

[20]  Joel P. Conte,et al.  Landmark Data Set from the Building Nonstructural Components and Systems (BNCS) Project , 2016 .

[21]  J. Paul Smith-Pardo,et al.  Effect of live load on the seismic design of single-story storage structures under unidirectional horizontal ground motions , 2015 .

[22]  Harry W. Shenton,et al.  CRITERIA FOR INITIATION OF SLIDE, ROCK, AND SLIDE-RoCK RIGID-BODY MODES , 1996 .

[23]  Rolf Eligehausen,et al.  Shake Table Tests on Suspended Nonstructural Components Anchored in Cyclically Cracked Concrete , 2014 .

[24]  Dimitrios Konstantinidis,et al.  Experimental Study on the Seismic Response of Equipment on Wheels and Casters in Base-Isolated Hospitals , 2019, Journal of Structural Engineering.

[25]  Stavroula J. Pantazopoulou,et al.  Seismic response of nonstructural components attached on multistorey buildings , 2015 .