Relative Performance of Fixed‐Base and Base‐Isolated Concrete Frames
Publication: Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 119, Issue 10
Abstract
Results of a study are presented in which the performance of code‐designed fixed‐base and base‐isolated concrete frames are compared. The purpose of the investigation is to compare in a quantitative manner the relative performance of code‐designed frames, and to determine approximately the design force level for an isolated frame that will result in performance comparable to that of the fixed‐base frame. The fixed‐base frames were designed in accordance with the 1990 Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary. The base‐isolated frames were designed to varying levels of the SEAOC‐recommended base shear. Time‐history analyses were conducted for three ensembles of recorded earthquakes. Analysis considered the nonlinear behavior of the isolation system and superstructure. Statistical analysis of peak response quantities demonstrates the superior performance of the code‐designed isolated structures. Results illustrate that comparable performance is generally achieved when the isolated frames are designed to between 25% and 50% of the recommended lateral force.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Guide specifications for seismic isolation design. (1991). American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington, D.C.
2.
Kanaan, A. E., and Powell, G. H. (1973). “DRAIN‐2D user guide.” EERC Rep 73‐6 and 73‐22, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
3.
Kircher, C. A., Hart, G. C., and Romstad, K. M. (1989). “Development of design requirements for seismically isolated structures.” Seismic engineering: research and practices; Proc., Struct. Congress, C. A. Kircher and A. K. Chopra, eds., ASCE, New York, N.Y.
4.
Kircher, C. A., and Lashkari, B. (1989). Statistical evaluation of nonlinear response of seismic isolator systems. Jack Benjamin and Associates, Inc., San Francisco, Calif.
5.
Lin, A. N., and Shenton, H. W. III. (1992). “Seismic performance of fixed‐base and base‐isolated steel frames.” J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, 118(5), 921–941.
6.
Mahin, S. A., and Bertero, V. V. (1977). RCCOLA; a computer program for reinforced concrete column analysis; user's manual and documentation. Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
7.
Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary. (1990). Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), Sacramento, Calif.
8.
Seed, H. B., Ugas, C., and Lysmer, J. (1976). “Site‐dependent spectra for earthquake‐resistant design.” Bull. Seismological Society of America, 66(1), 221–243.
9.
Takeda, T., and Sozen, M. A. (1970). “Reinforced concrete response to simulated earthquakes.” J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 96(12), 2557–2573.
10.
Uniform building code. (1991). International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, Calif.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 119 • Issue 10 • October 1993
Pages: 2952 - 2968
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jul 6, 1992
Published online: Oct 1, 1993
Published in print: Oct 1993
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.