This preprint is under consideration at Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
Mehmet Inel
Pamukkale Universitesi
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8323-259X
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
This study aims to investigate seismic behavior of LRB and FPS type base isolated models considering torsional irregularity due to distance between stiffness center of isolators and mass center of superstructure for low- and mid-rise reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings with no shear walls. Nonlinear behavior of structural members was also considered to be able to observe probable yielding of structural members in superstructure due to the torsional irregularity. 528 different nonlinear time history analyses of 3-dimensional 3, 5, 7 and 9-story models subjected to 11 pairs of earthquake records were performed. The results indicate that FPS type isolators tend higher displacement demands while LRB type isolators are more sensitive to torsional effects. Torsional irregularity coefficient values of LRB models with 20% eccentricity are 47% higher than symmetrical models in terms of averages. Since significant part of the demands is absorbed by the isolator system, the remaining seismic demands for the superstructure is relatively low. Besides, the outcomes underline the careful selection of number of ground motion records in dynamic analysis as mentioned in the literature. While some studies in the literature indicate that torsional effects due to 10% or 20% eccentricity have significant role on building response, they used very limited building models subjected to a few earthquake records. The use of four different RC frame building model with LRB and FPS type isolators subjected to 11 pairs of ground motion records do not strongly support the abovementioned studies in literature. Therefore, more research is needed in this field.
Keywords
Base isolation, torsion behavior, lead rubber isolator, friction pendulum isolator, time history analysis
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 1
Posted 16 Mar, 2021
No community comments so far
Review #? received
Received 24 Mar, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 13 Mar, 2021
Editor invited
On 12 Mar, 2021
Editor assigned
On 09 Mar, 2021
First submitted
On 07 Mar, 2021
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Environmental Engineering
Learn more about our company.
This preprint is under consideration at Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
Mehmet Inel
Pamukkale Universitesi
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8323-259X
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 1
Posted 16 Mar, 2021
No community comments so far
Review #? received
Received 24 Mar, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 13 Mar, 2021
Editor invited
On 12 Mar, 2021
Editor assigned
On 09 Mar, 2021
First submitted
On 07 Mar, 2021
Subject Areas
Environmental Engineering
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
This study aims to investigate seismic behavior of LRB and FPS type base isolated models considering torsional irregularity due to distance between stiffness center of isolators and mass center of superstructure for low- and mid-rise reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings with no shear walls. Nonlinear behavior of structural members was also considered to be able to observe probable yielding of structural members in superstructure due to the torsional irregularity. 528 different nonlinear time history analyses of 3-dimensional 3, 5, 7 and 9-story models subjected to 11 pairs of earthquake records were performed. The results indicate that FPS type isolators tend higher displacement demands while LRB type isolators are more sensitive to torsional effects. Torsional irregularity coefficient values of LRB models with 20% eccentricity are 47% higher than symmetrical models in terms of averages. Since significant part of the demands is absorbed by the isolator system, the remaining seismic demands for the superstructure is relatively low. Besides, the outcomes underline the careful selection of number of ground motion records in dynamic analysis as mentioned in the literature. While some studies in the literature indicate that torsional effects due to 10% or 20% eccentricity have significant role on building response, they used very limited building models subjected to a few earthquake records. The use of four different RC frame building model with LRB and FPS type isolators subjected to 11 pairs of ground motion records do not strongly support the abovementioned studies in literature. Therefore, more research is needed in this field.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Loading...