Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.    2020, Vol. 14 Issue (5) : 1152-1165     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-020-0659-7
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Parametric study on the Multangular-Pyramid Concave Friction System (MPCFS) for seismic isolation
Wei XIONG(), Shan-Jun ZHANG, Li-Zhong JIANG, Yao-Zhuang LI
School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410075, China
Download: PDF(2052 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

A series of comprehensive parametric studies are conducted on a steel-frame structure Finite-Element (FE) model with the Multangular-Pyramid Concave Friction System (MPCFS) installed as isolators. This new introduced MPCFS system has some distinctive features when compared with conventional isolation techniques, such as increased uplift stability, improved self-centering capacity, non-resonance when subjected to near-fault earthquakes, and so on. The FE model of the MPCFS is first established and evaluated by comparison between numerical and theoretical results. The MPCFS FE model is then incorporated in a steel-frame structural model, which is subjected to three chosen earthquakes, to verify its seismic isolation. Further, parametric study with varying controlling parameters, such as isolation foundation, inclination angle, friction coefficient, and earthquake input, is carried out to extract more detailed dynamic response of the MPCFS structure. Finally, limitations of this study are discussed, and conclusions are made. The simulations testify the significant seismic isolation of the MPCFS. This indicates the MPCFS, viewed as the beneficial complementary of the existing well-established and matured isolation techniques, may be a promising tool for seismic isolation of near-fault earthquake prone zones. This verified MPCFS FE model can be incorporated in future FE analysis. The results in this research can also guide future optimal parameter design of the MPCFS.

Keywords seismic isolation      variable frequency      near-fault earthquake      numerical study      Multangular-Pyramid Concave Friction System     
Corresponding Author(s): Wei XIONG   
Just Accepted Date: 24 July 2020   Online First Date: 10 September 2020    Issue Date: 16 November 2020
 Cite this article:   
Wei XIONG,Shan-Jun ZHANG,Li-Zhong JIANG, et al. Parametric study on the Multangular-Pyramid Concave Friction System (MPCFS) for seismic isolation[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(5): 1152-1165.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-020-0659-7
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2020/V14/I5/1152
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Wei XIONG
Shan-Jun ZHANG
Li-Zhong JIANG
Yao-Zhuang LI
Fig.1  The design of the MPCFS. (a) Cross-section view of the MPCFS; (b) perspective view of the MPCFS; (c) rotation part of the MPCFS; (d) perspective view of the MPCFS.
Fig.2  Uplift restraint.
Fig.3  Theoretical analysis model for MPCFS.
Fig.4  Three-dimensional FE model of the MPCFS. (a) Perspective view of the MPCFS; (b) 3/4 view of the MPCFS; (c) cross-section view of the MPCFS.
Fig.5  Meshing of the MPCFS FE model.
yielding stress plastic strain
2.3527 0.00000
2.4440 0.03803
3.0740 0.05678
3.4560 0.07528
4.0680 0.12024
4.5980 0.18839
0.7352 0.28637
Tab.1  Input parameters of the stainless metal
Fig.6  Vertical load and lateral displacement time-history. (a) Load time-history; (b) displacement time-history.
Fig.7  When the MPCFS is suppressed in (a) center and (b) moved farther.
Fig.8  Lateral displacement on the force-displacement relation and its energy dissipation. (a) Force-displacement relation; (b) energy dissipation.
item value
lateral displacement= 116.66 lateral displacement= 233.33 lateral displacement= 350
FE model result 468.06 936.13 1404.2
theoretical result 466.02 932.05 1398.08
difference 0.44% 0.44% 0.44%
Tab.2  Difference of displacement change between FE model and the theoretical analysis (unit: mm)
Fig.9  Inclination angle on the force-displacement relation and its energy dissipation. (a) Force-displacement relation; (b) energy dissipation.
item value
inclination angle= 2 inclination angle= 3 inclination angle= 4
FE model result 350.7 351.4 352.8
theoretical result 349.78 349.520 349.14
difference 0.29% 0.54% 1.05%
Tab.3  Difference of damping and dissipated energy caused by inclination angle change between FE model and the theoretical analysis (unit: kN·mm)
Fig.10  Friction coefficient on the force-displacement relation and its energy dissipation. (a) Force-displacement relation; (b) energy dissipation.
item value
friction coefficient= 0.01 friction coefficient= 0.025 friction coefficient= 0.05 friction coefficient= 0.075 friction coefficient= 0.1
FE model result 140.49 351.47 702.87 1054.34 1405.81
theoretical result 139.80 349.52 699.04 1048.56 1398.08
difference 0.49% 0.56% 0.55% 0.55% 0.55%
Tab.4  Difference of friction coefficient change between FE model and the theoretical analysis (unit: kN·mm)
Fig.11  Vertical load on the force-displacement relation and its energy dissipation. (a) Force-displacement relation; (b) energy dissipation.
item value
vertical load= 10 vertical load= 20 vertical load= 30 vertical load= 40
FE model result 351.47 702.31 1053.22 1404.06
theoretical result 349.52 699.04 1048.56 1398.08
difference 0.55% 0.47% 0.44% 0.43%
Tab.5  Difference of vertical load change between FE model and the theoretical analysis (unit: kN·mm)
Fig.12  The numerical structural model without and with MPCFS. (a) Fixed-base (FB) model; (b) model with MPCFS.
Fig.13  Earthquake inputs and their Fourier Amplitude. (a) Duzce; (b) Duzce Fourier Amplitude; (c) Kobe; (d) Kobe Fourier Amplitude; (e) Northridge; (f) Northridge Fourier Amplitude.
Fig.14  Roof acceleration time-history comparison between structure with FB and that with MPCFS. (a) Duzce; (b) Kobe; (c) Northridge.
Fig.15  Roof displacement time-history comparison between structure with FB and that with MPCFS. (a) Duzce; (b) Kobe; (c) Northridge.
earthquake input isolation foundation ground floor first floor third floor fifth floor (roof)
Duzce FB 0.34 1.43 2.25 3.13
MPCFS 0.28 0.40 0.56
Reduction 19.58% 17.78% 17.89%
Kobe FB 0.61 1.72 2.21 2.84
MPCFS 0.53 0.59 0.77
Reduction 30.81% 26.70% 27.11%
Northridge FB 0.61 1.31 2.385 3.29
MPCFS 0.39 0.53 0.71
Reduction 29.77% 22.22% 21.58%
Tab.6  Floor acceleration amplitude comparison (unit: g), reduction= MPCFS/FB, m = 0.025
earthquake input isolation foundation first floor third floor fifth floor (roof)
Duzce FB 7.27 23.63 35.65
MPCFS 0.90 3.08 5.33
Reduction 12.38% 13.03% 14.95%
Kobe FB 9.21 36.14 49.92
MPCFS 1.92 5.11 8.13
Reduction 20.85% 14.14% 16.29%
Northridge FB 11.56 45.37 65.00
MPCFS 1.40 5.04 7.15
Reduction 12.11% 11.11% 11.00%
Tab.7  Floor inter-story drift amplitude comparison (unit: mm), reduction= MPCFS/FB, m = 0.025
isolation foundation inclination angle friction coefficient earthquake input
FB, MPCFS 2°, 3°, 4° 0.01, 0.025, 0.05, 0.07 Duzce, Kobe, Northridge
Tab.8  Parametric cases
inclination angle friction coefficient earthquake input ground floor isolation floor first floor third floor fifth floor
2 0.01 Duzce 0.34 0.35 0.25 0.32 0.30
Kobe 0.61 0.61 0.363 0.51 0.47
Northridge 0.61 0.33 0.30 0.36 0.34
0.025 Duzce 0.34 0.48 0.23 0.29 0.42
Kobe 0.61 0.54 0.49 0.59 0.62
Northridge 0.60 0.61 0.39 0.47 0.55
3 0.025 Duzce 0.34 0.42 0.28 0.40 0.56
Kobe 0.61 0.72 0.53 0.59 0.77
Northridge 0.61 0.70 0.39 0.53 0.71
0.05 Duzce 0.34 0.35 0.39 0.55 0.69
Kobe 0.61 0.70 0.73 0.80 1.04
Northridge 0.60 0.88 0.47 0.66 0.81
4 0.025 Duzce 0.34 0.24 0.38 0.54 0.78
Kobe 0.61 0.49 0.61 0.71 0.90
Northridge 0.61 0.697 0.65 0.81 1.02
0.07 Duzce 0.34 0.35 0.52 0.64 0.81
Kobe 0.61 0.60 0.84 0.87 0.94
Northridge 0.60 0.64 0.73 1.02 1.02
Tab.9  Acceleration amplitude comparison under different parametric cases (unit: g)
inclination angle friction coefficient earthquake input ground floor isolation floor first floor third floor fifth floor
2 0.01 Duzce 43.08 111.97? 0.55 2.34 ?3.575
Kobe 36.48 53.70 0.67 3.15 4.67
Northridge 55.39 111.69? 0.52 2.26 3.24
?0.025 Duzce 43.08 77.25 0.70 2.98 4.41
Kobe 36.48 46.56 0.92 4.08 6.28
Northridge 55.39 91.97 0.68 2.80 3.88
3 ?0.025 Duzce 43.10 50.70 0.90 3.08 5.33
Kobe 36.48 50.00 1.92 5.11 8.13
Northridge 55.39 70.39 1.40 5.04 7.15
0.05 Duzce 43.08 27.37 1.23 4.83 7.96
Kobe 36.48 39.44 1.57 8.27 10.41?
Northridge 55.39 57.26 1.45 7.06 11.19?
4 ?0.025 Duzce 43.05 63.02 1.21 5.15 6.91
Kobe 36.48 49.48 1.51 7.25 10.52?
Northridge 55.38 70.97 1.46 5.79 8.40
0.07 Duzce 43.08 73.63 5.04 12.96? 17.02?
Kobe 36.48 44.81 2.09 7.44 11.94?
Northridge 55.39 54.15 1.69 8.23 12.68?
Tab.10  Roof inter-story drift amplitude comparison under different parametric cases (unit: mm)
1 J M Kelly. Earthquake-Resistant Design with Rubber. 2nd ed. 1997. New York: Springer, 2011
2 N Attary, M Symans, S Nagarajaiah, A M Reinhorn, M C Constantinou, A A Sarlis, D T R Pasala, D Taylor. Performance evaluation of negative stiffness devices for seismic response control of bridge structures via experimental shake table tests. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2015, 19(2): 249–276
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2014.962672
3 B Wei, P Wang, W Liu, M Yang, L Jiang. The impact of the concave distribution of rolling friction coefficient on the seismic isolation performance of a spring-rolling system. International Journal of Non-linear Mechanics, 2016, 83: 65–77
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2016.04.001
4 B Wei, P Wang, M Yang, L Jiang. Seismic response of rolling isolation systems with concave friction distribution. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2017, 21(2): 325–342
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1157530
5 X Chen, T Y Yang, W Shi. Influence of isolation hysteresis on the seismic performance of isolated buildings. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 2015, 22(4): 631–647
https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.1709
6 C T Cheng, C H Chao. Seismic behavior of rocking base-isolated structures. Engineering Structures, 2017, 139: 46–58
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.02.027
7 L P Guay, N Bouaanani. Assessment of low temperature exposure for design and evaluation of elastomeric bridge bearings and seismic isolators in Canada. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 2016, 43(9): 851–863
https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2015-0377
8 M Ismail. An isolation system for limited seismic gaps in near-fault zones. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2015, 44(7): 1115–1137
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2504
9 M Ismail, J Rodellar, F Pozo. An isolation device for near-fault ground motions. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 2014, 21(3): 249–268
https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.1549
10 T K Lin, L Y Lu, H Chang. Fuzzy logic control of a stiffness-adaptable seismic isolation system. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 2015, 22(1): 177–195
https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.1667
11 L Y Lu, T Y Lee, S W Yeh. Theory and experimental study for sliding isolators with variable curvature. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2011, 40(14): 1609–1627
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1106
12 L Y Lu, C C Hsu. Experimental study of variable-frequency rocking bearings for near-fault seismic isolation. Engineering Structures, 2013, 46: 116–129
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.07.013
13 H H Tsang. Seismic isolation by rubber-soil mixtures for developing countries. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2008, 37(2): 283–303
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.756
14 H H Tsang, S H Lo, X Xu, M Neaz Sheikh. Seismic isolation for low-to-medium-rise buildings using granulated rubber-soil mixtures: numerical study. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2012, 41(14): 2009–2024
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2171
15 W Xiong, Y Li. Seismic isolation using granulated tire-soil mixtures for less-developed regions: Experimental validation. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2013, 42(14): 2187–2193
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2315
16 P Castaldo, G Amendola, B Palazzo. Seismic fragility and reliability of structures isolated by friction pendulum devices. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2017, 46(3): 425–446
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2798
17 P Castaldo, B Palazzo, T Ferrentino. Seismic reliability-based ductility demand evaluation for inelastic base-isolated structures with friction pendulum devices. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2017, 46(8): 1245–1266
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2854
18 C Li, J Jie, L Z Jiang, T Y Yang. Theory and implementation of a two-step unconditionally stable explicit integration algorithm for vibration analysis of structures. Shock and Vibration, 2016, 2016: 2831206
https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/5714195
19 M Saitoh. An external rotary friction device for displacement mitigation in base isolation systems. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 2014, 21(2): 173–188
https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.1560
20 A A Sarlis, M C Constantinou. A model of triple friction pendulum bearing for general geometric and frictional parameters. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2016, 45(11): 1837–1853
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2738
21 E D Wolff, C Ipek, M C Constantinou, L Morillas. Torsional response of seismically isolated structures revisited. Engineering Structures, 2014, 59: 462–468
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.11.017
22 S J Wang, J S Hwang, K C Chang, C Y Shiau, W C Lin, M S Tsai, J X Hong, Y H Yang. Sloped multi-roller isolation devices for seismic protection of equipment and facilities. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2014, 43(10): 1443–1461
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2404
23 P C Chen, S J Wang. Improved control performance of sloped rolling-type isolation devices using embedded electromagnets. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 2017, 24(1): e1853
https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.1853
24 D M Siringoringo, Y Fujino. Seismic response analyses of an asymmetric base-isolated building during the 2011 Great East Japan (Tohoku) Earthquake. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 2015, 22(1): 71–90
https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.1661
25 T H Heaton, J F Hall, D J Wald, M W Halling. Response of high-rise and base-isolated buildings to a hypothetical Mw 7.0 blind thrust earthquake. Science, 1995, 267(5195): 206–211
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.267.5195.206
26 W Xiong, S J Zhang, L Z Jiang, Y Z Li. Introduction of the convex friction system (CFS) for seismic isolation. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 2017, 24(1): e1861
https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.1861
27 W Xiong, S J Zhang, L Z Jiang, Y Z Li. The Multangular-Pyramid Concave Friction System (MPCFS) for seismic isolation: A preliminary numerical study. Engineering Structures, 2018, 160: 383–394
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.12.045
28 Abaqus 6.13 Documentation. Extracted from website of Abaqus. 2019
29 S Zhou, X Zhuang, T Rabczuk. Phase-field modeling of fluid-driven dynamic cracking in porous media. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2019, 350: 169–198
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2019.03.001
30 S Zhou, X Zhuang, T Rabczuk. Phase field modeling of brittle compressive-shear fractures in rock-like materials: A new driving force and a hybrid formulation. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2019, 355: 729–752
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2019.06.021
31 S Zhou, T Rabczuk, X Zhuang. Phase field modeling of quasi-static and dynamic crack propagation: COMSOL implementation and case studies. Advances in Engineering Software, 2018, 122: 31–49
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2018.03.012
32 S Zhou, X Zhuang, T Rabczuk. A phase-field modeling approach of fracture propagation in poroelastic media. Engineering Geology, 2018, 240: 189–203
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.04.008
33 S Zhou, X Zhuang, H Zhu, T Rabczuk. Phase field modelling of crack propagation, branching and coalescence in rocks. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 2018, 96: 174–192
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2018.04.011
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] Jiping GE, M. Saiid SAIIDI, Sebastian VARELA. Computational studies on the seismic response of the State Route 99 bridge in Seattle with SMA/ECC plastic hinges[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(1): 149-164.
[2] Min-Ho CHEY, J. Geoffrey CHASE, John B. MANDER, Athol J. CARR. Innovative seismic retrofitting strategy of added stories isolation system[J]. Front Struc Civil Eng, 2013, 7(1): 13-23.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed