Parametric study of seismic collapse performance of lightweight buildings with spherical deformable rolling isolation system

  • Huseyin CilsalarEmail author
  • Michael C. Constantinou
Original Research


This paper presents a parametric study of the collapse performance of two-story residential buildings equipped with a simple spherical concave deformable rolling isolation system cast in high strength concrete. The collapse performance follows the procedures of FEMA P695 with direct evaluation of the spectral shape effects and accounts for uncertainties. The isolation system consists of isolators with fixed dimensional parameters that include a displacement restraint system and have a displacement capacity of 650 mm. The designs considered in the study have properties that are representative of highly ductile reinforced concrete two-story residential buildings consisting of moment frames and/or shear walls designed in Turkey for a lateral force under elastic conditions corresponding to a spectral acceleration of 1 g. This is representative of areas of the highest seismic hazard in Turkey except for areas controlled by near-fault conditions. The simplicity in the design of the structural system and of the isolation system intend to facilitate application of the system without sophisticated analysis. The seismic collapse performance evaluation demonstrates that residential buildings designed by this procedures and using this isolation system have acceptable collapse performance as stipulated in the ASCE/SEI 7-16 standard.


Seismic isolation Residential construction Single concave rolling isolator Deformable rolling ball Displacement restraint Collapse performance 



The authors gratefully acknowledge support by the Ministry of National Education of the Republic of Turkey in the form of a four-year doctoral work scholarship to the first author.


  1. Akkar S, Sucuoglu H, Yakut A (2005) Displacement-based fragility functions for low- and mid-rise ordinary concrete buildings. Earthq Spectra 21:901–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akkar S, Kale O, Yakut A, Ceken U (2017) Ground-motion characterization for the probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in Turkey. Bull Earthq Eng. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2017) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. Standard ASCE/SEI 7-16, VAGoogle Scholar
  4. ASTM International (1994) Standard practice for rubber properties in forced vibration. Standard D2231-94 West Conshohocken, PAGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker JW, Cornell CA (2005) Vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(10):1193–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker JW, Cornell CA (2006) Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(9):1077–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cilsalar H, Constantinou MC (2019a) Development and validation of a seismic isolation system for lightweight residential construction. Report MCEER-19-0001, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NYGoogle Scholar
  8. Cilsalar H, Constantinou MC (2019b) Behavior of a spherical deformable rolling seismic isolator for lightweight residential construction. Bull Earthq Eng. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke CSJ, Buchanan R, Efthymiou M, Shaw C (2005) Structural platform solution for seismic arctic environments-Sakhalin II offshore facilities. Offshore Technol Conf. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Constantinou MC, Kalpakidis I, Filiatrault A, Lay RAE (2011) LRFD-based analysis and design procedures for bridge bearings and seismic isolators Report MCEER-11-0004. Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NYGoogle Scholar
  11. du Pont (1976) Engineering properties of du Pont Adiprene urethane rubber. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Elastomer Chemicals DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  12. Elenas A, Meskouris K (2001) Correlation study between seismic acceleration parameters and damage indices of structures. Eng Struct 23(6):698–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Erdik M, Demircioglu MB, Sesetyan K, Durukal E (2008) Comprehensive earthquake hazard assessment for Marmara region, Turkey. In: The 14th world conference on earthquake engineering october 12–17, 2008, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  14. FEMA (2009) Quantification of building seismic performance factors. Report FEMA P695, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. FEMA (2012a) Seismic performance assessment of buildings. Report FEMA P-58, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  16. FEMA (2012b) Reducing the risks of nonstructural earthquake damage—a practical guide. Report FEMA E-74, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. Fenz DM, Reed R, Slatnick S, Stewart HR, Constantinou MC (2011) Development of performance-based testing specifications for the Arkutun-Dagi friction pendulum bearings. Offshore Technol Conf. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Furukawa S, Sato E, Shi Y, Becker T, Nakashima M (2013) Full-scale shaking table test of a base-isolated medical facility subjected to vertical motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(13):1931–1949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harrington CC, Liel AB (2016) Collapse assessment of moment frame buildings, considering vertical ground shaking. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45(15):2475–2493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haselton CB, Deierlein GG (2007) Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete moment frame buildings. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Technical Report 156. Stanford University, USAGoogle Scholar
  21. Haselton CB, Baker JW, Liel AB, Deierlein GG (2011) Accounting for ground-motion spectral shape characteristics in structural collapse assessment through an adjustment for epsilon. J Struct Eng 137(3):332–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ibarra L, Chowdhury A (2006) Inelastic absorption energy factors for short period deteriorating SDOF systems. 1st ECEES, Geneva, Switzerland, September 3–8Google Scholar
  23. Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler H (2005) Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(12):1489–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jampole E, Deierlein G, Miranda E, Fell B, Swensen S, Acevedo C (2016) Full-Scale dynamic testing of sliding seismically isolated unibody house. Earthq Spectra 32(4):2245–2270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kani N, Takayama M, Wada A (2006) Performance of seismically isolated buildings in Japan—observed records and vibration perception by people in buildings with seismic isolation. In: Proceeding of the 8th U.S. national conference on earthquake engineering April 18–22, 2006, San Francisco, California, USA, Paper No. 2181Google Scholar
  26. Kitayama S, Constantinou MC (2018) Collapse performance of seismically isolated buildings designed by the procedures of ASCE/SEI 7. Eng Struct 164:243–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kitayama S, Constantinou MC (2019a) Effect of displacement restraint on the collapse performance of seismically isolated buildings. Bull Earthq Eng. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kitayama S, Constantinou MC (2019b) Probabilistic seismic performance assessment of seismically isolated buildings designed by the procedures of ASCE/SEI 7 and other enhanced criteria. Eng Struct 179:566–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lignos DG, Krawinkler H (2011) Deterioration modeling of steel components in support of collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading. J Struct Eng 137(11):1291–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martelli A, Clemente P, De Stefano A, Forni M, Salvatori A (2014) Recent development and application of seismic isolation and energy dissipation and conditions for their correct use. In: Ansal A (ed) Perspectives on European earthquake engineering and seismology. geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineering, vol 34. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  31. McKenna FT (1997) Object-oriented finite element programming: Frameworks for analysis, algorithms and parallel computing. Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  32. McVitty WJ, Constantinou MC (2015) Property modification factors for seismic isolators; design guidance for buildings. Report MCEER-15-0005, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NYGoogle Scholar
  33. Mokha AS, Amin N, Constantinou MC, Zayas V (1996) Seismic isolation retrofit of large historic building. J Struct Eng 122(3):298–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Odabasi O (2016) Characteristic structural features of tall buildings in Turkey and their dynamic behavior. M.Sc. Thesis, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute, Bogazici University, Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  35. Peruš I, Fajfar P (2007) Prediction of the force—drift envelope for RC columns in flexure by CAE method. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36(15):2345–2363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rahnama M, Krawinkler H (1993) Effects of soft soil and hysteresis model on seismic demands. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Technical Report 108. Stanford University, USAGoogle Scholar
  37. Ryu KP, Reinhorn AM (2017) Experimental study of large area suspended ceilings. J Earthq Eng. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shao B, Mahin SA, Zayas V (2017) Member capacity factors for seismic isolators as required to limit isolated structure collapse risks to within ASCE 7 stipulated structure collapse risk limits. Project draft report. Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Materials Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of California, Berkeley June 24Google Scholar
  39. Soroushian S, Maragakis E, Jenkins C (2015a) Capacity evaluation of suspended ceiling components, part 1: experimental studies. J Earthq Eng 19:784–804. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Soroushian S, Zaghi AE, Maragakis EM, Echevarria A, Tian Y, Filliatrault A (2015b) Seismic fragility study of fire sprinkler systems with grooved fit joints. J Struct Eng 141(6):04014157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Swensen S (2014) Seismically enhanced light-frame residential structures. PhD Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  42. TÜRKİYE BİNA DEPREM YÖNETMELİĞİ (TBDY) (2016) Yayın tarihi: 00.00.2016, Resmi Gazete No.:00000., this draft version was last accessed in November 2017. (The final version of the seismic code is available at; last accessed in November 2018). (In Turkish)
  43. Wada A, Kani N, Hirona S, Kamikouchi H, Kimura M (2008) Seismic isolated structures applied from detached houses to high-rise apartments in Japan. In: 5th International conference on urban earthquake engineering, Tuesday, March 4–Wednesday, March 5, 2008Google Scholar
  44. Whittaker AS, Kumar M, Kumar M (2014) Seismic isolation of nuclear power plants. Nucl Eng Technol 46(5):569–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yenidogan C, Yokoyama R, Takuya N, Tahara K, Tosauchi Y, Kajiwara K, Ghannoum W (2018) Shake table test of a full-scale four-story reinforced concrete structure and numerical representation of overall response with modified IMK model. Bull Earthq Eng 16:2087–2118CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringYozgat Bozok UniversityYozgatTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, 132 Ketter HallUniversity at Buffalo, State University of New YorkBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations