Fijación-distracción externa a doble nivel (bifocal)

Conventional seismic isolation can be expensive to implement and maintain and therefore only important structures have been so protected. For low rise buildings for which lateral resistance can be easily provided, the major justification for base isolation is protection of contents.

Many of the roller bearing base-isolation systems discussed have friction dampers with effectively a very low coefficient of friction (μ <1%). These need to be incorporated with lateral viscous dampers (piston type hydraulic arrangements) or lead rubber bearings to provide the buildings with adequate stiffness to resist wind loads and to avoid excessive earthquake deflection. Often this requirement is omitted from base-isolation research reports. A restoring force is also desirable to help centre the building after the earthquake, and this is often provided by a rubber bearing or by ‘slope’ methods, such as containing a roller within a cone.

An enormous amount of research funding has been spent over the past 10 years on attempting to develop and implement active control techniques for the seismic protection of buildings, and several buildings using active control systems have been built in Japan. There have also been proposals to develop smart isolators and intelligent isolation systems. The value of this research endeavour is questionable. It is unlikely to prove practical even for large, expensive structures and hence is not considered to be viable in the low rise buildings considered in this report. Two types of base-isolation systems are the best known. The first is an elastomeric rubber-steel plate bearing system. The bearings are stiff in the vertical direction and flexible in the horizontal one, so the structure is isolated from the horizontal component of the ground motion. Energy absorption is usually achieved through use of lead cores or high damping rubber. The second type of base-isolation system includes rollers, sliding bearings or friction pendulums. To obtain a proper sliding motion, a low friction material (such as reinforced Teflon) is used in the sliding areas. Sliding base-isolation systems produce the isolation effect by limiting the force transferred to the structure through the isolation interface and by absorbing earthquake energy.

4. REQUIREMENTS AND PROBLEMS OF BASE ISOLATION

4.1 Requirements if isolators are used beneath masonry walls

Many researchers have proposed using base isolators beneath masonry walls. None of the literature surveyed has considered the large flexural demand this places on walls in the out-of-plane direction. An approximate analysis of the adequacy of such design is given below, which implies that this base-isolation method is unlikely to be viable. Appendix B contains a summary of typical construction of masonry houses in New Zealand.

Many proposals for use of isolators under masonry walls allow for little movement in the out- of-plane direction, which limits their effectiveness as isolators. P-Δ effects (Figure 27) need to be considered. Figure 27 indicates that the system can become unstable at large movements. A ‘stop’ can be added to prevent extreme movements. However even if buffers are used, the impact forces can be large and could damage both the masonry walls and superstructure.

4.1.1 Seismic-induced forces on base-isolated masonry walls

To be effective in reducing forces on the superstructure, a base-isolation system must displace a significant distance during an earthquake. This is usually in the range ±100 to ±300 mm.

Consider the simple example of Figure 25. The building is supported on four exterior walls – A, B, C and D. If floor twist is ignored, all points on the floor above must move the same distance

– say 200 mm. It is assumed that the lateral stiffnesses of the base isolators are the same in both the X and Y direction. Thus the total force on each wall to impose the 200 mm deflection in the X direction is the same for all walls – say Fw.

(Note: it would be unwise to rely on walls which are perpendicular to the earthquake direction taking up this movement by ‘rocking’ action. Such deformation would induce significant damage, particularly at wall corners.)

4.1.2 Calculation of required wall strength

Consider a two storey house, 12 m x 12 m, with a 0.6 kPa roof, 0.7 kPa suspended floor (includes live load and partitions), and a 200 mm thick masonry wall on the exterior with 30% of the area being openings. This was taken to be a average weight of 14 kN/m.

Roof weight = 12 x 12 x 0.6 = 86 kN Floors and partition = 12 x 12 x 0.7 = 100 kN Wall self-weight = 2 x (12 + 12) x 14 = 672 kN

Total = 868 kN

Assume the building is isolated at a level of 0.2 x building weight. Hence the force Fw = 0.2 x 868/4 = 43.4 kN.

From Figure 25(c) the maximum wall out-of-plane bending moment is approximately 43.4 x 2.4 = 104 kN m. This is resisted by a 12 m length of wall. Assume half the length is openings and the wall is reinforced by D12 bars at 400 centres. Thus, the wall strength is approximately: Mwall = 0.9 x 113 x 0.3 x 0.9 x 0.1 x 12/2 = 16.5 kNm

Note Mwall is significantly less than the demand load of 104 kNm as calculated above.

4.1.3 Use of Rogliders beneath masonry walls

Figure 26 shows a proposal for use of Rogliders beneath masonry walls. If the coefficient of friction = 0.1, then slippage will occur when the horizontal load = 0.1P where P is the axial load per Roglider. Movements (slippage) of say 200 mm may be expected at the right hand side of two Rogliders. However, the stiffness/strength of the wall on the left hand side is unlikely to be adequate to transmit this load to the Roglider and thus the wall will ‘rock’. However, should it slide, which is the preferred mechanism, P-D effects are significant unless the isolator is attached to the top plate as shown in Figure 26(b), and the bottom plate is supported on a large flat concrete surface.

4.1.4 Conclusions

If base isolators are used under two storey masonry walls, the walls need to be designed for a large out-of-plane bending moment which will require special design. The connection between walls and roof needs to be strong.

For single storey buildings without continuity at the roof level, the walls are expected to ‘rock’ during earthquakes which will result in significant damage, particularly at corners.

Hence, although Appendix A provides several examples of use of isolators under masonry walls, both in research testing and structures that have been built, it is believed there is limited scope for this application and there are doubts about the likely performance where it has been applied.

Y X (Earthquake direction) Wall A Wall C Wa ll B Wa ll D 12 m 12 m 2. 4 m (a) Section (b) Plan Fw 2Fw Fw

(c) Approx. force distribution (Wall inertia ignored)

Figure 25. Out-of-plane forces on a base-isolated masonry wall.

P

P

P

0.1P

0.1P

Less than 0.1P

Figure 26. Use of Rogliders under masonry walls.

V

V

(a) Isolator attached to bottom plate

Δ

Δ

Pipe sleeve

flexible pipe Coiled rubber water pipes or

electrical cables, phone etc lines

Figure 28. Coiling of services to ensure there is sufficient flexibility to deform to the required movement without rupture of services.

Figure 29. Test of a sewerage system at BRANZ.

4.2 Requirement for a diaphragm above and below a base isolator

The floor above the isolators must remain monolithic. The forces in the floor from the isolators below the floor are a function of the floor displacement, whereas the forces in the floor from the bracing elements above the floor are a function of the structural stiffness and masses of the structure above. These floors must act like a diaphragm to balance these forces.

Similarly, there must be a diaphragm below the isolators (this may be the ground). 4.2.1 Building services

Building services (electric cabling, water, sewerage), must cross the isolation storey to provide services to the building. It is important that these services remain undamaged after an earthquake event. Although typical design movements are large, e.g. ±200 mm, there have been many base-isolated buildings constructed and solutions are well known. The general method is to run the water and sewerage through flexible pipes (and place the electrical cabling within flexible pipes), and to coil these pipes to provide sufficient slack to take up the required movement without rupturing the services. This is illustrated in Figure 28. Tests at BRANZ (Figure 29) on a PVC sewerage pipe with flexible rubber gasket joints proved that large movements (±150 mm) would occur without rupture. Greater deflections were not investigated in these tests.