Practical efficiency of seismic base isolation systems for buildings: empirical data and lessons from destructive earthquakes of the 21st century

Introduction. Improving the reliability and mechanical safety of buildings in seismically hazardous regions is one of the priority tasks of contemporary construction. The most promising direction in ensuring seismic resistance of buildings is recognized as seismic base isolation systems reducing seismic loads on the building structure. The present article examines the problem and emphasizes the relevance of studying the behavior of buildings and structures with seismic base isolation systems under real seismic impacts, as well as provides the assessment of their technical condition after seismic events.

Materials and methods. The presented results of assessing the consequences of destructive earthquakes are analyzed for the behavior of base-isolated buildings and effectiveness of seismic base isolation systems. Particular attention is paid to the consequences of devastating earthquakes that occurred in Chile (2010), New Zealand (2010), Japan (2011 and 2016), and Turkey (2023), when the presence or absence of seismic base isolation systems significantly affected the safety of critical buildings and structures.

Results. Seismic base isolation systems can significantly reduce inertial seismic loads, thus ensuring the operability of buildings even under impacts exceeding design levels. All contemporary base-isolated buildings considered in this paper withstood seismic impacts, including those above the limits, without loss of functionality and operational suitability. An exception was the case in Turkey, where the recorded damage to a base-isolated building was caused by violations of technology and errors made at the construction stage.

Conclusions. The results of the study indicate a high efficiency of contemporary seismic base isolation systems for ensuring the reliability and mechanical safety of buildings under seismic impacts. The main advantages of using seismic base isolation systems include the reduced damage to load-bearing and enclosing structures and maintained functionality and serviceability of buildings during and after seismic impacts, which is especially considerable for critical infrastructure. The importance of proper design, construction, and maintenance of base-isolated buildings is noted.

1. <i>Boroschek R., Retamales R., Aguilar A.</i> Seismic response of isolated structures subjected to Mw 8.8 Chile earthquake of February 27, 2010. In: Proceedings the International Symposium for CISMID 25th Anniversary, Paper No. M-2, Peru; 2012. Available at: https://boroschek.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2012_cismid-boroschek.pdf.

2. <i>Moroni M., Sarrazin M., Boroschek R.</i> Experiments on a base-isolated building in Santiago, Chile. Engineering Structures. 1998;20(8):720–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0141-0296(97)00086-2.

3. <i>Eriksen K.B., Mohammed M.S., Coria C.B.</i> Seismic Isolation in North and South America. In: 2018 NZSEE Conference, New Zealand; 2018. Available at: https://dis-inc.com/pdf_files/DIS%20Seismic%20Isolation%20in%20North%20and%20South%20America.pdf.

4. Learning from Earthquakes. The Mw 7.1 Darfield (Canterbury), New Zealand Earthquake of September 4, 2010. EERI Special Earthquake Report – November 2010. Oakland: Earthquake Engineering Research

5. Institute; 2010.

6. Ken Elwood (Group Leader), Roberto Leon, Arturo Schultz, Henri Gavin, Jose Restrepo, Amit Kanvinde, G. Kumar Venayagamoorthy with input from several New Zealand colleagues: D. Bull; D. Brunsdon; D. Hopkins; J. Ingham; W. Kam; S. Oliver; S. Pampanin; E. Seville. NZ Structures Group. Japan and NZ RAPID and Research Needs Workshop February 9 and 10, 2012.

7. <i>Gavin H.P., Wilkinson G.</i> Preliminary Observations of the 2010 Darfield Earthquake on the Base Isolated Christchurch Women's Hospital. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering. 2010;43(4):360–367. https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.43.4.360-367.

8. <i>Kuang A., Sridhar A., Garven J., Gutschmidt S., Rodgers G.W., Chase J.G., Gavin H.P., Nigbor R.L., MacRae G.A.</i> Christchurch Women’s Hospital: Performance Analysis of the Base-Isolation System during the Series of Canterbury Earthquakes 2011–2012. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities. 2016;30(4). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cf.1943-5509.0000846.

9. By Courtesy of Tohoku Regional Development Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism.

10. <i>Iiba M., Kashima T., Morita K., Azuhata T., Inoue N., Tanuma T.</i> Behavior of seismically isolated buildings based on observed motion records during the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake. In: 13th World Conference on Seismic Isolation, Energy Dissipation and Active Vibration Control of Structures, commemorating JSSI 20th Anniversary, 24-27 September 2013. Sendai Japan; 2013.

11. <i>Saito T.</i> Behavior of response controlled and seismically isolated buildings during severe earthquakes in Japan. Energia, Ambiente e Innovazione [internet]. 2015;(5). Available at: https://www.eai.enea.it/archivio/n-5-settembre-ottobre-2015/behavior-of-response-controlled-and-seismically-isolated-buildings-during-severe-earthquakes-in-japan.html.

12. Strong Motion Records at Nuclear Power Plants in the CD-ROM provided by Japan Association for Earthquake Engineering, No.10, 2011.

13. <i>Kashima T., Koyama S., Okawa I., Iiba M.</i> Strong Motion Records in Buildings from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake. In: Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (15WCEE); 2012. Available at: https://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/WCEE2012_1768.pdf.

14. <i>Takayama M., Morita K.</i> Observed response of seismically isolated buildings during the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake. In: 17th U.S.-Japan-New Zealand Workshop on the Improvement of Structural Engineering and Resilience. New Zealand; 2018. Available at: https://atcouncil.org/docman/atc-15-16-papers/193-p5-01-takayama/file.

15. Morita K., Takayama M. Behavior of Seismically Isolated Buildings during the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquakes. Available at: https://studyres.com/doc/14250162/behavior-of-seismically-isolated-buildings-during-the-2016.

16. Strong Motion Seismograph Network (K-NET, KiK-net) [internet]. Available at: http://www.kyoshin.bosai.go.jp/kyoshin/docs/overview_kyoshin_index_en.html.

17. <i>Morita K., Takayama M.</i> Lessons learned from the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake: Building damages and behavior of seismically isolated buildings. AIP Conference Proceedings. 2017;1892(1):020007. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5005638.

18. Condominium Management Companies Association [internet]. Available at: http://www.kanrikyo.or.jp/news/data/160614kyusyu2.pdf. (In Japanese).

19. AFAD. Disaster and emergency management authority [internet]. Available at: https://deprem.afad.gov.tr/stations.

20. <i>Qu Z., Wang F., Chen X., Wang X., Zhou Z.</i> Rapid report of seismic damage to hospitals in the 2023 Turkey earthquake sequences. Earthquake Research Advances. 2023;3(4):100234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eqrea.2023.100234.

21. The 2023 Kahramanmaraş, Turkey, earthquake sequence. USGS – Geologic Hazards Science Center and Collaborators [internet]. Available at: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/storymap/index-turkey2023.html.

22. <i>Erdik M., Tuzun C., Ulker O.</i> Evaluation of Seismic Isolation Applications of Health Care Facilities in turkey. In: Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Seismic Isolation, Energy Dissipation and Active Vibration Control of Structuresю San Diego (CA), USA; 2015.

23. <i>Akkar S., Azak T., Çan T., Çeken U., Demircioğlu Tümsa M.B., Duman T.Y., Erdik M., et al.</i> Evolution of seismic hazard Maps in Turkey. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 2018;16(8):3197–3228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0349-1.

24. Middle East Technical University. Preliminary Reconnaissance Report on February 6, 2023, Pazarcik Mw=7.7 and Elbistan Mw=7.6, Kahramanmaraş-Türkiye Earthquakes. Report NO: METU/EERC 2023-01. Earthquake Engineering Research Center; 2023. Available at: https://avesis.tedu.edu.tr/yayin/06737146-9296-4ee9-9e8b-e47459a89d04/preliminary-reconnaissance-report-on-february-6-2023-kahramanmaraspazarcik-mw-7-7-and-elbistan-mw-7-6-earthquakes.

25. <i>Erdik M., Ülker Ö., Şadan B., Tüzün C.</i> Seismic isolation code developments and significant applications in Turkey. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 2018;(115):413–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.09.009.

26. <i>Dilsiz A., Gunay S., Mosalam K., Miranda E., Arteta C., Sezen H., Fischer E., et al.</i> StEER-EERI: 2023 Mw 7.8 Kahramanmaras, Türkiye Earthquake Sequence Joint Preliminary Virtual Reconnaissance Report (PVRR). ETH Zurich [internet]. Available at: https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/handle/20.500.11850/645478.

27. Türkiye Bina Deprem Yönetmeliği. Resmî Gazete [internet]. 2018; 18 Mart. Available at: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2018/03/20180318M1-2.htm. (In Turkey).

28. Malatya Battalgazi state hospital. TİS [internet]. Available at: https://www.tis.com.tr/en/projeler/malatya-battalgazi-state-hospital/ (2023).