Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

The effect of LRB parameters on structural responses for blast and seismic loads
--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number: AJSE-D-17-00493R2

Full Title: The effect of LRB parameters on structural responses for blast and seismic loads

Article Type: SCI / ENG - Research Article

Section/Category: ENG-Civil Engineering

Keywords: Blast induced vibration, Bouc Wen Model, Earthquake, Hysteretic energy, isolation
parameters.

Corresponding Author: Mohd Zain Kangda

Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology
INDIA

Corresponding Author Secondary

Information:

Corresponding Author's Institution: Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology

Corresponding Author's Secondary

Institution:

First Author: Mohd Zain Kangda

First Author Secondary Information:

Order of Authors: Mohd Zain Kangda

Sachin Bakre

Order of Authors Secondary Information:

Funding Information:

Abstract: In the present paper, passive control technique such as base isolation system is
studied under earthquake ground motions and underground blast induced vibrations.
The performance of the lead rubber bearing (LRB), idealized as Bouc Wen model in
mitigating the structural responses of a five storey building model is investigated. The
earthquake ground motions are selected from ground motion database available on the
portal COSMOS Virtual Data centre whereas the underground blast is modeled as an
exponential decaying function as prescribed by Carvalho and Battista (2003). The aim
of the study is to analyze the effect of isolation parameters such as damping ratio, yield
strength, post yield strength ratio and yield displacement on the structural responses of
the base isolated building. Newmark's step by step integration method is adopted to
evaluate the structural responses of the building. It is observed that the LRB is very
effective in reducing the structural accelerations and storey drifts induced in the
building due to ground induced vibrations. The comparison of results show that high
value of yield strength harvests low bearing displacement and low percentage
reduction in the top floor absolute acceleration. In addition, the study also evaluates
the energy dissipated by the isolated structure. The energy dissipated by the base
isolated (LRB) building subjected to blast induced vibrations, show that an optimum
value of yield strength is found to be in the range of 10-20% of the total weight of the
structure.

Response to Reviewers: RESPONSE TO THE PEER REVIEW COMMENTS

Manuscript title: “Energy assessment of base isolated structures subjected to blast

induced vibration”
Authors: Muhammed Zain Kangda and Sachin Bakre.
Manuscript No: AJSE-D-17-00493

The authors are thankful and appreciate both the reviewers for their extensive and
detailed review of the manuscript. Their valuable suggestions have been incorporated
in the revised research paper addressing the lacunas in the research paper. The

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
 authors are hopeful that the revision has improved the quality and content of the paper
to be considered further in the reviewing process. The authors are also grateful to the
editor for his earliest reply.
The point by point response to the Reviewers’ comments/suggestions is addressed as
follows:

Reviewer - 1
Comment 1: -The modelling of the LRB isolators has been done using "Bouc-Wen"
model. The reason of this modelling should be clearly explained.
Response: In the revised version, research papers have been cited that have
experimentally proved the versatility of Bouc Wen model (BWM) in depicting the
hysteretic behavior of isolators and damping devices [18, 24], Page 4 Section 2 Line 3-
7. Moreover the present study has also validated the results using MATLAB code for
BWM with the experimental results of various researchers in understanding the
hysteretic behavior of isolators and is presented herein.

Force-Displacement Hysteresis of: (a) Lead/Rubber Bearing (b) Torsional Device of

MRPRA System

References:
[18] Constantinou, M.C.; Tadjbakhsh, I.G.: Hysteretic dampers in base isolation:
random approach. Journal of Structural Engineering 111 (4), 705-721 (1985).
[24] Mohammed, I.; Ikhouane, F.; Rodellar, J.: The hysteresis Bouc-Wen model, a
survey. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering 16 (2), 161-188 (2009).

Comment 2: - The structural model used in the analysis is defined as "full scale". What
is meant by "full scale" should be clarified.
Response: In 1987, Kelly [20] applied base isolation technique to a linear lumped mass
model. The superstructure parameters from the study are reported for a one-third scale
model and have been scaled up, to represent a “full-scale” superstructure herein.
Hence the term “full scale” is used. The revision includes the explanation suggested by
Zhang and Philips [28], Page 9 Section 4 Line 3-5.

Comment 3: - In the manuscript it has been stated that the ground motions selected
from the COSMOS database, it should be explained the "criteria" of the selection of the
three ground motions.
Response: All these ground motions are taken from the COSMOS strong motion
database (http://www.strongmotioncenter.org/vdc/scripts/default.plx). The norms for
minimum number of records for seismic analysis are similar worldwide; the minimum
set size is typically from 3 to 7 records in the specified period range (Iervolino et al.,
2009).. As per Eurocode 8 Part I, the set of accelerogram, whether they are natural,
artificial or simulated, should match the following criteria:
a)A minimum of 3 accelerogram should be used;
b)the mean of the zero period spectral response acceleration values (calculated from
the individual time histories) should not be smaller than the value of ag S for the site in
question;
c)in the range of periods between 0.2T1 and 2T1, where T1 is the fundamental period
of the structure in the direction where the accelerogram will be applied; no value of the
mean 5% damping elastic spectrum, calculated from all time histories, should be less
than 90% of the corresponding value of the 5% damping elastic response spectrum.
So, in the present paper the above guidelines are followed in selection of ground
motions. Moreover, the ground motions are selected such that the structural responses
obtained from blast and seismic analysis are comparable. Page 7 section 2 Line 2
includes the criteria for selection of time histories specified above. Moreover, Jangid
(2005) also studied the performance of sliding systems subjected to three earthquake
motions.
Reference:
Iervolino, I., Maddaloni, G and Cosenza, E., A note on selection of time histories for
seismic analysis of bridges in Eurocode 8, Journal of Earthquake Engineering,
2009:13, 1125-1152.
Jangid, R.S. (2005). Computational numerical models for seismic response of
structures isolated by sliding systems. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 12:
117-137.

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
 Comment 4: - In the blast analysis the equation (1) is used. The reason of using this
equation should be provided. It should be stated that whether a standard or a code is
used in the blast analysis.
Response: The present study aims to study the performance of base isolated
structures subjected to underground blast induced vibration. The literature review
highlights the work published by Carvalho and Battista [9] based on the analytical
equation1, Page 3 Section1 Line 1. The equation studied by [9] is derived from the
equation studied by Hinman [33] in terms of velocity. To solve the dynamic equation
of motion, ground acceleration values are required and hence velocity is converted to
acceleration using the principle of differentiation.

Reference
Hinman, E. E. (1989). ‘‘Shock response of buried structures subject blast.’’ Proc.,
ASCE Spec. Conf. on Struct. for Enhanced Safety and Phys. Security, 191–202.

Comment 5: - In the modelling of LRB is based on "Bouc - Wen model" and the
equation of the force on the isolation units in horizontal direction. But there is no
information on the vertical degree of freedom modelling. As the axial load on the
isolation units is of great importance on the response of the isolation system behavior,
modelling of LRB members in tension and compression should be clarified.
Response: In the proposed study, linear lumped mass model is selected for analysis
and the dynamic equations are solved to obtain the results. Hence the axial load effect
has been neglected as studied by Jangid [23].

Comment 6: - As it is stated in the manuscript, the input ground motion is applied on

the system in one direction only. The reason of this approach should be explained
although it is stated in international seismic codes that input ground motions should be
applied in two orthogonal directions simultaneously.
Response: In the proposed study, effects of LRB parameters on the structural (lumped
mass model) responses are studied. The performance of sliding isolators take in
account ground motions in two orthogonal directions simultaneously and studied by
Jangid (2005). However the structural responses for lead rubber isolators mounted on
a lumped mass model is not affected due to ground motion in two orthogonal
directions, Jangid [23].
Reference
Jangid, R.S.: Computational numerical models for seismic response of structures
isolated by sliding systems. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 12: 117-137
(2005).
Reference 23: Jangid, R.S.: Optimum lead–rubber isolation bearings for near-fault
motions. Engineering Structures 29, 2503-2513 (2007).

Comment 7: - In the nonlinear response analysis Newmark method is used. In the

application of this method time step of the input ground motion is of importance for the
stability and the convergence of numerical analyses. It is well known fact that this
method is applicable for earthquake motion type inputs. It should be explained whether
the same method is valid for blast analysis with a so small time step of 0.0005s.
Response: Page 2 Section 1 Line 10 explains that blast is a short duration
phenomenon and occurs only for a few milliseconds and hence to capture the
performance for such short duration loading time step parameter becomes very critical.
Hence a convergence study is carried out and responses are obtained at different time
step. It was observed that for present system the results converged at a small time
step of 0.0005 sec. The Newmark method is a step by step numerical technique to
obtain the dynamic responses of SDOF and MDOF system subjected to any type of
dynamic loading such as earthquakes, blast etc. Chopra (2007) Chapter 5 Section 5.4
suggests that the method can be used to analyze structures under any type of ground
acceleration and forcing functions. The convergence study is also attached herein.
Table Convergence study to select accurate time step (dt) in the Newmark Method.
Time Step (dt)0.0050.0020.0010.00080.00060.00050.0004
Bearing displacement (mm)352.3352.7353.1353.2353.3353.4353.4

Reference

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
 Chopra, Anil K. (2007) Dynamics of structures. Third Edition. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.

Comment 8: - The input motion for blast analysis is defined in equation 17. The reason
of using the relevant equation and parameters should be clarified.
Response: In the field of mine blasting different researchers have proposed equations
for calculation of peak particle velocity (PPV) based on the experimental results.
Recently Kumar et al. [11] used curve fit software to propose a standard equation that
considers rock properties at mine site based on 1089 field tests. The reason for using
the proposed equation is that it considers variation in rock properties and uncertainty of
in situ conditions. The proposed empirical model for calculation of blast parameters is
compared with the empirical models available for blast vibration prediction given by
other researchers and found to be in good agreement. It is important to note that the
proposed empirical formula also compares well with the available field data cases. The
revised version has added the reason for selection of the empirical model used in the
study, Page 8 Section 3 Line 12.

Comment 9: - In the manuscript, it is stated that "Tb =2.5 s and =4%". The damping
ration is so small compared with the classical isolation units such as LRB. This issue
should be clarified.
Response: The present study evaluates the performance of a five storey building
analyzed by Zhang and Philips [28] subjected to underground blast loading. Hence the
structural properties are identical to that proposed by reference [28]. The base isolator
is assumed to be low damping isolation bearing as studied by Johnson et al. (2002).
However the enlightening recommendation of the reviewer has made the authors add
an additional study on the damping properties of lead rubber isolator. Table 5 and 6
compare the performance of a five storey base isolated building based on their
different damping properties and the conclusions drawn from the study are also
included in the section Discussion and Conclusion.
Reference:
Johnson, E. A., Ramallo, J. C., Spencer Jr. B. F. and Sain, M.K.: Intelligent Base
Isolation Systems. Second World Conference on Structural Control, Kyoto, Japan. 28
June -1 July (2002).

Comment 10: - The properties of the ground motion in terms of acceleration response
spectrum, frequency content, duration, etc is not clear for the set of ground motion
used in the analysis. As such the number ground motion should be increased and
evaluated considering the parameters listed in this item.
Response: According to the response to the Comment 3, the present study has
followed the guidelines specified in the Eurocode 8 Part1 in the selection of time
histories. The structural responses under selected ground motion show comparable
results for displacement, acceleration etc when analyzed for blast loading. The
response spectrum curves obtained from the above mentioned ground motions to get
the frequency content of the earthquakes are attached herein and included in the
revised paper, Figure 3.

Figure 3 Response Spectra for the selected ground motions (5% damping).

Comment 11: - The criteria the evaluation of the isolation system should be defined or
link to a seismic code. As this stage, the results of the analyses presented in the study
in terms of isolator displacement, acceleration and energy do not represent satisfactory
evaluation basis.
Response:
In the present study an attempt is made to study the effectiveness of base isolation
system in mitigating fixed base structural responses subjected to blast and seismic
loads. Seismic codes such IBC (2000) Section 1623 Page 392-404 recommend the
permissible limit of peak bearing displacement and storey drift subjected to seismic
excitations. However guidelines for analysis of isolators subjected to underground blast
induced vibrations are not available. Hence the present study has not linked any code
in the study and a parametric study is carried out on isolation parameters to study the
behavior of isolators subjected to underground blasting.

Reference
IBC International Building Code. Washington: International Code Council.

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
 Comment 12: - In references list, reference 1, 2 and 3 is related to blast analysis but it
the content of the paper it Is not clear that what is the procedure followed in the
analysis and evaluation in the blast analysis. Similar situation is also valid for the
isolated system analysis. Once the issues given in the items above have been clarified
by the author, are-evaluation should be performed on the revised version of the paper.
Response: The reference 1, 2 are the Indian Standards for blast loading, above ground
and underground explosion respectively. The code uses attenuation relationship to
calculate blast load based on field tests. The procedure for blast analysis is based on
the vibration data collected at site for a particular explosion. The code recommends
only two site conditions i.e. soft and hard rock for evaluation for blast load. Therefore,
in the absence of field test data available from mine site, the authors have used the
equation proposed by Kumar et al. [11] to calculate blast load as the empirical equation
is in good agreement with field data for different soil types. In the Section 3 the
procedure to calculate blast load has been explained. The formula has been developed
from the codal equation. Moreover the reference [2] is helpful in understanding the
generalized terminologies used in underground blasting. The reference 1 and 3 include
above ground explosion and the present study is restricted to underground explosion.
Reference 1 and 3 are therefore not studied in detail. The purpose to include it in
reference list is to differentiate between underground explosion and air blast explosion.
Hence in the present study a non linear time history analysis is performed on a lumped
mass model subjected to blast and seismic loads. The effectiveness of LRB
parameters are also evaluated in mitigating the responses of a fixed based structure.

Reviewer – 2

General Comments: - This is a detailed work on performance of base isolation on blast

and seismic loads. The analyses and results include blast + seismic loads. Also a
sensitivity of response parameters to lrb parameters were discussed. Thus a more
definite title should be more appropriate i.e. "The effect of LRB parameters on
structural response for blast and seismic loads"
Response: The authors are grateful to the Reviewer for suggesting an apt title for the
research work. Therefore in the revised version, the title of the manuscript has been
modified as follows: Page 1 Tile of manuscript
The effect of LRB parameters on structural response for blast and seismic loads

Editor- in- Chief

The authors acknowledge the enlightening reviews by the reviewers that have enabled
the authors to compile the research paper. The authors are grateful to the Editor-in-
Chief of The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering for the timely communication
of the status of the manuscript. The minor corrections as proposed by the editor have
also been addressed in the final version the manuscript. The authors have added the
place of Figures and Tables in the manuscript as suggested by the Editor-in-Chief. A
confirming mail has also been sent to ajse@kfupm.edu.sa confirming that this paper
or, any part of this paper has not been submitted or, published elsewhere in any form.

Suggested Reviewers: Dr. Samadhan Morkhade

Vidya Pratishthan's College of Engineering Baramati
samadhanmorkhade@gmail.com
He has carried out extensive work in the field of base isolation and blast resistant
structures

Dr. Omprakash Jaiswal

Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology
ojaiswalvnit@yahoo.co.in
works in the field vibration control and structural dynamics

Dr. Nilesh Mate

Amrutvahini College of Engineering
numate@rediffmail.com

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
 works in the field of vibration control and

Dr. Sharad Ghodke

Vidya Pratishthan's College of Engineering Baramati
ghodkesl@gmail.com
Extensively worked in the field of base isolation.

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Cover Letter

Cover Letter for submission of paper to AJSE

To
The Editor,
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering,
Springer.

Respected Sir,
I the under signed wish to submit a manuscript titled “The effect of LRB parameters on
structural responses for blast and seismic loads” for consideration in the specified format for
publication in your esteemed journal. The research work carried in the present paper is original and
has not been published elsewhere nor is it currently under consideration for publication elsewhere.

In the present paper an attempt is made to evaluate the responses of an elastomeric base isolated
building. The isolation considered is a lead rubber bearing popularly known as N-Z system
subjected to blast induced vibration. The base isolated buildings show significant reduction in the
structural responses such as acceleration, storey drift and storey displacement as compared to fixed
base building. The present paper also addresses the energy base analysis of isolated structures.
Moreover the underground vibrations causing nuisance to neighbouring human population situated
near mines is also studied analytically. The significance of the present work is to encourage civil
engineers to implement base isolation technique in practice to protect structures against such
dynamic loading like earthquakes and blast load.

I request you to please consider this submission for review and provide help during each
step of submission process.
Please address all the correspondence concerning this manuscript to me at zainkangda@gmail.com.

Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript.

With regards,
Yours Sincerely,
Mohd Zain Kangda
Ph.D Scholar,
Department of Applied Mechanics,
Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, India.
Authors Click here to download Authors' Response to Reviewers'
Comments reviewer comments.docx

RESPONSE TO THE PEER REVIEW COMMENTS

Manuscript title: “Energy assessment of base isolated structures subjected to blast

induced vibration”
Authors: Muhammed Zain Kangda and Sachin Bakre.
Manuscript No: AJSE-D-17-00493

The authors are thankful and appreciate both the reviewers for their extensive and
detailed review of the manuscript. Their valuable suggestions have been incorporated in
the revised research paper addressing the lacunas in the research paper. The authors are
hopeful that the revision has improved the quality and content of the paper to be
considered further in the reviewing process. The authors are also grateful to the editor for
his earliest reply.

The point by point response to the Reviewers’ comments/suggestions is addressed as

follows:

Reviewer - 1
Comment 1: -The modelling of the LRB isolators has been done using "Bouc-Wen"
model. The reason of this modelling should be clearly explained.
Response: In the revised version, research papers have been cited that have
experimentally proved the versatility of Bouc Wen model (BWM) in depicting the
hysteretic behavior of isolators and damping devices [18, 24], Page 4 Section 2 Line 3-7.
Moreover the present study has also validated the results using MATLAB code for BWM
with the experimental results of various researchers in understanding the hysteretic
behavior of isolators and is presented herein.
 Force-Displacement Hysteresis of: (a) Lead/Rubber Bearing (b) Torsional Device of
MRPRA System

References:
[18] Constantinou, M.C.; Tadjbakhsh, I.G.: Hysteretic dampers in base isolation: random approach. Journal
of Structural Engineering 111 (4), 705-721 (1985).
[24] Mohammed, I.; Ikhouane, F.; Rodellar, J.: The hysteresis Bouc-Wen model, a survey. Archives of
Computational Methods in Engineering 16 (2), 161-188 (2009).

Comment 2: - The structural model used in the analysis is defined as "full scale". What is
meant by "full scale" should be clarified.
Response: In 1987, Kelly [20] applied base isolation technique to a linear lumped mass
model. The superstructure parameters from the study are reported for a one-third scale
model and have been scaled up, to represent a “full-scale” superstructure herein. Hence
the term “full scale” is used. The revision includes the explanation suggested by Zhang
and Philips [28], Page 9 Section 4 Line 3-5.

Comment 3: - In the manuscript it has been stated that the ground motions selected from
the COSMOS database, it should be explained the "criteria" of the selection of the three
ground motions.

Response: All these ground motions are taken from the COSMOS strong motion

database (http://www.strongmotioncenter.org/vdc/scripts/default.plx). The norms for

minimum number of records for seismic analysis are similar worldwide; the minimum set

size is typically from 3 to 7 records in the specified period range (Iervolino et al., 2009)..
As per Eurocode 8 Part I, the set of accelerogram, whether they are natural, artificial or

simulated, should match the following criteria:

a) A minimum of 3 accelerogram should be used;
b) the mean of the zero period spectral response acceleration values (calculated from the
individual time histories) should not be smaller than the value of ag S for the site in
question;
c) in the range of periods between 0.2T1 and 2T1, where T1 is the fundamental period of
the structure in the direction where the accelerogram will be applied; no value of the
mean 5% damping elastic spectrum, calculated from all time histories, should be less than
90% of the corresponding value of the 5% damping elastic response spectrum.
So, in the present paper the above guidelines are followed in selection of ground motions.
Moreover, the ground motions are selected such that the structural responses obtained
from blast and seismic analysis are comparable. Page 7 section 2 Line 2 includes the
criteria for selection of time histories specified above. Moreover, Jangid (2005) also
studied the performance of sliding systems subjected to three earthquake motions.
Reference:
Iervolino, I., Maddaloni, G and Cosenza, E., A note on selection of time histories for seismic analysis of
bridges in Eurocode 8, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2009:13, 1125-1152.
Jangid, R.S. (2005). Computational numerical models for seismic response of structures isolated by sliding
systems. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 12: 117-137.

Comment 4: - In the blast analysis the equation (1) is used. The reason of using this
equation should be provided. It should be stated that whether a standard or a code is
used in the blast analysis.

Response: The present study aims to study the performance of base isolated structures

subjected to underground blast induced vibration. The literature review highlights the

work published by Carvalho and Battista [9] based on the analytical equation1, Page 3

Section1 Line 1. The equation studied by [9] is derived from the equation studied by

Hinman [33] in terms of velocity. To solve the dynamic equation of motion, ground

acceleration values are required and hence velocity is converted to acceleration using the

principle of differentiation.
Reference
Hinman, E. E. (1989). ‘‘Shock response of buried structures subject blast.’’ Proc., ASCE Spec. Conf. on
Struct. for Enhanced Safety and Phys. Security, 191–202.

Comment 5: - In the modelling of LRB is based on "Bouc - Wen model" and the equation
of the force on the isolation units in horizontal direction. But there is no information on
the vertical degree of freedom modelling. As the axial load on the isolation units is of
great importance on the response of the isolation system behavior, modelling of LRB
members in tension and compression should be clarified.

Response: In the proposed study, linear lumped mass model is selected for analysis and

the dynamic equations are solved to obtain the results. Hence the axial load effect has

been neglected as studied by Jangid [23].

Comment 6: - As it is stated in the manuscript, the input ground motion is applied on the
system in one direction only. The reason of this approach should be explained although it
is stated in international seismic codes that input ground motions should be applied in
two orthogonal directions simultaneously.

Response: In the proposed study, effects of LRB parameters on the structural (lumped

mass model) responses are studied. The performance of sliding isolators take in account

ground motions in two orthogonal directions simultaneously and studied by Jangid

(2005). However the structural responses for lead rubber isolators mounted on a lumped

mass model is not affected due to ground motion in two orthogonal directions, Jangid

[23].

Reference
Jangid, R.S.: Computational numerical models for seismic response of structures isolated by sliding
systems. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 12: 117-137 (2005).
Reference 23: Jangid, R.S.: Optimum lead–rubber isolation bearings for near-fault motions. Engineering
Structures 29, 2503-2513 (2007).
Comment 7: - In the nonlinear response analysis Newmark method is used. In the
application of this method time step of the input ground motion is of importance for the
stability and the convergence of numerical analyses. It is well known fact that this method
is applicable for earthquake motion type inputs. It should be explained whether the same
method is valid for blast analysis with a so small time step of 0.0005s.

Response: Page 2 Section 1 Line 10 explains that blast is a short duration phenomenon

and occurs only for a few milliseconds and hence to capture the performance for such

short duration loading time step parameter becomes very critical. Hence a convergence

study is carried out and responses are obtained at different time step. It was observed that

for present system the results converged at a small time step of 0.0005 sec. The Newmark

method is a step by step numerical technique to obtain the dynamic responses of SDOF

and MDOF system subjected to any type of dynamic loading such as earthquakes, blast

etc. Chopra (2007) Chapter 5 Section 5.4 suggests that the method can be used to analyze

structures under any type of ground acceleration and forcing functions. The convergence

study is also attached herein.

Table Convergence study to select accurate time step (dt) in the Newmark Method.

Time Step (dt) 0.005 0.002 0.001 0.0008 0.0006 0.0005 0.0004
Bearing
displacement (mm) 352.3 352.7 353.1 353.2 353.3 353.4 353.4

Reference
Chopra, Anil K. (2007) Dynamics of structures. Third Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Comment 8: - The input motion for blast analysis is defined in equation 17. The reason of
using the relevant equation and parameters should be clarified.

Response: In the field of mine blasting different researchers have proposed equations for

calculation of peak particle velocity (PPV) based on the experimental results. Recently

Kumar et al. [11] used curve fit software to propose a standard equation that considers

rock properties at mine site based on 1089 field tests. The reason for using the proposed

equation is that it considers variation in rock properties and uncertainty of in situ

conditions. The proposed empirical model for calculation of blast parameters is compared

with the empirical models available for blast vibration prediction given by other

researchers and found to be in good agreement. It is important to note that the proposed

empirical formula also compares well with the available field data cases. The revised

version has added the reason for selection of the empirical model used in the study, Page

8 Section 3 Line 12.

Comment 9: - In the manuscript, it is stated that "Tb =2.5 s and =4%". The damping
ration is so small compared with the classical isolation units such as LRB. This issue
should be clarified.
Response: The present study evaluates the performance of a five storey building analyzed
by Zhang and Philips [28] subjected to underground blast loading. Hence the structural
properties are identical to that proposed by reference [28]. The base isolator is assumed to
be low damping isolation bearing as studied by Johnson et al. (2002). However the
enlightening recommendation of the reviewer has made the authors add an additional
study on the damping properties of lead rubber isolator. Table 5 and 6 compare the
performance of a five storey base isolated building based on their different damping
properties and the conclusions drawn from the study are also included in the section
Discussion and Conclusion.

Reference:

Johnson, E. A., Ramallo, J. C., Spencer Jr. B. F. and Sain, M.K.: Intelligent Base Isolation Systems.
Second World Conference on Structural Control, Kyoto, Japan. 28 June -1 July (2002).

Comment 10: - The properties of the ground motion in terms of acceleration response
spectrum, frequency content, duration, etc is not clear for the set of ground motion used
in the analysis. As such the number ground motion should be increased and evaluated
considering the parameters listed in this item.

Response: According to the response to the Comment 3, the present study has followed

the guidelines specified in the Eurocode 8 Part1 in the selection of time histories. The

structural responses under selected ground motion show comparable results for

displacement, acceleration etc when analyzed for blast loading. The response spectrum
curves obtained from the above mentioned ground motions to get the frequency content

of the earthquakes are attached herein and included in the revised paper, Figure 3.

Figure 3 Response Spectra for the selected ground motions (5% damping).

Comment 11: - The criteria the evaluation of the isolation system should be defined or
link to a seismic code. As this stage, the results of the analyses presented in the study in
terms of isolator displacement, acceleration and energy do not represent satisfactory
evaluation basis.

Response:
In the present study an attempt is made to study the effectiveness of base isolation system

in mitigating fixed base structural responses subjected to blast and seismic loads. Seismic

codes such IBC (2000) Section 1623 Page 392-404 recommend the permissible limit of

peak bearing displacement and storey drift subjected to seismic excitations. However

guidelines for analysis of isolators subjected to underground blast induced vibrations are

not available. Hence the present study has not linked any code in the study and a
parametric study is carried out on isolation parameters to study the behavior of isolators

subjected to underground blasting.

Reference
IBC International Building Code. Washington: International Code Council .

Comment 12: - In references list, reference 1, 2 and 3 is related to blast analysis but it
the content of the paper it Is not clear that what is the procedure followed in the analysis
and evaluation in the blast analysis. Similar situation is also valid for the isolated system
analysis. Once the issues given in the items above have been clarified by the author, are-
evaluation should be performed on the revised version of the paper.

Response: The reference 1, 2 are the Indian Standards for blast loading, above ground

and underground explosion respectively. The code uses attenuation relationship to

calculate blast load based on field tests. The procedure for blast analysis is based on the

vibration data collected at site for a particular explosion. The code recommends only two

site conditions i.e. soft and hard rock for evaluation for blast load. Therefore, in the

absence of field test data available from mine site, the authors have used the equation

proposed by Kumar et al. [11] to calculate blast load as the empirical equation is in good

agreement with field data for different soil types. In the Section 3 the procedure to

calculate blast load has been explained. The formula has been developed from the codal
equation. Moreover the reference [2] is helpful in understanding the generalized

terminologies used in underground blasting. The reference 1 and 3 include above ground

explosion and the present study is restricted to underground explosion. Reference 1 and 3

are therefore not studied in detail. The purpose to include it in reference list is to

differentiate between underground explosion and air blast explosion. Hence in the present

study a non linear time history analysis is performed on a lumped mass model subjected

to blast and seismic loads. The effectiveness of LRB parameters are also evaluated in

mitigating the responses of a fixed based structure.

Reviewer – 2

General Comments: - This is a detailed work on performance of base isolation on blast

and seismic loads. The analyses and results include blast + seismic loads. Also a
sensitivity of response parameters to lrb parameters were discussed. Thus a more definite
title should be more appropriate i.e. "The effect of LRB parameters on structural
response for blast and seismic loads"
Response: The authors are grateful to the Reviewer for suggesting an apt title for the
research work. Therefore in the revised version, the title of the manuscript has been
modified as follows: Page 1 Tile of manuscript
The effect of LRB parameters on structural response for blast and seismic loads

Editor- in- Chief

The authors acknowledge the enlightening reviews by the reviewers that have enabled the
authors to compile the research paper. The authors are grateful to the Editor-in-Chief of
The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering for the timely communication of the
status of the manuscript. The minor corrections as proposed by the editor have also been
addressed in the final version the manuscript. The authors have added the place of Figures
and Tables in the manuscript as suggested by the Editor-in-Chief. A confirming mail has
also been sent to ajse@kfupm.edu.sa confirming that this paper or, any part of this paper
has not been submitted or, published elsewhere in any form.
Manuscript Click here to download Manuscript paper1.docx

Click here to view linked References

1

The effect of LRB parameters on structural responses for blast and seismic
1
2 loads
3 Muhammed Zain Kangda1 and Sachin Bakre2
4
5 1
Research Scholar, Visvesvaraya National Inst. of Technology, Nagpur, India
6
(E-mail: zainkangda@gmail.com), Mob. +91-9890631310
7 2
8 Associate Prof. Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, India
9
10 Abstract. In the present paper, passive control technique such as base isolation system is
11
12
13 studied under earthquake ground motions and underground blast induced vibrations. The
14
15 performance of the lead rubber bearing (LRB), idealized as Bouc Wen model in mitigating
16
17
18 the structural responses of a five storey building model is investigated. The earthquake
19
20 ground motions are selected from ground motion database available on the portal COSMOS
21
22
Virtual Data centre whereas the underground blast is modeled as an exponential decaying
23
24
25 function as prescribed by Carvalho and Battista (2003). The aim of the study is to analyze the
26
27 effect of isolation parameters such as damping ratio, yield strength, post yield stiffness ratio
28
29
30 and yield displacement on the structural responses of the base isolated building. Newmark’s
31
32 step by step integration method is adopted to evaluate the structural responses of the building.
33
34
35 It is observed that the LRB is very effective in reducing the structural accelerations and
36
37 storey drifts induced in the building due to ground induced vibration. The comparison of
38
39
40
results show that high value of yield strength harvests low bearing displacement and low
41
42 percentage reduction in the top floor absolute acceleration. In addition, the study also
43
44 evaluates the energy dissipated by the isolated structure. The energy dissipated by the base
45
46
47 isolated (LRB) building subjected to blast induced vibrations, show that an optimum value of
48
49 yield strength is found to be in the range of 10-20% of the total weight of the structure.
50
51
52 Keywords: Blast induced vibration, Bouc Wen Model, Earthquake, Hysteretic energy,
53
54 isolation parameters.
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 2

1. Introduction
1
2 The catastrophic destructions caused by the natural hazards such as earthquakes and man-
3
4
5 made activities like mine blasting, accidental explosions and terrorism over the years have
6
7 made the structural engineering community vigilant. The earthquake problem is rather old
8
9
10 and since the early 1900s, the structural researchers have succeeded in developing structural
11
12 analysis and design techniques for earthquake resistant structures. A lot of developments in
13
14
15 the design codes of seismic loads in the past decade have enabled engineers to control the
16
17 failure of structures when subjected to the above mentioned natural hazard. However, the
18
19
structural damages caused by blast induced vibrations pose challenges for the present
20
21
22 engineers. Unlike seismic and wind loads, blast loads are a short duration phenomenon.
23
24 Though, a blast occurs for milliseconds, it is capable to cause hazardous damage to structures
25
26
27 and human life. The threats from such extreme loading conditions urge efforts to develop
28
29 methods of structural analysis and design to resist blast load. In India, the blast resistant
30
31
32 design of structures is categorized as explosion above ground IS 4991 [1] and underground
33
34 blasts IS 6922 [2]. In addition different international codes and regulations [3-5] provide
35
36
37
guidelines to mitigate blast induced effects on structures. In the present study, the structural
38
39 responses are evaluated for underground blast induced vibrations. Dowding [6] evaluated the
40
41 vibration response of structures subjected to underground blasting. Wu et al. [7] conducted
42
43
44 blasting experiments on rock surface to study and record ground accelerations. Later Wu and
45
46 Hao [8] validated the recorded data with the help of a numerical model. The study was
47
48
49 further extended to investigate the structural response subjected to underground blast induced
50
51 vibration. Carvalho and Battista [9] investigated the structural response of a RC framed
52
53
54 structure subjected to blast induced vibration theoretically and experimentally. The blast was
55
56 modeled as an exponential decaying function to obtain blast induced ground acceleration, ẍg
57
58
(t) given by equation 1:
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 3

1 −𝑡
𝑥̈𝑔 (𝑡) = − 𝑣 𝑒 𝑡𝑑 (1)
1
𝑡𝑑
2
3
4
5 The peak particle velocity (PPV) is represented by v (m/s) whereas td is the arrival time =R/c.
6
7 R (m) is the distance between the charge centre and structure undergoing vibration due to the
8
9
explosion and c is wave propagation velocity (m/s) in soil obtained as the square root ratio of
10
11
12 E and d where E is Young’s Modulus in N/m2 and d is the average mass density in kg/m3.
13
14
15
Empirical formulae to predict the blast induced vibrations in terms of PPV as proposed by
16
17 various researchers, based on soil site condition have been summarized and proposed by
18
19 Kumar et al. [10]. Recently, Kumar et al. [11] proposed an empirical model to obtain PPV
20
21
22 values considering various rock parameters. Hence, extensive studies to monitor the
23
24 propagation of blast waves are being conducted. However, the techniques to protect and
25
26
27 prevent existing and new structures from the damages caused by blast loads require
28
29 considerable attention.
30
31
32 In recent years various vibration control methods such as passive control systems, active
33
34
35 control systems and hybrid systems have been developed either to minimize seismic forces
36
37 acting on the structure or to absorb the forces which in turn reduce the damages incurred to
38
39
40
the structure. It may be noted that these vibration control methods have been studied widely
41
42 in the field of earthquake engineering but its application to blast induced vibration is limited
43
44 [12-14]. Thus, the present study implements the concept of passive system i.e. base isolation
45
46
47 system to study the structural response under blast induced vibrations. In the last few
48
49 decades, a lot of technological evolution and development has happened in the field of
50
51
52 earthquake protection. A wide range of experimental work has been done on the
53
54 configurations and materials used in the base isolation technique [15-17]. Constantinou and
55
56
57 Tadjbakhsh [18] used the Wen’s model [19] to optimize the performance of base isolated
58
59 system subjected to ground acceleration. Kelly et al. [20] proposed the use of base isolation
60
61
62
63
64
65
 4

combined with active control to minimize the damage caused by earthquakes to the
1
2 structures. Ramallo et al. [21] analyzed the peak responses of a two degree of freedom
3
4
5 (2DOF) and 6DOF system using low elastomeric bearings and MR dampers. Recently
6
7 Ghodke and Jangid [22] proposed a linear model of shape memory alloy to analyze base
8
9
10 isolated structures subjected to earthquake excitations. Jangid [23] investigated the response
11
12 of a multi storey isolated structure mounted on lead rubber bearings subjected to seismic
13
14
15 excitations. The variations of responses under the system were computed for the variation of
16
17 isolator parameters. In the present study, similar approach is employed to investigate the
18
19
structural response of base isolated structures subjected to blast induced loading. The
20
21
22 objectives of the study also include evaluation of vibration energy dissipated by the selected
23
24 base isolated building model. The results obtained from the present study are also compared
25
26
27 with the seismic response of the selected model. The base isolation device is modeled as
28
29 prescribed by Constantinou & Tadjbakhsh and Wen.
30
31
32 2. Mathematical Model of Base Isolated System
33
34
35 In the present study, Bouc-Wen model (BWM) is selected to model the non linear
36
37 behavior of a base isolation system such as lead rubber bearings, LRB popularly known as N-
38
39
40 Z bearing system. In the field of structural vibration control, the versatility of BWM to match
41
42 the experimental hysteretic behavior of various types of damping devices along with base
43
44
45
isolation systems [18] has made it popular. Moreover the model is represented
46
47 mathematically as the first order non linear differential equation that relates input
48
49 displacement to output restoring force in a hysteretic way [24]. Figure 1 shows the schematic
50
51
52 representation of BWM studied by Marano and Greco [25] as a single degree of freedom
53
54 (SDOF) non linear system having mass mb, stiffness kb and damping cb along with its
55
56
57 dimensionless shape parameters. The hysteretic restoring force, Fb, developed in the isolation
58
59 device is expressed by equation 2.
60
61
62
63
64
65
 5

[Figure 1 to be inserted here]

1
2
3 𝐹𝑦
𝐹𝑏 =  𝑥 + (1 − )𝐹𝑦 𝑍 (2)
𝑞 𝑏
4
5
6
7
8 In equation 2, Z is a dimensionless hysteretic component satisfying the following nonlinear
9
10 first order differential equation given by equation 3:
11
12
13
14
15 𝑞 𝑍̇ = −|𝑥̇ b |𝑍|𝑍|−1 − 𝑥̇ 𝑏 |𝑍| + 𝐴𝑥̇ 𝑏 (3)
16
17 In the above expressions q is the yield displacement given by Fy/kb and Fy is the yield force,
18
19 xb, ẋb and ẍb are the displacement, velocity and acceleration of the isolating device
20
21
22 respectively. ,  and A are the dimensionless shape parameters. Parameter  is an integer
23
24 which controls the smoothness of the transition from elastic to plastic response and  is the
25
26
27 post to pre yielding stiffness ratio. In the present study the values of the above mentioned
28
29
dimensionless parameters are A=1, =0.5, =0.5 and =1. These parameters only affect the
30
31
32 shape of hysteretic loop and have no influence on the performance of the dissipating device.
33
34
35
The importance of post yield stiffness ratio,  to obtain the isolation period, Tb of the LRB
36
37 system is also incorporated in the study. Equation 4 calculates the time period of the base
38
39 isolation, where M= (mb+ms) is the total mass of the building such that mb is the mass of
40
41
42 isolating device and ms is the total structural mass of the building at different storey levels.
43
44 The viscous damping, cb developed in the isolating device is obtained from the damping ratio,
45
46
47 b given by equation 5 from base isolation frequency b=2/Tb. Thus to model a LRB system
48
49 using BWM four primary parameters are required namely, the isolation period (Tb), damping
50
51
52 ratio (b), yield displacement (q) and normalized yield strength (F0) obtained as a ratio of
53
54 yield strength of the bearing (Fy) and total weight of the isolated building, W=Mg given by
55
56
57 equation 6, g is the acceleration due to gravity.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 6

[Figure 2 to be inserted here]

1
2 𝑀
𝑇𝑏 = 2π√ (4)
3 𝛼𝑘𝑏
4
5
6
7 𝑐𝑏 = 2𝜉𝑏 𝑀𝜔𝑏 (5)
8
9
10 𝐹𝑦
11 𝐹0 = (6)
12
𝑊
13
14
The isolating mechanism supports an idealized multi storey building as shown in figure
15
16
17 2. The study analyses the performance of the building with and without base isolation system
18
19 subjected to blast and seismic excitations. The generalized equation of motion of a multi
20
21
22 storey building in matrix form subjected to seismic excitation ẍg is given by equation 7. The
23
24 mass matrix of the building Ms, is a diagonal matrix wheras Cs and Ks are the damping and
25
26
27 stiffness matrix of the structure which are symmetrical and of the order nxn where n is the
28
29 total number of floors of the superstructure. The vector {1} is a unity vector of the order nx1
30
31
32
having for all its elements unity and {x} and {ẋ} are the displacement and velocity vectors of
33
34 the superstructure. The acceleration of base mass relative to ground is denoted by ẍb.
35
36
37 [𝑀𝑠 ]{𝑥̈ } + [𝐶𝑠 ]{𝑥̇ } + [𝐾𝑠 ]{𝑥} = −[𝑀𝑠 ]{1}{𝑥̈𝑔 + 𝑥̈ 𝑏 } (7)
38
39
40
41
Moreover the governing equation of motion of the isolating device as expressed by Jangid
42
43 (2007) having mass mb subjected to seismic excitation, ẍg, is given by equation 8.
44
45
46 𝑚𝑏 𝑥̈ 𝑏 + 𝑐𝑏 𝑥𝑏̇ + 𝐹𝑏 − 𝑐1 𝑥1̇ − 𝑘1 𝑥1 = −𝑚𝑏 𝑥𝑔̈ (8)
47
48
49 [Table 1 to be inserted here]
50
51 In the above equation, c1 and k1 are the first floor damping and stiffness of the superstructure
52
53 as shown in figure 2. Due to non-linear force–deformation behavior of the isolated structure,
54
55
56
the governing equation cannot be solved using the classical modal superposition technique,
57
58 Jangid [23]. As a result, the Newmark’s step-by-step integration method is adopted assuming
59
60 linear variation of acceleration to study the structural response over the time interval, dt. The
61
62
63
64
65
 7

maximum time interval dt for earthquake motions as tabulated in table 1 is 0.005 sec and for
1
2 blast loading as discussed in section 3, dt=0.0005 sec. Figure 3 shows the spectral
3
4
5 acceleration curves obtained from the selected times histories to represent the properties of
6
7 ground motion. The criteria for selection of accelerogram data is based on the Eurocode 8
8
9
10 Part 1 and compiled by Iervolino et al. [32] as follows:
11
12
13 a) A minimum of 3 accelerogram should be used;
14
15 b) the mean of the zero period spectral response acceleration values (calculated from the
16
17
individual time histories) should not be smaller than the value of ag S for the site in question;
18 c) in the range of periods between 0.2T1 and 2T1, where T1 is the fundamental period of the
19
20 structure in the direction where the accelerogram will be applied; no value of the mean 5%
21
22 damping elastic spectrum, calculated from all time histories, should be less than 90% of the
23
24 corresponding value of the 5% damping elastic response spectrum.
25
26 [Figure 3 to be inserted here]
27
28
29 The energy equations derived by Uang and Bertero [26] are also incorporated in the study
30
31 to estimate the vibration energy capacity of the non linear model under the effect of blast and
32
33
34 seismic ground shaking. The total input energy (Ei) is defined as the work done on the
35
36 structure by the applied inertia force and is determined by equation 9. The input energy is
37
38
39 also expressed as the sum of Kinetic Energy, Damping Energy, Elastic strain Energy and
40
41 Hysteretic Energy given by equation 10.
42
43 𝑡
44
45 𝐸𝑖 = ∫ 𝑀𝑠 𝑥̈𝑔 𝑑𝑥̇ 𝑑𝑡 (9)
46 0
47
48
49 𝐸𝑖 = 𝐸𝑘 + 𝐸 + 𝐸𝑠 + 𝐸ℎ = 𝐸𝑘 + 𝐸 + 𝐸𝑎 (10)
50
51
52
53
The Kinetic energy (Ek) is expressed as the sum of the masses (M) and their corresponding
54
55 velocities (ẋ) for the structure is obtained by equation 11 and the non- negative damping
56
57
58
energy (E) of the system is calculated by equation 12. The energy absorbed by the system
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 8

(Ea) is composed of recoverable elastic strain energy (Es) and irrecoverable hysteretic energy
1
2 (Eh) and determined by equations 13, 14 and 15 respectively.
3
4
5
𝑀𝑠 𝑥̇ 2
6 𝐸𝑘 = (11)
7 2
8
9
10 𝑡 𝑡
11 𝐸 = ∫ 𝐶𝑆 𝑥̇ 𝑑𝑥 = ∫ 𝐶𝑆 𝑥̇ 2 𝑑𝑡 (12)
12
13 0 0
14
15 𝑡
16
17 𝐸𝑎 = ∫ 𝐹𝑏 𝑥̇ 𝑑𝑡 = 𝐸𝑠 + 𝐸ℎ (13)
18
0
19
20
21
(𝐹𝑏 )2
22 𝐸𝑠 = (14)
23 2𝑘𝑏
24
25
26 𝐸ℎ = 𝐸𝑎 − 𝐸𝑠 (15)
27
28
29 3. Model to predict blast induced ground acceleration
30
31 As discussed in the introduction, various researchers have proposed different empirical
32
33
34 formulae to predict the peak particle velocity based on the site conditions. Extensive field
35
36 blast tests have been carried out to assess the PPV for different types of soils and rock types.
37
38
39
The PPV is the most important parameter to model blast induced ground acceleration
40
41 analytically. It is defined as the maximum velocity of ground particle in the given direction
42
43 due to vibration caused by an explosion Mohamed and Mohamed [27]. The most generalized
44
45
46 expression to predict PPV for any soil condition is as follows:
47
48 𝑣 = 𝑘SD−𝑏 (16)
49
50
51 where v is the peak particle in m/s, SD is the scaled distance (m/kg1/2) determined as the ratio
52
53 of distance from charge point, R (m) to the square root of charge mass, Q (kg), k and b are
54
55
56 site constants determined by blast experiments. In the present study, empirical equation
57
58 proposed by Kumar et al. [11] is used to predict PPV as site constants require blast
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 9

experiments. The PPV model considered various rock site parameters affecting blast wave
1
2 propagation. The proposed empirical formula for calculation of PPV is established based on
3
4
5 the curve fitting technique applied to the collected field blast data. The blast vibration values
6
7 predicted from the proposed equation compare well with the field data cases. In the present
8
9
10 study the PPV is evaluated for a granite site having material constants specified by Wu and
11
12 Hao [8]. The material constants for granite include Young’s modulus, E=73.9GPa, average
13
14
15 mass density, d= 26.50kN/m3, uniaxial compressive strength, fc=70MPa. These constants are
16
17 substituted in equation 17 to evaluate the PPV, for a constant value of charge centre i.e.
18
19
20 R=100m and the charge mass is varied to plot the ground acceleration produced due to an
21
22 underground blasting as shown in figure 4.
23
𝑓𝑐 0.642 𝑆𝐷−1.463
24
25
𝑣= (17)
26 𝐷
27
28
29
30
[Figure 4 to be inserted here]
31
32
33 A summary of peak particle velocities obtained from blast and rock properties to plot ground
34
35 vibration is tabulated in table 2. The blast is modeled using the exponential decay function
36
37
38
discussed by Carvalho and Battista.
39
40
41 [Table 2 to be inserted here]
42
43
44 4. Numerical Study
45
46 For the present study, a five storey base isolated structure investigated by Zhang and Philips
47
48
49 [28] subjected to air blast loading is selected to investigate its performance under both
50
51 underground blast and seismic loads. Zhang and Philips scaled the linear lumped parameter
52
53
54
model (one third scale) investigated by Kelly et al. [20] to represent the full scale
55
56 superstructure as shown in figure 2. According to Zhang and Philips, for the fixed base
57
58 condition, the fundamental time period of the superstructure is Ts= 0.54 sec and the structural
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 10

[Table 3 to be inserted here]

1 [Table 4 to be inserted here]
2
3
4 damping ratio, s=2% in the first mode. For the base isolated structure, Tb= 2.5 sec and
5
6 b=4% and 10%. The structural properties of a five storey base isolated structure are
7
8
9 tabulated in table 3 and its responses are evaluated subjected to seismic and blast induced
10
11 vibration. The full scale model with fixed base condition is analyzed first under the effect of
12
13
14 blast and earthquake excitation and its responses are tabulated in table 4. The peak top floor
15
16 absolute acceleration is obtained as the sum of ground acceleration and top floor acceleration
17
18
19 and is expressed in terms of acceleration due to gravity (g). The performance of the five
20
21 storey superstructure is evaluated with the prescribed isolation technique.
22
23
24 As discussed in section 2, the base isolated structure is characterized by four
25
26
27 parameters i.e. the isolation period, damping ratio, yield displacement and normalized yield
28
29 strength. For the present study, the time period of isolation is kept constant whereas the study
30
31
32
evaluates the performance of a base isolated structure for two cases of damping ratios i.e. b =
33
34 4% and 10%. The effect of post yield stiffness ratio, normalized yield strength and yield
35
36
37
displacement on the structural responses of the base isolated building is also studied. The
38
39 study is divided in three parts, in the first part effect of post yield stiffness ratio and
40
41 normalized yield strength is discussed, in the second part effect of yield displacement and
42
43
44 normalized yield strength is taken into account. Finally the effect of damping ratio on the
45
46 performance of the structure is tabulated in the tables 5 and 6. The study incorporates the
47
48
49 performance of two isolators i.e. low damping isolators, LRB1 (b=4%) and high damping
50
51 isolator, LRB2 (b=10%). The investigation of isolators based on the damping ratios,
52
53
54 suggests that LRB1 is effective in mitigating the structural responses subjected to blast
55
56 induced vibrations as compared to LRB2. It is important to note that the bearing displacement
57
58
59 values obtained from the blast analysis is almost 6% more in case of LRB1 to achieve the
60
61
62
63
64
65
 11

[Tables 5 and 6 to be inserted here]

1
2 reduction in structural responses. The performance of LRB1 further improves with a higher
3
4
5 post yield stiffness ratio. However, the results obtained from the seismic analysis show that
6
7 the LRB2 is more effective than LRB1 in reducing the structural responses. It is interesting to
8
9
10 note that the performance of LRB1 as in case of Imperial Valley Earthquake at a low post
11
12 yield stiffness ratio of 0.05 show better percentage reduction in storey drift and acceleration
13
14
15 values. Thus the performance of the lead rubber isolators depends on the ground motions
16
17 under consideration and observation hold true as in case of literature [21]. The time variation
18
19
plots of bearing displacement, top floor absolute acceleration and hysteretic energy dissipated
20
21
22 by the isolation system are also presented in the study. Figures 5, 6 and 7 show the above
23
24 mentioned output results respectively under the selected earthquakes and blast induced
25
26
27 vibrations for a constant post yield stiffness ratio i.e. =0.05 and b=4%. From figure 5, it
28
29 can be observed that an increase in normalized yield strength (F0) reduces the peak bearing
30
31
32 displacement under the effect of blast loads and selected earthquake ground motions for the
33
34 specified case i.e. =0.05. However it can be observed in figure 8 that F0 reduces the peak
35
36
37 bearing displacement for all blast load cases and Imperial Valley and Northridge Earthquake.
38
39 Moreover, a higher value of  leads to higher bearing displacement and the observation is
40
41
42 satisfied by all blast and mentioned earthquakes. The Loma Prieta Earthquake shows an
43
44 increase in bearing displacement for an increase in value of  but for an increase in value of
45
46
47 F0, the behavior of the base isolated structure is inconsistent due to the frequency content of
48
49 the earthquake. Thus, a higher value of F0 and lower value of  is favorable for a reduced
50
51
52 peak bearing displacement. On the other hand figure 6 advocates a selection of lower value of
53
54 F0 to obtain reduced peak top storey absolute acceleration for all selected ground motions.
55
56
57 From figure 9 it can be concluded that lower value of F0 and higher  leads to higher
58
59 percentage reduction in peak absolute acceleration values i.e. lower value of absolute
60
61
62
63
64
65
 12

[Figure 5 to be inserted here]

1 [Figure 6 to be inserted here]
2 [Figure 7 to be inserted here]
3
4
5
6 acceleration values. In case of the Imperial Valley, an increase in value of  shows a
7
8
9 nonlinear behavior, but the values of peak absolute acceleration reduces for a lower value of
10
11 F0. The hysteretic energy dissipated by the isolating device is plotted against time for the
12
13
14
selected case in figure 7. It is interesting to note that the isolating device dissipates maximum
15
16 energy under blast with charge weight of 50 tons whereas performance under the effect of
17
18 earthquake is nearly same with Loma Prieta earthquake showing abrupt results. A plot of
19
20
21 maximum hysteretic energy under the ground induced vibration for two selected isolators i.e.
22
23 LRB1 and LRB2 are as shown in figure 10 and 11 respectively. It is observed in the present
24
25
26 study that a higher value of  results in low hysteretic energy for both the selected isolators.
27
28 Moreover, an increase in the damping ratio further results in the reduction of hysteretic
29
30
31 energy as the bearing displacement reduces due to increase in damping in the isolator. It is
32
33 also observed that in a lead rubber isolated building subjected to blast induced vibrations, the
34
35
36 optimum value of yield strength is found to be 10-20% of the total weight of the structure.
37
38 The hysteretic energy dissipated as in case of seismic excitations show a complicated nature
39
40
41
however, the optimum value of yield strength remains in the range specified for blast loading.
42
43 [Figure 8 to be inserted here]
44 [Figure 9 to be inserted here]
45 [Figure 10 to be inserted here]
46
47 The effect of yield displacement (q) on the structural responses is also discussed in the
48
49 present study. The yield displacement is restricted to 25 mm and 12.5 mm based on the
50
51
52
restriction on the value of  not greater than 1. The value of F0 is varied from 0.025 to 0.3
53
54 and the structural responses are plotted for LRB1 as shown in figure 12. It can be observed
55
56
57
that for a restricted value of yield displacement the bearing displacement values decrease
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 13

with increase in F0 with a blast of 50 ton causing the most damaging effect on the isolating
1
2 device.
3
4
5
6
[Figures 11 and 12 to be inserted here].
7
8 The maximum bearing displacement for a 50 ton blast is as high as 0.67m almost
9
10 matching with the displacement caused by the Imperial Valley earthquake equal to 0.665m.
11
12
13 The percentage reduction in acceleration also decreases with an increase in normalized yield
14
15 strength values. The performance of the LRB1 system in reducing the absolute acceleration
16
17
18 under Loma Prieta earthquake is the most efficient whereas for a higher F0 the efficiency
19
20 reduces and the 10 ton blast shows least reduction. The hysteretic energy increases with
21
22
23 increase in the value of F0 and the blast of 50 ton causes the most damaging effect on the
24
25 device. The Loma Prieta earthquake shows a linear increase the value of dissipated energy
26
27
28
with yield strength whereas the energy under the blast induced vibration becomes almost
29
30 constant for F0 greater than 0.2. The comparison between two yield displacement values
31
32 conclude that a lower yield displacement results in lower bearing displacement but a higher
33
34
35 yield displacement value (q) is beneficial to obtain least absolute acceleration value i.e.
36
37 higher percentage reduction in absolute acceleration. Moreover higher value of q also reduces
38
39
40 the hysteretic energy dissipated by the isolating device. The effect of yield displacement on
41
42 the structure responses of a base isolated building conclude that an optimum value of yield
43
44
45
strength is found be in the range of 10- 20% of the weight of the structure for different cases
46
47 of earthquake loadings and blast induced vibrations
48
49 5. Discussion and Conclusion
50
51
52 In the present study base isolation technique is employed to a five storey building
53
54 subjected to underground blast and seismic excitations. The LRB plays a pivotal role in
55
56
57 reducing the floor acceleration response and storey drift in the building. The peak bearing
58
59 displacement, an important output result in the design of base isolation system is also
60
61
62
63
64
65
 14

optimized using isolation parameters and plotted as shown in figure 8. The optimized
1
2 isolation parameters are reported and the effects on the structural responses are also plotted.
3
4
5 An attempt is made to establish relation between energy dissipated with structural responses.
6
7 The complex energy dissipating behavior of the isolated structure under the selected
8
9
10 earthquakes is also discussed. The study outlines following conclusions from the detailed
11
12 analysis of the isolated technique:
13
14
15 (1). For a high value of normalized yield strength and constant post yield stiffness ratio a
16
17 significant reduction in peak bearing displacement is obtained. Consequently, a
18
19
20
combination of a low value of  and high value of F0 yields least peak bearing
21
22 displacement for all selected blast induced vibrations.
23
24
25
(2). The relationship between F0 and top floor absolute acceleration values report that high
26
27 value of F0 results in low percentage reduction in absolute acceleration response of the
28
29 structure i.e. high value of absolute acceleration. Thus, a higher percentage reduction in
30
31
32 absolute acceleration values is achieved under the synthesis of low value of F0 and high
33
34 value of stiffness ratio.
35
36
37 (3). The energy dissipated by the base isolated structure reveal that an optimum value of
38
39 normalized yield strength (F0) is obtained in the range of 10-20% of the total weight of
40
41
42
the structure subjected to blast induced vibrations. However the responses obtained under
43
44 the effect of earthquake loading show complex behavior and depend on the frequency
45
46 content of the excitation.
47
48
49 (4). The structural responses obtained from the study based on the yield displacement
50
51 parameter of base isolated structure show that an optimum value of normalized yield
52
53
54 strength (F0) is obtained in the range of 10- 20% of the weight of the structure.
55
56 (5). The comparisons of the two selected isolators show that high damping isolator (LRB2)
57
58
59 results in low hysteretic energy and bearing displacement.
60
61
62
63
64
65
 15

(6). The effect of damping ratio, b in mitigating the structural responses such as storey drift
1
2
3 and acceleration reduction is also investigated. The study compares the effectiveness of
4
5 low damping isolator and high damping isolator in improving the structural performance
6
7 under the two selected load cases i.e. blast and earthquakes. The present study observed
8
9
10 that low damping isolator is found to be more effective than high damping isolator under
11
12 the blast load case whereas high damping isolator shows better response reduction ability
13
14
15 as compared to low damping isolator for seismic case.
16
17 REFERENCES
18
19
20 1. IS 4991 (1968),: Criteria for blast resistant design of structures for explosions above
21
22 ground, BIS, New Delhi, India.
23
24
2. IS 6922 (1973),: Criteria for safety and design of structures subject to underground blast,
25 BIS, New Delhi, India.
26
27 3. Department of Defense (2008),: Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions,
28
29 UFC 3-340-02, Washington, DC, United States of America.
30
31 4. FEMA 428 (2003),: Primer to Design Safe School Projects in Case of Terrorist Attacks,
32
33 Federal Emergency Management Agency, United States of America.
34
5. NATO (1993),: Manual of NATO safety principles for the storage of NATO ammunition
35
36 and explosives, AC/258-D/258, Bonn, Germany.
37
38 6. Dowding, C.H.: Blast vibration monitoring and control (Vol. 297). Englewood Cliffs:
39
40 Prentice-Hall (1985).
41
42 7. Wu, C.; Lu, Y.; Hao, H.; Lim, W.K.; Zhou, Y.; Seah, C.C.: Characterisation of
43
44 underground blast-induced ground motions from large-scale field tests. Shock Waves 13
45 (3), 237-252 (2003).
46
47 8. Wu, C.; Hao, H.: Numerical study of characteristics of underground blast induced surface
48
49 ground motion and their effect on above-ground structures. Part I. Ground motion
50
51 characteristics. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25(1), 27-38 (2005).
52
53 9. Carvalho, E.M.L.; Battista, R.C.: Blast-induced vibrations in urban residential buildings.
54
55
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Structures and Buildings 156 (3), 243-
56 253 (2003).
57
58 10. Kumar, R.; Choudhury, D.; Bhargava, K.: Prediction of blast-induced vibration
59
60 parameters for soil sites. International Journal of Geomechanics 14(3), 04014007 (2013).
61
62
63
64
65
 16

11. Kumar, R.; Choudhury, D.; Bhargava, K.: Determination of blast-induced ground
1
2 vibration equations for rocks using mechanical and geological properties. Journal of Rock
3
4 Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8(3), 341-349 (2016).
5
12. Tian, L.; Li, Z.X.: Dynamic response analysis of a building structure subjected to ground
6
7 shock from a tunnel explosion. International Journal of Impact Engineering 35(10), 1164-
8
9 1178 (2008).
10
11 13. Miyamoto, H.K.; Taylor, D.: Structural control of dynamic blast loading using passive
12
13 energy dissipaters. In SEAOC 1999 Convention, pp. 299-317 (1999).
14
15 14. Mondal, P.D.; Ghosh, A.D.; Chakraborty, S.: Performance of NZ systems in the
16 mitigation of underground blast induced vibration of structures. Journal of Vibration and
17
18 Control 20(13), 2019-2031 (2013).
19
20 15. Kang, B.S.; Kang, G.J.; Moon, B.Y.: Hole and lead plug effect on fiber reinforced
21
22 elastomeric isolator for seismic isolation. Journal of Materials Processing Technology
23
24 140 (1), 592-597 (2003).
25
26 16. Skinner, R.I.; Tyler, R.G.; Heine, A.J.; Robinson, W.H.: Hysteretic dampers for the
27 protection of structures from earthquakes. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society
28
29 for Earthquake Engineering 13(1), 22-36 (1980).
30
31 17. Moon, B.Y.; Kang, G.J.; Kang, B.S.; Kelly, J.M.: Design and manufacturing of fiber
32
33 reinforced elastomeric isolator for seismic isolation. Journal of Materials Processing
34
35 Technology 130, 145-150 (2002).
36
37
18. Constantinou, M.C.; Tadjbakhsh, I.G.: Hysteretic dampers in base isolation: random
38 approach. Journal of Structural Engineering 111 (4), 705-721 (1985).
39
40 19. Wen, Y.K.: Method of Random Vibration of Hysteretic Systems. Journal of the
41
42 Engineering Mechanics 102 (2), 249-263 (1976).
43
44 20. Kelly, J.M.; Leitmann, G.; Soldatos, A.G.: Robust control of base-isolated structures
45
46 under earthquake excitation. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 53 (2),
47
48
159-180 (1987).
49 21. Ramallo, J.C.; Johnson, E.A.; Spencer Jr., B.F.: “Smart” base isolation systems. Journal
50
51 of Engineering Mechanics 128 (10), 1088-1099 (2002).
52
53 22. Ghodke, S.; Jangid R. S.: Equivalent linear elastic-viscous model of shape memory alloy
54
55 for isolated structures. Advances in Engineering Software 99, 1-8 (2016).
56
57 23. Jangid, R.S.: Optimum lead–rubber isolation bearings for near-fault motions. Engineering
58
Structures 29, 2503-2513 (2007).
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 17

24. Mohammed, I.; Ikhouane, F.; Rodellar, J.: The hysteresis Bouc-Wen model, a survey.
1
2 Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering 16 (2), 161-188 (2009).
3
4 25. Marano, G.C.; Greco, R.: Efficiency of base isolation systems in structural seismic
5
protection and energetic assessment. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 32
6
7 (10), 1505-1531 (2003).
8
9 26. Uang, C.M.; Bertero, V.V.: Evaluation of seismic energy in structures. Earthquake
10
11 Engineering & Structural Dynamics 19 (1), 77-90 (1990).
12
13 27. Mohamed, A.M.; Mohamed, A.E.E.A.: Quarry blasts assessment and their environmental
14
15 impacts on the nearby oil pipelines, southeast of Helwan City, Egypt. NRIAG Journal of
16 Astronomy and Geophysics 2 (1), 102-115 (2013).
17
18 28. Zhang, R.; Phillips, B.M.: Performance and Protection of Base- Isolated Structures under
19
20 Blast Loading. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 142(1), 04015063 (2015).
21
22 29. Bhatti, M.A.; Pister, K.S.; Polak, E.: Optimal Design of an Earthquake Isolation System.
23
24 Report 78/22, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at
25
26 Berkeley, California (1978).
27 30. Hao, H.; Wu, C.: Numerical study of characteristics of underground blast induced surface
28
29 ground motion and their effect on above-ground structures. Part II. Effects on structural
30
31 responses. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25(1), 39-53 (2005).
32
33 31. Nicholson, R.F.: Determination of blast vibrations using peak particle velocity at Bengal
34
35 quarry. M. Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Division of
36
37
Rock Engineering, St. Ann, Jamaica (2005).
38 32. Iervolino, I.; Maddaloni, G.; Cosenza, E.: A note on selection of time histories for seismic
39
40 analysis of bridges in Eurocode 8. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 13, 1125-1152
41
42 (2009).
43
44 33. Hinman, E. E..: Shock response of buried structures subject blast. Proc., ASCE Spec.
45
46 Conf. on Struct. for Enhanced Safety and Phys. Security, 191–202 (1989).
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 18

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Figure

Figure 1 Schematic representation of a Bouc Wen Model with its hysteretic behavior. [25].

Figure 2 Idealized model of multi storey building, (a) with and (b) without isolation system. [28].
Figure 3 Response spectra for selected ground motions (5% damping).
Figure 4 Blast induced ground acceleration time histories.
Bearing Displacement (m)
Bearing Displacement (m)

Time (sec) Time (sec) Time (sec)

Figure 5 Time variation of bearing displacement under selected ground excitations for F0=0.05, 0.1 and 0.2
 Top Floor Absolute Acceleration (g)
Top Floor Absolute Acceleration (g)

Time (sec) Time (sec) Time (sec)

Figure 6 Time variation of Top Floor Absolute Acceleration under selected ground excitations for F0=0.05,
0.1 and 0.2
 Hysteretic Energy (kNm)
Hysteretic Energy (kNm)

Time (sec) Time (sec) Time (sec)

Figure 7 Time variation of Hysteretic Energy dissipated under selected ground excitations for F0=0.05, 0.1
and 0.2
Bearing Displacement (m)
Bearing Displacement (m)

F0 F0 F0
Figure 8 Variation of peak bearing displacement against normalized yield strength F0 for different values of
 (b=4%).
Top Floor Absolute Acceleration
Reduction (%)
Top Floor Absolute Acceleration
Reduction (%)

F0 F0 F0
Figure 9 Variation of peak top floor acceleration reduction against normalized yield strength for different
values  (b=4%).
 Hysteretic Energy (kNm)
Hysteretic Energy (kNm)

F0 F0 F0

Figure 10 Variation of hysteretic energy against normalized yield strength for different values  (b=4%).
 Hysteretic Energy (kNm)
Hysteretic Energy (kNm)

F0 F0 F0
Figure 11 Variation of hysteretic energy against normalized yield strength for different values  (b=10%).
 Bearing Displacement (m)
Acceleration Reduction (%)
Top Floor Absolute
Hysteretic Energy (kNm)

F0 F0
Figure 12 Effect of yield displacement (q) on the structural responses of a five storey base isolated structure
(b=4%).
Table

Table1. Peak Ground acceleration of the selected ground motion.

Sr. Station PGA PGV

Earthquake Motions
No. Name (m/s2) (m/s)
Imperial Valley El Centro
1 3.6 0.96
Earthquake, 1979 Array #5
Corralitos -
Loma Prieta
2. Eureka 4.69 -0.47
Earthquake, 1989
Canyon
Sylmar -
Northridge Earthquake,
3. County 5.92 -0.77
1994
Hospital

Table2. Summary of Peak Particle Velocities

Wave
Charge Charge Peak Scaled Arrival
Propagation
Sr. Mass, Centre Particle Distance, Time, td
velocity,
No. Q Distance Velocity, v SD (sec)
c=(E/d
(tons) , R (m) (m/sec) (m/kg1/2)
(m/sec)
1 10 100 0.58 1.0 5280 0.0189

2 25 100 1.13 0.63 5280 0.0189

3 50 100 1.87 0.45 5280 0.0189

Table3. Structural Parameters of a five storey model, Tb= 2.5 sec and b=4%.

Damping
Floor Masses Stiffness Coefficients
Coefficients
(kg) (kN/m)
(kN-s/m)

mb=61200 kb=2129.8 cb=69.938

m1=53073 k1=101196 c1=348.140
m2=53073 k2=87279 c2=301.380
m3=53073 k3=85863 c3=296.18
m4=53073 k4=74862 c4=259.81
m5=53073 k5=57177 c5=197.45
 Table 4 Structural Responses of a fixed base building model.
Base Excitation Base Top Storey Top Storey Top Storey
Displacement Absolute Drift Displacement
(mm) Acceleration (mm) (mm)
(g)
Q=10tons 14.03 1.54 13.9 66.34
Q=25tons 27.42 3.0 27.26 129.67
Q=50tons 45.53 5.0 45.26 215.3
Imperial Valley 22.43 1.24 11.24 91.78
Loma Prieta 36.72 2.34 21.3 160.0
Northridge 38.92 2.94 23.94 177.65
 Table 5 Performance of 5- storey building mounted on the selected isolators having =0.05.

LRB1 LRB2

Yield
Strength Top Top
Excitation Top storey Top storey
Ratio Bearing Storey Bearing Storey
(F0) acceleration acceleration Drift
Displacement Drift Displacement
(% (% (%
(mm) (% (mm)
Reduction) Reduction) Reduction)
Reduction)

0.025 176 86.69 86.55 162 83.83 83.67

0.10 116 71.56 71.44 110 68.90 68.78
Blast=10 0.15 96 63.51 63.31 91 61.04 61.15
tons
0.2 80 57.21 56.98 76 55.65 55.40
0.3 59 48.57 48.20 57 47.79 47.48
0.025 374 87.87 87.82 344 86.40 86.43
0.10 290 81.27 81.29 269 78.10 78.14
Blast=25 0.15 252 76.00 75.94 237 73.00 73.04
tons
0.2 225 71.00 71.09 213 68.43 68.45
0.3 185 63.00 62.91 176 61.00 60.90
0.025 642 88.34 88.27 590 87.48 87.45
0.10 550 85.88 85.86 508 82.52 82.48
Blast=50 0.15 498 82.42 82.39 460 79.20 79.16
tons
0.2 452 79.20 79.05 421 76.00 75.98
0.3 390 73.00 72.89 368 70.20 70.17
0.025 550 453
73.71 66.90 74.52 72.15
0.10 230 213
Imperial 69.03 68.95 68.79 68.68
Valley 0.15 180 166
67.90 67.79 67.58 67.44
(1979) 0.2 140 67.18 60.85 131 66.85 63.35
0.3 97 92
66.13 56.67 65.89 58.99
0.025 100 94
Loma 90.38 90.44 90.00 89.96
Prieta 0.10 86 74.79 74.74 84 75.35 75.30
(1989)
0.15 80 79
68.68 68.83 69.53 69.49
 0.2 74 71
64.10 64.18 64.93 64.87
0.3 72 70
57.26 57.56 58.94 58.85
0.025 435 329
87.04 85.38 88.61 87.26
0.10 220 189
84.05 82.21 83.30 81.41
Northridge 0.15 164 77.35 74.81 150 76.90 74.23
(1994)
0.2 143 136
72.79 69.67 72.65 69.51
0.3 137 132
67.93 64.24 68.03 64.41

Table 6 Performance of 5- storey building mounted on the selected isolators having =0.3.

LRB1 LRB2

Yield
Strength Top Top
Excitation Top storey Top storey
Ratio Bearing Storey Bearing Storey
(F0) acceleration acceleration Drift
Displacement Drift Displacement
(% (% (%
(mm) (% (mm)
Reduction) Reduction) Reduction)
Reduction)

0.025 186 87.14 87.05 171 85.45 85.32

0.10 148 83.25 83.17 139 81.23 81.15
Blast=10 0.15 139 81.88 81.80 131 80.19 80.07
tons
0.2 133 81.10 81.01 126 79.61 79.50
0.3 127 80.19 80.00 121 78.90 78.78
0.025 384 88.00 88.00 353 86.97 86.98
0.10 328 85.67 85.66 303 83.17 83.20
Blast=25 0.15 304 84.20 84.19 283 81.90 81.91
tons
0.2 289 83.10 83.13 270 81.10 81.11
0.3 270 81.67 81.77 254 80.07 80.08
0.025 653 88.40 88.33 600 87.80 87.76
0.10 590 86.80 86.74 543 84.84 84.80
Blast=50 0.15 555 85.94 85.88 512 83.56 83.52
tons
0.2 527 85.08 85.02 488 82.66 82.59
0.3 490 83.54 83.47 456 81.44 81.37
 0.025 597 71.85 64.86 490 73.47 69.31
0.10 298 75.40 75.27 251 76.45 76.33
Imperial 0.15 220 75.32 75.18 210 76.21 76.16
Valley
(1979) 0.2 200 74.68 74.56 191 75.65 75.53
0.3 177 73.71 73.58 173 74.52 74.47
0.025 100 93.89 93.87 89 93.38 93.38
Loma
Prieta 0.10 126 91.97 90.86 123 91.41 91.41
(1989)
0.15 150 90.68 89.39 139 90.17 90.14
0.2 160 89.79 88.17 147 89.40 89.44
0.3 174 87.52 86.43 156 88.29 88.03
0.025 490 86.26 84.54 375 88.67 87.34
0.10 306 88.20 86.80 264 89.35 88.10
Northridge 0.15 251 88.88 87.55 235 89.12 87.84
(1994)
0.2 233 88.20 86.63 226 88.57 87.26
0.3 228 87.41 85.80 219 87.96 86.55