1
$\begingroup$

Using seismic base isolators dissipate a great deal of energy that would enter to a structure, but at the same time they increase the natural period of vibration of the structure. Now, if we had a light and flexible building, does using seismic base isolators create a negative effect from this point of view, since a flexible building's period is already high and base isolator makes it even more causing it to shake much longer?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Which is worse longer shaking or catastrophic damage? $\endgroup$
    – Solar Mike
    Mar 10 at 7:47
  • $\begingroup$ Your comment is misleading. Longer shaking can also be the source of catastrophic damage. $\endgroup$ Mar 10 at 8:41
  • $\begingroup$ Then fitting isolators that increase the period is not a solution - based on your analysis. Why do building regs in certain countries therefore require them? $\endgroup$
    – Solar Mike
    Mar 10 at 8:53
  • $\begingroup$ Seismic base isolators are a good solution for many buildings such as heavy concrete buildings. But for the light and flexible buildings as I stated in my question, there may be a problem, as I stated which is what I am asking to understand from someone knowledgeable. $\endgroup$ Mar 10 at 9:13
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Design and implementation of seismic isolators depends strongly on the expected frequency and magnitude of local disturbance. isolating from subway trains is radicallly different from isolating from earth tremors, for example. $\endgroup$ Mar 10 at 13:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.