Research on seismic performance and improvement of rural self-built houses

Research on seismic performance and improvement of rural self-built houses | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Research on seismic performance and improvement of rural self-built houses jian xiong Zhang, De Wen Liu, Rui Sun, Yong Ding, Yunlong Zhao, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4170429/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The traditional self-built houses with a bottom frame structure, still prevalent in rural areas, pose a significant risk of damage during earthquakes due to the structural weaknesses of the first and second floors. Despite this vulnerability, many residents continue to construct such houses due to their structural convenience. This study focuses on a rural self-built house with a frame bottom layer and three masonry upper layers. By subjecting the structure to seven seismic waves, we analyze the seismic responses of traditional seismic structures, bottom shear wall structures, foundation isolation structures, and storey separation structures. A comparative assessment of the seismic performance of these four structures under earthquake conditions is conducted. The study confirms the advantages and feasibility of implementing base shear wall and isolation technologies in rural self-built bottom frame structures. The findings reveal that bottom shear walls can mitigate seismic damage to some extent. Additionally, the implementation of isolation technology can effectively extend the structure's period and prevent site-specific vulnerabilities. When foundation isolation is applied, structural acceleration, interstory shear, interstory displacement, and base shear can be reduced from 18.261–32.098% of those observed in traditional seismic structures, indicating a significant improvement in seismic resilience. Moreover, the seismic performance of storey separation surpasses that of bottom shear walls, while foundation isolation outperforms both storey separation and bottom shear walls in terms of seismic performance. Rural self-built house Bottom frame structure Shock isolation Bottom shear wall Reinforce Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Introduction At present, most houses in rural areas are self-built. Farmers use local materials, hire craftsmen, or cooperate in China. However, houses constructed without formal design and construction guidance exhibit poor earthquake resistance [ 1 ][ 2 ] . Unlike urban housing, rural housing design and construction are primarily carried out by farmers [ 3 ] , which often fails to meet the standardization and institutionalization requirements for earthquake resistance. Moreover, due to limitations in construction technology, conditions, and expertise, the construction quality of rural self-built houses varies, leading to inadequate structural measures and posing earthquake safety risks [ 4 ] . During construction, many rural residents prioritize comfort and novelty, resulting in the construction of houses with irregular bottom frame structures [ 5 ][ 6 ] , as depicted in Fig. 1. The bottom frame structure combines a bottom frame structure with an upper masonry structure. The frame structure supports large openings at the bottom, while the masonry structure accommodates residents in the upper part [ 7 ][ 8 ] . In recent years, numerous rural professional households have built houses with flexible layouts. Some have constructed shops, restaurants, and other commercial establishments along town and village streets, with residential spaces on upper floors [ 9 ] , as illustrated in Fig. 2. This design allows for economic efficiency and functionality, enabling "one room with multiple functions," known as "front city back square" and "upper living and lower shop" [ 10 ] . However, the arbitrary expansion of space on the bottom floor for shops and workshops results in weak structural connections between upper and lower levels [ 11 ] , making the structure highly vulnerable to earthquake damage and collapse [ 12 ] . The upper masonry wall of the bottom frame structure is a brittle material [ 13 ] with low tensile and shear strength. This wall not only bears loads but also acts as a lateral force-resistant component, forming two distinct lateral force-resistant systems with the bottom frame structure [ 14 ] . The significant differences in material, mass, stiffness, and uneven distribution impede earthquake resistance and increase the likelihood of severe earthquake damage [ 15 ] . Despite these risks, this type of structure remains prevalent in rural self-built houses [ 16 ] . The concept of the bottom frame structure system was initially introduced by the Soviet scholar Mantel as the "flexible bottom" structure [ 17 ] . Originally, the purpose of this structure was not to create a masonry structure with a large opening at the bottom but to dissipate seismic energy through the flexible bottom structure, thereby enhancing the overall earthquake resistance of buildings. Over time, this architectural form has been implemented in practical projects. This structure not only combines two types of structures but also integrates two different materials, particularly at the juncture of these structures—the transition layer and the bottom layer pose challenges and weak points in terms of earthquake resistance [ 18 ][ 19 ] . Various examples of reinforcement exist today. G. Cerretini [ 20 ] has utilized FRP (Fiber Reinforced Polymer) and carbon fibre strips on exterior and interior walls. FRP helps prevent overturning and enhances wall resistance, while carbon fibre boosts the mechanical properties of masonry overall. The combination of these materials can address local failure issues and enhance the overall performance of the structure. A. Cecchi [ 21 ] has proposed a limit analysis method assuming thickened walls, which can be extrapolated to macroscopic failure of masonry structures under out-of-plane loads, offering a theoretical basis for masonry wall reinforcement. X. Fan [ 22 ] conducted an elastoplastic analysis using UHPC (Ultra-High-Performance Concrete) reinforcement on a concrete frame, comparing its performance before and after reinforcement. Experimental data indicated that UHPC significantly reduced inter-layer displacement angles and effectively controlled structural damage. In this study, seismic isolation technology and shear wall technology are employed to reinforce a house with a bottom frame structure. Three-dimensional finite element analysis software SAP2000 is utilized to create traditional seismic models, bottom shear wall seismic models, foundation isolation seismic models, and storey separation seismic models, followed by modal analysis and dynamic time history analysis. By analyzing and comparing the outcomes, the benefits of the bottom frame structure under various reinforcement methods are determined, validating the effectiveness of seismic isolation and shear wall technologies in strengthening bottom frame structures [ 23 ] . These technologies are applied to enhance and retrofit self-built houses, emphasizing the importance of seismic resilience in rural construction practices. Project Overview To account for the irregular characteristics of the flat facade, a rural self-built house was chosen as the project example in this study. The building falls under the Class B construction category, with the first floor constructed using a reinforced concrete frame structure and the second to fourth floors utilizing a masonry structure. The building dimensions are 14.8 m in length, and 13.8 m in width, with the first floor height at 3.6 m and the subsequent floors at 3 m each. The seismic fortification intensity is 8 degrees (0.2 g), with the site categorized as Category II and the seismic design group as Group II. The concrete protective layer is 20 mm thick, and the component sizes are 400×400 mm for Column 1, 350×350 mm for Column 2, 200×350 mm for Beam 1, and 200×300 mm for Beam 2. The cast-in-place reinforced concrete floor is 100 mm thick, with all concrete being of grade C30. The upper part of the masonry consists of sintered ordinary brick MU10 and mortar M5, with a wall thickness of 240 mm. In the upper brick buildings, structural columns are positioned at the intersection of the transverse and longitudinal walls by the Code for Seismic Design of Buildings. The structural column size is 200×200 mm, and the ring beam height is 180 mm. Finite element model establishment The finite element software SAP2000 was utilized to analyze the dynamic time history of the structure. During geometric modelling, three-dimensional frame elements were used for the beams and columns of the first layer, shell elements for the floor slabs, and homogeneous shell elements for the walls. Rigid floor slabs were assumed. The link unit in SAP2000 simulated the isolation bearing, with the corresponding gap unit used in parallel [ 24 ][ 25 ] . The selection principle for the isolation support type involved calculating the total horizontal yield force transmitted by all superstructure loads to the bottom of the column. The total horizontal yield force was estimated to be 2% of the base's opposite force under the standard gravity load. Additionally, the column bottom reaction F at the support placement position was determined through SAP2000 analysis, and the minimum support diameter was calculated based on this reaction [ 26 ] . The structure is classified as a Class B building, with a vertical compressive stress σ limit of 12 MPa. The support area at the bottom of the column is calculated as A = F/σ, and the minimum support diameter for each column can be computed using the formula D = \(\text{√}\text{A}\) π. [ 27 ] The total horizontal yield force of the bearing was found to be 259.45 kN, meeting the required horizontal yield-bearing capacity. The lead core rubber isolation bearing LRB400 was chosen for this project, with specific parameters detailed in Table 1 [ 28 ] and the layout of isolation supports shown in Fig. 3. Table 1 Product specifications of lead core isolation support LRB400 Effective diameter Total rubber thickness Pre-yield stiffness 100% horizontal shear deformation 250% horizontal shear deformation Vertical stiffness Yield force (mm) (mm) KN/m KN/m KN/m KN/mm KN 400 73 8790 1040 820 2200 27.0 Four model schemes with different structures were established using SAP2000. The first scheme involved no reinforcement measures, known as the traditional seismic model (Fig. 4 (a)). Scheme 2 introduced shear walls to the bottom five side columns along the east-west and south-north directions, termed the seismic model of the bottom shear wall (Fig. 4 (b)). In Scheme 3, isolation support was placed on the foundation top, referred to as the foundation isolation model (Fig. 4 (c)). Scheme 4 positioned the isolation support between the first and second floors at the location corresponding to the bottom column, with its centroid matching that of the column section, known as the interlayer seismic model (Fig. 4 (d)). Selection of seismic waves The seismic fortification intensity for the project is set at 8 degrees (0.2g). To ensure structural integrity [ 29 ] , the average shear force at the bottom of the building, as calculated using the time history curve, must exceed 80% of the value obtained through the mode decomposition response spectrum method. Seismic waves are carefully selected on PEER based on the structure's natural vibration period. Seven seismic waves, tailored for two types of sites, are chosen for analysis, meeting specific criteria related to base shear force, effective duration, and statistical significance. These seismic waves labelled EQ1 to EQ7, are detailed in Table 2 , while the comparison between their response spectra and the target spectrum is illustrated in Fig. 5. The process initiates with normalizing the original seismic wave and then gradually modulating the peak acceleration of the seismic wave for subsequent analyses [ 30 ] . The engineering site is categorized as Class II, with a seismic design group classification of Group II, resulting in a characteristic period value of 0.45 seconds. The selected seismic waves exhibit excellence periods closely aligned with the construction site's characteristics. Moreover, the average seismic impact coefficient curves demonstrate statistical consistency with the seismic impact coefficient curves specified in the relevant code. Table 2 Seismic wave information Seismic numbering Earthquake Name Year Station Name EQ1 Humbolt Bay 1937 Ferndale City Hall EQ2 Borrego 1942 El Centro Array #9 EQ3 Kern County 1952 Taft Lincoln School EQ4 San Fernando 1971 San Diego Gas & Electric EQ5 San Fernando 1971 Maricopa Array #2 EQ6 Synthetic Artificial Wave 1 -- -- EQ7 Synthetic Artificial Wave 2 -- -- Seismic response analysis 4.1 Modal analysis and comparison The modal analysis of the four scheme models is carried out, and the period of the four structural schemes is obtained. Table 3 shows the comparison results of the first three natural vibration periods. Table 3 Cycle comparison of four structural schemes Period /S Traditional seismic resistance Seismic resistance of the bottom shear wall Foundation isolation Interstory earthquake First period 0.450352 0.288995 1.832176 1.421702 Second period 0.433206 0.27636 1.801682 1.407446 Third period 0.370481 0.231018 1.482741 0.686051 As can be seen from Table 3 , the first two natural vibration periods of the four schemes are very close, indicating that the natural vibration characteristics of the engineering structure are mainly controlled by the horizontal translational effect of the first two orders, and the third order torsional vibration mode effect also contributes to a part. In traditional earthquake-resistant structures, the basic period of the structure is 0.450s, which is very close to the excellent period of the site, which is very unfavourable to the earthquake resistance [ 31 ] . It can be seen that the self-seismic period of the shear wall structure at the bottom is relatively reduced. After the isolation structure is adopted, the basic period of the structure is increased by more than 3 times, which is greatly extended, and the excellent period of the site is effectively avoided, thus avoiding the main components of the seismic wave of the site. In addition, as the basic period of the structure is prolonged, it can also be seen from the seismic response spectrum curve that after the excellent period is exceeded, the seismic response of the superstructure decreases greatly with the extension of the period, which is very beneficial to the structure. 4.2 Comparison of seismic response of input seismic waves under rare earthquakes According to the seismic code requirements, the seismic amplitude of the seismic wave is modulated to 0.4g for the four schemes of traditional seismic resistance, bottom shear wall seismic resistance, foundation isolation and interlayer seismic resistance. The time-history analysis of the structure under the action of rare earthquakes is carried out, and the seismic wave EQ1-EQ7 is input along the east-west and north-south directions respectively. The response of the structure acceleration, interstory shear force, interstory displacement and base shear force under the action of seismic waves is obtained, and a more effective reinforcement scheme is obtained by analyzing and comparing each scheme. 4.2.1 Acceleration response The east-west and north-south acceleration responses of the four schemes under the action of seismic waves EQ1-EQ7 are shown in Fig. 6(a-d), and the mean values are also obtained for comparative analysis, as shown in Table 4 and Fig. 6(e, f). It can be seen from Fig. 6 that the acceleration of the seismic structure with a shear wall at the bottom decreases somewhat, and both the foundation isolation and the story separation earthquakes have a significant effect on the reduction of the structural acceleration. For the bottom shear wall seismic scheme, the acceleration of the first floor is 90.586% of the traditional seismic structure, the second floor is 89.603% of the traditional seismic structure, the third floor is 88.619% of the traditional seismic structure, and the fourth floor is 87.888% of the traditional seismic structure. The north-south acceleration of the first layer is 88.844% of the traditional structure, the second layer is 87.741% of the traditional seismic structure, the third layer is 86.512% of the traditional seismic structure, and the fourth layer is 85.724% of the traditional seismic structure. For the foundation isolation scheme, the acceleration of the first layer in the east-west direction is 20.797% of the traditional seismic structure, the second layer is 20.612% of the traditional seismic structure, the third layer is 20.491% of the traditional seismic structure, and the fourth layer is 20.404% of the traditional seismic structure. The north-south acceleration of the first layer is 19.462% of the traditional seismic structure, the second layer is 19.259% of the traditional seismic structure, the third layer is 19.099% of the traditional seismic structure, and the fourth layer is 18.975% of the traditional seismic structure. The acceleration of the first layer in the east-west direction is 80.880% of the traditional seismic structure, the second layer is 27.635% of the traditional seismic structure, the third layer is 27.483% of the traditional seismic structure, and the fourth layer is 27.373% of the traditional seismic structure. The north-south acceleration of the first layer is 81.900% of the traditional seismic structure, the second layer is 27.906% of the traditional seismic structure, the third layer is 27.647% of the traditional seismic structure, and the fourth layer is 27.441% of the traditional seismic structure. For the bottom shear wall seismic scheme, the average acceleration of 1–4 stories is slightly lower than that of the traditional seismic scheme in both east-west and north-south directions. For the foundation isolation scheme, the east-west acceleration of the first floor is only 20.797% and the north-south acceleration is only 19.462% of the traditional seismic scheme. With the isolation layer as the turning point, the average value of the acceleration of the first layer below the isolation layer is only slightly lower than that of the traditional seismic scheme under the east-west and north-south input seismic waves respectively, which is about 4 times that of the foundation isolation scheme. In other words, the effect of the separation earthquake on reducing the seismic acceleration of the floors below the isolation layer is not good. In contrast, the layer separation seismic scheme is superior to the bottom shear wall scheme, and the foundation isolation seismic scheme is superior to the layer separation seismic scheme and the bottom shear wall scheme. Table 4 Average acceleration of each layer of the structure Structure type East-west accelerationism/s 2 North-south accelerationism/s 2 Floor 1 Floor 2 Floor 3 Floor 4 Floor 1 Floor 2 Floor 3 Floor 4 Aseismic foundation structure 347.255 348.877 350.196 351.256 346.782 349.085 351.217 352.976 Interlayer seismic structure 1350.470 467.743 469.679 471.223 1459.495 505.802 508.405 510.469 Traditional aseismic structure 1669.702 1692.533 1708.944 1721.479 1781.837 1812.508 1838.849 1860.208 Bottom shear wall seismic structure 1512.531 1516.562 1514.451 1512.988 1583.070 1590.317 1590.838 1594.638 4.2.2 Interlayer shear reaction The east-west and south-north inter-storey shear response of the four schemes under the action of seismic waves EQ1-EQ7 is shown in Fig. 7(a-d), and the mean value is also obtained for comparative analysis, as shown in Table 5 and Fig. 7(e-f). As can be seen from Fig. 7, compared with traditional seismic structures, the interstory shear forces of each floor of the three structures, namely foundation isolation, storey separation and bottom shear wall seismic, have been greatly reduced, which can effectively reduce the interstory shear forces of each floor of the structure. For the anti-seismic scheme of the bottom shear wall, the inter-storey shear of the first floor in the east-west direction is 48.430% of that of the traditional anti-seismic structure. The shear force of the first north-south layer is 46.875% of that of the traditional aseismatic structure, and the shear force of the other layers is slightly larger than that of the traditional aseismatic structure in both east-west and north-south directions. For the foundation isolation scheme, the interstory shear of the first layer is 21.294% of the traditional seismic structure, the second layer is 22.190% of the traditional seismic structure, the third layer is 20.030% of the traditional seismic structure, and the fourth layer is 20.555% of the traditional seismic structure. The shear force between the first and second floors is 18.232% of the traditional aseismic structure, the second floor is 18.261% of the traditional aseismic structure, the third floor is 21.352% of the traditional aseismic structure, and the fourth floor is 19.621% of the traditional aseismic structure. For the interstory seismic scheme, the interstory shear force of the first story is 28.542% of the traditional seismic structure, the second story is 29.244% of the traditional seismic structure, the third story is 27.935% of the traditional seismic structure, and the fourth story is 30.372% of the traditional seismic structure. The inter-storey shear of the first north-south layer is equivalent to 28.218% of the traditional seismic structure, the second layer is 28.578% of the traditional seismic structure, the third layer is 29.636% of the traditional seismic structure, and the fourth layer is 30.160% of the traditional seismic structure. In contrast, the layer separation seismic scheme is better than the bottom shear wall seismic scheme, and the foundation isolation seismic scheme is better than the layer separation seismic scheme and the bottom shear wall seismic scheme. The maximum ratio of interlayer shear between the foundation isolation scheme and the traditional anti-seismic scheme is 0.22759, so the horizontal damping coefficient of the structure above the isolation layer can be 0.32, and the superstructure is equivalent to at least 1.5 degrees lower. This project is 8 degrees seismic fortification, that is, after the foundation isolation reinforcement, the seismic fortification of the superstructure is reduced to less than 6 degrees. Table 5 Average shear force of each layer of the structure Structure type East-west layer shear /KN North-south layer shear /KN Floor 1 Floor 2 Floor 3 Floor 4 Floor 1 Floor 2 Floor 3 Floor 4 Aseismic foundation structure 3869.443 2239.489 1103.900 498.313 3101.185 1806.616 985.388 801.710 Interlayer seismic structure 5186.480 2951.379 1539.531 736.306 4799.655 2827.263 1367.698 1299.095 Traditional aseismic structure 18170.886 10091.973 5511.096 2424.248 17008.877 9892.890 4614.843 4307.290 Bottom shear wall seismic structure 8800.215 11645.373 6641.076 2998.996 7972.945 12268.390 5472.259 4024.655 4.2.3 Displacement and displacement Angle response Under the action of seismic waves EQ1-EQ7, the east-west and north-south displacement responses of each floor of the four schemes are shown in Fig. 8(a-d), and the mean displacement Angle is calculated for comparative analysis, as shown in Table 6 and Fig. 8(e-f). As can be seen from Fig. 8, the first floor of the project has a great deformation in the traditional seismic scheme. The displacement of the first floor in the east-west direction is as high as 81.113mm, and the displacement Angle of the first floor is as high as 1/40; the displacement of the first floor in the north-south direction is as high as 75.597mm, and the displacement Angle of the first floor is as high as 1/47, which has a great risk of collapse. When the bottom shear wall is used, the foundation is isolated, and the understory is separated, the interstory displacement is greatly reduced. For the anti-seismic scheme of the bottom shear wall, the maximum displacement in the east-west direction is 32.702 mm, and the maximum displacement Angle between floors is 1/128, which is equivalent to 40.316% of the traditional anti-seismic structure. The maximum displacement from south to north is 28.194mm and the maximum displacement Angle between floors is 1/500, which is equivalent to 37.295% of the traditional seismic structure. For the foundation isolation scheme, the maximum displacement in the east-west direction is 26.398mm, and the maximum displacement Angle between layers is 1/144, which is equivalent to 32.098% of the traditional seismic structure. The maximum displacement from south to north is 22.465 mm, and the maximum inter-story displacement Angle is 1/166, which is equivalent to 29.716% of the traditional seismic structure. For the interstory seismic scheme, the maximum displacement in the east-west direction is 30.778 mm, and the maximum interstory displacement Angle is 1/140, which is equivalent to 37.944% of the traditional seismic structure. The maximum north-south displacement is 27.725mm and the maximum inter-story displacement Angle is 1/153, which is equivalent to 36.674% of the traditional seismic structure. It can be seen that both the anti-seismic scheme of the bottom shear wall and the seismic isolation scheme can effectively reduce the inter-story displacement of each floor, and the deformation is mainly concentrated on the first floor. The seismic isolation layer plays a role in inhibiting the transmission of seismic action to the upper structure. In contrast, the layer separation seismic scheme is better than the bottom shear wall seismic scheme, and the foundation isolation seismic scheme is better than the layer separation seismic scheme and the bottom shear wall seismic scheme. Table 6 Average displacement angles of each layer of the structure Structure type East-west layer displacement Angle North-south displacement Angle Floor 1 Floor 2 Floor 3 Floor 4 Floor 1 Floor 2 Floor 3 Floor 4 Aseismic foundation structure 0.00698 0.00013 0.00011 0.00009 0.00607 0.00011 0.00010 0.00008 Interlayer seismic structure 0.00717 0.00015 0.00014 0.00011 0.00654 0.00015 0.00015 0.00012 Traditional aseismic structure 0.02460 0.00042 0.00031 0.00023 0.02100 0.00045 0.00034 0.00031 Bottom shear wall seismic structure 0.00781 0.00003 0.00006 0.00006 0.00704 0.00005 0.00001 0.00003 4.2.4 Base shear response The time history curve data of the base shear force are extracted. By comparing the value of the base shear force of the four schemes, the influence of the isolation bearing and the shear wall on the support under the action of an earthquake can be understood. The time history curve data of a natural wave Kern County and a synthetic artificial wave 1 are extracted to draw the time history curve, as shown in Fig. 9 and Fig. 10. The effect of isolation bearing can be seen directly. It can be seen that the base shear of the traditional seismic scheme under the action of Kern County wave can reach 19000 N at most. The anti-seismic scheme of the bottom shear wall can reach 11100 N at most, which is 58.421% of the traditional anti-seismic scheme. The maximum seismic isolation scheme can reach 5200N, which is equivalent to 27.368% of the traditional seismic scheme. A maximum of 6900 N can be achieved by the interlayer seismic scheme, which is equivalent to 36.315% of the traditional seismic scheme. Under the action of synthetic artificial wave 1, the base shear of the traditional seismic scheme can reach 20000 N at most, and the bottom shear wall seismic scheme can reach 21000 N at most, which is slightly larger than the traditional seismic scheme. The base isolation scheme can reach 4900N at most, which is equivalent to 24.50% of the traditional anti-seismic scheme. The separation seismic scheme can reach a maximum of 6900 N, which is equivalent to 34.50% of the traditional seismic scheme. In contrast, the layer separation seismic scheme is better than the bottom shear wall scheme, and the foundation isolation seismic scheme is better than the layer separation seismic scheme and the bottom shear wall seismic scheme. Based on the analysis of the seismic response of the project under rare earthquakes, the effects of the traditional seismic response, the bottom shear wall seismic response, the foundation seismic isolation and the floor seismic separation are compared. It can be concluded that the bottom shear wall seismic response, the foundation seismic isolation and the floor seismic separation can effectively reduce the transmission of seismic action to the upper structure. In contrast, the seismic scheme of layer separation is better than the seismic scheme of bottom shear wall, and the seismic scheme of foundation isolation is better than the seismic scheme of layer separation and bottom shear wall. The stress damage response of the four schemes under the action of seismic wave EQ1 is given, as shown in Fig. 11. Therefore, this project chooses the foundation isolation scheme for its isolation and reinforcement effect is better. Seismic response analysis of foundation isolation structures under rare earthquakes Given the multi-dimensional nature of the seismic activity, the deformation check calculation for the isolation bearing under rare earthquakes in the chosen foundation isolation scheme must account for double input seismic action. When seismic waves are applied to the foundation isolation scheme during rare earthquakes, the maximum acceleration reaches 400 cm/s². Furthermore, the code mandates that, in such scenarios, the maximum horizontal displacement of the isolation support should not exceed 0.55 times the effective diameter or 3 times the total thickness of the rubber layer, whichever is smaller. For the LRB400 isolation support, the horizontal displacement deformation limit is set at 219 mm. Table 7 Horizontal displacement of isolation supports under EQ1-EQ7 seismic waves /(mm) Support number EQ1 EQ2 EQ3 EQ4 EQ5 EQ6 EQ7 1 126.682 93.717 43.369 110.832 169.113 98.878 117.749 2 130.234 99.634 42.283 137.895 186.992 103.930 121.372 3 139.759 109.395 45.491 152.057 207.831 113.341 130.691 4 139.573 109.239 45.377 151.857 207.573 113.180 130.523 5 139.586 109.250 45.388 151.873 207.592 113.194 99.767 6 139.327 109.034 45.251 151.594 207.225 112.975 130.291 7 139.460 109.179 45.351 151.735 207.415 113.083 130.452 8 135.860 102.195 45.650 140.831 190.371 107.213 125.429 9 131.868 98.436 44.796 134.483 180.429 103.507 122.127 10 139.650 106.162 46.589 146.919 200.063 110.603 129.319 11 135.546 102.588 46.020 140.521 190.081 106.888 125.827 12 131.814 98.555 44.913 134.427 180.378 103.449 122.252 13 127.792 94.597 43.864 128.138 170.555 99.758 118.835 14 127.471 95.659 41.368 131.085 175.612 100.158 118.352 15 140.077 106.202 46.556 147.352 200.577 110.988 129.400 16 131.996 100.688 42.500 137.652 184.880 105.062 122.636 17 131.666 100.825 42.652 137.320 184.524 104.747 122.764 18 138.017 106.716 46.402 146.020 197.013 110.893 128.555 19 137.999 106.658 46.365 145.994 196.967 110.881 128.491 Table 7 details the horizontal displacement of the isolation support when subjected to ground shear waves EQ1-EQ7 during rare earthquakes. The analysis, along with the data in Table 7 , reveals that the deformation of the LRB400 isolation supports in this project under rare earthquake conditions remains below the specified limit of 219 mm (min(0.55D, 3Tr)), demonstrating compliance with the regulatory standards. Conclusions In the study of a rural self-built house, SAP2000 was utilized to analyze the bottom frame structure, with the bottom layer serving as the frame and the upper three layers as masonry, employing four different methods: traditional seismic resistance, seismic resistance with a bottom shear wall, seismic isolation of the foundation, and seismic separation between floors. (1) Through modal analysis and comparison of the natural vibration periods of the four schemes, it was observed that the seismic period was notably reduced with the inclusion of a bottom shear wall. Foundation isolation and floor separation methods effectively prolonged the structure's period, helping to avoid resonance with the site's natural frequencies. (2) By subjecting the structures to 5 natural waves and 2 artificial waves and comparing the response parameters such as acceleration, interstory shear force, displacement, and base shear, it was evident that the bottom layer of the frame structure was vulnerable to significant damage during earthquakes. The bottom shear wall mitigated seismic damage to some extent, while the seismic isolation layer effectively isolated seismic forces from transmitting to the upper structure levels, thereby reducing overall seismic damage. (3) Adopting foundation isolation led to reductions in acceleration, interstory shear, interstory displacement, and base shear responses to 18.261–32.098% of those observed in traditional seismic structures, indicating a significant positive impact. The results indicated that the floor separation seismic scheme outperformed the bottom shear wall scheme, and the foundation isolation seismic scheme surpassed both the floor separation and bottom shear wall schemes in terms of effectiveness. The application of seismic isolation technology in rural self-built houses represents a novel approach that expands the utilization of seismic isolation methods. This introduction of innovative seismic-resistant concepts for rural self-built houses in earthquake-prone areas signifies a valuable contribution with the potential to enhance structural resilience and safety in such settings. Declarations Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with regarding the research, authorship, and publication of this article. Author Contribution Z. wrote the manuscript and the model analysis; L. made structural model adjustment and data analysis; S. provided the original documents of Figure 1 and Figure 2; D. Z. processed the data and drew Figures 3-6; W. carried out the language polishing process; S. studied software. All the authors reviewed the manuscript. Acknowledgments The writers gratefully acknowledge the financial support of National Natural Science Fund of China (No.52168072&No.51808467), High-level Talent Support Project of Yunnan Province, China (2020). The corresponding author is Dewen Liu and the email is civil_liudewen@ sina. com. Data Availability Statement All data included in this study are available upon request by contact with the corresponding author. References Chen Jun. Analysis of seismic performance and influence law of storey stiffness ratio of bottom frame-seismic wall building [D]. Chongqing University, 2010. (in Chinese) Hu Zongchen. Research on seismic performance of Masonry structure with Bottom frame-seismic wall [D]. Anhui University of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 2014. (in Chinese) Yang Yang. Analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of bottom frame structure [J]. Science and Technology Wind, 2012(12): 192 + 194. (in Chinese) Liu Lanlan. Seismic response analysis of the bottom two-story frame-aseismic brick building structure [D]. Southwest Jiaotong University, 2009. (in Chinese) Wang Qiuping. Failure mode and seismic Design of Reinforced concrete frame column [J]. Jiangxi Building Materials, 2016(20): 48 + 56. (in Chinese) Deng Hongyu. Research on failure mechanism and torsional effect of bottom frame structure in high intensity area [D]. Harbin Engineering University, 2016. (in Chinese) Han Jun, Han Xia, Li Yingmin. Analysis of failure mode and Influencing factors of masonry building with bottom frame-aseismic wall under strong earthquake [J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2014,34 (S1): 416–423. (in Chinese) Zhan Xiaoping. Research on seismic performance of masonry building with local frame at bottom [D]. Chongqing University, 2011. (in Chinese) Zhu Zhenyu. Seismic performance analysis model of Masonry wall and its engineering application [D]. Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 2015. (in Chinese) Lu Ruofan, Zhang Lingxin, Ma Jialu. Comparative analysis of seismic vulnerability of multi-storey brick masonry buildings in different regions [J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2020,40 (05): 84–96. (in Chinese) Liu Tonghe, Wang Guang, Guo Pengfei. Seismic characteristics and ductility suggestions of bottom layer and transition layer of bottom frame masonry structure [J]. Comprehensive Utilization of fly Ash, 2017(05): 54–56. (in Chinese) Zhang Yan. Failure mechanism and collapse judgment of masonry structure under earthquake [D]. Taiyuan University of Technology, 2018. (in Chinese) Cerretin G, Giacomin G. Structural Reinforcement of a Masonry Building[J]. Key Engineering Materials, 2021, 817:673–679. Costa A, A Arêde, Costa A, et al. Out-of-plane behaviors of existing stone masonry buildings: experimental evaluation[J]. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2021, 10(1):93–111. Bahman Ganassi, Masoud Sultan, Abbas Ali Tanami. Seismic Evaluation of Masonry Structures Strengthened with Reinforced Concrete Layers[J]. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2012, 138(6): 729–743. Yardarm Y, Lalaj O. Shear strengthening of unreinforced masonry wall with different fiber reinforced mortar jacketing[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2016, 102(1): 149–154. Sadek H, Lissel S. Seismic performance of masonry walls with GFRP and Geogrid Bed joint reinforcement[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2013, 41(22):977–989. Dritsos, Stephanos E Seismic strengthening of columns by adding new concrete J Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 2007, 40(2): 49–68 WALE W. EI-DAKHAKH, MOHAMED ELGAALY, AHMAD A. HAMID. Three-Strut Model for Concrete Masonry-Infilled Steel Frames[J]. Journal of the structure Engineering,2003,129(2). Borri A, Corradi M, Castori G, et al. Stainless-steel strip – A proposed shear reinforcement for masonry wall panels[J]. Construction & Building Materials, 2019, 211:594–604. Cecchi A, Milani G, Tralli A. A Reissner–Mindlin limit analysis model for out-of-plane loaded running bond masonry walls[J]. Int J Solids Struct, 2007, 44(5): 1438–60. Xie Fan, Guo Junyuan, Gao Xiaolong. Research on seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Frame structures Reinforced by UHPC [J]. Engineering seismic Resistance and reinforcement, 21, 43(04): 58–64. (in Chinese) Costa AA. Properties of recycled concrete aggregate and their influence in new concrete production[J]. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 2018, 133:30–49. (in Chinese) Chen Jianhua, Wu Zhanxin, Jiang Xing. Discussion on seismic performance optimization of masonry structures reinforced by surface layer or slab wall method [J]. Low-temperature Building Technology, 2021,43 (08): 89–92. (in Chinese) Du Yanbo. Analysis on reinforcement method of brick-concrete structure Underpinning [J]. Jiangxi Building Materials, 2018(03): 73–74 + 82. (in Chinese) LI Wenfeng, Wang Shuguang, Miao Qisong, Liu Jinlong. Nonlinear Numerical simulation of Masonry structure reinforcement and layer isolation model [J]. Journal of Civil Engineering, 2014,47 (S2): 35–40. (in Chinese) Luo Zhenfa. Example explanation of old brick-concrete building identification and reinforcement engineering [J]. Fujian Building Materials, 2018(12): 15–17 + 108. (in Chinese) Li Xin, Liu Zhiqiang, Gu Huaichen. Reinforcement design Practice of Adding foundation isolation layer to pile cutting of masonry structure with ultra-limit bottom frame-seismic wall [J]. Sichuan Building Science Research, 21, 47(05): 52–60. (in Chinese) Dong Mingyang. Research on seismic performance of Masonry wall-Reinforced concrete wall Composite Structure [D]. Shandong Jianzhu University, 2019. (in Chinese) He Tiansen, Zhu Dan. Renovation and reinforcement design of existing industrial buildings [J]. Building Structure, 2021,51 (S1), 1648–1651 (in Chinese) Tong Xuan, Hu Li, Zhang Xingfu. Technology and application of structural reconstruction and reinforcement in urban renewal [J]. Seismic and Reinforcement Engineering, 201, 43(02): 125–129. (in Chinese) Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4170429","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":284532892,"identity":"960b6cbc-f33e-4b12-a000-d4303d3fc874","order_by":0,"name":"jian xiong Zhang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Southwest Forestry University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"jian","middleName":"xiong","lastName":"Zhang","suffix":""},{"id":284532894,"identity":"fac199db-317b-4c7d-8a43-178b5d9faf04","order_by":1,"name":"De Wen Liu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Southwest Forestry University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"De","middleName":"Wen","lastName":"Liu","suffix":""},{"id":284532895,"identity":"59faa48a-238d-4985-adaa-a22c4f7223f4","order_by":2,"name":"Rui Sun","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Southwest Forestry University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rui","middleName":"","lastName":"Sun","suffix":""},{"id":284532896,"identity":"397e45b0-eb5e-4632-ad51-dbc4a5235d68","order_by":3,"name":"Yong Ding","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Southwest Forestry University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yong","middleName":"","lastName":"Ding","suffix":""},{"id":284532897,"identity":"1e37b178-a494-4e11-970c-2580018b9d0a","order_by":4,"name":"Yunlong Zhao","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Southwest Forestry University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yunlong","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhao","suffix":""},{"id":284532900,"identity":"dfebf6b3-2cdd-4df6-a3b7-a63cd2f3a037","order_by":5,"name":"Jia Wang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Southwest Forestry University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jia","middleName":"","lastName":"Wang","suffix":""},{"id":284532901,"identity":"16aedf34-9e5e-4c31-b291-246121e9a132","order_by":6,"name":"Weiwei Sun","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Southwest Forestry University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Weiwei","middleName":"","lastName":"Sun","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-03-26 14:03:52","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4170429/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4170429/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":53874338,"identity":"9c4bf0af-6fcc-46eb-9cb4-7e58cd2715cf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-01 16:18:51","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":298310,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSelf-built house with bottom frame\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4170429/v1/405692d7431060a29dadf5e8.png"},{"id":53874336,"identity":"bf39955b-5f0b-476d-982a-96952672d98d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-01 16:18:51","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":118976,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eShop house with the bottom frame\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4170429/v1/7713b803b9df27dee2787d9f.jpg"},{"id":53874876,"identity":"4cb22790-dced-4601-a658-39007733b07e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-01 16:26:51","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":4445,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLayout of isolation support\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4170429/v1/21d731950a06c1a8fe21a60a.png"},{"id":53874342,"identity":"c0c4a0ee-61b0-49ab-960a-fa5d18ef31c5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-01 16:18:52","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":542286,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStructural model\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4170429/v1/6bbaafd8d3e71cf097a8e7b8.png"},{"id":53874339,"identity":"3a3c8f3d-d57d-44e2-81ca-db1a73854b8e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-01 16:18:51","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":32245,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eComparison between seismic wave response spectrum and standard general\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4170429/v1/17177193b4ce3981635c2e69.png"},{"id":53874340,"identity":"692044a5-14da-4242-b30f-7eb89bf2f359","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-01 16:18:51","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":165284,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcceleration comparison\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4170429/v1/3714b2e1f0a0d6ea0f95eac2.png"},{"id":53874343,"identity":"7f37f2d7-b370-4766-8e19-4bf4a9d8d256","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-01 16:18:52","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":232913,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eComparison of shear forces between layers\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4170429/v1/2763e600830d5fe94800c226.png"},{"id":53874341,"identity":"c9e8e495-9c7e-414f-b2d6-36358a6b4f8f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-01 16:18:51","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":165920,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDisplacement and displacement Angle between layers\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4170429/v1/f9dbbcde7958d338118d4e60.png"},{"id":53874344,"identity":"db26839b-deb4-4c0c-8405-11b4df72cb83","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-01 16:18:52","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":178831,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eComparison of base shear forces under Kern County\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"9.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4170429/v1/764c743527b5a037c19ba8d6.png"},{"id":53874345,"identity":"306bafc4-550c-4755-b207-85bc6526bacd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-01 16:18:52","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"Figure 10","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":207435,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eComparison of base shear forces under synthetic artificial wave 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"10.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4170429/v1/decb1032710da1cdc29dcc67.png"},{"id":53874346,"identity":"815537ed-6e3c-493f-9e54-e544a11b7cfc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-01 16:18:52","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"Figure 11","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":489502,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStress damage diagram\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"11.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4170429/v1/f885b543ecb6214ce1c92ba5.png"},{"id":53876952,"identity":"183f7bee-5c6d-49c2-885f-908b2188f8fb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-01 16:42:58","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":3701007,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4170429/v1/7155fd60-c837-40bd-a4f7-3af00d76d075.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Research on seismic performance and improvement of rural self-built houses","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eAt present, most houses in rural areas are self-built. Farmers use local materials, hire craftsmen, or cooperate in China. However, houses constructed without formal design and construction guidance exhibit poor earthquake resistance \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e][\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Unlike urban housing, rural housing design and construction are primarily carried out by farmers \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e, which often fails to meet the standardization and institutionalization requirements for earthquake resistance. Moreover, due to limitations in construction technology, conditions, and expertise, the construction quality of rural self-built houses varies, leading to inadequate structural measures and posing earthquake safety risks \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. During construction, many rural residents prioritize comfort and novelty, resulting in the construction of houses with irregular bottom frame structures \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e][\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e, as depicted in Fig.\u0026nbsp;1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe bottom frame structure combines a bottom frame structure with an upper masonry structure. The frame structure supports large openings at the bottom, while the masonry structure accommodates residents in the upper part \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e][\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. In recent years, numerous rural professional households have built houses with flexible layouts. Some have constructed shops, restaurants, and other commercial establishments along town and village streets, with residential spaces on upper floors \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e, as illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;2. This design allows for economic efficiency and functionality, enabling \"one room with multiple functions,\" known as \"front city back square\" and \"upper living and lower shop\" \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. However, the arbitrary expansion of space on the bottom floor for shops and workshops results in weak structural connections between upper and lower levels \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e, making the structure highly vulnerable to earthquake damage and collapse \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The upper masonry wall of the bottom frame structure is a brittle material \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e with low tensile and shear strength. This wall not only bears loads but also acts as a lateral force-resistant component, forming two distinct lateral force-resistant systems with the bottom frame structure \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The significant differences in material, mass, stiffness, and uneven distribution impede earthquake resistance and increase the likelihood of severe earthquake damage \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Despite these risks, this type of structure remains prevalent in rural self-built houses \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe concept of the bottom frame structure system was initially introduced by the Soviet scholar Mantel as the \"flexible bottom\" structure \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Originally, the purpose of this structure was not to create a masonry structure with a large opening at the bottom but to dissipate seismic energy through the flexible bottom structure, thereby enhancing the overall earthquake resistance of buildings. Over time, this architectural form has been implemented in practical projects. This structure not only combines two types of structures but also integrates two different materials, particularly at the juncture of these structures\u0026mdash;the transition layer and the bottom layer pose challenges and weak points in terms of earthquake resistance \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e][\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVarious examples of reinforcement exist today. G. Cerretini \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e has utilized FRP (Fiber Reinforced Polymer) and carbon fibre strips on exterior and interior walls. FRP helps prevent overturning and enhances wall resistance, while carbon fibre boosts the mechanical properties of masonry overall. The combination of these materials can address local failure issues and enhance the overall performance of the structure. A. Cecchi \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e has proposed a limit analysis method assuming thickened walls, which can be extrapolated to macroscopic failure of masonry structures under out-of-plane loads, offering a theoretical basis for masonry wall reinforcement. X. Fan \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e conducted an elastoplastic analysis using UHPC (Ultra-High-Performance Concrete) reinforcement on a concrete frame, comparing its performance before and after reinforcement. Experimental data indicated that UHPC significantly reduced inter-layer displacement angles and effectively controlled structural damage.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this study, seismic isolation technology and shear wall technology are employed to reinforce a house with a bottom frame structure. Three-dimensional finite element analysis software SAP2000 is utilized to create traditional seismic models, bottom shear wall seismic models, foundation isolation seismic models, and storey separation seismic models, followed by modal analysis and dynamic time history analysis. By analyzing and comparing the outcomes, the benefits of the bottom frame structure under various reinforcement methods are determined, validating the effectiveness of seismic isolation and shear wall technologies in strengthening bottom frame structures \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. These technologies are applied to enhance and retrofit self-built houses, emphasizing the importance of seismic resilience in rural construction practices.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Project Overview","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo account for the irregular characteristics of the flat facade, a rural self-built house was chosen as the project example in this study. The building falls under the Class B construction category, with the first floor constructed using a reinforced concrete frame structure and the second to fourth floors utilizing a masonry structure. The building dimensions are 14.8 m in length, and 13.8 m in width, with the first floor height at 3.6 m and the subsequent floors at 3 m each. The seismic fortification intensity is 8 degrees (0.2 g), with the site categorized as Category II and the seismic design group as Group II.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe concrete protective layer is 20 mm thick, and the component sizes are 400\u0026times;400 mm for Column 1, 350\u0026times;350 mm for Column 2, 200\u0026times;350 mm for Beam 1, and 200\u0026times;300 mm for Beam 2. The cast-in-place reinforced concrete floor is 100 mm thick, with all concrete being of grade C30. The upper part of the masonry consists of sintered ordinary brick MU10 and mortar M5, with a wall thickness of 240 mm. In the upper brick buildings, structural columns are positioned at the intersection of the transverse and longitudinal walls by the Code for Seismic Design of Buildings. The structural column size is 200\u0026times;200 mm, and the ring beam height is 180 mm.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Finite element model establishment","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe finite element software SAP2000 was utilized to analyze the dynamic time history of the structure. During geometric modelling, three-dimensional frame elements were used for the beams and columns of the first layer, shell elements for the floor slabs, and homogeneous shell elements for the walls. Rigid floor slabs were assumed. The link unit in SAP2000 simulated the isolation bearing, with the corresponding gap unit used in parallel\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e][\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The selection principle for the isolation support type involved calculating the total horizontal yield force transmitted by all superstructure loads to the bottom of the column. The total horizontal yield force was estimated to be 2% of the base's opposite force under the standard gravity load. Additionally, the column bottom reaction F at the support placement position was determined through SAP2000 analysis, and the minimum support diameter was calculated based on this reaction\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The structure is classified as a Class B building, with a vertical compressive stress \u0026sigma; limit of 12 MPa. The support area at the bottom of the column is calculated as A\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;F/\u0026sigma;, and the minimum support diameter for each column can be computed using the formula D\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\text{\u0026radic;}\\text{A}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u0026pi;. \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e The total horizontal yield force of the bearing was found to be 259.45 kN, meeting the required horizontal yield-bearing capacity. The lead core rubber isolation bearing LRB400 was chosen for this project, with specific parameters detailed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e and the layout of isolation supports shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProduct specifications of lead core isolation support LRB400\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/caption\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEffective diameter\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTotal rubber thickness\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePre-yield stiffness\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e100% horizontal shear deformation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e250% horizontal shear deformation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVertical stiffness\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eYield force\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(mm)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(mm)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKN/m\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKN/m\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKN/m\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKN/mm\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKN\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e400\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e73\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8790\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1040\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e820\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2200\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e27.0\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFour model schemes with different structures were established using SAP2000. The first scheme involved no reinforcement measures, known as the traditional seismic model (Fig.\u0026nbsp;4 (a)). Scheme 2 introduced shear walls to the bottom five side columns along the east-west and south-north directions, termed the seismic model of the bottom shear wall (Fig.\u0026nbsp;4 (b)). In Scheme 3, isolation support was placed on the foundation top, referred to as the foundation isolation model (Fig.\u0026nbsp;4 (c)). Scheme 4 positioned the isolation support between the first and second floors at the location corresponding to the bottom column, with its centroid matching that of the column section, known as the interlayer seismic model (Fig.\u0026nbsp;4 (d)).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Selection of seismic waves","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe seismic fortification intensity for the project is set at 8 degrees (0.2g). To ensure structural integrity \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e, the average shear force at the bottom of the building, as calculated using the time history curve, must exceed 80% of the value obtained through the mode decomposition response spectrum method. Seismic waves are carefully selected on PEER based on the structure's natural vibration period. Seven seismic waves, tailored for two types of sites, are chosen for analysis, meeting specific criteria related to base shear force, effective duration, and statistical significance. These seismic waves labelled EQ1 to EQ7, are detailed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, while the comparison between their response spectra and the target spectrum is illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;5. The process initiates with normalizing the original seismic wave and then gradually modulating the peak acceleration of the seismic wave for subsequent analyses\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe engineering site is categorized as Class II, with a seismic design group classification of Group II, resulting in a characteristic period value of 0.45 seconds. The selected seismic waves exhibit excellence periods closely aligned with the construction site's characteristics. Moreover, the average seismic impact coefficient curves demonstrate statistical consistency with the seismic impact coefficient curves specified in the relevant code.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeismic wave information\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/caption\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeismic numbering\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEarthquake Name\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eYear\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStation Name\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEQ1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHumbolt Bay\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1937\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFerndale City Hall\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEQ2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBorrego\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1942\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEl Centro Array #9\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEQ3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKern County\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1952\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTaft Lincoln School\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEQ4\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSan Fernando\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1971\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSan Diego Gas \u0026amp; Electric\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEQ5\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSan Fernando\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1971\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMaricopa Array #2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEQ6\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSynthetic Artificial Wave 1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEQ7\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSynthetic Artificial Wave 2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n"},{"header":"Seismic response analysis","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.1 Modal analysis and comparison\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe modal analysis of the four scheme models is carried out, and the period of the four structural schemes is obtained. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e shows the comparison results of the first three natural vibration periods.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCycle comparison of four structural schemes\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/caption\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePeriod /S\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTraditional seismic resistance\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeismic resistance of the bottom shear wall\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFoundation isolation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterstory earthquake\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst period\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.450352\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.288995\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.832176\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.421702\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond period\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.433206\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.27636\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.801682\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.407446\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThird period\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.370481\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.231018\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.482741\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.686051\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs can be seen from Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, the first two natural vibration periods of the four schemes are very close, indicating that the natural vibration characteristics of the engineering structure are mainly controlled by the horizontal translational effect of the first two orders, and the third order torsional vibration mode effect also contributes to a part. In traditional earthquake-resistant structures, the basic period of the structure is 0.450s, which is very close to the excellent period of the site, which is very unfavourable to the earthquake resistance \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. It can be seen that the self-seismic period of the shear wall structure at the bottom is relatively reduced. After the isolation structure is adopted, the basic period of the structure is increased by more than 3 times, which is greatly extended, and the excellent period of the site is effectively avoided, thus avoiding the main components of the seismic wave of the site. In addition, as the basic period of the structure is prolonged, it can also be seen from the seismic response spectrum curve that after the excellent period is exceeded, the seismic response of the superstructure decreases greatly with the extension of the period, which is very beneficial to the structure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.2 Comparison of seismic response of input seismic waves under rare earthquakes\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to the seismic code requirements, the seismic amplitude of the seismic wave is modulated to 0.4g for the four schemes of traditional seismic resistance, bottom shear wall seismic resistance, foundation isolation and interlayer seismic resistance. The time-history analysis of the structure under the action of rare earthquakes is carried out, and the seismic wave EQ1-EQ7 is input along the east-west and north-south directions respectively. The response of the structure acceleration, interstory shear force, interstory displacement and base shear force under the action of seismic waves is obtained, and a more effective reinforcement scheme is obtained by analyzing and comparing each scheme.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.2.1 Acceleration response\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe east-west and north-south acceleration responses of the four schemes under the action of seismic waves EQ1-EQ7 are shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;6(a-d), and the mean values are also obtained for comparative analysis, as shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e and Fig.\u0026nbsp;6(e, f). It can be seen from Fig.\u0026nbsp;6 that the acceleration of the seismic structure with a shear wall at the bottom decreases somewhat, and both the foundation isolation and the story separation earthquakes have a significant effect on the reduction of the structural acceleration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the bottom shear wall seismic scheme, the acceleration of the first floor is 90.586% of the traditional seismic structure, the second floor is 89.603% of the traditional seismic structure, the third floor is 88.619% of the traditional seismic structure, and the fourth floor is 87.888% of the traditional seismic structure. The north-south acceleration of the first layer is 88.844% of the traditional structure, the second layer is 87.741% of the traditional seismic structure, the third layer is 86.512% of the traditional seismic structure, and the fourth layer is 85.724% of the traditional seismic structure. For the foundation isolation scheme, the acceleration of the first layer in the east-west direction is 20.797% of the traditional seismic structure, the second layer is 20.612% of the traditional seismic structure, the third layer is 20.491% of the traditional seismic structure, and the fourth layer is 20.404% of the traditional seismic structure. The north-south acceleration of the first layer is 19.462% of the traditional seismic structure, the second layer is 19.259% of the traditional seismic structure, the third layer is 19.099% of the traditional seismic structure, and the fourth layer is 18.975% of the traditional seismic structure. The acceleration of the first layer in the east-west direction is 80.880% of the traditional seismic structure, the second layer is 27.635% of the traditional seismic structure, the third layer is 27.483% of the traditional seismic structure, and the fourth layer is 27.373% of the traditional seismic structure. The north-south acceleration of the first layer is 81.900% of the traditional seismic structure, the second layer is 27.906% of the traditional seismic structure, the third layer is 27.647% of the traditional seismic structure, and the fourth layer is 27.441% of the traditional seismic structure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the bottom shear wall seismic scheme, the average acceleration of 1\u0026ndash;4 stories is slightly lower than that of the traditional seismic scheme in both east-west and north-south directions. For the foundation isolation scheme, the east-west acceleration of the first floor is only 20.797% and the north-south acceleration is only 19.462% of the traditional seismic scheme. With the isolation layer as the turning point, the average value of the acceleration of the first layer below the isolation layer is only slightly lower than that of the traditional seismic scheme under the east-west and north-south input seismic waves respectively, which is about 4 times that of the foundation isolation scheme. In other words, the effect of the separation earthquake on reducing the seismic acceleration of the floors below the isolation layer is not good. In contrast, the layer separation seismic scheme is superior to the bottom shear wall scheme, and the foundation isolation seismic scheme is superior to the layer separation seismic scheme and the bottom shear wall scheme.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAverage acceleration of each layer of the structure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/caption\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStructure type\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth colspan=\"4\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEast-west accelerationism/s\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth colspan=\"4\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNorth-south accelerationism/s\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFloor 1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFloor 2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFloor 3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFloor 4\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFloor 1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFloor 2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFloor 3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFloor 4\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAseismic foundation structure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e347.255\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e348.877\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e350.196\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e351.256\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e346.782\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e349.085\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e351.217\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e352.976\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterlayer seismic structure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1350.470\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e467.743\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e469.679\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e471.223\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1459.495\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e505.802\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e508.405\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e510.469\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTraditional aseismic structure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1669.702\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1692.533\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1708.944\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1721.479\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1781.837\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1812.508\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1838.849\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1860.208\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBottom shear wall seismic structure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1512.531\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1516.562\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1514.451\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1512.988\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1583.070\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1590.317\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1590.838\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1594.638\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.2.2 Interlayer shear reaction\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe east-west and south-north inter-storey shear response of the four schemes under the action of seismic waves EQ1-EQ7 is shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;7(a-d), and the mean value is also obtained for comparative analysis, as shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e and Fig.\u0026nbsp;7(e-f). As can be seen from Fig.\u0026nbsp;7, compared with traditional seismic structures, the interstory shear forces of each floor of the three structures, namely foundation isolation, storey separation and bottom shear wall seismic, have been greatly reduced, which can effectively reduce the interstory shear forces of each floor of the structure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the anti-seismic scheme of the bottom shear wall, the inter-storey shear of the first floor in the east-west direction is 48.430% of that of the traditional anti-seismic structure. The shear force of the first north-south layer is 46.875% of that of the traditional aseismatic structure, and the shear force of the other layers is slightly larger than that of the traditional aseismatic structure in both east-west and north-south directions. For the foundation isolation scheme, the interstory shear of the first layer is 21.294% of the traditional seismic structure, the second layer is 22.190% of the traditional seismic structure, the third layer is 20.030% of the traditional seismic structure, and the fourth layer is 20.555% of the traditional seismic structure. The shear force between the first and second floors is 18.232% of the traditional aseismic structure, the second floor is 18.261% of the traditional aseismic structure, the third floor is 21.352% of the traditional aseismic structure, and the fourth floor is 19.621% of the traditional aseismic structure. For the interstory seismic scheme, the interstory shear force of the first story is 28.542% of the traditional seismic structure, the second story is 29.244% of the traditional seismic structure, the third story is 27.935% of the traditional seismic structure, and the fourth story is 30.372% of the traditional seismic structure. The inter-storey shear of the first north-south layer is equivalent to 28.218% of the traditional seismic structure, the second layer is 28.578% of the traditional seismic structure, the third layer is 29.636% of the traditional seismic structure, and the fourth layer is 30.160% of the traditional seismic structure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, the layer separation seismic scheme is better than the bottom shear wall seismic scheme, and the foundation isolation seismic scheme is better than the layer separation seismic scheme and the bottom shear wall seismic scheme. The maximum ratio of interlayer shear between the foundation isolation scheme and the traditional anti-seismic scheme is 0.22759, so the horizontal damping coefficient of the structure above the isolation layer can be 0.32, and the superstructure is equivalent to at least 1.5 degrees lower. This project is 8 degrees seismic fortification, that is, after the foundation isolation reinforcement, the seismic fortification of the superstructure is reduced to less than 6 degrees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAverage shear force of each layer of the structure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/caption\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStructure type\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth colspan=\"4\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEast-west layer shear /KN\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth colspan=\"4\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNorth-south layer shear /KN\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFloor 1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFloor 2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFloor 3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFloor 4\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFloor 1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFloor 2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFloor 3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFloor 4\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAseismic foundation structure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3869.443\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2239.489\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1103.900\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e498.313\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3101.185\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1806.616\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e985.388\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e801.710\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterlayer seismic structure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5186.480\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2951.379\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1539.531\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e736.306\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4799.655\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2827.263\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1367.698\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1299.095\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTraditional aseismic structure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e18170.886\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e10091.973\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5511.096\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2424.248\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e17008.877\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e9892.890\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4614.843\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4307.290\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBottom shear wall seismic structure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8800.215\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e11645.373\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e6641.076\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2998.996\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e7972.945\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e12268.390\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5472.259\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4024.655\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.2.3 Displacement and displacement Angle response\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnder the action of seismic waves EQ1-EQ7, the east-west and north-south displacement responses of each floor of the four schemes are shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;8(a-d), and the mean displacement Angle is calculated for comparative analysis, as shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e and Fig.\u0026nbsp;8(e-f). As can be seen from Fig.\u0026nbsp;8, the first floor of the project has a great deformation in the traditional seismic scheme. The displacement of the first floor in the east-west direction is as high as 81.113mm, and the displacement Angle of the first floor is as high as 1/40; the displacement of the first floor in the north-south direction is as high as 75.597mm, and the displacement Angle of the first floor is as high as 1/47, which has a great risk of collapse. When the bottom shear wall is used, the foundation is isolated, and the understory is separated, the interstory displacement is greatly reduced.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the anti-seismic scheme of the bottom shear wall, the maximum displacement in the east-west direction is 32.702 mm, and the maximum displacement Angle between floors is 1/128, which is equivalent to 40.316% of the traditional anti-seismic structure. The maximum displacement from south to north is 28.194mm and the maximum displacement Angle between floors is 1/500, which is equivalent to 37.295% of the traditional seismic structure. For the foundation isolation scheme, the maximum displacement in the east-west direction is 26.398mm, and the maximum displacement Angle between layers is 1/144, which is equivalent to 32.098% of the traditional seismic structure. The maximum displacement from south to north is 22.465 mm, and the maximum inter-story displacement Angle is 1/166, which is equivalent to 29.716% of the traditional seismic structure. For the interstory seismic scheme, the maximum displacement in the east-west direction is 30.778 mm, and the maximum interstory displacement Angle is 1/140, which is equivalent to 37.944% of the traditional seismic structure. The maximum north-south displacement is 27.725mm and the maximum inter-story displacement Angle is 1/153, which is equivalent to 36.674% of the traditional seismic structure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt can be seen that both the anti-seismic scheme of the bottom shear wall and the seismic isolation scheme can effectively reduce the inter-story displacement of each floor, and the deformation is mainly concentrated on the first floor. The seismic isolation layer plays a role in inhibiting the transmission of seismic action to the upper structure. In contrast, the layer separation seismic scheme is better than the bottom shear wall seismic scheme, and the foundation isolation seismic scheme is better than the layer separation seismic scheme and the bottom shear wall seismic scheme.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAverage displacement angles of each layer of the structure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/caption\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStructure type\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth colspan=\"4\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEast-west layer displacement Angle\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth colspan=\"4\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNorth-south displacement Angle\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFloor 1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFloor 2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFloor 3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFloor 4\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFloor 1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFloor 2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFloor 3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFloor 4\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAseismic foundation structure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00698\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00013\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00011\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00009\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00607\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00011\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00010\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00008\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterlayer seismic structure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00717\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00015\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00014\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00011\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00654\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00015\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00015\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00012\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTraditional aseismic structure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.02460\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00042\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00031\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00023\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.02100\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00045\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00034\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00031\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBottom shear wall seismic structure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00781\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00003\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00006\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00006\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00704\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00005\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00001\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.00003\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.2.4 Base shear response\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe time history curve data of the base shear force are extracted. By comparing the value of the base shear force of the four schemes, the influence of the isolation bearing and the shear wall on the support under the action of an earthquake can be understood. The time history curve data of a natural wave Kern County and a synthetic artificial wave 1 are extracted to draw the time history curve, as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;9 and Fig.\u0026nbsp;10. The effect of isolation bearing can be seen directly.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt can be seen that the base shear of the traditional seismic scheme under the action of Kern County wave can reach 19000 N at most. The anti-seismic scheme of the bottom shear wall can reach 11100 N at most, which is 58.421% of the traditional anti-seismic scheme. The maximum seismic isolation scheme can reach 5200N, which is equivalent to 27.368% of the traditional seismic scheme. A maximum of 6900 N can be achieved by the interlayer seismic scheme, which is equivalent to 36.315% of the traditional seismic scheme. Under the action of synthetic artificial wave 1, the base shear of the traditional seismic scheme can reach 20000 N at most, and the bottom shear wall seismic scheme can reach 21000 N at most, which is slightly larger than the traditional seismic scheme. The base isolation scheme can reach 4900N at most, which is equivalent to 24.50% of the traditional anti-seismic scheme. The separation seismic scheme can reach a maximum of 6900 N, which is equivalent to 34.50% of the traditional seismic scheme. In contrast, the layer separation seismic scheme is better than the bottom shear wall scheme, and the foundation isolation seismic scheme is better than the layer separation seismic scheme and the bottom shear wall seismic scheme.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the analysis of the seismic response of the project under rare earthquakes, the effects of the traditional seismic response, the bottom shear wall seismic response, the foundation seismic isolation and the floor seismic separation are compared. It can be concluded that the bottom shear wall seismic response, the foundation seismic isolation and the floor seismic separation can effectively reduce the transmission of seismic action to the upper structure. In contrast, the seismic scheme of layer separation is better than the seismic scheme of bottom shear wall, and the seismic scheme of foundation isolation is better than the seismic scheme of layer separation and bottom shear wall. The stress damage response of the four schemes under the action of seismic wave EQ1 is given, as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;11. Therefore, this project chooses the foundation isolation scheme for its isolation and reinforcement effect is better.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Seismic response analysis of foundation isolation structures under rare earthquakes","content":"\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003eGiven the multi-dimensional nature of the seismic activity, the deformation check calculation for the isolation bearing under rare earthquakes in the chosen foundation isolation scheme must account for double input seismic action. When seismic waves are applied to the foundation isolation scheme during rare earthquakes, the maximum acceleration reaches 400 cm/s\u0026sup2;. Furthermore, the code mandates that, in such scenarios, the maximum horizontal displacement of the isolation support should not exceed 0.55 times the effective diameter or 3 times the total thickness of the rubber layer, whichever is smaller. For the LRB400 isolation support, the horizontal displacement deformation limit is set at 219 mm.\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\n\u003ctable id=\"Tab7\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 7\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHorizontal displacement of isolation supports under EQ1-EQ7 seismic waves /(mm)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/caption\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupport number\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEQ1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEQ2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEQ3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEQ4\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEQ5\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEQ6\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEQ7\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e126.682\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e93.717\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e43.369\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e110.832\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e169.113\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e98.878\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e117.749\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e130.234\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e99.634\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e42.283\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e137.895\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e186.992\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e103.930\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e121.372\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e139.759\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e109.395\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e45.491\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e152.057\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e207.831\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e113.341\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e130.691\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e139.573\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e109.239\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e45.377\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e151.857\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e207.573\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e113.180\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e130.523\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e139.586\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e109.250\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e45.388\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e151.873\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e207.592\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e113.194\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e99.767\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e139.327\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e109.034\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e45.251\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e151.594\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e207.225\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e112.975\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e130.291\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e139.460\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e109.179\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e45.351\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e151.735\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e207.415\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e113.083\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e130.452\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e135.860\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e102.195\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e45.650\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e140.831\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e190.371\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e107.213\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e125.429\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e131.868\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e98.436\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e44.796\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e134.483\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e180.429\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e103.507\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e122.127\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e139.650\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e106.162\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e46.589\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e146.919\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e200.063\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e110.603\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e129.319\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e135.546\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e102.588\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e46.020\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e140.521\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e190.081\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e106.888\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e125.827\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e131.814\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e98.555\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e44.913\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e134.427\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e180.378\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e103.449\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e122.252\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e127.792\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e94.597\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e43.864\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e128.138\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e170.555\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e99.758\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e118.835\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e127.471\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e95.659\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e41.368\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e131.085\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e175.612\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e100.158\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e118.352\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e140.077\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e106.202\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e46.556\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e147.352\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e200.577\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e110.988\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e129.400\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e131.996\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e100.688\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e42.500\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e137.652\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e184.880\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e105.062\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e122.636\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e131.666\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e100.825\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e42.652\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e137.320\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e184.524\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e104.747\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e122.764\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e138.017\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e106.716\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e46.402\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e146.020\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e197.013\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e110.893\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e128.555\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e137.999\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e106.658\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e46.365\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e145.994\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e196.967\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e110.881\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e128.491\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e details the horizontal displacement of the isolation support when subjected to ground shear waves EQ1-EQ7 during rare earthquakes. The analysis, along with the data in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, reveals that the deformation of the LRB400 isolation supports in this project under rare earthquake conditions remains below the specified limit of 219 mm (min(0.55D, 3Tr)), demonstrating compliance with the regulatory standards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the study of a rural self-built house, SAP2000 was utilized to analyze the bottom frame structure, with the bottom layer serving as the frame and the upper three layers as masonry, employing four different methods: traditional seismic resistance, seismic resistance with a bottom shear wall, seismic isolation of the foundation, and seismic separation between floors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(1) Through modal analysis and comparison of the natural vibration periods of the four schemes, it was observed that the seismic period was notably reduced with the inclusion of a bottom shear wall. Foundation isolation and floor separation methods effectively prolonged the structure's period, helping to avoid resonance with the site's natural frequencies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(2) By subjecting the structures to 5 natural waves and 2 artificial waves and comparing the response parameters such as acceleration, interstory shear force, displacement, and base shear, it was evident that the bottom layer of the frame structure was vulnerable to significant damage during earthquakes. The bottom shear wall mitigated seismic damage to some extent, while the seismic isolation layer effectively isolated seismic forces from transmitting to the upper structure levels, thereby reducing overall seismic damage.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(3) Adopting foundation isolation led to reductions in acceleration, interstory shear, interstory displacement, and base shear responses to 18.261\u0026ndash;32.098% of those observed in traditional seismic structures, indicating a significant positive impact. The results indicated that the floor separation seismic scheme outperformed the bottom shear wall scheme, and the foundation isolation seismic scheme surpassed both the floor separation and bottom shear wall schemes in terms of effectiveness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe application of seismic isolation technology in rural self-built houses represents a novel approach that expands the utilization of seismic isolation methods. This introduction of innovative seismic-resistant concepts for rural self-built houses in earthquake-prone areas signifies a valuable contribution with the potential to enhance structural resilience and safety in such settings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclaration of Conflicting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with regarding the research, authorship, and publication of this article.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eZ. wrote the manuscript and the model analysis; L. made structural model adjustment and data analysis; S. provided the original documents of Figure 1 and Figure 2; D. Z. processed the data and drew Figures 3-6; W. carried out the language polishing process; S. studied software. All the authors reviewed the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe writers gratefully acknowledge the financial support of National Natural Science Fund of China (No.52168072\u0026amp;No.51808467), High-level Talent Support Project of Yunnan Province, China (2020). The corresponding author is Dewen Liu and the email is civil_liudewen@ sina. com.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability Statement\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll data included in this study are available upon request by contact with the corresponding author.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen Jun. Analysis of seismic performance and influence law of storey stiffness ratio of bottom frame-seismic wall building [D]. Chongqing University, 2010. (in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHu Zongchen. Research on seismic performance of Masonry structure with Bottom frame-seismic wall [D]. Anhui University of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 2014. (in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYang Yang. Analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of bottom frame structure [J]. Science and Technology Wind, 2012(12): 192\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;194. (in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu Lanlan. Seismic response analysis of the bottom two-story frame-aseismic brick building structure [D]. Southwest Jiaotong University, 2009. (in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang Qiuping. Failure mode and seismic Design of Reinforced concrete frame column [J]. Jiangxi Building Materials, 2016(20): 48\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;56. (in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeng Hongyu. Research on failure mechanism and torsional effect of bottom frame structure in high intensity area [D]. Harbin Engineering University, 2016. (in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHan Jun, Han Xia, Li Yingmin. Analysis of failure mode and Influencing factors of masonry building with bottom frame-aseismic wall under strong earthquake [J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2014,34 (S1): 416\u0026ndash;423. (in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhan Xiaoping. Research on seismic performance of masonry building with local frame at bottom [D]. Chongqing University, 2011. (in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhu Zhenyu. Seismic performance analysis model of Masonry wall and its engineering application [D]. Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 2015. (in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLu Ruofan, Zhang Lingxin, Ma Jialu. Comparative analysis of seismic vulnerability of multi-storey brick masonry buildings in different regions [J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2020,40 (05): 84\u0026ndash;96. (in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu Tonghe, Wang Guang, Guo Pengfei. Seismic characteristics and ductility suggestions of bottom layer and transition layer of bottom frame masonry structure [J]. Comprehensive Utilization of fly Ash, 2017(05): 54\u0026ndash;56. (in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang Yan. Failure mechanism and collapse judgment of masonry structure under earthquake [D]. Taiyuan University of Technology, 2018. (in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCerretin G, Giacomin G. Structural Reinforcement of a Masonry Building[J]. Key Engineering Materials, 2021, 817:673\u0026ndash;679.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCosta A, A Ar\u0026ecirc;de, Costa A, et al. Out-of-plane behaviors of existing stone masonry buildings: experimental evaluation[J]. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2021, 10(1):93\u0026ndash;111.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBahman Ganassi, Masoud Sultan, Abbas Ali Tanami. Seismic Evaluation of Masonry Structures Strengthened with Reinforced Concrete Layers[J]. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2012, 138(6): 729\u0026ndash;743.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYardarm Y, Lalaj O. Shear strengthening of unreinforced masonry wall with different fiber reinforced mortar jacketing[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2016, 102(1): 149\u0026ndash;154.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSadek H, Lissel S. Seismic performance of masonry walls with GFRP and Geogrid Bed joint reinforcement[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2013, 41(22):977\u0026ndash;989.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDritsos, Stephanos E Seismic strengthening of columns by adding new concrete J Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 2007, 40(2): 49\u0026ndash;68\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWALE W. EI-DAKHAKH, MOHAMED ELGAALY, AHMAD A. HAMID. Three-Strut Model for Concrete Masonry-Infilled Steel Frames[J]. Journal of the structure Engineering,2003,129(2).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBorri A, Corradi M, Castori G, et al. Stainless-steel strip \u0026ndash; A proposed shear reinforcement for masonry wall panels[J]. Construction \u0026amp; Building Materials, 2019, 211:594\u0026ndash;604.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCecchi A, Milani G, Tralli A. A Reissner\u0026ndash;Mindlin limit analysis model for out-of-plane loaded running bond masonry walls[J]. Int J Solids Struct, 2007, 44(5): 1438\u0026ndash;60.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXie Fan, Guo Junyuan, Gao Xiaolong. Research on seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Frame structures Reinforced by UHPC [J]. Engineering seismic Resistance and reinforcement, 21, 43(04): 58\u0026ndash;64. (in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCosta AA. Properties of recycled concrete aggregate and their influence in new concrete production[J]. Resources, Conservation \u0026amp; Recycling, 2018, 133:30\u0026ndash;49. (in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen Jianhua, Wu Zhanxin, Jiang Xing. Discussion on seismic performance optimization of masonry structures reinforced by surface layer or slab wall method [J]. Low-temperature Building Technology, 2021,43 (08): 89\u0026ndash;92. (in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDu Yanbo. Analysis on reinforcement method of brick-concrete structure Underpinning [J]. Jiangxi Building Materials, 2018(03): 73\u0026ndash;74\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;82. (in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLI Wenfeng, Wang Shuguang, Miao Qisong, Liu Jinlong. Nonlinear Numerical simulation of Masonry structure reinforcement and layer isolation model [J]. Journal of Civil Engineering, 2014,47 (S2): 35\u0026ndash;40. (in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLuo Zhenfa. Example explanation of old brick-concrete building identification and reinforcement engineering [J]. Fujian Building Materials, 2018(12): 15\u0026ndash;17\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;108. (in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi Xin, Liu Zhiqiang, Gu Huaichen. Reinforcement design Practice of Adding foundation isolation layer to pile cutting of masonry structure with ultra-limit bottom frame-seismic wall [J]. Sichuan Building Science Research, 21, 47(05): 52\u0026ndash;60. (in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDong Mingyang. Research on seismic performance of Masonry wall-Reinforced concrete wall Composite Structure [D]. Shandong Jianzhu University, 2019. (in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHe Tiansen, Zhu Dan. Renovation and reinforcement design of existing industrial buildings [J]. Building Structure, 2021,51 (S1), 1648\u0026ndash;1651 (in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTong Xuan, Hu Li, Zhang Xingfu. Technology and application of structural reconstruction and reinforcement in urban renewal [J]. Seismic and Reinforcement Engineering, 201, 43(02): 125\u0026ndash;129. (in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Rural self-built house, Bottom frame structure, Shock isolation, Bottom shear wall, Reinforce","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4170429/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4170429/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe traditional self-built houses with a bottom frame structure, still prevalent in rural areas, pose a significant risk of damage during earthquakes due to the structural weaknesses of the first and second floors. Despite this vulnerability, many residents continue to construct such houses due to their structural convenience. This study focuses on a rural self-built house with a frame bottom layer and three masonry upper layers. By subjecting the structure to seven seismic waves, we analyze the seismic responses of traditional seismic structures, bottom shear wall structures, foundation isolation structures, and storey separation structures. A comparative assessment of the seismic performance of these four structures under earthquake conditions is conducted. The study confirms the advantages and feasibility of implementing base shear wall and isolation technologies in rural self-built bottom frame structures. The findings reveal that bottom shear walls can mitigate seismic damage to some extent. Additionally, the implementation of isolation technology can effectively extend the structure's period and prevent site-specific vulnerabilities. When foundation isolation is applied, structural acceleration, interstory shear, interstory displacement, and base shear can be reduced from 18.261\u0026ndash;32.098% of those observed in traditional seismic structures, indicating a significant improvement in seismic resilience. Moreover, the seismic performance of storey separation surpasses that of bottom shear walls, while foundation isolation outperforms both storey separation and bottom shear walls in terms of seismic performance.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Research on seismic performance and improvement of rural self-built houses","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-04-01 16:18:46","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4170429/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"210c701a-5cc1-4f5c-8384-370213db37a0","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 1st, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-04-12T15:21:51+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-04-01 16:18:46","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4170429","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4170429","identity":"rs-4170429","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}