Analysis on Seismic Performance of an Innovative Integral Rocking and Self‐Centering Structure (IRSS)

Rocking and self‐centering structures have been proven to be an effective type of earthquake resilient structure. However, achieving rocking and self‐centering capabilities in structures currently requires specialized and complex designs for a large number of components and connections, which complicates overall performance control and hinders broad engineering applications. This paper introduces an innovative Integral Rocking and Self‐centering Structure (IRSS). The superstructure employed in IRSS follows conventional design and requires no special connections or components, connected to the foundation via a support layer that incorporates vertical tension‐compression supports at the column bases. This design enables the superstructure to rock around the centroid of the support layer during earthquakes. A simplified theoretical analysis method and a design procedure for IRSS were proposed accordingly. The finite element model validated by the shaking table tests is established with SAP2000 to investigate the seismic performance of the IRSS. The deformation mode of IRSS is characterized by the displacement ratio of the rigid body (DRRB), which is governed by the stiffness ratio of the superstructure to the support layer (SRSS). The parametric analysis investigates the effects of aspect ratio (AR), DRRB, and seismic intensity on the seismic response of the IRSS. Results show that the proposed IRSS effectively mitigates seismic response and demonstrates significant performance improvements over fixed‐base traditional structures. The improvements include reduced and uniformly distributed frame interstory drift ratio, effective control of residual deformation, decreased story and base shear forces, and effective control over floor accelerations. The fragility curves indicate that increasing the DRRB significantly expands the safety margin before the structure reaches the complete damage state. A preliminary sensitivity analysis demonstrates that, in most cases, the DRRB is highly sensitive to structural performance, whereas the AR is relatively insensitive.