## 4 Performance Analysis
### Force-Bearing Performance of the MG Isolator
The average slippage loading, in contrast, is the average of the slippage loading that occurs in the horizontal direction during all cycles of the isolator slippage stage. The following conclusions can be drawn from Tables 5-7: (1) The average slippage loading for all cases is 19.64 kN, which is 19.61% lower than the initiating load of 24.43 kN. Therefore, the initiation of the slippage enhances the slippage performance of the isolators, decreasing the slippage loading; (2) The initiating loads of all four specimens (\(F_{0}\)) exceeds 0.16 \(G_{eq}\), and their averages are 31.34% greater than the average of a minor seismic influence. The explanation is that no slippage occurs under a minor seismic influence; (3) During the preliminary stage, the average split limits (\(F_{c}\)) of all of the specimens exceed the 0.90 \(G_{eq}\) averages. The average loading limits (\(F_{max}\)), however, are 40.35% greater than the 0.90 \(G_{eq}\) averages, meaning that the walls are essentially capable of withstanding an earthquake at an intensity of level eight; (4) The ratio of the initiating load and the loading limit is an average of 0.166, with the highest value being 0.182 and the lowest being 0.141. The figures show that the isolator slippage can be initiated as the horizontal loading reaches approximately 16.6% of the loading limit; (5) With its excellent force-bearing performance, the MG isolator meets the requirement of initiation at an earthquake of a pre-set magnitude. Therefore, the isolator minimizes the transfer of seismic energy to the superstructure, protecting the overall structure at large; (6) A comparison of GGBW-3 and GGBW-1 indicates that due to the eight mortar bars embedded in the isolator, the initiating load required for GGBW-3 exceeds the initiating load for its counterparts. Additionally, the flag ash blocks \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Specimen No.** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Initiating Load for** \\ **Slippage \(F_{0}\)** **(kN)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Split Limit** \\ **during** \\ **Preliminary** \\ **Stage \(F_{c}\) **(kN)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Loading** \\ **Limit \(F_{max}\)** \\ **(kN)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **P.0/F.max** \\ **(kN)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **P.090 \(G_{eq}\)** **(kN)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **P.090 \(G_{eq}\)** **(kN)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **P.090 \(G_{eq}\)** **(kN)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} Positive \\ **Major Earthquake** \\ **F\({}_{max}\) \textgreater{} 0.90 \(G_{eq}\)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline GGBW-1 & 18.72 & 94.00 & 0.199 & 132.67 & 0.141 & 103.01 & Positive \\ GGBW-2 & 23.35 & 120.00 & 0.195 & 142.66 & 0.164 & 103.61 & Positive \\ GGBW-3 & 29.11 & 151.00 & 0.193 & 160.28 & 0.182 & 105.60 & Positive \\ GGBW-4 & 26.54 & 140.00 & 0.190 & 151.65 & 0.175 & 106.19 & Positive \\ Average & 24.43 & 126.25 & 0.194 & 146.82 & 0.166 & 104.60 & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Specified Loads and Major Seismic Forces of All Specimens. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Specimen No.** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Initialing Load for** \\ **Slippage \(F_{0}\) **(kN)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **\(G_{eq}\) **(kN)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **0.16 \(G_{eq}\) **(kN)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Premise(s) Required for No Damage under** \\ **Minor Seismic Force \(F_{0}\) \textgreater{} 0.16 \(G_{eq}\)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline GGBW-1 & 18.72 & 114.46 & 18.31 & Positive \\ GGBW-2 & 23.35 & 115.12 & 18.42 & Positive \\ GGBW-3 & 29.11 & 117.33 & 18.77 & Positive \\ GGBW-4 & 26.54 & 117.99 & 18.88 & Positive \\ Average & 24.43 & 116.23 & 18.60 & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Comparison of initiating load and corresponding seismic force (minor).