Chapter 14

Design of Structures with Seismic Isolation

Ronald L Mayes, Ph.D.

Consulting Engineer, Berkeley, California

Farzad Naeim, Ph.D., S.E.

Vice President and Director of Research and Development, John A. Martin and Associates, Inc., Los Angeles, California

Key words: Base Isolation, Damage Control, Design Examples, Damping, Earthquake Engineering, Energy Dissipation,
Feasibility of Isolation, Friction Devices, High-Damping rubber bearings, IBC-2000, Lead-Rubber Bearings,
New Construction, Preliminary Design, Response Spectrum Analysis, Seismic Isolation, Seismic
Rehabilitation, Static Analysis, Time-History Analysis.

Abstract: This chapter surveys the principles, benefits, and the feasibility of seismic isolation. The basic principles of
seismic isolation are introduced first. Contrary to a perception held by many engineers, neither the concept
of seismic isolation is new nor its application is necessarily complex. What is new is the availability of
relatively new materials and devices worked to perfection over the last two decades and advances in
computational techniques now commonly in use by practicing engineers. Force-deflection characteristics ot
commonly used isolation devices are introduced next followed by guidelines for evaluation of the feasibility
of seismic isolation as an alternative for a given project. The differences in approach to new construction
and rehabilitation of existing structures are highlighted. The building code provisions for seismic isolation
are covered next. The very recently released year 2000 edition of the International Building Code (IBC-
2000) takes a much more simple approach to seismic isolation than did its direct predecessor, the 1997
edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC-97). This is true even though the theory and objectives
implemented in both of these codes are the same. The simplification is largely due to incorporation of
spectral hazard maps in IBC-2000. A very practical side-effect of this incorporation is elimination of near-
fault factors from the design process simply because now they are explicitly contained in the map. In many
cases, design according to the new IBC-200 requirements will result in smaller displacement and force
demands on the isolation system and the structure above the isolation plane. This in terms mean that seismic
isolation can be implemented much more economically than it was possible under UBC-97. The IBC-2000
design provisions for seismic isolation are discussed in detail. A simple preliminary design procedure is
provided to aid engineers in initial sizing of the isolation devices. Several examples are provided to illustrate
the practical application of the material covered in this chapter.

723
724 Chapter 14
14. Design of Structures with Seismic Isolation 725

14.1 INTRODUCTION wrestling with nature is neither clever nor

subtle, and it involves considerable
Because of todays concern for liability, compromise.
engineering innovations must be exhaustively Although codes have mandated steadily
tested and analytically proven to a degree increasing force levels, in a severe earthquake a
unknown in the past. Early engineers were building, if it were to remain elastic, would still
respected for their ability to design from first encounter forces several times above its
principles and produce designs that were designed capacity. This situation is quite
conceptually right even though analytical or different from that for vertical forces, in which
laboratory methods did not exist that would safety factors insure that actual forces will not
remove all doubt. For the most part, the great exceed 50% of designed capacity unless a
early engineers removed doubt by force of their serious mistake has been made. For vertical
personality and confidence. They took risks that forces, this is easy to do. But to achieve similar
would be unthinkable today. performance for seismic forces, the structure
The field of seismic design is, as perhaps would be unacceptably expensive and its
benefits a subject directly concerned with both architectural impact would be extreme. This
life safety and uncertainty, cautious and slow to discrepancy between seismic demand and
innovate. In practice, improved seismic design capacity is traditionally accommodated by
does not represent a market opportunity reserve capacity, which includes uncalculated
because seismic safety is generally taken for additional strength in the structure and often the
granted. Like other code-dominated issues, and contribution of portions and exterior cladding to
like airplane safety, seismic safety has never the strength and stiffness of the building. In
been much of a selling point. Money diverted to addition, the ability of materials such as steel to
improve seismic resistance is often seen as a dissipate energy by permanent deformation
detraction from more visible and enjoyable which is called ductilitygreatly reduces the
attributes. likelihood of total collapse.
Improvements in seismic safety, since about Modern buildings contain extremely
the time of the San Francisco earthquake of sensitive and costly equipment that have
1906, have been due primarily to acceptance of become vital in business, commerce, education
ever-increasing force levels to which buildings and health care. Electronically kept records are
must be designed. Innovation has been essential to the proper functioning of our
confirmed to the development and acceptance society. These building contents frequently are
of economical structural systems that perform more costly and valuable than the buildings
reasonably well, accommodate architectural themselves. Furthermore, hospitals,
demands such as open exteriors and the absence communication and emergency centres, and
of interior walls, and enable materials such as police and fire stations must be operational
steel and reinforced concrete to compete in the when needed most: immediately after an
marketplace on near-equal terms. earthquake.
The vocabulary of seismic design is limited. Conventional construction can cause very
The choices for lateral resistance lie among high floor accelerations in stiff buildings and
shear walls, braced frames, and moment- large interstory drifts in flexible structures.
resistant frames. Over the years, these have These two factors cause difficulties in insuring
been refined and their details developed, and the safety of the building components and
methods of analysis and modeling have contents (Figure 14-1).
improved and reduced uncertainty. But the In the past decade, an alternative to the
basic approach has not changed: construct a brute-force to nature has finally reached the
ductile and/or strong building and attach it stage of more widespread application. This
securely to the ground. This approach of arm approach is obvious and easily explainable at
726 Chapter 14

the cocktail-party level: why not detach the thereby providing protection to the building
building from the ground in such a way that the contents and components (Figure 14-2).
earthquake motions are not transmitted up
through the building, or are at least greatly
reduced? This conceptually simple idea has
required much research to make it feasible, and
only with modern computerized analysis has
become possible. Application has depended on
very sophisticated materials research into both
natural and composite materials in order to
provide the necessary performance.

Figure 14-2. Base Isolated Structure

The principle of seismic isolation is to

introduce flexibility at the base of a structure in
the horizontal plane, while at the same time
introducing damping elements to restrict the
amplitude of the motion caused by the
earthquake. The concept of isolating structures
from the damaging effects of earthquakes is not
new. The first patent for a seismic isolation
scheme was taken out in 1909(14-1) and since
Figure 14-1. Conventional Structure that time several proposals with similar
objectives have been made (see References 14-
This new concept, now generally termed 2 to 14-8). Nevertheless, until the last two
seismic isolation, meets all the criteria for a decades, few structures have been designed and
classic modern technological innovation. built using these principles.
Imaginative advances in conceptual thinking However, new impetus was given to the
were necessary, as were materials new to the concept of seismic isolation by the successful
industry, and ideas have developed development of mechanical-energy dissipaters
simultaneously on a worldwide basis. But the and elastomers with high damping properties
method threatens conventional and established (see References 14-8 to 14-15). Mechanical-
design procedures, so the road to seismic- energy dissipaters, when used in combination
isolation innovation is paved with argument, with a flexible isolation device, can control the
head shaking, and bureaucratic cautionall, to response of the structure by limiting
some extent, well-intentioned and necessary, displacements and forces, thereby significantly
given our litigious society. improving seismic performance. The seismic
Mounting buildings on an isolation system energy is dissipated in components specifically
will prevent most of the horizontal movement designed for that purpose, relieving structural
of the ground from being transmitted to the elements, such as beams and columns, from
buildings. This results in a significant reduction energy-dissipation roles (and thus damage).
in floor accelerations and interstory drifts, There are over two hundred civil engineering
structures that have now been constructed using
14. Design of Structures with Seismic Isolation 727

the principles of seismic isolation. Kelly(14-6), the results provide an opportunity to validate
Buckle and Mayes(14-7) and Naeim and Kelly(14-8) computer modeling techniques which are then
provide an excellent history of world overview. used on full-size structures.
Other references containing overview material A third important development is in the skill
are given in references 14-25 and 14-41. of the engineering seismologist in estimating
The advantages of seismic isolation include ground motions at a particular site. Recent
the ability to eliminate or very significantly advances in seismology have given more
reduce structural and nonstructural damage, to confidence in site-specific ground motions
enhance the safety of the building contents and which take into account fault distances, local
architectural facades, and to reduce seismic and global geology, and return periods. These
design forces. These potential benefits are design motions are basic input to the computer
greatest for stiff structures fixed rigidly to the modeling of seismically isolated systems and
ground, such as low- and medium-rise are a vital step in the estimation of system
buildings, nuclear power plants, bridges, and performance.
many types of equipment. Some tectonic and In summary then, five recent developments
soil-foundation conditions may, however, are together responsible for elevating seismic
preclude the use of seismic isolation. isolation from fantasy to practical reality:
The design and manufacture of high-quality
14.1.1 An Idea Whose Time Has Come elastomeric (rubber) pads, frequently called
bearings, that are used to support the weight of
The elastomeric bearing and the mechanical the structure but at the same time protect it from
damper are fundamental components in many earthquake-induced forces.
seismic isolation schemes. But it is not just the The design and manufacture of mechanical-
invention of the elastomeric bearing and the energy dissipaters (absorbers) and high-
energy dissipater which has made seismic damping elastomers that are used to reduce the
isolation a practical reality. Three other parallel, movement across the bearings to practical and
but independent, developments have also acceptable levels and to resist wind loads.
contributed to its success. The development and acceptance of
The first of these was the development of computer software for the analysis of
reliable software for the computer analysis of seismically isolated structures which includes
structures so as to predict their performance and nonlinear material properties and the time-
determine design parameters. Work has been in varying nature of the earthquake loads.
progress for more than 25 years on the software The ability to perform shaking-table tests
for inelastic analysis of structural systems, and using real recorded earthquake ground motions
there are many available programs. Application to evaluate the performance of structures and
to seismically isolated structures is provide results to validate computer modeling
straightforward, and correlation studies with techniques.
model tests show many software systems to be The development and acceptance of
soundly based. procedures for estimating site-specific
The second development was the use of earthquake ground motions for different return
shaking tables which are able to simulate the periods.
effects of real recorded earthquake ground
motions on different types of structures. The 14.2 CONSIDERATIONS FOR
results of shaking-table tests over the last 20 SEISMIC ISOLATION
years (see Reference 14-16 to 14-22 and 14-31
to 14-40) have provided another mechanism to The need for seismic isolation of a structure
enhance confidence in the way buildings may arise if any of the following situations
respond during real earthquakes. In addition, apply:
728 Chapter 14

Increased building safety and post- 14.2.1 Solutions for Nonstructural

earthquake operability are desired. Damage
Reduced lateral design forces are desired.
Alternate forms of construction with limited One of the more difficult issues to address
ductility capacity (such as precast concrete) from a conventional design viewpoint is that of
are desired in an earthquake region. reducing nonstructural and building-content
An existing structure is not currently safe damage. This is very often ignored, and when
for earthquake loads. addressed, can be very expensive to incorporate
For new structures current building codes in conventional design. In fact, the cost of
apply in all seismic zones, and therefore many satisfying the more stringent bracing
designers may feel that the need for seismic requirements of nonstructural elements in a
isolation does not exist because the code California hospital is on the order of $2 to $4
requirements can be satisfied by current per square foot more than for ordinary
designs. Code designs, however, are generally commercial buildings.
controlled by a design philosophy which There are two primary mechanisms that
produces structures which are much more prone cause nonstructural damage. The first is related
to damage than their seismic isolated to interstory drift between floors, and the
counterparts. A typical building code statement second to floor accelerations. Interstory drift is
of philosophy(14-23) states that buildings defined as the relative displacement that occurs
designed in accordance with its provisions will between two floors divided by the story height.
resist minor earthquakes without damage, Floor accelerations are the absolute
resist moderate earthquakes without accelerations that occur as a result of the
structural damage but with some earthquake, and in conventional construction
nonstructural damage, they generally increase up the height of the
resist major earthquakes without collapse building. Together, these two components cause
but with structural and nonstructural damage to the building contents, architectural
damage. facades, partitions, piping and ductwork,
These principles of performance also apply ceilings, building equipment, and elevators
to conventional buildings that are rehabilitated (Figure 14-1).
to code-level design forces. Clearly, a design concept that reduces both
Seismic isolation promises the capability of interstory drifts and floor accelerations
providing a building with better performance combines the best aspects of these two current
characteristics than our current code approach design philosophies. Seismic isolation is such a
towards conventional buildings and thus concept (Figure 14-2), since it can significantly
represents a major step forward in the seismic reduce both floor accelerations and interstory
design of civil engineering structures. In the drift and thus provide a viable economic
case of a building retrofit, the need for isolation solution to the difficult problem of reducing
may be obvious: the structure may simply not nonstructural earthquake damage.
be safe in its present condition should an
earthquake occur. In such cases, if seismic 14.3 BASIC ELEMENTS OF
isolation is suitable, its effectiveness compared SEISMIC ISOLATION
with alternative solutions such as strengthening
SYSTEMS
should be examined.
There are three basic elements in any
practical seismic isolation system. These are:
14. Design of Structures with Seismic Isolation 729

1. a flexible mounting so that the period of

vibration of the total system is lengthened
sufficiently to reduce the force response;
2. a damper or energy dissipater so that the
relative deflections between building and
ground can be controlled to a practical Figure 14-3.Elastomeric bearings
design level; and
3. a means of providing rigidity under low
(service) load levels such as wind and minor
earthquakes.
Bridge structures have for a number of years
been supported on elastomeric bearings(14-24),
and as a consequence have already been
designed with a flexible mount. It is equally
Figure 14-4. Rollers
possible to support buildings on elastomeric
bearings, and numerous examples exist where
buildings have been successfully mounted on
pads. To date this has been done more for
vertical-vibration isolation rather than seismic
protection. Over 100 buildings in Europe and
Australia have been built on rubber bearings to
isolate them from vertical vibrations from Figure 14-5. Sleeved Piles
subway systems below, and are performing well
more than 40 years after construction. By
increasing the thickness of the bearing,
additional flexibility and period shift can be
attained.
While the introduction of lateral flexibility
may be highly desirable, additional vertical
flexibility is not. Vertical rigidity is maintained
Figure 14-6. Rocking
by constructing the rubber bearing in layers and
sandwiching steel shims between layers. The
steel shims, which are bonded to each layer of
rubber, constrain lateral deformation of the
rubber under vertical load. This results in
vertical stiffness and of a similar order of
magnitude to conventional building columns.
An elastomeric bearing is not the only means
of introducing flexibility into a structure, but it Figure 14-7. Cable Suspension
appears to be one of the most practical
approaches. Other possible devices include The reduction in force with increasing period
rollers, friction slip plates, capable suspension, (flexibility) is shown schematically in the force-
sleeved piles, and rocking (stepping) response curve of Figure 14-9. Substantial
foundations (Figures 14-3 to 14-7). The most reductions in base shear are possible if the
popular devices for seismic isolation of period of vibration of the structure is
buildings in the United States are the lead- significantly lengthened.
rubber bearings, high-damping rubber bearings
and the friction pendulum system (Figure 14-8).
730 Chapter 14

S u p erstru ctu re of the sensitivity to variations in ground motion

A n ch o r characteristics, as indicated by the smoother
force response curves at higher damping levels.
Care must be taken, however, not to induce
P ier
A n ch o r excessive damping into the system because that
could produce story accelerations difficult to
pin down in an ordinary dynamic analysis.
E lasto m eric
B earin g S u p erstru ctu re
A n ch o r

P ier
A n ch o r
E lasto m eric
B earin g
L ead
A rticu lated
S p h erical S lid er
C o n cav e
S u rface
Figure 14-9. Idealized force response spectrum

P T F E B earin g
M aterial
Figure 14-8. Most popular building isolation devices
(Top: the high damping rubber device; Middle: the lead-
rubber device; Bottom: the friction pendulum device).

The reduction in force response illustrated in

Figure 14-9 is primarily dependent on the
nature of the earthquake ground motion and the
period of the fixed-base structure. Further, the
additional flexibility needed to lengthen the Figure 14-10. Idealized displacement response spectrum
period of the structure will give rise to large
relative displacements across the flexible Energy Dissipation One of the most
mount. Figure 14-10 shows an idealized effective means of providing a substantial level
displacement response curve from which of damping is through hysteretic energy
displacements are seen to increase with dissipation. The term hysteric refers to the
increasing period (flexibility). However, as offset in the loading and unloading curves
shown in Figure 14-11, if substantial additional under cyclic loading. Work done during loading
damping can be introduced into the structure, is not completely recovered during unloading,
the displacement problem can be controlled. It and the difference is lost (dissipated) as heat.
is also seen that increasing the damping reduces Figure 14-12 shows an idealized force-
the forces at a given period and removes much displacement loop, where the enclosed area is a
14. Design of Structures with Seismic Isolation 731

Figure 14-12. Response spectra for increasing damping

measure of the energy dissipated during one with, say, a lead-rubber elastomeric bearing or
cycle of motion. Mechanical devices which use supplemental viscous dampers.
friction or the plastic deformation of either mild Friction is another source of energy
steel or lead to achieve this behavior have been dissipation which is used to limit deflections.
developed (14-9 to 14-14), and several mechanical- However, with the exception of the friction
energy dissipation devices developed in New pendulum system, it can be a difficult source to
Zealand are shown in Figure 14-13. quantify. A further disadvantage is that most
frictional devices are not self-centering, and a
permanent offset between the sliding parts may
result after an earthquake. The friction
pendulum system overcomes this problem by
using a curved rather than flat surface on which
the friction occurs. In proportioning a lead-
rubber system or a friction pendulum system
care must be exercised in design to ensure that
the restoring force during expected seismic
events would overcome the resistance of the
device to self-centering. In practice it is
common to compliment lead-rubber bearings
with ones without a lead core and this approach
Figure 14-11. Hysteretic force-deflection curve has proved to be very successful.
Hydraulic damping has been used
Many engineering materials are hysteretic by successfully in some bridges and a few special-
nature, and all elastomers exhibit this property purpose structures(14-7). Potentially high
to some extent. By the addition of special- damping forces are possible from viscous fluid
purpose fillers to elastomers, it is possible to flow, but maintenance requirements and high
increase their natural hysteresis without unduly initial cost have restricted the use of such
affecting their mechanical properties(14-10). Such devices.
a technique gives a useful source of damping, Rigidity for low lateral loads and flexibility
but so far it has not been possible to achieve the for high seismic loads is very desirable. It is
same level of energy dissipation as is possible clearly undesirable to have a structural system
732 Chapter 14

Figure 14-13. Various mechanical energy dissipaters

which will vibrate perceptibly under frequently seismic isolation systems require a wind
occurring loads such as minor earthquakes or restraint device for this purposetypically a
wind loads. rigid component designed to fail under a given
Lead-rubber bearings, well designed high level of lateral load. This can result in a shock
damping rubber bearings, as well as other loading being transferred to the structure due to
mechanical-energy dissipaters provide the the sudden loss of load in the restraint.
desired low load rigidity by virtue of their high Nonsymmetrical failure of such devices can
elastic stiffness (Figure 14-14). Some other also introduce undesirable torsional effects in a
14. Design of Structures with Seismic Isolation 733

building. Further, such devices will need to be 14.4 FORCE-DEFLECTION

replaced after each failure. CHARACTERISTICS
Table 14-1 summarizes the sources of
flexibility that have been discussed above. A Conceptually, there are four basic types of
more detailed explanation of these concepts can force-deflection relationships for isolation
be found in the proceedings of two workshops systems. These idealized relationships are
on base Isolation and Passive Energy shown in Figure 14-15, with each idealized
Dissipation that have been conducted by curve having the same design displacement D
Applied Technology Council(14-25 and 14-41) as for the design-level earthquake.
well as a recent textbook by Naeim and A linear isolation system is represented by
Kelly(14-8). curve A and has the same isolated period for all
earthquake load levels. In addition, the force
generated in the superstructure is directly
proportional to the displacement across the
isolation system. A linear isolation system will
require some form of wind-restraining
mechanism to be added to the system.
A hardening isolation system is represented
by curve B. This system is soft initially (long
effective period) and then stiffness (effective
period shortens) as the earthquake load level
increases. When the earthquake load level
induces displacements in excess of the design
displacement in a hardening system, the
superstructure is subjected to higher forces and
the isolation system to lower displacements
than in a comparable linear system. Like a
linear system, a hardening system will also
Figure 14-14. Idealized force-displacement relationships require some form of additional wind-
for isolation systems restraining mechanism.
A softening isolation system is represented
Table 14-1. Alternative Sources of Flexibility and Energy by curve C. This system is stiff initially (short
Dissipation effective period) and softens (effective period
Flexible Mounting Systems lengthens) as the earthquake load level induces
Unreinforced rubber blocks displacements in excess of the design
Elastomeric bearings
(reinforced rubber blocks)
displacement in a softening system, the
Sliding plates superstructure is subjected to lower forces and
Roller and / or ball bearings the isolation system to higher displacements
Sleeved piles than in a comparable linear system. The high
Rocking systems initial stiffness of a softening system is the
Suspended floors
wind-restraining mechanism.
Air cushions
Slinky springs A flat sliding isolation system is represented
by curve D. This system is governed by the
Damping Devices/ Mechanisms friction force of the isolation system. As in the
Plastic deformation of a metal softening system, the effective period lengthens
Friction as the earthquake load level increases, and the
High-damping elastomers
Viscous fluid damping
loads of the superstructure remain constant. The
Tuned mass damping displacement of the sliding isolation system
734 Chapter 14

Figure 14-15. Design principles of seismic isolation

after repeated earthquake cycles is highly for a rock site if the structure has sufficient
dependent on the vibratory characteristics of the elastic strength to resist this level of load. The
ground motion and may exceed the design lowest curve shows the forces which a typical
displacement. Consequently, minimum design code(14-28) requires a structure to be designed
requirements do not adequately define the peak for, and the second-lowest curve shows the
seismic displacement for seismic isolation probable strength assuming the structure is
systems governed solely by friction forces. The designed for the corresponding code forces. The
value of the coefficient must be high enough to probable strength is typically about 1.5 to 2.0
resist the wind forces. times higher than the design strength because of
the design load factors, actual material strengths
14.5 SEISMIC-ISOLATION which are greater in practice than those
DESIGN PRINCIPLES assumed for design, conservatism in structural
design, and other factors. The difference
The design principles for seismic isolation between the maximum elastic force and the
are illustrated in Figure 14-16. The top curve of probable yield strength is an approximate
this figure shows the realistic forces based on a indication of the energy which must be
5% ground response spectrum which will be absorbed by ductility in the structural elements.
imposed on a non-isolated structure from When a building is isolated, the maximum
typical code forces(14-28). The spectrum shown is elastic forces are reduced considerably due to
period shift and energy dissipation, as shown in
14. Design of Structures with Seismic Isolation 735

Figures 14-10 and 14-12. The elastic forces on 14.6.1 New Construction
a seismically isolated structure are shown by
the dashed curve in Figure 14-16. This curve Structure The first consideration in
corresponds to a system with as high as 30% assessing the suitability of a new project is the
equivalent viscous damping.(14-29) structure itself. Seismic isolation achieves a
If a stiff building, with a fixed-base reduction in earthquake forces by lengthening
fundamental period of 1.0 sec or less, is the period of vibration at which the structure
isolated, then its fundamental period will be responds to the earthquake motions. The most
increased into the 1.5- to 2.5-sec range (Figure significant benefits obtained from isolation are
14-10). This results in a reduced code design in structures for which the fundamental period
force (Figure 14-16), but more importantly in of vibration without base isolation is short
the 1.5- to 2.5-sec range the probable yield less than 1 sec. The natural period of a building
strength of the isolated building is generally increases with increasing height.
approximately the same as the maximum forces Taller buildings reach a limit at which the
to which it will be subjected. Therefore, there natural period is long enough to attract low
will be little or no ductility demand on the earthquake forces without isolation.
structural system, and the lateral design forces Therefore seismic isolation is most
can be theoretically reduced by approximately applicable to low-rise and medium-rise
50%, if the building code permits such a buildings and becomes less effective for high-
reduction. rise ones. The cut-off depends mainly on the
type of framing system. Shear-wall structures
14.6 FEASIBILITY OF SEISMIC and braced-frame structures are generally stiffer
ISOLATION than moment frames of equivalent height, and
so, for shear walls and braced frames isolation
Structures are generally suitable for seismic may be effective up to 12 to 15 stories, whereas
isolation if the following conditions exist: with moment frames the cut-off is generally
The subsoil does not produce a about 8 to 10 stories. These numbers are only
predominance of long period ground motion generalizations and there are, of course,
such as that obtained in Mexico City. exceptions, as discussed to the retrofits of the
The structure has two stories or more (or is 19-story Oakland City Hall and the 28-story
unusually heavy). Los Angeles City Hall. The isolation system
The site permits horizontal displacements at must also resist maximum lateral loads from
the base of the order of 8 in. or more. other sources without yielding in order to avoid
The structure is fairly squat. unacceptable displacements and vibrations
Wind lateral loads and other non-earthquake under service loads, such as wind. Therefore, if
load are less than approximately 10% of the these service lateral loads exceed about 10% of
weight of the structure. the structures weight, the building should not
Each project must be assessed individually be isolated.
and early in the design phase to determine its Soil Conditions The second consideration
suitability for seismic isolation. For this when assessing the suitability of a structure for
assessment, there are differences between new seismic isolation is the soil condition and the
construction and the retrofit of the existing geology of the site. Generally, the stiffer the
structures. The following sections provide some soil, the more effective the isolation.
guidelines for each of the situations. The flexibility of the structure determines
how it will respond to a given earthquake
motion. However, the form of the earthquake
motion as it arrives at the base of a structure
may be modified by the properties of the soil
736 Chapter 14

through which the earthquake waves travel. If earthquake safety of existing buildings without
the soil underlying the structure is very soft, the the addition of new structural elements which
high frequency content of the motion may be detract from the features which originally make
filtered out, and the soil may produce long- the building worth preserving. Although
period motions. An extreme example of this seismic isolation reduces earthquake forces, it
was seen in the 1985 Mexico City earthquake. does not eliminate them. Consequently, the
Lengthening the period of a stiff structure in strength and ductility of an existing structure
these lake-bed soil conditions will amplify must at least be sufficient to resist the reduced
rather than reduce the ground motions, and forces that result from isolation. If the strength
hence for sites such as Mexico City seismic of the existing structure is extremely low (less
isolation should not be considered. than 0.05 of the weight of the building), then
Another geologic consideration is the additional strengthening versus some
distance from a major fault. For near-fault strengthening and the provision of isolation will
situations, generally the design forces and need to be studied.
displacements are amplified to allow for the In addition to the conditions discussed
recently observed fling or pulse effect of near- above from new buildings, the issues to be
fault ground motions. addressed in the seismic isolation retrofit of an
Adjacent Structures A third consideration existing structure are:
in assessing suitability is any constraints Is there sufficient clearance with adjacent
imposed by adjacent structures at the proposed buildings to permit a movement of 6 to 24
site. As discussed earlier, the basic concept of inches?
seismic isolation systems minimize these Do the building and its existing foundations
displacements, but nevertheless base have sufficient strength and ductility to
displacements of the order of 8 to 20 in. resist the reduced seismic forces?
generally occur. If the site is very confined due What is the appropriate level for the plane of
to neighbouring buildings built on the isolationfoundation level, basement level,
boundary, it may not be possible to ground level, or the top, bottom, or mid-
accommodate these displacements. height of the columns?
The pros and cons with regard to the plane
14.6.2 Retrofit of Existing Structures of isolation are:
Any structure with a full subbasement or
Retrofit of existing structures to improve basement that can be temporarily disrupted
their earthquake safety involves additional is a good isolation candidate, since the work
considerations, compared with new can be confined to that area.
construction, because of the constraints already A structure with piled foundations can be
present. Some structures are inherently more more easily retrofitted at the foundation
suitable for retrofit using seismic isolation than level than one with spread footings.
others. For example, bridge superstructures are Provisions for the zone of isolation at the
generally supported on steel bearings. top, bottom, or mid-height of the basement-,
Replacement of these bearings with elastomeric first-, or second-level columns requires a
ones is a fairly simple, low-cost operation that detailed evaluation of the column capacities.
will lead to a reduction in earthquake forces and If the strength of the column is not sufficient
allow the option of redistributing forces away to resist the reduced isolation forces, three
from the weak substructures into abutments potential options exist. First, the column
more capable of sustaining them(14-30). may be strengthened and act as a cantilever.
Buildings are often more difficult to retrofit Second, a new framing system with stiff
than bridges. However, seismic isolation may beams may be developed at the plane of
often be an effective solution for increasing the isolation to reduce the column forces. Third,
14. Design of Structures with Seismic Isolation 737

the mid-height column solution may be before significant softening of the bearing
considered, since it reduces the column occurs.
moments significantly. Therefore, if uplift is indicated in an isolated
In summary, seismic rehabilitation of an structure, detailed analysis must be performed
existing structure provides the ability to confine to quantify the vertical displacements for
most of the construction work to the level connection design. This involves a nonlinear
where the plane of isolation is to be provided, analysis with realistic maximum credible
whereas conventional methods generally earthquake records and requires significant
require the addition of structural elements to all analytical effort.
levels of the building. This trade-off can be To avoid this, the optimum strategy is to
very important if continued use of the facility is avoid or minimize uplift. This is done by
desired, as in hospitals or command and control careful configuration of the lateral load-
centers. resisting elements. The important parameters
are the height-to-width ratio of the lateral load-
14.6.3 Uplift and Overturning resisting system and the amount of gravity load
carried by these elements. Another alternative is
In many types of structural systems to utilize the loose-bolt connections which
increasing lateral forces will induce net tensions permit certain amount of isolator uplift without
in elements once the axial loads caused by the subjecting the bearing to net tension. Such
overturning moment exceeds the gravity loads. connections have been successfully
This may occur for example at the edges of implemented in several major buildings in
shear walls or the columns in braced or southern California such as the Los Angeles
moment-resisting frames. City Hall seismic retrofit and the Lake
In conventional design this tension is Arrowhead and Saint John new hospital
resisted in the base connections and buildings.
foundations, although only if it occurs under the
code levels of the earthquake lateral loads. The 14.7 DESIGN CODE
more severe loading occurring under actual REQUIREMENTS
maximum earthquakes will produce overturning
moments much greater than the design value, By the time this book reaches the market the
and therefore tension forces will be induced design of new seismically isolated buildings in
even where none are indicated under code United States will be probably governed by the
loading. In this case, it is assumed that the International Building Code 2000 (IBC-
structural detailing and redundancies are 2000)(14-42). It is likely, however, that design in
sufficient to prevent failure due to the uplift. some jurisdictions will be still controlled by the
More recent studies(14-16) have indicated that provisions of the IBC-2000 predecessor, (UBC-
uplift may in fact be beneficial in reducing 97)(14-43). As documented by Naeim and
earthquake forces in conventional structures. In Kelly)(14-8) UBC-97 is an unnecessarily
Fact, at least two actual structures in New complicated and conservative as far as seismic
Zealand have been explicitly designed for uplift isolation design is concerned. Therefore, in this
as a form of seismic isolation: a stepping bridge section we limit our discussion to the provisions
and a chimney stack. of IBC-2000. Readers who are interested in
For a structure isolated on elastomeric learning more about UBC-97 and its
bearings, the effects of uplift must be examined predecessors are referred to the referenced
more carefully, since the elastomeric bearing is textbook by Naeim and Kelly.
not suitable for resisting large tensile loads. For Primarily intended to regulate the design of
a fully bolted connection, an elastomeric new buildings, the IBC-2000 does not really
bearing can resist 250 to 300 psi in tension cover the retrofit of existing buildings using
738 Chapter 14

isolation, although most retrofit projects do Notice that this is different from UBC-97
follow either the IBC or UBC regulations definition of MCE which was 10%
closely. IBC-2000 regulations are written in probability of being exceeded in 100 years
such a way as to be nonspecific with respect to (1000-year return period earthquake)
isolation systems. No particular isolation
systems are identified as being acceptable, but 14.7.1 Design Methods
the regulations require that any isolation system
should be stable for the required displacement, Static Analysis: For all seismic isolation
provide increasing resistance with increasing designs it is necessary to perform a static
displacement, and have properties that do not analysis. This establishes a minimum level for
degrade under repeated cyclic loading. design displacements and forces. The static
The underlying philosophy is that an analysis is also useful both for preliminary
isolated building designed using IBC-2000 will design of the isolation system and the structure
out-perform fixed-base construction in when dynamic analysis is required and for
moderate and large earthquakes. It is not the design review; under certain circumstances it
intent of the code to reduce the construction may be the only design method used.
cost but to minimize damage to isolated Static analysis alone will suffice if:
structures and their contents. 1. The structure is located at a site with S1 <
Increasingly, the seismic upgrade design of 0.60g. S1 is determined using the spectral
existing structures is influenced by the NEHRP acceleration maps published as a part of
Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of IBC-2000.
Buildings (FEMA-273) and its commentary 2. The site soil is classified as Class A, B, C,
(FEMA- 274), which are published by the or D (see Chapter 3).
Federal Emergency Management Agency(14-44, 3. The structure above the isolation plane is
14-45)
. FEMA-273 provisions are very similar to not more than four stories or 65 feet in
those of the IBC-2000 with one exception: height.
FEMA-273 permits a new analysis approach 4. The effective period at maximum
called Static Nonlinear Analysis or the displacement of the isolated system, TM,
Pushover method (see Chapter 15). does not exceed 3.0 seconds.
A 1986 document published by a 5. The effective period at design displacement,
subcommittee of the Structural Engineers TD, is greater than three times the elastic,
Association of Northern California (SEAONC) fixed-base period of the structure.
and generally referred to as the Yellow Book(14- 6. The structural system above the isolation
26)
has served as the backbone of all new code plane is regular.
provisions. 7. The effective stiffness of the isolation
The seismic criteria adopted by current system at design displacement is greater
model codes involve a two-level approach to than one third of the effective stiffness at
seismic hazard, which are as follows: 20% of design displacement.
The Design Basis Earthquake (DBE): That 8. The isolation system can produce the
level of ground shaking that has a 10% restoring force requirements mandated by
probability of being exceeded in 50 years the code (IBC-2000 Sec. 1623.5.1.4).
(475 year-return period earthquake) 9. The force deflection characteristics of
The Maximum Considered Earthquake isolation system are independent of rate of
(MCE): The maximum level of ground loading, vertical load, and bilateral load.
shaking that may ever be expected at the 10. The isolation system does not limit MCE
building site. MCE is taken as 2% displacements to less than SM1/SD1 times the
probability of being exceeded in 50 years total design displacements.
(2500-year return period earthquake).
14. Design of Structures with Seismic Isolation 739

Dynamic Analysis: Dynamic analysis may isolated periods at design displacement and
be used in all cases and must be used if the maximum displacement, respectively.
requirements mentioned for adequacy of static 6. Each pair of time histories is to be applied
analysis are not satisfied. Dynamic analysis simultaneously to the model considering the
may take the form of response spectrum most disadvantageous location of mass
analysis or time-history analysis. eccentricity. The maximum displacement of
Response spectrum analysis would suffice if the isolation system is to be calculated from
requirements number 2 and 7-10 as mentioned the vectorial sum of the two orthogonal
for static analysis, are satisfied. Otherwise, a components at each time step.
time-history analysis will be required. Use of 7. The parameters of interest are calculated for
more than 30% critical damping is not each time-history analysis. If three time
permitted in response spectrum analysis even if history analyses are performed, then the
the system is designed to provide for more. maximum response of the parameter of
Regardless of the type of dynamic analysis interest is to be used for design. If seven or
to be performed a site-specific design spectra more time histories are used, then the
corresponding to DBE and MCE events must be average value of the response parameter of
developed and used (instead of the code interest may be used.
published default spectra) if: As Naeim and Kelly have pointed out (14-8),
The structure is located on a Class E or F this formulations contains implicit recognition
site, or of the crucially important fact that design
The structure is located at a site with S1 < spectra are definitions of a criteria for structural
0.60g. analysis and design and are not meant to
If time history analysis is to be performed, represent characteristics of a single event.
then a suite of representative earthquake ground
motions must be selected that satisfy the 14.7.2 Minimum Design Displacements
following requirements:
1. At least three pairs of recorded horizontal Four distinct displacements calculated using
ground motion time-history components simple formulas and used for static analysis,
should be selected and used. also serve as the code permitted lower bound
2. The time histories should be consistent with values (subject to some qualification) for
the magnitude, fault distance, and source dynamic analysis results. These are:
mechanisms that control the DBE and/or DD: the design displacement, being the
MCE events. displacement at the center of rigidity of the
3. If appropriate recorded time-histories are isolation system at the DBE;
not available, appropriate simulated time- DM: the displacement,at the center of rigidity
histories may be used to make up the the of the isolation system at the MCE;
total number of required records. DTD: the total design displacement, being the
4. For each pair of horizontal ground motion displacement of a bearing at a corner of the
components, the square root sum of the building and includes the component of the
squares (SRSS) of the 5 percent-damped torsional displacement in the direction of DD
spectrum of the scaled horizontal DTM: same as DTD but calculated for MCE.
components is to be constructed. DD and DM are simply spectral displacement
5. The time-histories are to be scaled such that values calculated assuming constant spectral
the average value of the SRSS spectra does velocity from code published spectral maps and
not fall below 1.3 times the 5 percent- adjusted for damping.
damped design spectrum (DBE or MCE) by
more than 10 percent over a range of 0.5TD
to 1.25TM where TD and TM are effective
740 Chapter 14

g S T Table 1623.2.2.1), with linear interpolation to

D D = 2 D1 D (14-1) be used for intermediate values. A very close
4 BD approximation to the table values is given by
Naeim and Kelly(14-8) as

g S M 1TM 1
DM = 2 (14-2) = 0.25(1 ln ) (14-7)
4 BM B

where g is the gravitational acceleration, SD1 where is given as the fraction of critical
and SM1 are spectral coefficients, TD and TM are damping (not as a percentage).
isolated periods, and BD and BM are damping
coefficients corresponding to the DBE and 14.7.3 Effective Isolated System Periods
MCE level responses, respectively.
SD1 and SM1 are functions of two parameters: The effective isolated periods TD and TM
S1, the MCE 5% damped spectral corresponding to the DBE and MCE response
acceleration for the site available from the are computed from
maps accompanying the IBC-2000 and also
available on Internet via the USGS and W
CDMG web sites, and TD = 2 (14-8)
Fv, the site coefficient defined for various
K D min g
site classes and acceleration levels (see
Chapter 3).
Such that W
TM = 2 (14-9)
K M min g
S M 1 = Fv S1 (14-3)
where
W = the weight of the building
2
S D1 = SM1 (14-4) g = gravity
3 KDmin = minimum effective horizontal stiffness
of the isolation system at the design
The effective damping in the system, , at displacement (DBE).
the DBE and MCE response levels (referred to KMmin = minimum effective horizontal stiffness
as D and M are computed from of the isolation system at the maximum
displacement (MCE).
1 total area of hysteresis loop The values of KDmin, and KMmin are not
D = (14-5) known to the engineer during the preliminary
2 K D 2
D , max D design phase. The design procedure will begin
with an assumed value which is obtained from
previous tests on similar components or by
total area of hysteresis loop using the material characteristics and a
1 (14-6)
M =
schematic of the proposed isolator. After the
2 K M , max D 2
M preliminary design is satisfactorily completed,
prototype isolators will be ordered and tested,
KDmax and KMmax are effective stiffness terms and the values of KDmin, KDmax, KMmin, and KMmax
defined in Section 14.7.3. The damping will be obtained from the results of the
reduction factors BD for the DBE and BM for the prescribed program of tests on the prototypes.
MCE are given in a tabular form (IBC-2000,
14. Design of Structures with Seismic Isolation 741

The total design displacements, DTD and DTM 3

(which include torsion), are 1.0 RI = R 2.0 (14-14)
8
12e If dynamic analysis is performed, it is
DTD = DD 1 + y 2 (14-10)
b +d2 possible to have design displacements and
design forces that are less than those given by
Equations 14-12 and 14-13. In such cases, The
12e total design displacement, DTD , for the isolation
DTM = DM 1 + y 2 (14-11) system can be reduced to not less than 90% of
b +d2 that given by the static formula, and the total
maximum displacement, DTM , can be reduced
where b and d are plan dimensions at the to not less than 80% of the static formula result.
isolation plane, e is the actual eccentricity plus Furthermore, the code permits a further
5% accidental eccentricity, and y is the distance reduction by replacing DD and DM in the static
to a corner perpendicular to the direction of formulas by DD and DM , where
seismic loading.
DD
14.7.4 Design Forces DD' = (4-14)
2
1 + T
The superstructure and the elements below TD
the isolation interface are designed for forces
based on the DBE design displacement, DD.
The isolation system, the foundation and
DM
structural elements below the isolation system DM' = (4-15)
2
1 + T
must be designed to withstand the following
minimum lateral seismic force
TM
Vb = K D max DD (14-12) In all cases the value of Vs should not be less
than
If other displacements rather than DD the seismic force required by the code
generate larger forces, then those forces should provisions for a fixed-base structure;
be used in design rather than the force obtained the base shear corresponding to the factored
from Equation 14-12. design wind load
The structure above the isolation plane one and a half times the lateral force
should withstand a minimum shear force, Vs, as required to fully activate the isolation
if it was fixed base where: system, i.e., the yield load of a lead-plug
rubber bearing or slip threshold of a sliding
K D max DD bearing system
Vs = (14-13)
RI
14.7.5 Vertical Distribution of Design
Force
In above equations KDmax is the maximum
effective stiffness of the isolation system at the
In order to conservatively consider
design displacement (DBE) in the horizontal
participation of higher modes in response, the
direction and RI is a reduction factor analogous
vertical distribution of the force on the
to the R factor that would have been used for
superstructure of an isolated building is similar
the superstructure if it was not isolated (see
to that prescribed for fixed-base construction.
Chapter 5). IBC-2000 defines RI as
742 Chapter 14

This is so, although the seismic isolation theory considered whenever the interstory drift ration
suggests a uniform distribution of forces over exceeds 0.010/RI.
the height of the superstructure. Therefore, the
lateral force at level x, denoted by Fx, is 14.7.7 Peer Review
computed from the base shear, VS, by
IBC-2000 similar to its predecessors
hx w x requires the design of the isolation system and
Fx = Vs (14-15) the related test programs to be reviewed by an
i =1 wi hi
N
independent team of registered design
professionals and others experienced in seismic
where wx and wi are the weights at level i or x analysis methods and theory and application of
and hx and hi are the respective heights of seismic isolation. The scope of this review
structure above isolation level. includes, but is not limited to the following
items:
14.7.6 Drift Limitations 1. Review of site-specific design ground
motion criteria such as design spectrum and
The maximum interstory drift (relative time-histories as well as other project-
displacement of adjacent floors) permitted by specific information.
the IBC-2000 is a function of method of 2. Review of the design criteria and the
analysis in that more drift is permitted when preliminary design procedures and results.
more sophisticated analyses are performed. 3. Overview and observation of the prototype
Static Analysis: The drift at any level x is testing program.
calculated from Equation 14-16 and should not 4. Review of the final design of the entire
exceed 0.015hsx (hsx is the story height below structural system and supporting analyses
level x). and calculations.
5. Review of the isolation system quality
RI se control and production testing program.
x = (14-16)
IE
14.7.8 Testing Requirements for
Isolators
where se is the drift determined by an elastic
analysis and IE is the occupancy importance Code testing requirements of the isolator
factor for the building as defined in Chapter 5. units before they can be accepted are contained
Response Spectrum Analysis: The drift at in Section 16.23.8 of IBC-2000. The code
any level x calculated from response spectrum requires that at least two full-sized specimens of
analysis should not exceed 0.015hsx. each type of isolator be tested. The sequence
Time-History Analysis: The drift at any and the necessary number of cycles of testing
level x calculated from a time-history analysis vary with the amount of deformation the
considering the nonlinear behavior of the isolators are subjected to. For example, twenty
isolators should not exceed 0.020hsx. The code fully reversed cycles of loading is to be
has an additional paragraph stating that this performed at a displacement corresponding to
drift should be calculated using Equation 14-16. the wind design force.
However, the relevance of such a provision to The tests required are a specified sequence
nonlinear time-history analysis is not clear and of horizontal cycles under D + 0.5L from small
this may be just a printing error in the very first horizontal displacements up to DTM. The
edition of the IBC that has just been released at maximum vertical load used during testing is
the time of this writing. P- effects must be 1.2DL + 0.5LL + Emax, and the minimum is
0.8DL - Emin where Emax and Emin are the
14. Design of Structures with Seismic Isolation 743

maximum downward and upward load on the 107

isolator that can be generated by an earthquake. K D max = (1.10) = 131 k/in.
0.90
81
14.7.9 Design Example K M max = (1.10 ) = 99 k/in.
0.90
Consider a small building with a plan
A Linear interpolation of values of 1.2 and 1.5
dimension of 150 feet by 70 feet. The total
given in IBC-2000 Table 1623.2.2.1 for 10%
weight of the structure is estimated at 4200
and 20% damping results in B = 1.35.
kips. The lateral load resisting system consists
Alternatively, From Equation 14-7:
of ordinary steel concentrically braced frames
(R=5). The building is regular in both the plan
1
and the elevation. The actual distance between = 0.25(1 ln ) = 0.25(1 ln 0.15) = 0.7243
the center of mass and the center of rigidity of B
each floor is 80 inches. B = 1.38
The project site is located in downtown Los
Angeles on a site with soil Class C. Evaluation The same level of damping is assigned to both
of IBC-2000 seismic hazard maps (see Chapter DBE and MCE events for preliminary design
3) has produced values of SS=1.5g and purposes. The value of Fv = 1.3 is obtained
S1=0.60g. The fixed base period of the building from IBC-2000 Table 1615.1.2 (see Chapter 3)
is 0.40 secs. The isolation system should for site Class C and S1 = 0.60 > 0.50. The
provide effective isolated periods in the vicinity Spectral coefficients needed for calculation of
of TD = 2.0 and TM = 2.3 seconds, respectively. minimum displacements are obtained from
The anticipated damping is about 15% critical. Equations 14-3 and 14-4:
A margin of +10% variation in stiffness from
the mean stiffness values of the isolators is S M 1 = Fv S1 = (1.3)(0.60 ) = 0.78 g
considered acceptable. Estimate the minimum 2 2
design displacements, minimum lateral forces, S D1 = S M 1 = (0.78) = 0.52 g
and maximum permitted interstory drift ratios 3 3
according to the IBC-2000 requirements.
SOLUTION: The minimum design displacements now may
TD and TM are given. Therefore, from be obtained from Equations 14-1 and 14-2 as:
Equations 14-8 and 14-9:
386.4 (0.52)(2.0 )
DD = 2
= 7.55 in.
4200 4 1.35
2.0 = 2
386.4 K D min 386.4 (0.78)(2.3)
DM = 2
= 13.02 in.
K D min = 107 kips/in. 4 1.35
4200
2.3 = 2 The eccentricity needed to calculate total
386.4 K M min displacements is
K M min = 81 kips/in.
e = 80 + (0.05)(150)(12 ) = 170 in.
As specified in the problem, we assume a +10%
variation about the mean stiffness values. and from Equations 14-10 and 14-11 noting that
Therefore, the same multiplier applies to both equations
744 Chapter 14

12e provided as an aid in determining appropriate

1 + y 2 = layouts for particular projects and are not
b +d2
intended to restrict, the designer in individual
150 (170) cases.
1 + = 1.47 and
2 150 2 + 70 2
DTD = (7.55)(1.47 ) = 11.1 in. 14.8.1 Bearing Location
DTM = (13.02)(1.47 ) = 19.1 in.
Figures 14-16 to 14-19 provide typical
planes of isolation for elastomeric bearings in
The minimum design shear force for the buildings both with and without separate
isolation system and structural elements below basement levels. Some of the advantages and
the isolation plane is obtained from Equation disadvantages associated with each layout are
14-12: listed in the figures. The following general
guidelines are considerations for determining a
Vb = K D max DD = (131)(7.55) = 989 kips suitable layout:
The bearing location should permit
which corresponds to a seismic base shear access for inspection and replacement,
coefficient of 0.24. The reduction factor from should this become necessary.
Equation 14-14 is: A full diaphragm above or below the isolators
to distribute lateral loads uniformly to each
3 3 bearing is preferable. If distribution is by tie
RI = R = (5) = 1.875 2.0 beams only, the bearings should be arranged in
8 8
proportion to the lateral load taken by each
element, i.e., larger bearings under stiffer
The design base shear for design of the
elements.
superstructure (Equation 14-13) is:
Free movement for the maximum predicted
K D V 989
Vs = D max D = b = = 527 kips horizontal displacement must be available.
RI RI 1.875 A layout which allows stub walls or
columns as a backup system for vertical
which in turn translates to a seismic base shear loads should be used wherever possible.
coefficient of 0.126. Remember that this force Consideration must be given to the
has to be larger than the base shear obtained for continuity of services, stairways, and
a similarly situated fixed-base building with a elevators at he plane of isolation.
period of 2.0 sec. The procedure for Consideration must be given to details for
calculating base shear force for conventional cladding if it will extend below the plane of
buildings is explained in Chapter 5 and isolation.
therefore not repeated here.
14.8.2 Connection Details
14.8 SEISMIC-ISOLATION
Although connection details vary from each
CONFIGURATIONS
project, the design principles remain the same:
1. The bearing must be free to deform in shear
The seismic-isolation configuration,
between the outer shims; i.e., the upper
including the layout and the installation details
surface of the bearing must be able to move
for the isolation system, depends on the site
freely horizontally.
constraints, type of structure, construction, and
other related factors. The following details are
14. Design of Structures with Seismic Isolation 745

Figure 14-18. Bearings located at bottom of first story

Figure 14-16. Bearings located in sub-basement columns

Figure 14-17. Bearings located at top of basement Figure 14-19. Bearings located at top of first story
columns columns
746 Chapter 14

Figure 14-20. Installation using dowels

2. The connections must have the capacity for weight while the bearing is removed, and (ii) a
transferring maximum seismic forces means of removing the bearing without undue
between the substructure and the damage to the connections.
superstructure. The ease of meeting this first requirement
3. Ease of construction must be kept in mind to will depend on the location of the bearings and
insure access for installation and, in the case type of backup safety system used. In a
of a retrofit, temporary support for the subbasement, jacks can generally be used
superstructure. between the foundation and basement floor to
support the bearing load. If a backup safety
The most common bearing construction has system is used (as described in the following
outer load plates of - 1 in. steel covered by section), provision for jacking may be
1/8 in. rubber layers. During the manufacture, incorporated into the design. Bearing locations
holes for bolts or dowels are formed through at the top of columns will require shoring to be
the outer rubber layers and load plates. Exterior erected around columns to provide a jacking
cover plates with bolts or dowels are then added platform if a backup system has not been
to the bearing prior to installation. These provided.
exterior plates may be either welded or bolted The removal of the bearing once the load is
to the structure. It is important to insure that the removed will be simplified if bolted
bolts or dowels do not intrude into the internal connections are used to connect to the structure.
rubber layers. Figure 14-20 is an example of a For example, the connection detail shown in
connection detail using dowels. The more Figure 14-20 could be modified to simplify
common trend is to use fully bolted rather than bearing removal. In this modification, double
dowelled connections. plates would be added at the bottom of the
bearing as shown in Figure 14-21. The bearing
14.8.3 Provision for Bearing Removal complete with dowel plates could then be
removed. For a welded connection, removal
Where practical, provision should be made would entail cutting the welds.
to ease removal and replacement of the bearings A combination of a removal and backup
should this ever be necessary. This requires two safety-system detail is shown in Figure 14-22.
things: (i) a means of supporting the building
14. Design of Structures with Seismic Isolation 747

Figure 14-21. Details for replacement bearings

Figure 14-23. Bearings at top of columns

Figure 14-22. Backup and removal detail

14.8.4 Backup Safety System

Depending on the importance of the

building, it may be considered desirable to
incorporate such a system depends on the Figure 14-24. Bearings at base of columns
bearing location and configuration. For bearing
locations at the top of columns a layout is
shown schematically in Figure 14-23. This 14.9 ISOLATOR DESIGN
provides a means of supporting the vertical PROCEDURES
load, and a lateral displacement limiter. An
alternate to the scheme of location bearings at Basic procedures for design of the high
the top of columns is to locate them at the base damping and low damping rubber isolators
of the columns as shown in Figure 14-24. (HDR, LDR), lead-rubber isolators (LRB), and
the friction pendulum isolators (FPS) are
presented in this section. The primary purpose
of this information is to aid design engineer in
preliminary sizing of the isolators needed for a
748 Chapter 14

given project. For is information The reader is loaded area

encouraged to read the recent textbook by S=
force - free area
Kelly(14-46) for a very detailed coverage of
mechanical characteristics and modeling of
HDR and LRB isolators. A less exhaustive but
For a circular pad with a diameter of and
more practical coverage of the same topics may
a single layer rubber thickness, t
be found in a recent textbook by Naeim and
Kelly(14-8). Further instructions and details for

design of FPS isolators may be obtained from S= (14-17)
the patent-holder, Earthquake Protection 4t
Systems of Berkeley, California and from
Reference 14-40. Generally a good design tries to keep the
The need for an isolation system which is value of S to somewhere between 10 and 20.
stiff under low levels of lateral load (e.g. wind) The horizontal stiffness of a single isolator
but flexible under higher levels (i.e. is given by
earthquakes) necessarily leads to a nonlinear
system. The properties of most isolator systems GA
KH = (14-18)
are characterized as bilinear. Although a tri- tr
linear model with stiffening at large horizontal
displacements better represents the performance
where G is the shear modulus of the rubber, A is
of HDR isolators.
the full cross-sectional area of the pad, and tr is
Any complete design procedure should
the total thickness of rubber. The maximum
insure that (i) the bearings will safely support
shear strain, , experienced by the isolator is the
the maximum gravity service loads throughout
maximum horizontal displacement, D, divided
the life of the structure and (ii) the bearings will
by the total rubber thickness, tr.
provide a period shift and hysteric damping
during one or more design earthquakes. The
D
steps to achieve these aims are: = (14-19)
1. The minimum required plan size is tr
determined for the maximum gravity loads
at each bearing location. The vertical stiffness of a rubber bearing is
2. The total rubber thickness or dimensions of given by
the FPS isolator is computed to give the
period shift during earthquake loadings. Ec As
3. The damping characteristics of the isolator KV = (14-20)
tr
system is calculated to ensure proper value
of the hysteric damping and wind resistance
required. where Ec is the compression modulus of the
4. The performance of the bearings as designed rubber-steel composite and As is the area of a
is checked under gravity, wind, thermal, steel shim plate. For a circular pad without any
earthquake, and any other load conditions. holes in the center

14.9.1 Elastomeric Isolators Ec = 6GS 2 (14-21)

One of the most important parameters in For bearings with very large shape factors the
design of elastomeric bearings is the shape compressibility of rubber affects the value of
factor, S, defined as Ec. In such cases a more accurate estimate of Ec
may be obtained from
14. Design of Structures with Seismic Isolation 749

6GS 2 K displacement D larger than the yield

Ec = (14-22) displacement Dy, may be defined in terms of the
6GS 2 + K post-elastic stiffness, Kd, and characteristic
strength, Qd, as
where K is the bulk modulus of rubber and
generally varies from 145,000 psi to 360,000
Qd
psi depending on the type of rubber being used. K eff = K d + D Dy (14-23)
The value of 290,000 psi is most commonly D
used.
The natural period is given as
14.9.2 Lead-Rubber Isolators (LRB)
W
The lead-rubber bearings is a nonlinear T = 2 (14-24)
K eff g
system which may be very effectively idealized
in terms of a bilinear forcedeflection curve
with constant values throughout many cycles of As a rule of thumb for lead-rubber isolators
loading (Figure 14-25). Formulas developed in Ku is taken as 10Kd. Kelly(14-46) has shown that
the previous section are also applicable here with this assumption, the effective percentage
with some additional equations that model the of critical damping provided by the isolator,
lead core properties. eff, can be obtained from

4Qd (D Qd 9 K u )
eff = (14-25)
2 (K u D + Qd )D

14.9.3 Friction Pendulum System

If the load on an FPS isolator is W, and the

radius of curvature of the FPS dish is R, then
the horizontal stiffness of the isolator may be
defined for design purposes as

W
KH = (14-26)
R

The natural period of and FPS isolated

system is only a function of R

R
T = 2 (14-27)
g
Figure14-25. Typical bilinear hysteresis loop

The characteristic strength, Qd, can be The effective (peak-to-peak) stiffness of the
accurately estimated as being equal to the yield isolator is given by
force of the lead plug. The yield stress of lead is
about 1,500 psi. The effective stiffness of the W W
K eff = + (14-27)
lead-plug bearing, Keff, at a horizontal R D
750 Chapter 14

where is the friction coefficient and all other The average sustained load on an interior
terms are defined previously. The friction isolator is 500 kips.
coefficient has been shown to be independent of The fixed-base period of the super-structure
velocity for pressures of 20 ksi or more on the is estimated to be about 0.70 seconds.
articulated slider(14-8). The damping provided by From IBC-2000 for this site, SD1=0.56
the system, , is a function of horizontal Estimate the size of isolators needed for each of
displacement and may be obtained from the three alternatives and the corresponding
seismic design base shears so that the architect
2 and engineers could make substantial progress
= (14-28) while you are performing your final design of
+D R
the isolators and preparing for procurement and
prototype testing process.
An estimate of the rise of the structure
(vertical displacement) as a result of movement SOLUTION
along the curved surface of the isolator may be
obtained from
TD 3T fixed base = 3(0.7) = 2.1 sec.
1 D2
V (14-29) T be on the safe side, take TD=2.5 sec for
2 R preliminary design. The reduction fact, RI for
the superstructure is calculated from Eq. 14-14
as
14.9.4 Design Example
3
Assume you are in charge of designing a 1.0 RI = (6) = 2.25 2.0 RI = 2.0
four story isolated building. The owner, a 8
public entity, requires that the design
accommodate competing isolation systems to a) High-Damping Rubber Isolators
bid on the job. The architect needs to know the To be conservative we size the isolator
maximum dimensions of the isolators so that under largest sustained load. That is an interior
she can complete her schematic design. Your isolator under 500 kips of load. We take
engineering team needs to know the design base damping to be 10% subject to verification.
shears for proportioning the structural system Therefore, from Eq. 14-17 or from Table
above and the elements below the isolation 1623.2.2.1 of IBC-2000, BD=1.20.
surface. You would like to estimate these We take a typical high damping rubber
values for three alternative isolation systems: compound with G=145 psi and K=300 ksi.
a) a high damping rubber system Therefore, our first estimate for the horizontal
b) a lead-rubber system which may or may not stiffness of the isolator is obtained from Eq. 14-
be complimented by ordinary low-damping 8 as
isolators, and
2 2
c) a friction pendulum system. W 2 500 2
The following information is also available KH = = = 7.35 k/in.
gT 386 2.5
to you at this time.
The structural system above the isolation
The design displacement is obtained from
plane is a shear wall system with R = 6.
Eq. 14-1
The total weight of the building is 14,120
kips.
There are a total of 60 support points (i.e., g (0.56 )(2.5)
DD = 2 = 11.43 in.
60 isolators). 4 1.20
14. Design of Structures with Seismic Isolation 751

Usually we want to achieve this Let us now estimate the base shear coefficient
displacement at about 150% shear strain. From for design of the superstructure, Cs, and the
Eq. 14-19 , we can estimate the total rubber corresponding value for the base, Cb.
thickness required
Vb K H D 8.65(11.43)
D 11.43 Cb = = = 0.20
= tr = = 7.6 in. W W 500
tr 1.50 C
Cs = b 0.10
RI
Now we calculate the cross-sectional area
and the required diameter of the bearing from
b) Lead-Rubber Isolators
Eq. 14-18
It is usually more beneficial to begin
designing isolation systems using LRB isolators
K H tr 7.33(7.6 )
A= = = 384 in 2 as a system and then assign individual isolator
G 0.145 properties. The reason is that often the best
4A 4(384) solution is a combination of LRB isolators and
= = = 22.12 in low damping rubber isolators (i.e., isolators
without the lead plug).
Use = 24 in. In LRB isolators since damping comes from
the lead core, usually there is no need to use
Now we re-calculate A, KH and TD based on high damping rubber and therefore ordinary
this bearing diameter: rubber is generally used. Given the solution in
Part (a) of this problem, it is obvious that we do
2 (24)
2
not need a large amount of damping here.
A= = = 452 in 2 Therefore, we use 15% critical damping subject
4 4
to verification and a rubber compound with a
K H = 7.35(452 384) = 8.65 k/in shear modulus of G=60 psi.
TD = 2.50 (7.33 8.65) = 2.3 sec f 2.1 sec
The same target period of 2.5 seconds is
maintained. Either from Eq. 14-17 or from
Selecting a shape factor of S=10, from Eq. 14-
Table 1623.2.2.1 of IBC-2000, for =15%,
17 we can calculate the thickness of individual
BD=1.35 and from Eq. 14-1
rubber layers, t

g (0.56)(2.5)
t= =
24
= 0.6 in, say 5 8 " DD = 2 = 10.16 in.
4 S 4(10 ) 4 1.35
7 .6
number of layers = = 12.1, say 12 Treating the entire isolation system as a unit,
58 the required stiffness corresponding to this
t r = 12(5 8) = 7.5 in period is

2 2
Using 0.1in thick steel shim plates and one inch W 2 14,120 2
KH = = = 231 k/in.
top and bottom end plates, the total height of gT 386 2.5
the bearing is
The energy dissipated per cycle is
h = 7.5 + 2(1.0 ) + 11(0.1) = 10.6 in
752 Chapter 14

WD = 2K eff D 2 eff = 2 (231)(10.16) (0.15) The stiffness provided by lead plugs is

2

= 22,462 k - in Qd 578
K pb = = = 57 k - in
D 10.16
The area of the hysteresis loop, however, is
also given by
and the remainder of required stiffness has to be
WD = 4Qd (D D y )
provided by rubber. Therefore,

Qd 552
and if ignore Dy because of its relatively small K rubber = K H = 231 = 176 k - in
D 10.16
size
The total cross sectional area of the rubber is
W 22,462
Qd D = = 552 kips
4 D 4(10.16) (24)
2
Arubber = 60 385 = 26,744 in 2
4
Now, we can estimate Kd from Eq. 14-23:
and from Eq. 14-18, we can now establish the
Q 552
K d = K eff d = 231 required total rubber thickness, tr, as
D 10.16
= 176 kips/in
tr =
GA
=
( )
60 10 3 (26,744 )
K rubber 176
and since
= 9.1 in
Qd
Dy = and K u 10 K d , then Therefore, assuming 1.0 inch thick top and
Ku K d bottom end plates and steel shims, our isolators
Qd 552 will have a height of less than 12 inches.
Dy = = 0.35 in.
9 K d 9(176) The seismic shear coefficients are calculated
as in Part (a):
The total cross sectional area of the lead 231(10.16)
plug area needed for the entire isolation system Cb = = 0.167
is 14,120
0.17
Cs = = 0.083
Qd 552 2
pb =
Atotal pb
= = 368 in 2
Fy 1.5
c) Friction Pendulum System
For the sake of simplicity, we keep the Using the same target period of 2.5 seconds,
diameter of all isolators the same at =24 in. from Eq. 14-27
Using 3.5 inch diameter lead cores in 40 of the
60 isolators provides a lead cross sectional area R
2.5 = 2 R = 61.23 in
of slightly more than 385 square inches. Now 386
we have to recalculate Qd based on this new
area of lead Eq. 14-28 indicates that effective damping
and maximum displacement are inter-related.
Qd = 385(1.5) = 578 kips For example, assuming a coefficient of friction
14. Design of Structures with Seismic Isolation 753

of =0.06 and a design displacement of D=12 States indicates that it depends on two primary
inches, we get variables: the design force level of the
conventional building and the location of the
2 0.06 plane of isolation. The theory of seismic
eff = = 15% isolation permits substantial cost savings for
0.06 + 12.0 61.23
isolated buildings compared to convention
construction. However, given the current code
The selected value of D=12 inches satisfies regulations, the initial cost for seismic isolated
the minimum code prescribed displacement of structures can be equal to or exceed the cost for
10.16 inches which was calculated for the same a similarly situated fixed base building by as
basic parameters (T=2.5 sec., =15%, B=1.35) much as 5%. However, one should keep in
in Part (b). mind that this is a very minor price to pay for
From Eq. 14-27 the effective total stiffness achieving a structures which will have a
of the FPS isolation system consisting of 60 substantially better seismic performance during
identical isolators will be major earthquakes. Simply stated, achieving the
level of performance provided by seismic
14,120 0.06(14,120 )
K eff = + = 301 k/in isolation is virtually impossible through
61.23 12.0 conventional construction.
For the retrofit of existing buildings, seismic
and the seismic base shear coefficients are isolation may only be technically applicable in
calculated as before: one out of approximately eight buildings. When
it is technically feasible it has the attractive
301(12.0)
K eff D feature that most of the construction work is
Cb = = = 0.25 confined to the basement area. Retrofit
W 14,120
construction costs, when compared to a
C 0.25 conventional code force level upgrade, have
Cs = b = = 0.125
RI 2 been shown to be comparable. In addition,
disruption to the operation of the facility may
be avoided during construction with the use of
seismic isolation.
14.10 CONCLUSIONS
One of the major difficulties in comparing
the costs and benefits of a conventional and an
Several practical systems of seismic
isolated structure is the significant difference in
isolation have been developed and implemented
their performance characteristics. In the only
in recent years, and interest in the application of
such design performed to date, a critical Fire
this technique continues to grow. Although
Command and Control Facility for Los Angeles
seismic isolation offers significant benefits, it is
County required both a conventional and an
by no means a panacea. Feasibility studies are
isolated two story structure to meet the same
required early in the design phase of a project to
stringent performance criteria. In this case the
evaluate both the technical and the economic
isolated design was shown to be 6% less
issues. If its inclusion is appropriate from a
expensive.
technical and first-cost perspective, then
If equivalent performance designs are not
significant life-cycle cost advantages can be
performed then the costs and benefits of
achieved. Thus, seismic isolation represents an
different structural design schemes can only be
important step forward in the continuity search
assessed by calculating and comparing the four
for improved seismic safety.
principal cost impact factors: 1) construction
The construction costs of incorporating
cost: 2) earthquake insurance premium: 3)
seismic isolation in new buildings in the United
physical damage that must be repaired and 4)
754 Chapter 14

disruption costs, loss of market share and the Fourth Conference on Structural Mechanics in
potential liability to occupants for their losses. Reactor Teachnology, San Francisco, Vol. K, No. 9/2,
1977
Earthquake damage studies have shown that
14-12 Castiglinoni, A., Urbano, C., and Stupazzini, B.,
seismic isolation can reduce the cost of Seismic Design of Bridges in High Activity Region,
earthquake damage factors of 4 to 7. Proceedings of the Seventh European Conference on
Furthermore, the estimated dollar value of Earthquake Engineering, Athens, Vol. 6, 186-203,
earthquake damage in an isolated building has 1982.
been shown to be less than the currently 14-13 Ikonomou, A.S., Seismic Isolation of Bridges with
the Alexisismon, Proceedings of the Conference on
available 10% earthquake insurance deductible. Short an Medium Span Bridges, Toronto, 141-153,
1982.
14-14 Robinson, W.H., Lead-Rubber Hysteretic
REFERENCES Bearings Suitable for Protecting Structures During
Earthquakes, J. Earthquake Eng. And Structural
Dynamics 10, 593-604, 1982.
14-1 Calantariants, J. A., improvements in and
14-15 Blakeley, R. W. G., et al., Recommendations for
Connected with Building and Other Works and
the Design and Construction of Base Isolated
Appurtenances to Resist the Action of Earthquakes and
Structures, Bull. New Zealand Nat. Soc. Earthquake
the Like, Paper No. 325371, Engineering Library,
Eng. 12, No. 2, 1979.
Stanford University, CA, 1909.
14-16 Kelly, J. M. and Tsztoo, D., Earthquake
14-2 deMontalk, Robert Wladislas, Shock Absorbing or
Simulation Testing of a Stepping Fram with Energy-
Minimizing Means for Buildings, U.S. Patent No.
Absorbing Devices, Report No. UCB/EERC-77/17,
1,847,820, 1932.
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of
14-3 Bechtold, Jacob, Earthquake-Proof Building, US
California, Berkeley, 1977.
Patent No. 845,046, 1907.
14-17 Earthquake Simulator Tests of a Nine-Story Steel
14-4 Wright, F.L., An Autobiography: Frank Lloyd
Frame with Columns Allowed to Uplift, report No.
Wright, Horizon Press, New York, 1977.
UCB/EERC-77/23, Earthquake Engineering Research
14-5 Green, N.B., Flexible First Story Construction for
Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, 1977.
Earthquake Resistance, Trans. Amer. Soc. Civil Eng.
14-18 Kelly, J. M., Eidinger, J. M., and Derham, C. J., A
100, 645, 1935.
Practical Soft Story System, Report No. UCB/EERC-
14-6 Kelly, J.M. Aseismic Base Isolation: Its History
77/27, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ.
and Prospects, Joint Sealing and Bearing Systems for
of California, Berkeley, 1977.
Concrete Structures, Publication SP-70, American
14-19 Kelly, J. M., Beucke, K. E., and Skinner, M. S.,
Concrete Institute, 1982.
Experimental Testing of a Friction Damped Aseismic
14-7 Buckle, I.G. and Mayes, R.L., Seismic Isolation:
Base Isolation System with Fail-Safe Characeristics,
History, Application and Performance - A World
Report No. UCB/EERC-80/18, Earthquake Engineerig
View, Earthquake Spectra Journal, Theme Issue:
Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, 1980.
Seismic Isolation, EERI, Vol. 6, No. 2, May 1990; and
14-20 Kelly, J. M., Beucke, K. E., and Skinner, M. S.,
Buckle, I.G., Development and Application of Base
Experimental Testing of an Energy-Absorbing Base
Isolation and Passive Energy Dissipation: A World
Isolation System, Report No. UCB/EERC-80/35,
Overview, Applied Technology Council Report 17,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University
Palo Alto, CA, Mar. 1986.
of California, Berkeley, 1980.
14-8 Naeim, F. and Kelly, J.M., Design of Seismic
14-21 Kelly, J. M., and Hodder, S. B., Experimental
Isolated Structures: From Theory to Practice, John
Study of Lead and Elastomeric Dampers for Base
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1999.
Isolation Systems, Report No. UCB/EERC-81/16,
14-9 Skinner, R.E., Tyler, R.G., Heine, A.J., and
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of
Robinson, W.J., Hysteretic Dampers for the
California, Berkeley, 1981.
Protection of Structures from Earthquakes, Bull. New
14-22 Kelly, J. M., Buckle, I. G., and Tsai, H. C.,
Zealand Nat. Soc. Earthquake Eng. 13, No.1, Mar.
Earthquake Simulator Testing of a Base Isolated
1980.
Bridge Deck, Report No. UCB/EERC-85/09,
14-10 Way, D. and Lew, M., Design and Analysis of a
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of
High Damping Rubber Isolation System, Applied
California, Berkeley, 1985.
Technology Council Report No. 17, Palo Alto, CA,
14-23 Structural Engineers Association of California,
1986.
Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and
14-11 Jolivet, F. and Richli, M., Aseismic Foundation
Commentary, San Francisco, 1983.
System for Nuclear Power Stations, Transactions of
14. Design of Structures with Seismic Isolation 755

14-24 Stanton, J. F. and Roeder, C. W., Elastomeric 14-37 Kell, J.M., Buckle, I.G. and Tsai, H.C. (1985),
Bearings: Design, Construction and Materials, Earthquake Simulator Testing of Base Isolated Bridge
NCHRP Report 248, Transportation Research Board, Deck, Report Bo UCB/EERC-85/09, Earthquake
Washington, 1982. Engineering Research Center, University of California,
14-25 Applied Technology Council, Proceedings of a Berkley.
Seminar and Workshop on Base Isolation and Passive 14-38 Mokha, A., Constantinou, M.C., and Reinhorn,
Energy Dissipation, ATC Report No. 17, Palo Alto, A.M., (1990), Teflon Bearings in Base Isolation I:
CA, 1986. Testing, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
14-26 Structural Engineers Association of Northern Vol. 116, No. 2, pp. 438-454.
California (1986), Tentative Seismic Isolation Design 14-39 Mohka, A., Constantinou, M.C., and Reinhorn,
Requirements, San Francisco, 1986. A.M., (1990), Teflon Bearings in a Seismic Base
14-27 Structural Engineers Association of Northern Isolation. Experimental Studies and mathematical
California, Tentative Lateral Force Requirements, San Modeling. Report No. NCEER-88-0038, National
Francisco, 1985. Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State
14-28 International Conference of Building Officials, University of New York, Buffalo.
Uniform Building Code, Whittier, CA 1994. 14-40 Zayas, V., Low, S.S., and Mahin, S.A., (1987) The
14-29 Kelly, T. E., Mayes, R. L., and Jones, L. R., FPS Earthquake resisting System, Experimental
Preliminary Design Procedures for Seismically Report. Report No. UCB/EERC-87/01, Earth
Isolated Structures, Proceedings of a Seminar on Base Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Isolation and Passive Energy Dissipation, Report No. Berkeley.
17, Applied Technology Council, Palo Alto, CA, 1986. 14-41 Applied Technology Council, proceedings of a
14-30 Buckle, I.G. and mayes, R.L. (1990), The Workshop on Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy
Application of Seismic Isolation to Bridges, 14-42 International Code Council (2000), International
Proceedings ASCE Structures Congress: Seismic Building Code, March.
Engineering - Research and Practice, pp 633-642, May, 14-43 International Conference of Building Officials,
1990. Uniform Building Code, Whittier, CA 1997.
14-31 Chalhoub, M.S., and Kelly, J.M., (1989) 14-44 Federal Emergency Management Agency (1997),
Earthquake Simulator Evaluation of a Combined NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Sliding Bearing and Tension Controlled Rubber Buildings, FEMA-273, Washington, D.C., October.
Bearing Isolation System. Proceeding, 1989 ASME 14-45 Federal Emergency Management Agency (1997),
Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, American NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the
Society of Mechanical Engineers, Hawaii, Vol. 181, pp Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA-274,
59-64. Washington, D.C., October.
14-32 Constantinou, M.C., Mokha, A., and Reinhorn, 14-46 Kelly, J.M. (1996), Earthquake-Resistant Design
A.M., (1990) Teflon Bearings in Base Isolation II: with Rubber, 2nd Edition, Springer-Verlag, London.
Modeling, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 116, No. 2 pp. 455-474.
14-33 Griffith, M.C., Aiken, T.D., and Kelly, J.M. (1988)
Experimental Evaluation of Seismic Isolation of a
Nine-Story Braced Steel Frame Subject to Uplift.
Report No. UCB/EERC-88/05, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley.
14-34 Kelly, J.M.., Eidenger, J.M. and Derham, C.J.
(1977) A Practical Soft Story System, Report No.
UCB/EERC-77/27, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley.
14-35 Kelly, J.M., Beucke, K.E. and Skinner, M.S.
(1980), Experimental Testing of an Energy-Absorbing
Base Isolation System, Report No. UCB/EERC-
80/35, Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, Berkley.
14-36 Kelly, J.M. and Hodder, S.B. (1981),
Experimental Study of Elastomeric Dampers for Base
Isolation Systems, Report No. UCB.EERC-81/16,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University
of California, Berkeley.
756 Chapter 14