8

th
World Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Energy Dissipation and Active Vibration Control of
Structures Yerevan, Armenia, October 6-10, 2003


GUIDELINES FOR SEISMIC ISOLATION IN ITALY, USA, CHINA.
COMPARISON OF PROVISIONS AND OUTCOME ON DESIGN


Marco Mezzi

Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Perugia, Italy


ABSTRACT

Seismic isolation is a current technique for the seismic protection of both new and existing
buildings. It has been largely used in many countries differing in building tradition and
technologies and a number of these countries have published guidelines on the subject.
While the general criteria of the technique are well established, guidelines can differ in
specific rules, analysis procedures, design provisions, detailing prescriptions. In Italy an
innovative code has been recently drawn up. The aim of the work illustrated in this paper is
to establish a comparison among the guidelines existing in Italy and those of USA and China
and their effect on the actual design of an ordinary building.


1. INTRODUCTION

Seismic isolation cannot be considered as an innovative technique for seismic protection, in
fact it is older than twenty years, but often it still pays - in terms of more severe design
methods, checking rules and testing procedures provided by the guidelines - the fact to be
defined a new technique. It is interesting to examine how different realities approach the
problem of inserting new structural solutions within the traditional standards and this is the
aim of the research here referred. The first stage of the work, reported in this paper, regards
the comparison among the guidelines existing in Italy (Ordinanza, 2003), USA (SEAOC,
1999) and China (CECS, 2001) - synthetically referred as IT, US and CH in the paper - and it
can be observed how the positions differ. The different views obviously determine a fall out
on the design of buildings with penalties, in terms of oversizing of isolators and structural
elements, deriving by the provisions of the more cautious codes. Italian situation is being
modified in the current months: the Italian code for the constructions in seismic zones
provided isolated structures as special structures and each project had to be approved by a
high technical board, the Supreme Council of Public Works, which had drawn up guidelines
resulting restrictive and causing a strong slowdown in the diffusion of the isolation
techniques to buildings. In May 2003, a new seismic code has been published which includes
isolated structures among the ordinary structural systems, providing specific rules without
treating them as special structures. Comparisons among the rules from the different codes
and the resulting design are presented and discussed in the following paragraphs, focusing
the attention to isolation systems consisting of elastomeric bearings, the more diffused for
building base isolation.
2. SEISMIC ACTION

Levels. All codes provide for different intensity levels. The reference intensity - defined
Ultimate Limit State (ULS) in IT, Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) in US, Design Earthquake
(DE) in CH - is the same for all the codes and corresponds to a standard event having a
return period of 475 years, that is an exceeding probability of 10% in 50 years. Over the
reference level, IT provides a lower level called Damage Limit State (DLS), having intensity
2.5 times lower than ULS, for checking only the elevation deformations, and a third level -
in the follow called Amplified ULS (AULS) - with an intensity 1.2 ULS, for checking the
lateral deformation of the devices. US provides a Maximum Capable Earthquake (MCE),
corresponding to a return period of 1000 years, for checking the isolators. CH defines a
Small Earthquake (SE) with return period of about 50 years for checking the elevation drifts
and a Large Earthquake (LE), return period of about 2500 years, under which to control the
isolators' displacements and the story drifts.
Intensities. The intensity parameter is expressed in terms of Peak Ground Acceleration
(PGA) or Maximum Response Acceleration (MRA). 0.35, 0.25 e 0.15 g are the ULS PGA
values provided by IT for high, medium and low seismicity zones. US has a more complex
definition in function of the soil profile, the seismic zone factor (0.075, 0.15, 0.20, 0.30, 0.40
for the five hazard levels provided), the near source factor: parameters differ for DBE and
MCE. The PGA values of DE given by CH are 0.05, 0.10, 0.20, 0.40 g's respectively for the
zones called 6, 7, 8, 9; for SE and LE it gives response accelerations (0.04, 0.08, 0.16 and
0.32 for SE; 0.28, 0.50, 0.90, 1.40 for LE) while the corresponding PGA stated for dynamic
analyses are 0.018, 0.036, 0.071, 0.143 for SE and 0.13, 0.225, 0.408, 0.632 for LE. This is
quite in accord to the last Chinese seismic guidelines (GB50011, 2001) stating that PGA of
frequent event is 1/3 that of DE and PGA of rare event is 7, 6, 5, 4 times greater
(respectively for the 4 zones). "Near fault" factor is provided by CH at the check level to
amplify the isolator response.
Elastic response spectra and site spectra. Seismic action is represented by elastic
response spectra which shape depends on the subsoil, classified on the base of lithology and
dynamic parameters (shear wave velocity). Three soil classes are defined in IT, six in US,
four in CH. IT allows for the use of site spectra, but their ordinates cannot be lower than
those of the standard one. US prescribes the use of site spectra for soft soils (S
E
or S
F
), fault
distances less than 10 km, isolated period greater than 3 s, and lower seismic zone (1, 2A or
2B). Differentiated spectra for DBE and MCE have to be defined, having ordinates not lower
than 80% of the standard ones. Site spectra are allowed by CH without specifications.
Importance factor. IT provides for an importance factor, as for fixed-base buildings, equal
1.0, 1.2, or 1.4 depending on the occupancy, which amplifies the seismic action. US states
that importance factors is 1 regardless to the occupancy category, taking into account that
there is no design ductility demand on t he structure. CH refers to three categories of isolated
buildings: very important, important and general, without differentiating the seismic actions;
the so called "no-important" buildings cannot be isolated.


3. ANALYSIS METHODS

All codes provide for the use of static or response spectrum linear analyses and dynamic non
linear analysis, except previous Italian guidelines not allowing static analysis.
Linear modeling of device behavior. IT allows for the linear modeling when: the ULS
stiffness is not lower than 50% that at 20% of the ULS displacement; percent damping is
30%; the variation of the force-displacement relationship with velocity and axial force is
limited; a minimum hardening is present (the increase of the lateral force in the range from
50% and 100% of the design displacement must be greater than 1.25 % of the weight). US
defines similar provisions for ordinary isolation systems: the stiffness at DBE displacement
is greater than 1/3 that at 20% of the same displacement; restoring force must have a
predefined value; the force-displacement relationship is independent by the load velocity; the
ratio between DBE and MCE displacements is greater than the ratio C
VM
/C
VD
. No special
provision are given by CH for the modeling of devices.
Damping effects. IT provides for a spectrum multiplying factor ( ) + = 5 / 10 for a
percent damping . US provides values of a spectrum dividing factor B (equal 0.8, 1.0, 1.2,
1.5, 1.7 correspondently to percent damping equal 2, 5, 10, 20, 30). The damping is taken
into effect by CH providing a reduction factor of the flat path of the response spectra

2
=1+(0.05-)/(0.06+1.4) and a modified exponent, =0.9+(0.05-)/(0.5+5), of the stretch
going down.
Vertical component. IT provides for a specific spectrum of the vertical component, as for
fixed-base structures, to be used for prestressed or cantilevered or spanning more than 20 m
elements, and when the ratio of vertical/lateral stiffness of isolation system is lower than 800.
US suggest a reduction of the lateral spectrum equal 2/3, but advising that near the fault the
vertical component can be equal or greater the horizontal peak, and giving lower bound of
the vertical actions as static vertical loads. CH provides that vertical seismic action must be
always considered in intensity zone 9, or for lateral force reduction 0.25 in zone 8; it is
recommended for reduction 0.25-0.50 in zone 8. The value of the vertical component can be
assumed equal 20% of the weight in zone 8 and 30% in zone 9.


3.1 Static analysis

The conditions provided by IT for the use of static analysis are: in-plan regularity; height
20 m or 5 stories; maximum dimension lower than 50 m; linear behavior of the isolation
system; isolated period 3 s and greater than 4 times the fixed-base period; ratio of
vertical/lateral stiffness 800; vertical period 0.1 s; no tension in any isolator; eccentricity
3%. The ULS response is computed from the elastic response spectrum correspondently to
the period computed with the secant stiffness. The maximu m displacement of the stiffness
centre of isolators is computed dividing by the minimum stiffness. The forces on the
elevation have rectangular distribution.
US allows the use of simplified static analysis under conditions on the configuration and
site (fault distance 10 km; no soft soil; height 20 m or 4 stories; isolated period 3 s and
greater than 3 times the fixed-base period; regular structural configuration) and on the
isolation system (no highly nonlinear). The design and maximum displacements of isolators,
correspondent to DBE and MCE, are computed from the elastic response spectrum
correspondently to the period computed using the minimum value of the secant stiffness of
the isolation system. The lateral force of the isolation system is computed for the DBE using
the maximum value of the secant stiffness: it is used for the substructure checking too. The
forces on the elevation are reduced by a factor R
I
depending on the type of the structural
system and a triangular distribution is assumed. It is important to note that R
I
takes into
account system overstrength only and no expected ductility demand. The elevation base
shear cannot be lower than: the response of the fixed-base building with the same period, the
design wind load, 1.5 times the force fully activating the isolation system.
CH provides a simplified method of analysis, reported by the general seismic code, called
"Base Shear Method" (BSM) or "Equivalent Lateral Force Method" that can be applied when
the following requirements are observed: the natural period of the fixed-base structure is
lower than 1.0 s; the structural configuration of the elevation is regular (it could be designed
using the BSM); the soil is not soft (category IV); the non seismic lateral loads are lower
than 10% of the weight; the periods of the two fundamental modes in two directions differ
no more than 30%. Response is computed assuming the resultant stiffness and equivalent
damping of the isolation system, damping is computed as average value weighted with
respect to the stiffness. For the analyses under SE, DE and LE, the values of stiffness and
damping corresponding respectively to 50%, 100% and 250% of the design displacement
must be used. The distribution of elevation forces is usually triangular but rectangular for
masonry buildings.
Torsion effect in static analysis. The design displacement has to be incremented by a
torsion amplification factor. IT defines an amplification equal 1+e/r
2
y. For US it is equal
1+y12e/(b
2
+d
2
) allowing to calculate the so called total design displacement, it can be
reduced if stiffness centrifugation is applied, but not below 1.1. Similarly, but with different
symbols, CH set the amplification to 1+12er
i
/(b
2
+l
2
), and prescribes the application to
structures complex and not regular; amplification 1.15 can be used if provision to limit
torsion are assumed and the torsion period is lower than 0.7 the translation one.


3.2 Linear dynamic or response spectrum analysis

It consists in a response spectrum analysis carried out - using a model with superstructure,
isolation and substructure performing linearly - with reference to the intensity levels
provided by the various codes. CH provides this type of analysis just for bridges.
IT allows response spectrum analysis when the isolation systems can be assumed to
perform elastically. The spectrum is reduced by the damping factor in the range over 80%
the isolated period. The vertical component must be accounted for when the ratio between
vertical and horizontal stiffness of the isolation system is lower than 800. To avoid gross
underestimation of the building response, minimum response values are requested by US as
percent of the static response: 90% of the design displacement for DBE; 80% of the
maximum displacement for MCE; 90% of the isolation design shear force. Displacement
values can be reduced, accounting for the elevation flexibility. Minimum values of the
elevation design shear force are also provided, as for static analysis, but differentiated
depending on regularity and analysis type.


3.3 Dynamic non-linear analysis

IT defines this analysis as compulsory for systems not respecting the prescription allowing
their elastic modeling: three or seven spectrum-fitting accelerograms, each consisting of the
three components, are to be used; recorded or site-generated accelerograms can be used if
respecting the coherence with the design spectrum. Response is computed as the average
value from seven analyses or the maximum value from three.
US provides for time -history analyses when static or response spectrum analyses are not
allowed. Recorded or simulated pairs of accelerograms have to be used provided that they
are proper in magnitude, fault distance, and source mechanism, moreover they have to have
the response spectrum coherent with the standard one within an allowed range. The
maximum response of three accelerograms or the medium of seven or more, is used. Each
pair of accelerograms requires 8 analyses for taking into account all the combination of the
sign of the components, but preliminary analysis can identify the most critical combination.
CH provides that time-history analyses must be carried out using a different number of
accelerograms for different importance classes. 4 accelerograms for classes A and B and
only three for class C: one of the accelerograms must be artificial and spectrum-fitted, the
other can be records. The superstructure and substructure are assumed to be elastic. The
average value of the responses is used in checking. The effect of bi-directional inputs can be
computed by bi-directional analyses or assuming the SRSS of the response in one direction
and the 85% of that one in the other direction.


4. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ISOLATION SYSTEM

Types of devices. IT defines two types of isolators: elastomeric and sliding; moreover it
provides for dissipating and recentering devices that can be non linear, viscous or linear.
Geometric and mechanical parameters characterizing the behavior are defined, together with
allowed tolerances. US defines isolation systems consisting of elastomeric or sliding
bearings and including damping devices and wind restraints. It defines the
force-displacement characteristics for granting a restoring force, otherwise the system must
be stable under a given displacement (3 times the design displacement or 36xC
VM
inches).
Constraints must be provided limiting the lateral displacement. Restraints can be used to
limit displacements to values lower than that corresponding to MCE. CH provides that
isolation layer can consist of isolators, dampers, wind resisting devices and restraints.
Shape parameters, stiffness and damping. The main parameters characterizing the
isolators are the primary shape factor S1, ratio of the diameter and the lateral surface of one
rubber layer, and the secondary shape factor S2, ratio of the diameter and the total rubber
thickness. These parameters are explicitly referred in IT and CH, not in US where checking
details are not stated. IT defines the equivalent stiffness of the device as the ratio between the
force corresponding to the maximum displacement and the same displacement. The
equivalent damping is the ratio between the dissipated cycle energy and 4W
e
(W
e
is the
elastic energy at the maximum displacement). Similar definition are provided by US. CH
states that parameters must be derived by tests, without giving prescriptions. Different values
of stiffness and damping result for each limit state, characterized by different displacement.
Layout requirements. All codes require that the installation of devices allows for the
inspection and substitution. IT provides for counteracting elements allow the recentering of
devices. CH requires, among the other, that the stiffness centre must approximate the mass
centre, the in-plan distribution corresponds to the vertical elements of the elevation, the wind
resisting elements are distributed along the perimeter, the maximum distance of devices
below shear walls is lower than 2 m.


5. STRUCTURAL MODEL

Model. IT provides for the elastic modeling of superstructure and substructure, while the
isolation system can be modeled as linear viscous-elastic or non-linear: equivalent linear
modeling can be adopted under stated conditions. US gives general prescriptions for the
modeling of isolated structures accounting for their main response characteristics. The model
can be linear provided that pseudo-elastic properties are assumed for non linear elements
corresponding to the maximum effective stiffness of isolation system. CH gives indications
on the model characteristics just for the computation by time-history analysis: model must
reproduce the 3D distribution of the elements, the actual position of the devices, the mass
eccentricity, the load-displacement relationship of isolators and their damping, it must have
the three in-plane DOF; superstructure and substructure can be considered elastic.
Regularity. A definition of in-plan and in-elevation irregularities is given both by IT and
US, but it has consequences only on the type of analysis: in fact static analysis is allowed
only for regular structures. CH generally refers to structure having irregular shape, without
defining regularity criteria: irregular structure must be computed by time-history
bi-dimensional analyses.
Second order effects. IT and US provide the evaluation of the stability coeffic ient
=P/Vh, (, is the story displacement; V, is the story shear; h, is the story height; P, is the
vertical load). IT allows to not consider second order effect when 0.1. For = 0.10.2
the effects are computed by multiplying the seismic forces by 1/1-; > 0.3 is not allowed.
Similar modalities are provided by US except in that the limit values are function of the
seismic-resistant system. Moreover US prescribes the designer checks the results of
evaluations made by codes automatically accounting for second order effects. No reference
is made by CH to second order effects.
Mass centre and eccentricity. IT and US provide for an accidental eccentricity of the
centre of masses equal 5% of the building dimension orthogonal to the seismic direction.
Simplified evaluation of the torsion effects are allowed when static analysis is carried out.
Moreover US prescribes to take into account the effects of the floor flexibility and torsion
irregularity. The latter is accounted by a factor, A
x
=(
max
/1.2
avg
), amplifying the eccentricity
as an effect of the flexibility of the perimeter elements, it is function of the maximum and
average perimeter displacement. No explicit value of accidental eccentricity is given by CH.
Seismic masses. According to IT, the masses to be considered in the evaluation of the
seismic action correspond to the dead loads plus a portion of the live loads. Live loads are
reduced by a couple of coefficients, the first is differentiated for load types and for Damage
or Ultimate Limit State, the second accounts for the contemporary presence of loads at
different levels. US gives analogous criteria but in general terms: the designer will assume
the reduction of live loads compatible with the use of building. CH does not report reduction
coefficients for the live loads to be considered in the analysis, and those provided by the
seismic code (GB50011,2001) can be referred, their values are greater than those reported by
IT (0.5 with respect to 0.3 x 0.5 =0.15 for the live loads of ordinary buildings).
Load combinations. Seismic analyses must be always carried out considering two
orthogonal actions. Their combination can be made considering the resultant effect (SRSS of
the components) or summing the effect of one component with 30% of that from the other
one. US provides particular modalities for the evaluation of the seismic forces in the
elements E = Eh + Ev or Em =
0
Eh accounting for a redundancy coefficient and for an
amplification factor
0
function of the system overstrenght. CH does not give special
combination rules: the ordinary seismic code must be referred.
Significant vibration modes and modal combination. All the three codes prescribe to
account, for each of the input directions, all the modes giving a significant contribution to
the response for having a minimum value of the participating mass (90% for US and CH,
85% for IT). The modal combination can be evaluated by the SRSS method if the modes are
independent - differing more than 10% for IT and CH, differing more than 25% for 5% of
damping, for US - otherwise the Complex Quadratic Combination must be used.


6. STRUCTURAL CHECKS

Superstructure. IT provides to check the story drift at the DLS with reference to the same
limits of fixed base buildings, that vary from 0.003 for masonry buildings, to 0.005 or 0.0075
for framed buildings. The elements strength must be checked with reference to the ULS
forces divided by a structure (ductility) factor 1.15x (varying from 1.265 to 1.495). The
superstructure behavior is assumed to be elastic, then checks are carried out assuming a
ductility class (or dissipating capacity) "Low".
US provides for the use of the ordinary methods of check of fixed base structures,
utilizing the forces corresponding to the DBE divided by the factor R
I
(overstrength factor)
depending on the structural typology: R
I
is generally 2.0, but 1.6 for braced frames and 1.4
for cantilevered columns. The interstory drift must be lower than 0.010/R
I
, for static analyses,
0.015/R
I
, for response spectrum analyses, 0.020/R
I
, for time history analyses: when greater
than 0.010/R
I
second order effects must be accounted for.
CH states that sections' checks are carried out assuming reduction (ductility) factors,
similarly to fixed base buildings . Some special recommendations are provided for masonry
buildings. Interstory drift must be checked, referring both SE and LE, for framed or dual
systems, not for masonry buildings. For r/c frames the maximum drifts, elastic at level SE
and elastic-plastic at level LE, must be lower than 1/550 and 1/100 respectively (1/1000 and
1/240 at the first story). Specifications are given regarding the concrete grade to be used at
the various levels of the buildings and the location of r/c framing within masonry walls.
Substructure. No specific considerations are made about the superstructure. Both IT and
US set that substructure elements have to be designed, similarly to fixed base structures, for
the forces deriving from the actions transmitted by the isolation system and the inertia
actions of their masses. CH provides that substructure check is carried out as for fixed base
building assuming the actions corresponding to LE; just elastic-plastic drift for LE have to be
checked.
Isolation system. IT provides that isolators can undergo the displacements computed for
the AULS earthquake (1.2ULS). All the portions of devices not involved in energy
dissipation must be checked for their allowable stress: they must perform within the elastic
limit with a safety factor not lower than 1.5. The following parameters must be checked:
stress in steel plates must be lower than yielding stress, the total lateral rubber drift (from
static loads, rotations and seismic loads) must be lower then 5, the seismic drift must be
lower than 2 and 1.5 times lower than the maximum test drift, the vertical load must be 2.5
times lower than the critical loads V
cr
=GAS
1
D/t
e
.
US generally provides that isolation system can sustain the forces induced by MCE
without collapse, checking all the elements against stability under the maximum
(combination 1.2D+1.0L+|E|
max
) and minimum (combination 0.8D-|E|
min
) vertical load. It
does not give specific checking rules, recommending the use of documented and tested
methodologies.
CH provides maximum compressive stress for computing the isolator's strength; values of
10, 12 and 15 MPa are set for building in class A, B, C (given that S115, S25, >300
mm): reduction of the allowable stress of 20 and 40% are required for S24 and S23
respectively. For each isolator the maximum load must be lowe r than its strength; the sum of
the strengths of all the isolators must be greater than 1.1. times the sum of the acting loads.
For the stability check of the isolators the maximum lateral displacement under LE must be
lower than the minimum between 55% of the diameter and 3 times the rubber thickness.
Recentering forces. IT do not prescribe recentering performances for elastomeric
isolators; for devices having strong non linear behavior it requires, for the DLS, that the
maximum displacement after the unloading is not greater than 10 mm. US set rules for the
recentering force: the lateral force at the design displacement (DBE) must be greater than
that at 50% of this displacement of a quantity equal 2.5 % of the weight, otherwise the
system must be stable for a displacement equal three times the design value or 36C
VM
inches.
CH requires that the force corresponding to the stiffness at 100% of deformation multiplied
by the rubber thickness must be greater than 1.4 times the lateral force induced by wind.
Constraints. IT do not provides for installing constraints. US allow to install constraints to
limit displacement to values lower than the maximum, when the structure is designed under
the following rules: the MCE response is computed assuming non linear behavior of devices;
the ultimate capacity of the isolating system and substructure is greater than the MCE forces;
superstructure stability and ductility are checked for MCE; constraint is not active for
displacement lower that 75% the design displacement. CH provides for constraints
installation without giving specific rules.
Tension on isolators and overturning. IT prescribes no tension for isolators. If analyses
show tension in some isolators, then tests should be provided to check the ability of isolator
to undergo the tension, or a special device has to be set for bearing the total tension. US
allows that some devices can undergo tension forces, provided that overstress or loss of
stability do not occur on the closest isolators and the safety factor against overturning is
greater than 1. CH allows for a tension stress not greater than 1.2 MPa; overturning checks
are required if the aspect ratio (height/width) is greater than 2 in zone 9 or greater than 2.5 in
zone 8: a safety factor greater than 1.2 is required.
Fire protection. All codes provides for fire protection and replacement arrangement.
Pipelines connection. IT and US prescribes that component crossing isolation layer are
designed to withstand the total maximum displacement. CH provides that connections allow
displacements 1.2 times greater that corresponding to LE.


7. SPECIFIC ASPECTS


7.1 Blue Book (US)

Structural systems. US classifies isolated buildings depending on their structural system,
defining the following systems: bearing walls, building frames, moment resisting frames,
dual systems, cantilevered columns. The structural system type has influence on the values
of ductility and overstrenght that can be used in checks.
Height limits. Height limits are present for the high seismicity zones and depend on the
structural system: special moment resisting frames do not have limits and limits can be
overridden of 50% by regular structures. Limits are mainly defined with the aim of fire
protection.
Non structural elements. Provisions are given for non structural components derived form
nonisolated buildings.
Wind restrainer. At the isolation interface a wind restraint system must be provided to
limit displacement to that required between floors of superstructure.
Cracking. Cracked section properties for r/c and masonry members must be considered in
accord to the general design rules in USA.
Recording devices should be installed to record the horizontal displacement.


7.2 CECS (CH)

Shaking table tests. Building type A (very important structures) or having complicate shape
require that models have to be tested on shaking table.
Monitoring. A monitoring system has to be installed on important buildings.
Gap. CH provides that the gap between superstructure or devices and any fixed
installation must be greater than 1.2 times the displacement corresponding to LE, in any case
not lower than 200 mm. The vertical gap must be greater than 15 mm or 10mm plus 1/25 of
the rubber thickness.
If some bars of the concrete reinforcement are used for the putting to earth, a spiral wire
must be inserted at the isolation gap.
The technical life of the isolators have not to be lower than that of the structure, generally
defined in 50 years.
Recommendations are given for constructive details and for masonry or dual buildings.

7.3 Ordinanza (IT)

No specific and original rules have to be lighted on in the new Italian guidelines for seismic
isolated structures.


8. SAMPLE DESIGN OF AN ORDINARY BUILDING

With the aim of focusing the differences induced in the structural characteristics of a typical
isolated building by the application of the above illustrated different guidelines, the design of
an ordinary building, which scheme, in plan and elevation, is reported in Figure 1 has been
carried out. The building has 5 stories, 3.0 m high, with two superelevations corresponding
to the stairs areas, the plan is rectangular (46.8 m in length, 12.2 m in width) with two
overhangs of 4.0 m for the two stairs. The structural system consists of a r/c frame with the
column axes located on a grid having longitudinal and transversal spacing of 5.85 and 6.1 m.
The following load values have been assumed: 6.2 kN/m
2
for permanent and dead loads, 2.0
and 1.55 kN/m
2
for live and snow loads respectively. For the seismic intensity has been
assumed a PGA 0.35 g of the event having return period of 475 years and the spectrum shape
corresponding to soils of medium characteristics.

Figure 1. Plan (left) and elevation (right) schemes of the sample building


8.1 Isolation system

For dimensioning the isolation system three rubber mix have been referred: soft (G=0.4
MPa), normal (G=0.8 MPa) and hard (G=1.4 MPa). The comparison among the solutions
resulting from the application of the different guidelines has been made on the basis of the
total rubber volume, V
R
, of the isolation system. For taking into account the different levels
of the design intensity required by each guideline, the volume has been referred to the design
accelerations and the following ratios resulted: R
A
, ratio to the peak ground acceleration
corresponding to the intensity having the standard return period of 475 years; R
R
, ratio to the
design response acceleration; R
F
, ratio to the fixed-base response acceleration.
The isolation system of the IT model consists of 8 hard-type devices 600 mm located at
the ends of the buildings, 4 soft -type devices 500 mm located under the columns of the
stair hangs, and 19 soft -type devices 600 mm. The first three periods of the isolated
building are 2.16 s, 2.06 s, 1.62 s. The design values of the response acceleration result:
0.248 g at ASLU, 0.207 g at SLU, 0.083 g at SLD. The values of the maximum design
displacement of the isolators, D
MAX
, and of the other isolators parameters resulting from the
design developed under the three guidelines are reported in Table 1. It is interesting to
consider also the results obtained applying the previous Italian guidelines: the design values
of the response acceleration were 0.203 g at ULS and 0.058 g at DLS; the total rubber
volume of the isolation system was 2.05 m
3
.
The design carried out under US brings to an isolation system consisting of 17
normal-type devices 700 mm located under the columns of the central line and the first
two columns of the facade lines, the other 14 devices are soft -type 700. The first three
periods of the isolated building are 2.03s, 1.92 s, 1.68 s, and the design values of the
response acceleration result 0.259 g at DBE, 0.316 g at MCE. The total rubber volume is
2.15 m
3
.
The CH solution of the isolation system leads to have soft -type devices 800 mm under
all the columns except 6 devices 900 mm (4 normal and 2 soft) at the ends of the buildings.
The design "rigid body" period of the CH model is 1.85 s and the design values of the
response acceleration are 0.106 g for SE, 0. 494 g for LE. The total rubber volume is the
highest among the three solutions: 2.62 m
3
.
From the values resumed in Table 1, it can be observed that the new Italian guideline
leads to the lowest dimensioning of the isolation system, but this is mainly due to the lowest
design intensity required by this code. On the contrary, the CH solution requires in absolute
the maximum volume of isolators but, if referred to the design acceleration of the isolated
building, R
R
, the value is just a little greater than that required by IT and lower than that
from US, and, if referred to the standard design acceleration, R
F
, the value is the lowest.
Table 1. Isolation system incidence for different guidelines

Guideline D
MAX
V
R
R
A
R
R
R
F

[mm] [m
3
] [m
3
/g] [m
3
/g] [m
3
/g]
IT 315.5 1.29 3.69 4.98 1.13
US 381.9 2.15 6.14 6.52 1.56
CH 483.0 2.62 7.49 5.30 0.98
(previous IT) --- (2.05) (5.85) (10.08) (2.34)


The last row of the table reports, within parentheses, the values resulting from the
application of the previous Italian guidelines, overridden by the new code. The reported
values evidence the penalties introduced by that rules, in fact even if the isolators were the
smallest in absolute value, R
R
and R
F
resulted about double of the ones from the other codes.


8.2 Building elevation

Some differences have been found even in designing the structural frame of the building
elevation: as for the isolation system, some global parameters, accounting for the dimensions
and reinforcement of the structural elements, allow to compare the different solutions.
The design carried out in accord to IT gives a structural frame having a total volume of
concrete equal about 350 m
3
, the minimum required amount of steel (design amount) is 6300
kg for columns and 18000 kg for beams: the average steel incidence is 70 kg/m
3
. The frame
designed using US has a total volume of concrete equal about 390 m
3
, with a minimum
amount of steel of 6000 kg for columns and 18000 kg for beams: the average steel incidence
is a little greater than 60 kg/m
3
. The concrete volume of the building designed according to
CH is about 470 m
3
, while the column and beam steel amounts respectively to 8000 kg and
24000 kg, with an average incidence a little greater than 70 kg/m
3
.
The IT and US buildings are reasonably similar, IT one is a little more slender because the
design intensity is lower and larger interstory drift are allowed, but it also has larger
reinforcing steel quantity, due to the lower value of the allowed reduction factor of the
element forces (accounting for overstrength or ductility). The larger dimensions of the CH
building are determined by two factors: the high level of the design seismic intensity and the
limitations on the interstory drift that require stiff structural elements. The last element have
strongly influenced the dimensioning of the sample building, but it could have no
considerable influence if stiffening masonry infilled panels are accounted for in design or if
the lateral-resistant system is a framed masonry structure, as frequent in China.


8.3 Building performances

To check the performances of the different versions of the isolated building resulted by the
design procedures carried out, the models have been subjected to a seismic input, which can
be considered representative of the design seismic zone, and their responses have been
computed, assuming the actual non linear behaviors of the devices. The two components
recorded at El Centro during the 1940 Imperial Valley earthquake have been used as lateral
seismic input. The peak acceleration of the NS component, applied along the transversal
direction of the building, is 0.348 g, and that of the EW component is 0.214 g. This motion
has a peak acceleration corresponding to the design acceleration of the site and therefore it is
representative of t he "probable" motion having an exceeding probability of 10% in 50 years.
The maximum response displacement at the isolation level produced by the quake on the
IT model is 219.5 mm and the interstory drift is 0.44%. For the US model the displacement
is 166.0 mm and the drifts are 0.36%. Finally, the response of the CH model show a
maximum displacement of 162.3 mm with 0.18% of drift. The stress level induced in the
devices by the test earthquake corresponds to the 70% of the design level for the IT model,
to 43% for the US model, and only to 33% for the CH model.


9. CONCLUSIONS

On the base of the comments and results reported above, regarding the comparison among
the guidelines of the three countries - Italy, USA and China - for the base isolation of
building using rubber devices, and their influence in dimensioning an actual building, the
following remarks can be made. In Italy, where the old code had a traditional vision very
cautious toward the new technologies, the formulation has been changed and the new
guideline is updated to the current ideas on the new aseismic provisions, it allow simpler
design rules leading to a "light" dimensioning of the isolation system, adequate to the
expected intensities. USA guideline shows a pragmatic vision of seismic isolation, opened
but very rigorous: the parameters to be accounted for in the analysis methods require design
methodologies not so easy, only very simple buildings can be examined with simplified rules.
The design levels are greater that the Italian ones, leading to isolation systems more "heavy",
while the elevation structure are quite similar, but a little more stiff. China seems to have a
very opened vision pushing to the use of innovative techniques, thanks to simplified methods
avoiding brakes and ties. This opened vision is counterbalanced by the high level of the
design intensities which practically ends up by having a role of safety; moreover, to mitigate
the effects on design of the very large input ipothesized and to control the isolators
dimensions, wider limitations on the device checks are allowed.


REFERENCES

CECS (2001) Technical rule for Seismic Isolation, Beijing, P.R. China.
Cons.Sup. LL.PP. (1998) Linee guida per progettazione, esecuzione e collaudo di strutture isolate dal
sisma - Voto 1
a
Sez. n.316 10/10/1998. Presid. Consiglio Superiore LL.PP. Servizio Tecnico
Centrale, Roma, Italy. (in italian)
D.M. 16/1/96 (1996) Norme tecniche per le costruzioni nelle zone sismiche. Gazzetta Ufficiale n.105
8/5/2003, Roma, Italy. (in italian)
GB50011 (2001) Seismic Design Code of Buildings of China, Beijing, P.R. China.
Ordinanza n.3274 Presid.Cons. Ministri (2003) Primi elementi in materia di criteri e di normative
tecniche per le costruzioni in zona sismica. G.U. n.105 8/5/2003, Roma, Italy. (in italian)
SEAOC (1999) Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary. Structural Engineers
Association of California, Sacramento, Ca, USA.