9th World Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Energy Dissipation and Active Vibration

Control of Structures, Kobe, Japan, June 13-16, 2005

DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDELINES FOR THE SEISMIC DESIGN OF

BASE ISOLATED STRUCTURES IN MEXICO

Arturo Tena-Colunga1
1
Departamento de Materiales, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana Azcapotzalco, Edif H, 3er Piso,
Av. San Pablo # 180, Col. Reynosa Tamaulipas, 02200 Mexico City, DF, MEXICO
e-mail: atc@correo.azc.uam.mx

ABSTRACT

This paper summarizes the research efforts conducted in Mexico to develop seismic
guidelines for the design of base-isolated structures. The proposed guidelines are based on
the seismic provisions of Mexican seismic codes and their philosophy, but include several
recommendations available for base-isolated structures in the UBC-97 and IBC-2000 seismic
codes of the United States. Additional requirements were added to account for regional
seismicity. Finally, new provisions were derived from original research on the torsional
response for base-isolated structures and orthogonal effects, among other topics.

1. INTRODUCTION

Base isolation is a technology whose application as structural solution in zones of high

seismic hazard has extended quickly during the last fifteen years, mainly in countries like the
United States, Japan, New Zealand, Italy and lately in China.

The United States have available seismic regulations for the design of base-isolated
structures, for example, the Uniform Building Code (UBC) since 1991 for buildings, and the
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) regulations
for bridges since 1990. However, from 1990 to 2004, Mexico did not count with specific
seismic provisions for the design of base-isolated buildings and/or bridges. Given the
proximity and the dynamics of the commercial relations between Mexico and the United
States as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), it would be natural
that international enterprises for structural design or even Mexican Design Firms would try
to apply directly the design criteria for base-isolated structures outlined in the US regulations
(UBC and/or AASHTO), in lack of specific Mexican guidelines for this purposes. Although
many design criteria available in US code could be applied anywhere, completely designing
a base-isolated structure based upon a US code could be an extremely risky practice, because
the regional seismicity of Mexico is quite different from that of the United States
(Tena-Colunga, 1999). In addition, design practices are also different (Tena-Colunga, 1999).

Therefore, it was necessary to conduct extensive research studies that would help develop
specific recommendations for seismic isolation for Mexico that are compatible with the
philosophy of the seismic design codes of Mexico and that would take into account the
seismic risk and hazard of Mexico. These extensive studies were conducted in about ten
years. As a consequence of such effort, Tena-Colunga (2004) has recently presented a
proposal of Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Base-Isolated Structures in Mexico,
developed in such way that it can be easily incorporated in a transparent way in the principal
seismic design codes of Mexico.

The proposed guidelines are based on the seismic provisions of Mexican seismic codes and
their philosophy, but include several recommendations available for base-isolated structures
in the UBC-97 and IBC-2000 seismic codes of the United States.

In fact, these guidelines take as basis the main format for the seismic regulations of Mexico’s
Federal District Code (NTCS-2004, 2004), as well as the seismic zonation and the design
spectra for firm soils and rock sites (soil profile type I) and transition soils (soil profile type
II) of the Manual of Civil Works (MOC-93, 1993), which general description is available in
English language elsewhere (Tena-Colunga, 1999). Additional requirements were added to
account for regional seismicity as well, studies reported in Villegas-Jiménez (1999),
Villegas-Jiménez and Tena-Colunga (2000), Tena-Colunga (2003), Tena-Colunga and
Pérez-Osornio (2005) and Pérez-Osornio (2004).

Specific design criteria for the isolation systems were taken and/or adapted from regulations
such as the Uniform Building Code (UBC-97, 1997) and the International Building Code
(IBC-2000, 2000) of the United States, taking into account the opinions from experts like
Kelly (1999), Naeim and Kelly (1999), the New Zealand experience (Skinner et al., 1993),
as well as the results of previous research reported in Tena-Colunga (1996, 1997, 2000, 2001
2002) and Tena-Colunga et al. (1997a, 1997b). The static method of analysis was adapted as
reported in Gómez-Soberón (1996) and Tena-Colunga (1997). The dynamic method of
analysis and design was adapted as outlined in Villegas-Jiménez (1999) and
Villegas-Jiménez and Tena-Colunga (2000). New provisions were derived from original
research on the torsional response for base-isolated structures reported in Nagarajaiah et al.
(1993), Gómez-Soberón (2000), Tena-Colunga and Gómez-Soberón (2001, 2002),
Tena-Colunga and Zambrana-Rojas (2004), Escamilla-Cruz and Tena-Colunga (2003), and
Escamilla-Cruz (2005). New provisions for orthogonal effects were derived from the studies
described in Pérez-Osornio (2004) and Tena-Colunga and Pérez-Osornio (2005).

2. PROPOSED GUIDELINES

The Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Base-Isolated Structures proposed for Mexico
(Tena-Colunga, 2004) have 14 chapters which are briefly described in following sections,
emphasizing their more relevant or original aspects.

2.1. Chapter 1: General Design Criteria

This chapter is totally based on NTCS-2004, where the writing in certain sections has been
adapted to take into account that general seismic design guidelines for base-isolated
structures are now discussed. This chapter addresses the following subjects: (1.1) purpose,
(1.2) criteria for analysis and design, (1.3) partition, facade and boundary walls, (1.4)
seismic zonation, (1.5) seismic coefficient, (1.6) reduction of seismic forces, (1.7) load
combinations, (1.8) lateral story drift limits, (1.9) glass gaps, (1.10) building separations,
(1.11) special structures and, (1.12) structures with non-conventional system of seismic
resistance (for example, passive energy dissipation).

The most important modification is in section 1.8, where reductions in the lateral story drift
limits are proposed for base-isolated structures (∆≤0.004h if nonstructural elements are in
contact with the structure, ∆≤0.008h otherwise) with respect to those that are allowed for
conventional building structures (∆≤0.006h if nonstructural elements are in contact with the
structure, ∆≤0.012h otherwise).

The proposed reductions take into account three aspects: a) the lateral story drifts for
well-designed base-isolated structures are normally considerably smaller than those of a
counterpart fixed-base structure, if the design of the isolation system is adequate, b)
according to the design philosophy of base-isolated structures, the superstructure of a
base-isolated structure must behave essentially elastic and, c) the response modification
factor for base-isolated structures(QI), is smaller that the response modification factor for
conventional structures (Q) then, reductions are exclusively associated to redundancy and
overstrength.

In addition, section 1.10 was adapted to take into account that the maximum displacement
for the base-isolation system must be accommodated within the building property.

2.2. Chapter 2: Election of the Method of Analysis

This chapter is based on NTCS-2004, but unlike this document, the use of the simplified
method for seismic analysis for masonry and wood structures is not allowed, as it has been
demonstrated (Tena-Colunga et al., 2002), that the estimates of design shear forces with this
method are not reasonable well covered for systems with static eccentricities higher than 5%
the corresponding plan dimension when they are compared with rigorous 3D analyses. In
addition, it was not considered reasonable to allow this simplification for the seismic design
of structures with innovating systems such as base isolation. Therefore, the methods of
analyses that are allowed are: a) static methods of analysis and, (b) dynamic analysis
procedures. General descriptions of the methods of analysis allowed by Mexican codes are
described in English language in Tena-Colunga (1999) and in sections 2.7 and 2.8 of this
paper.

This chapter introduces a height limit of 20 m or four stories for using the static method of
analysis and design. This limit is consistent with the recommendations of the IBC-2000 and
UBC-97 codes.

2.3. Chapter 3: Seismic Design Spectra

This chapter includes innovative material based upon oriented-research to suite that purpose.
For example, the proposed basic equation for the design displacement of base isolators was
obtained from displacement design spectra (DDS). The DDS were computed using basic
probabilistic and statistical criteria based on displacement response spectra of approximately
250 ground motions recorded at stations located on rock sites from the Strong Motion
Mexican Data Base (“Base”, 2000) for subduction earthquakes of M≥6.4.

These records were filtered and corrected for baseline errors with the procedure that is
described and illustrated in detail in Pérez-Osornio (2004). In addition, the seismic zonation
of Mexico proposed by the Manual of Civil Structures (MOC-93, 1993, Tena-Colunga,
1999), where the Mexican Republic is divided in four seismic zones (Fig. 1), was
considered.

Figure 1. MOC-93 seismic zone map of Mexico (courtesy of Servicio Sismológico Nacional)

Stations located in seismic zones B, C, and D of the Mexican Pacific Coast for firm soils and
rock were selected. The selected stations are identified in detail in Pérez-Osornio (2004) and
the location of some of them is depicted in Figure 2. The selection of recorded
accelerograms was made attending to the following criteria:

1. Only acceleration records of Mexican earthquakes with magnitude M ≥ 6.4 were

considered. The following 13 Mexican earthquakes were then selected: (a)
September 19, 1985 (M = 8.1), (b) September 21, 1985 (M = 7.6), (c) April 30,
1986 (M = 7.0), (d) April 25, 1989 (M = 6.9), (e) October 24, 1993 (M = 6.6), (f)
March 14, 1994 (M = 6.8), (g) September 14, 1995 (M = 6.4), (h) October 9, 1995
(M = 8.0), October 21, 1995 (M = 6.5) , (j) July 15, 1996 (M = 6.5), (k) January 11,
1997 (M = 6.9), (l) July 15, 1999 (M = 6.5) and, (m) September 30, 1999 (M = 7.5).
2. Selected records must have peak ground accelerations amax ≥10 cm/s2 and,
3. The integral curve obtained from calculation from the Arias intensity must show an
adequate form for an acceleration record, this is, the curve of such integral should
not be similar to the one which is obtained for a pulse or a noise sign. For this
purpose, each acceleration record was independently evaluated using the Degtra
 program (Ordaz, 2001).

Therefore, 250 records for the 13 Mexican earthquakes complied with all the selection
criteria described above.

Figure 2. Some of the recording stations in firm soil and rock selected for this study

In order to define displacement design spectra (DDS), it is important to define a scaling

procedure for the acceleration records to the expected intensity for the design earthquake (in
this case, maximum credible earthquake) for the source under consideration. All selected
acceleration records correspond to subduction earthquakes. There are several methods to
scale acceleration records. An accepted method is the one used in this study, where
acceleration records for a given earthquake are scaled to the amplitude of a spectral ordinate
of reference. Therefore, all records were then scaled in order to match the spectral
acceleration for T=2.24s of the design spectrum for the seismic zones of Mexico as defined
by MOC-93 code (MOC-93, 1993, Tena-Colunga, 1999), as illustrated for some selected
records in Fig. 3. The effective period of the isolated structure T=2.24s was arbitrarily
selected as is an intermediate period in the period range 1.5s≤TI≤3.0s where it is recognized
in the literature that base isolation is most appropriate and, as a matter of fact, is the period
interval where static design procedures are allowed in this proposed guidelines.

The final selection criterion for each scaled acceleration record was that it should
simultaneously comply that: (a) the scaled peak ground accelerations would not surpass
amax=1.2g and, (b) the scaling amplification factor will not surpass 100 (fsc≤100). Peak
scaling amplification factors used in the selected records were 66.5 for the zone D-I, 96.2 for
zone C-I and 45.3 for zone B-I. This criterion, while arbitrary, was taken in order to avoid
amplifying peak ground accelerations of the Mexican earthquakes to unrealistic values, taken
as reference peak ground accelerations recorded in firm soils and rock worldwide during
strong earthquakes.

Figure 3. Scaling procedure for some selected accelerograms to match the spectral acceleration for the
design spectra of zone D-I of MOC-93 code for T=2.24s.

Therefore, a basic equation for the design displacement of base isolators was proposed and
obtained from displacement design spectra (DDS). The DDS were computed using basic
probabilistic and statistical criteria (mean plus one standard deviation) based on
displacement response spectra of ground motions for rock site or firm soils selected as
described above. Displacement Design Spectra for the mean plus one standard deviation
were adjusted to a simple expression using the method of least squares, reasonably covering
spectral ordinates for TI>1.5s. It was also checked that the displacement spectra related to
this general expression will look rational, that is, the displacement for T=0 should be zero
and, for very long periods, the shape of the spectra would not lead to an irrational growth for
displacements, but that the displacement would converge to the peak ground displacement.

The proposed general expression fulfills these requirements, so the design displacements (in
cm) can be computed with the following expression:

D = a1TI − a 2TI2 for 0 ≤ TI ≤ 4s (1)

where TI is the effective period of the base-isolated structure and a1 and a2 are coefficients
that define the parabolic shape for the design displacement spectra, which depend on the
effective equivalent viscous damping for the base-isolated structure (ζΙ) and the seismic zone,
as depicted in Table 1.
The proposed expression covers reasonably well the spectra for each zone, as it can be
observed from Figures 4 and 5 for zone D-I. As the effective damping increases, the
correlation for the proposed curve also increases, this is, a closer match is obtained.

Table 1. Numerical values for the coefficients a1 and a2

Zone ζI a1 a2
0.05 18.33 2.67
0.10 14.04 1.90
0.15 11.59 1.49
D-I 0.20 9.97 1.22
0.25 8.81 1.03
0.30 7.94 0.90
0.35 7.25 0.80
0.05 13.00 1.83
0.10 10.02 1.31
0.15 8.35 1.04
C-I 0.20 7.23 0.86
0.25 6.44 0.74
0.30 5.83 0.65
0.35 5.34 0.58
0.05 4.96 0.56
0.10 3.92 0.43
0.15 3.34 0.36
B-I 0.20 2.92 0.30
0.25 2.63 0.27
0.30 2.39 0.24
0.35 2.20 0.22

Proposed

Figure 4. Displacement design spectra for zone D-I, ζI=0.05

 Proposed

Figure 5. Displacement design spectra for zone D-I, ζI=0.20

There is an alternate procedure where the displacement design spectrum can be obtained
indirectly from the acceleration spectrum specified by the corresponding Mexican Code (for
example, MOC-93, NTCS-2004, RCEG-90, see Tena-Colunga, 1999) in a similar way that
the one proposed by the UBC-97 and IBC-2000 codes. Under this option, the design
displacement can be obtained as:

2
⎛T ⎞ S
D=⎜ I ⎟ a (2)
⎝ 2π ⎠ Bζ

where Sa is the spectral acceleration ordinate for the acceleration design spectrum and Bζ is a
numerical coefficient that takes into account indirectly the effective equivalent viscous
damping for the base-isolated structure (ζΙ). This numerical coefficient Bζ can be computed
with the following original expression proposed in Tena-Colunga (2004):

a1ζ 5 − a2ζ 5 TI
Bζ = for 0 ≤ TI ≤ 4s (3)
a1ζ I − a2ζ I TI

where a1ζ 5 , a 2ζ 5 are the numerical coefficients presented in Table 1 for ζΙ=0.05 and

a1ζ I , a2ζ I are the numerical coefficients presented in Table 1 for the target or expected value
of ζΙ. Alternatively, it can be conservatively estimated with the coefficients provided in Table
2, that is a similar approach to the one endorsed by the UBC-97 and IBC-2000 codes. The
difference here is that the proposed values for Bζ shown in Table 2 are also obtained from the
study of the ground motions for the Mexican Pacific Coast, so they may not necessarily
coincide with those proposed by the UBC-97 and IBC-2000 codes.

Table 2. Values for Βζ

ζI Βζ
0.05 1.00
0.10 1.20
0.15 1.40
0.20 1.55
0.25 1.65
0.30 1.75
0.35 1.80

Finally, the Guidelines define that in lack of specific seismic guidelines, the acceleration
design spectrum for Mexico can be taken directly from MOC-93 code (i.e., Tena-Colunga,
1999).

In the opinion of the author, the alternative procedure to obtain the displacement design
spectrum indirectly from the acceleration design spectrum, although it is an accepted
procedure promoted by the US codes, it is not a transparent procedure for most engineers. In
addition, the plateau defined for the acceleration design spectrum always introduces an
undesirable conservative level (“noise”) in the calculation of design displacements, clearly
leading to a non-uniform reliability hazard spectrum for displacements in the period range of
interest. That is the reason why the proposed Guidelines introduce a new method where the
displacement design spectrum is defined directly and a non-uniform reduction of the
proposed spectrum depends on the effective period and the effective viscous damping ratio,
instead of a constant value as currently proposed by US codes. The alternate procedure is
similar to the one currently proposed by US codes.

2.4. Chapter 4: Reduction of Seismic Displacements and Forces for Design

This chapter is based on the design philosophy of all Mexican seismic codes, NTCS-2004 in
particular, and deals with the reduction of the elastic design spectra (displacements and
accelerations) by dividing the spectral ordinates by a reductive seismic factor (for
conventional structures, Q´, as explained in Tena-Colunga, 1999). In particular, these
guidelines introduce the concept of the reductive seismic factor for base-isolated structures
Q´I. The reduction is specified for the design of the structure above the isolation system. The
proposed reductions are original, different than those proposed for conventional structures,
and they are:

TE TI
QI´ = QI − 0.5 ≥1 for 2 ≤ <5 (4)
TI TE
T
QI´ = QI for I ≥ 5 (5)
TE

where QI is the seismic response modification factor for base-isolated structures that is
specified in Chapter 5 of the guidelines, TI is the fundamental period for the base-isolated
structure and TE is the fixed-base period of the structure above the isolation system. As it can
be observed, higher reductions are allowed for structures where the effective base-isolated
fundamental period is considerably higher than its corresponding fixed-base period. It is well
know in the literature that when that occurs, the seismic demands in the structure above the
isolation system are considerably reduced, but the reductions are not as high when TE
approaches to TI. The limits are based on the observation of amplification curves presented
in many studies available in the literature, as well as in studies conducted by the author. The
lower limit for TI /TE =2 is consistent with the minimum value allowed in these Guidelines to
use the static design force procedure (Chapter 7), which is originally based on a
recommendation available in Skinner et al. (1993), that has been further evaluated, including
torsional effects, as reported in Escamilla-Cruz and Tena-Colunga (2003) and
Escamilla-Cruz (2005).

Following the design philosophy of Mexican seismic codes, NTCS-2004 in particular, if the
base-isolated structure does not satisfy the conditions of structural regularity outlined in
Chapter 6, Q´I must also be reduced as outlined in that chapter of the proposed Guidelines
(Tena-Colunga, 2004).

2.5. Chapter 5: Seismic Response Modification Factor

This chapter is also based on the design philosophy of all Mexican seismic codes,
NTCS-2004 in particular. In this chapter, the seismic response modification factor for
base-isolated structures, QI, is introduced. For base-isolated structures, QI, accounts
primarily for redundancy and overstrength, as it is recommended that the structure above the
isolation system would remain elastic after strong shaking. The identified structural systems
and requirements to define QI are essentially the same ones available in NTCS-2004 (except
timber construction), but height limits are introduced based upon the recommended values
proposed by the UBC-97 and IBC-2000 codes.

A brief summary of the proposed QI values and height limits for the principal structural
systems recognized by most Mexican seismic codes are shown in Table 3, showing also the
specified seismic response modification factor Q used for conventional structures
(Tena-Colunga, 1999). The proposed Guidelines (Tena-Colunga, 2004) and the Mexican
seismic codes of reference provide detailed requirements for using Q and QI in terms of
strength and stiffness ratios along the height of the structure and among structural systems in
dual systems, as well as sending directly to the material guidelines to insure proper detailing
for the expected seismic performance.

The proposed Guidelines and the Mexican seismic codes allow using a different value of Q
or QI in each main orthogonal direction if the structural system differs (for example, a
SMRF in the x direction and an IMRF in the y direction, etc).

2.6. Chapter 6: Conditions of Structural Regularity

This chapter is also based on the design philosophy of all Mexican seismic codes,
particularly NTCS-2004. The Mexican seismic codes of reference define since 1987 eleven
conditions of structural regularity that building structures must satisfy to use Q' as specified
in Chapter 4 (without additional reductions) for the design of buildings, which are already
outlined in English language in Tena-Colunga (1999).

Table 3. Seismic response modification factor proposed by Mexican codes

Structural System Q QI Height limit (m)
RC Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF) 4 2 75
Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame 4 2 75
Dual RC Special Moment-Resisting Braced Frame 4 2 75
Dual Steel Special Moment-Resisting Braced Frame 4 2 75
RC Ductile Dual Systems (SMRF and Shear Walls) 4 2 75
Steel Ductile Dual Systems (SMRF and Shear Walls) 4 2 75
RC SMRF with Masonry Infill Walls 4 2 50
RC Intermediate Moment Resisting Frame (IMRF) 3 1.75 75
Steel Intermediate Moment Resisting Frame 3 1.75 75
Dual RC Intermediate Moment-Resisting Braced Frame 3 1.75 75
Dual Steel Intermediate Moment-Resisting Braced Frame 3 1.75 75
RC Dual Systems (IMRF and Shear Walls) 3 1.75 75
Steel Dual Systems (IMRF and Shear Walls) 3 1.75 75
RC IMRF with Masonry Infill Walls 3 1.75 50
RC IMRF composed by columns and flat slabs 3 1.75 50
Steel Ductile Shear Walls 3 1.75 75
RC Ductile Shear Walls 3 1.75 75
Timber structures 3 1.5 20
RC Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame (OMRF) 2 1.5 50
Steel Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame 2 1.5 50
RC Ordinary Moment-Resisting Braced Frame 2 1.5 50
Steel Ordinary Moment-Resisting Braced Frame 2 1.5 50
RC Dual Systems (OMRF and Shear Walls) 2 1.5 50
Steel Dual Systems (OMRF and Shear Walls) 2 1.5 50
RC OMRF with Masonry Infill Walls 2 1.5 50
RC OMRF composed by columns and flat slabs 2 1.5 50
Steel Ordinary Shear Walls 2 1.5 50
RC Ordinary Shear Walls 2 1.5 50
Prestressed Concrete Structures 2 1.5 50
Precast Concrete Structures 2 1.5 50
Confined Masonry Structures (solid units) 2 1.5 20
Reinforced Masonry Structures (solid units) 2 1.5 20
Low Redundancy Steel Frames (i.e., latticed) 1.5 1.25 20
Low Redundancy Precast Concrete Structures 1.5 1.25 20
Confined Masonry Structures (hollow units) 1.5 1.25 20
Reinforced Masonry Structures (hollow units) 1.5 1.25 20
Low Redundancy Timber structures (trusses, frames) 1.5 1.25 20
Unreinforced Masonry Structures 1 1 20
Other Non-Ductile, Non-Redundant Systems 1 1 20

NTCS-2004 has an updated version with twelve conditions of structural regularity, where
and additional regularity condition (new condition 11) was introduced to strengthen the
requirements to prevent soft stories, in addition to modify the existing one (condition 10).
The current proposals of NTCS-2004 on this regard are:

[10] The lateral shear stiffness of any story shall not exceed more than 50 percent the shear
 stiffness of the adjacent story below the one in consideration (Ki/Ki-1≤1.5). The top
story is exempt of this requirement.

[11] The lateral shear strength of any story shall not exceed more than 50 percent the shear
stiffness of the adjacent story below the one in consideration (Vi/Vi-1≤1.5). The top
story is exempt of this requirement.

The proposed Guidelines for base-isolated structures (Tena-Colunga, 2004) added in Section
6.1 another condition of structural regularity that base-isolated structures must satisfy to use
Q´I as specified in Chapter 4. This new condition is only relevant for base-isolated structures,
and limits the static eccentricity on the isolation system (based, among other studies,
Tena-Colunga and Zambrana-Rojas, 2004, Gómez-Soberón, 2000 and Nagarajaiah et al.,
1993) as follows:

[13] The torsional plan eccentricity for the isolation system (eb), shall not exceed 10
percent of the plan dimension in the given direction of analysis.

Then, the conditions of structural regularity to prevent undesirable torsional response in

base-isolated structures are completely addressed with structural condition 12 (same as
NTCS-2004):

[12] The torsional plan eccentricities (es), computed for any story from static seismic
analysis, shall not exceed 10 percent of the plan dimension in the given direction of
analysis.

In addition, the proposed guidelines lower the limits of original structural regularity
conditions 2 (slenderness) and 3 (plan aspect ratio), base upon what is recommended in
Naeim and Kelly (1999) and Tena-Colunga (1996). According to the text of the proposed
Guidelines (Tena-Colunga, 2004), conditions 2 and 3 are read:

[2] The ratio of the height of the building to the smallest plan dimension shall not exceed
2.0 (H/L2≤2.0).

[3] The ratio of the largest to the smallest plan dimensions shall not exceed 2.0 (L1/L2≤
2.0).
The remaining conditions of structural regularity can be read as outlined in Tena-Colunga
(1999). Some conceptual changes were introduced in NTCS-2004 for the design of irregular
structures with respect to previous versions, changes that have been incorporated and
adapted in the proposed Guidelines (Tena-Colunga, 2004).

Among the changes in the design are that if one building does not satisfies one regularity
condition (conditions 1 to 12), then Q'=0.9Q´ must be used for the design (Q´I =0.9Q´I for
base-isolated structures). For a base-isolated structure that does not comply only with
structural condition 13, Q´I=0.8Q´I. If two or more regularity conditions are not satisfied,
Q'=0.8Q´ (Q´I=0.8Q´I for base-isolated structures).

If a building (a) has a strong torsional irregularity evaluated in terms of a static eccentricity
greater than 20 percent of the plan dimension in the given direction of analysis (es>0.20L) or,
(b) has a well-defined soft story condition, this is, if the lateral shear stiffness or shear
strength of any story exceed more than 100 percent the shear stiffness or strength of the
adjacent story below the one in consideration (Ki/Ki-1 ≤2.0 or Vi/Vi-1 ≤2.0) then, the
building must be classified as strongly irregular and use Q'=0.7Q´ (Q´I=0.7Q´I for
base-isolated structures).

The proposed Guidelines (Tena-Colunga, 2004) add to the definition of strongly irregular
structure the following one: (c) The torsional plan eccentricity for the isolation system (eb)
exceeds 15 percent of the plan dimension in the given direction of analysis. For this latter
case, one should use Q´I=0.7Q´I as well.

In any event, the reduced value Q´I must be always be equal or greater than the unity (this is,
resulting Q´I ≥ 1.0).
A13 A16 A13 A16 A13 A16

CRi CRi CRi

CMi CMi CMi
E-W
N-S CMs CMs CMs
CRs E-W
CRs CRs

A1 A4 A1 A4 A1 A4
N-S
a) Symmetric system of reference (unidirectional and bidirectional input)
A13 A16 A13 A16 A13 A16

CMi eb CMi eb CMi eb

CMs CMs CMs
E-W
CRs CRi CRs CRi CRs CRi

A1 A4 A1 A4 A1 A4
N-S E-W N-S
b) Stiffness eccentricity in one direction (unidirectional and bidirectional input)

A13 A16 A13 A16 A13 A16

CRi CRi CRi

CMi e b eb eb
CMi CMi
CMs 45° CMs 45° CMs 45°
E-W
N-S CRs E-W CRs CRs

A1 A4 A1 A4 A1 A4

N-S
c) Stiffness eccentricity in two directions (unidirectional and bidirectional input)

Figure 6. Definition of the static eccentricities in the isolation system, eb

The proposed Guidelines (Tena-Colunga, 2004) recognize, as already stated in the literature
(among others, Nagarajaiah et al. 1993, Tena-Colunga and Zambrana-Rojas, 2004) that the
main source of torsional motions in elastomeric isolated structures seems to be the isolation
system eccentricity, particularly when the eccentricity is large (greater than 10%). This is
why the design of base-isolated structures when eb is greater than 10% or 15% is severely
punished. This can be illustrated with some results presented in Figures 7 and 8 (discussed
by Tena-Colunga and Zambrana-Rojas, 2004), where peak displacements experienced by the
corner isolators (A1, A4, A13 and A16) for symmetric systems (Fig. 6a) are compared with
those for asymmetric systems (Figs. 6b and 6c) for TMANZ station. Peak displacements for
the isolators of asymmetric systems [∆max(eb)] were divided by those of symmetric systems
[∆max(e=0)]. In Figures 7 and 8 it is evident that an important amplification for the
displacements of the isolators starts at eb ≥ 10%. In similar fashion, displacements and shear
forces in the structure above the isolation system are amplified for eb ≥ 10%.

Figure 7. Ratio for peak isolator displacements of asymmetric systems with respect to symmetric
systems for isolators A1 and A16 for TMANZ records.

Figure 8. Ratio for peak isolator displacements of asymmetric systems with respect to symmetric
systems for isolators A4 and A13 for TMANZ records.
2.7. Chapter 7: Static Method of Analysis

While following the format of Mexican seismic codes, particularly NTCS-2004, this chapter
is also based on adaptations for the procedures outlined in the UBC-97 and IBC-2000 codes
to the Mexican seismic design philosophy, adding some original proposals of the author and
recommendations from New Zealand (Skinner et al., 1993). This chapter addresses the
following subjects: (7.1) General requirements for usage, (7.2) Deformation characteristic
requirements for the isolation system, (7.3) Effective base-isolated period for design, (7.4)
Design displacement for the isolation system (including amplifications for directional effects
and torsional response) , (7.5) Design shear forces for the isolation system and structural
elements below the isolation system, (7.6) Design base shear for the structure above the
isolation system, (7.7) Vertical distribution of shear forces for the structure above the
isolation system, including the possibility of amplifications for directional effects, torsional
effects and second order effects, (7.8) Asymmetric behavior (for example, because of tilting
or asymmetric strength-deformation primary curve under lateral loading), (7.9) inverted
pendulums and, (7.10) Attachments and diaphragms.

Sections 7.1 to 7.3 were adapted from UBC-97 and IBC-2000 codes. In particular, the
requirements to use the static method for seismic analysis (equivalent lateral response
procedure using US terminology) were adapted. The resulting requirements are somewhat
different from those advocated by US codes. The requirements as outlined in Section 7.1 of
the proposed guidelines are (Tena-Colunga, 2004):

1. The structure is located at least 10 km away from an active fault.

2. The structure is located on a firm soil or rock (soil profile type I of Mexican codes).
3. The structure above the isolation interface is not more than four stories or 20 m in
height.
4. The effective period of the isolated structure at the design displacement, TI, is
greater or equal to 1.5 seconds but less or equal to 3.0 seconds, this is, 1.5s ≤ TI ≤
3.0s.
5. The effective period of the isolated structure at the design displacement, TI, is
greater than two times the elastic, fixed-base period of the structure above the
isolation system, TE, this is, TI > 2TE.
6. The base-isolated structure complies with all the regularity conditions outlined in
section 6.1.
7. The isolation system meets the following criteria:
a. The effective stiffness of the isolation system at the design displacement is
greater than one-third of the effective stiffness at 20 percent of the design
displacement (Figure 9).
b. The isolation system is capable of producing a restoring force as specified
in Section 12.1.
c. The isolation system has force-deflection properties that are independent
of the rate of loading.
d. The isolation system has force-deflection properties that are independent
of vertical load and bilateral load.
e. The isolation system does not limit the total maximum displacement to less
than 1.5 times the total design displacement.

As it can be observed, requirement 6 forces the structure to be regular in order to use the
static method of analysis, a requirement that is not currently enforced in US codes.
Requirements 4 and 5 are slightly different from those advocated by US codes, and they are
proposed based on recommendations from the New Zealand practice available in Skinner et
al. (1993) and in the detailed referenced studies conducted by the author afterwards (for
example, Tena-Colunga, 1997). Requirements 1 and 2 were adapted to Mexican codes
philosophy and terminology. Requirements 3 and 7 are almost identical to those established
by UBC-97 and IBC-2000 codes.

Figure 9. Design envelope curve for bilinear isolators that follow criterion 7a.

Figure 10. Amplification factors due to orthogonal effects (∆2D/∆1D) for linear-elastic isolation
systems.

Section 7.4.1 (Directional Effects) of the Guidelines of reference is an original proposal of

the author, based primarily in the parametric study presented in great detail in Pérez-Osornio
(2004) and recently reported in Tena-Colunga and Pérez-Osornio (2005). The study, that
took into account the strong motion database described in Section 1.3 of this paper to define
the displacement design spectra, found that the statistical responses to combine peak
displacements in orthogonal directions are not independent from the effective period for
linear isolators (Figure 10) and bilinear isolators (Figure 11). Therefore, a constant
combination rule such as the 100%+30% combination rule prescribed by many seismic
codes worldwide to account for orthogonal effects is somewhat incorrect.

Figure 11. Amplification factors due to orthogonal effects (∆2D/∆1D) for MOC-93 seismic zone D-I for
bilinear isolation systems with k2/k1=0.10, Vy/W=0.08, 0.10 and 0.12.

Although the observed variations on the ∆2D/∆1D ratios depicted in Figures 10 and 11 can be
taken into account with a simple straight line, the question is if this line should be a constant,
as the one given by the 100%+30% combination rule, or if it is more appropriate to provide a
linear equation in terms of the effective base-isolated period for the structure. The abuse on
the use of constants in engineering practice has already leaded to several judgment errors in
earthquake-resistant design. In the opinion of the author, to provide a linear equation
depending on the period would make the design process more transparent to practicing
engineers at a minimum additional effort, and would reduce the risk of judgment errors.
However, it must also be recognized that adopting such a recommendation would add
complexity to our already complex design codes. Therefore, building officials and code
developers should discuss this issue and take the best decision for engineering practice.
Since the author wrote the described guidelines, in Section 7.1 of the guidelines, the
following linear equation, obtained from regression analysis for linear and bilinear isolation
systems, is proposed to amplify the design displacement for orthogonal effects:

D2 D = D (1.45 − 0.01TI ) for TI ≥ 1.5s (6)

where D2D is the design displacement that takes into account orthogonal effects. It is
recognized that the proposed linear equation is conservative since it covers the response for
the mean plus one standard deviation. Further discussion is needed in Mexico to decide the
best criteria to account for orthogonal effects, taking into account transparent concepts in the
code.

Section 7.4.2 deals with the amplification of the total design displacement (DT) for torsional
effects, and is adapted from UBC-97 and IBC-2000 to include directional effects, so the
proposed equation is:
⎡ ⎛ 12e ⎞⎤
DT = D2 D ⎢1 + yi ⎜⎜ 2 ⎟ ≥ 1.1D2 D
2 ⎟⎥
(7)
⎣ ⎝ d1 + d 2 ⎠ ⎦

where e is the actual eccentricity, measured in plan between the center of mass of the
structure above the isolation interface and the center of rigidity of the isolation system, plus
accidental eccentricity, taken a five percent of the longest plan dimension of the structure
perpendicular to the direction of force under consideration. The remaining terms are: d1 and
d2 are respectively the shortest and the longest plan dimensions of the structure and yi is the
distance between the center of rigidity of the isolation system and the element of interest
measured perpendicular to the direction of the seismic loading under consideration. As
shown by Naeim and Kelly (1999), equation 7 has a strong analytical support.

Sections 7.5 and 7.6 are based on adaptations of the UBC-97 and IBC-2000 codes to the
design philosophy of Mexican seismic codes and accounting for directional effects. For
example, the equation to define Vb, the minimum design shear force for the isolation system,
the foundation and structural elements below the isolation system is:

Vb = k D max D2 D (8)

where kDmax is the maximum effective stiffness of the isolation system at the design
displacement in the horizontal direction under consideration.

Similarly, the equation to define VE, the minimum design shear force for the structure above
the isolation system is:

k D max D2 D
VE = (9)
QI´

Sections 7.7 to 7.10 are based on the design philosophy of Mexican seismic codes,
particularly NTCS-2004, but they were adapted according to what was already included
from the UBC-97 and IBC-2000 codes for base isolation and the original proposals of the
author. For example, as directional effects are already included in VE (equation 9), Section
7.7.1 establishes that no further amplification is needed to account for orthogonal effects.
Section 7.2 describes the amplification of static eccentricities to account for torsional effects
in the structure above the isolation system, and this section is fully adapted from
NTCS-2004.

It is worth noting that the vertical distribution of forces defined in Section 7.7 corresponds to
an inverted triangular load distribution:

Wi hi
Fi = VE (10)
ΣWi hi
where Fi, Wi and hi are respectively the lateral force, the weight and the height above the
isolation system of level i. It is recognized that this is a conservative expression and, in
opinion of some experts, irrational (Kelly, 1999), as for base-isolated structures the vertical
lateral load distribution tends to be uniform. However, at this moment this expression was
maintained because it is proposed not only by Mexican seismic codes, but also by the
UBC-97 and IBC-2000 guidelines for base-isolated structures. Future versions of the
guidelines should include a more rational lateral force distribution, after a discussion period
among a group of experts and code developers in order to arrive to the best decision for
engineering practice.

2.8. Chapter 8: Dynamic Methods of Analysis

This chapter follows the format of Mexican seismic codes, particularly NTCS-2004, and it is
also based on adaptations for the procedures outlined in the UBC-97 and IBC-2000 codes to
the Mexican seismic design philosophy, adding some original proposals of the author. This
chapter addresses the following subjects: (8.1) Mathematical model for analysis, (8.2) Modal
analysis (response spectrum analysis), (8.3) Time-history analysis, (8.4) Design
displacement for the isolation system, (8.5) Design shear forces for the isolation system and
structural elements below the isolation system, (8.6) Design base shear for the structure
above the isolation system, (8.7) Other effects.

Section 8.1 was adapted from UBC-97 and IBC-2000 codes. Section 8.2 (response spectrum
analysis) is and adaptation for base-isolated structures based to Mexican codes, particularly
NTCS-2004, where specific provisions are established to define the spectrum, the required
number of modes and the combination procedure (SRSS), the reductions of elastic response
parameters for design (divide spectral ordinates by Q´I), directional effects, P-∆ effects, and
the possibility to account for torsional moments due to accidental eccentricity.

Sections 8.2.1 (acceleration design spectra) and 8.2.2 (directional effects) are original
proposals of the author. The design acceleration ordinate for the effective damping of the
base-isolated structure, aζI can be obtained indirectly from the acceleration ordinate (a) of
the design spectrum for 5% damping as follows:
 a
aζI = (11)
Bζ
where Bζ can be computed from Equation 3 or Table 2.

Directional effects are amplified with a similar expression to the one established for the
static method. Therefore, for each direction of analysis, the effects of the ground components
will be combined taking 100% percent of the effects of the ground motion component acting
along that direction (Ex) and 100x(0.45-0.01TI)% of the effects of the component
perpendicular to the former one (Ey) with the signs that, for each concept, lead to the most
unfavorable condition.

Section 8.2.3 (modal damping ratios) is based on the UBC-97 and IBC-2000 codes. It is
established that response-spectrum analysis shall be performed using a modal damping value
for the fundamental mode in the direction of interest not greater than the effective damping
for the isolation system or 35% of critical, whichever is less. Modal damping values for
higher modes shall be selected consistent with those appropriate for response spectrum
analysis of the structure above the isolation system a fixed base. Section 8.2.4 (modal
combination procedure and torsional effects) is based on NTCS-2004.

Section 8.3 (Time-history analysis) is an adaptation for base-isolated structures of the

procedure outlined in NTCS-2004, taking into account some guidelines of the UBC-97 and
IBC-2000 codes. It is specified to be performed with pairs of appropriate ground motions
(recorded or simulated) that shall be selected from not less than four representative recorded
events, independent among them. The intensity of the selected events should be compatible
with the criteria established by the Guidelines. Directional effects should be considered as
for the response spectrum analysis. The nonlinear response of the isolation system, the
effective damping for the isolation system and the structure above the isolation system and
their associated uncertainties should be also taken into account.

Each pair of time histories shall be applied simultaneously to the model considering the most
disadvantageous location of mass eccentricity. The maximum displacement of the isolation
system shall be calculated from the vectorial sum of the two orthogonal components at each
time step. The parameter of interest shall be calculated for each time-history analysis. If four
time-history analyses are performed, the maximum response of the parameter of interest
shall be used for design. If seven or more time-history analyses are performed, the average
value of the response parameter of interest shall be used for design.

Sections 8.4 to 8.6 were taken from the UBC-97 and IBC-2000 codes and adapted to the
design philosophy of Mexican codes and the original proposal of the author. Section 8.7 is
fully based on NTCS-2004. In section 8.4 it is allowed to reduce the design displacement
that takes into account orthogonal effects, D2D, for D´2D, as follows.

D2 D
D´2 D = 2
(12)
⎛T ⎞
1 + ⎜⎜ E ⎟⎟
⎝ TI ⎠
This reduction takes into account the flexibility of the structure above the isolation system,
that it is not rigorously modeled in the static method of analysis.

2.9. Chapter 9: Analysis and Design of Components at, above, below or crossing
the isolation interface

This chapter is completely based on the guidelines available in the UBC-97 and IBC-2000
codes.

2.10. Chapter 10: Detailed System Requirements

In this chapter, the requirements advocated by the UBC-97 and IBC-2000 codes are adapted
to the design philosophy and format of Mexican seismic codes. The chapter basically
addresses Sections 1623.5 and 1623.6 of the IBC-2000 code, this is, the following main
subjects:

10.1 Isolation system: environmental conditions, wind forces, fire resistance,

lateral-restoring force, displacement restraint, vertical-load stability, overturning,
inspection and replacement, quality control.
10.2 Structural system: horizontal distribution of force, building separations,
non-building structures.
10.3 Foundations.

2.11. Chapter 11: Design and Construction Review

In this chapter, the requirements advocated by the UBC-97 and IBC-2000 codes are also
adapted to the design philosophy and format of Mexican seismic codes. The chapter
basically endorses Section 1623.7 of the IBC-2000 code.

2.12. Chapter 12: Required Tests of the Isolation System

This chapter is an adapted version of the guidelines provided in the UBC-97 and IBC-2000
codes (for example, section 1623.8 of the IBC-2000 code), but several modifications were
needed in the guidelines for the prototype tests in order to have a coherent document, taking
into account, for example, the definition of the proposed Guidelines for the total design
displacement under the Static and Dynamic Methods of Analyses (Chapters 7 and 8,
respectively), as this definition differs from the one available in the UBC-97 and IBC-200
codes. These modifications are in Section 12.1 (Prototype tests), particularly in Sections
12.1.2 (sequence and cycles) and 12.1.4 (units dependent on bilateral loads).

Another important modification is in Section 12.1.7 (testing of similar units), where the
following is established:
Prototype tests are not required for isolators of the same type, material and dimensional
characteristics to those that will be used for construction if:

1. The isolation unit has been previously tested using the specified sequence of tests,
and this testing is completely documented or,
2. According to the Responsible for Structural Safety and a team of certified experts
(peer review panel) named by the Building Official Authority, the manufacturer has
previously conducted prototype tests for other projects using a similar or equivalent
sequence of tests, and this testing is completely documented

For both options, it is mandatory that the Building Official Authority will hire a team of
certified experts (peer review panel) in experimental testing, theory and design of
base-isolated structures, independent from the team in charge of the design project, in order
to have enough technical arguments to: (a) approve that prototype tests are not required or,
(b) request the mandatory prototype tests as per Section 12.1.

Item two and the last paragraph are proposed by the author, taking into account and
exchange of ideas with Prof. James Kelly. Kelly (1999) states that is precisely the
overregulation on the prototype testing advocated by the US codes on seismic isolation the
one responsible to make this technology unnecessarily unaffordable to most projects,
therefore, limiting its application for the design and retrofit of buildings in the United States.
The author considers that prototype testing should not be required for base isolator units
extensively tested by a certified manufactured, only if an independent group of qualified
experts (peer review panel) approve it.

2.13. Chapter 13: Analysis and Design of Non-Building Structures

This chapter is completely based in NTCS-2004. Basically, it is written that the proposed
Guidelines are only applicable 100% to building structures. For other structures (water tanks,
chimneys, silos, bridges, etc) appropriate methods of analysis should be used in lieu of those
advocated in the proposed guidelines, but the methods used must be consistent with the
general criteria advocated in the guidelines and must receive the approval of the Building
Official Authority.

2.14. Chapter 14: Existing Building Structures

This chapter is completely based in what is proposed in NTCS-2004. Perhaps the most
important feature is addressing how to select an appropriate response modification factor for
base-isolated structures Q´I for retrofit projects.

3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

This paper summarizes the research efforts conducted in Mexico to develop seismic
guidelines for the design of base-isolated structures. The proposed guidelines are based on
the seismic provisions of Mexican seismic codes and their philosophy, but include several
recommendations available for base-isolated structures in the UBC-97 and IBC-2000 seismic
codes of the United States. Additional requirements were added to account for regional
seismicity. Finally, new provisions were derived from original research on the torsional
response for base-isolated structures and orthogonal effects.

For example, the proposed basic equation for the design displacement of base isolators was
obtained from displacement design spectra (DDS). The DDS were computed using basic
probabilistic and statistical criteria based on displacement response spectra of several ground
motions recorded at stations located on rock sites of the strong-motion database for Mexican
earthquakes. In addition, the design displacement for base isolators is amplified to account
for orthogonal effects based on a simple formula that it is period-dependent, instead of using
the 100%+30% combination rule without any reflection. Also, based-isolated buildings are
defined as having strong structural irregularities in terms of computed static eccentricities in
the superstructure and/or the isolation system, the limits of which are based on parametric
studies devoted to define these parameters.

The proposed design guidelines were calibrated by comparing the design of base-isolated
structures using these guidelines with the dynamic response obtained from time-step
nonlinear dynamic analyses of these structures when subjected to the action of the
acceleration records used in the definition of the DDS. It is hoped that these guidelines with
help promote the use of base-isolated structures in Mexico, particularly in the hard soil sites
of important cities along the Mexican Pacific Coast.

It is worth noting that the proposed design guidelines are just a first draft document that can
be further improved in several aspects, as discussed in each section in particular. For
example, a uniform hazard spectrum for displacements for different earthquake scenarios is
needed to improve the reliability of the seismic demands and move towards
performance-based design objectives. This research team is working toward that direction,
defining first the required attenuation laws for displacements, velocities and acceleration for
the relevant earthquakes sources for the Mexican seismic zones (Gómez-Soberón et al.,
2005).

In addition, a greater discussion is needed to improve some design aspects, such as how to
address directional effects, define the vertical distribution of forces, structural irregularities,
height limits, response modification factors, etc. Finally, a hot issue is to develop a better
strategy for the required testing of the isolation system than the one proposed in the UBC-97
and IBC-2000 codes. It is clear that modifications presented in the proposed Guidelines may
not look good enough to many experts on seismic isolation of the United States, yet, there
should be some guidelines and minimum testing: (a) to insure that the quality control in the
manufacturing of the isolators first, and, (b) to establish the design properties of the isolation
system, in absence of previous testing for a given isolator brand.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Financial support of the National Science and Technology Council of Mexico (Conacyt) and
Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana Azcapotzalco are gratefully acknowledged. The author
also thanks the devotion of all his former students, who have worked hard in this long-term
project while doing his BSc and MSc thesis: Abel Muñoz-Loustanau, Luis Alberto
Gómez-Soberón, Omar Villegas-Jiménez, Miguel Ángel Pérez-Osornio, Christian
Zambrana-Rojas and José Luis Escamilla-Cruz. Appreciation is also extended to Ricardo
González-Alcorta, who collaborated in an important way in the first steps of this research
project. The author is thankful indeed with Consuelo Gómez-Soberón, who has been an
important partner in the first stages of this research and who is playing an important role
again in the additional research that is much needed to improve the displacement design
spectra for the Mexican seismic codes.

REFERENCES

“Base Mexicana de Datos de Sismos Fuertes volumen 2” (2000), CD-ROM, Sociedad Mexicana de
Ingeniería Sísmica, December.
Escamilla-Cruz, J. L. and A. Tena-Colunga (2003), “Respuesta torsional de aisladores sísmicos debida
a excentricidades asociadas a las rigideces de la superestructura”, Proceedings, XIV Congreso
Nacional de Ingeniería Sísmica, Guanajuato-León, México, CD-ROM, Paper No. XII-07,
88-102, November.
Escamilla-Cruz, J. L. (2005), “Respuesta torsional de aisladores sísmicos debida a excentricidades de
los centros de rigidez de la superestructura”, MSc. Thesis, Sección de Estudios de Posgrado e
Investigación, Escuela Superior de Ingeniería y Arquitectura, Instituto Politécnico Nacional,
Unidad Zacatenco, April.
Gómez-Soberón, L. A. (1996), “Procedimientos y recomendaciones para el diseño de estructuras
aisladas sísmicamente en México”, B.S. Thesis, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de
Puebla, October.
Gómez-Soberón, L. A. (2000), “Efectos de torsión en estructuras aisladas sísmicamente en su base”,
MSc. Thesis, División de Estudios de Posgrado de la Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México, December.
Gómez-Soberón, C., M. Ordaz-Schroeder. and A. Tena-Colunga (2005), “Leyes de atenuación en
desplazamiento y aceleración para el diseño sísmico de estructuras con aislamiento sísmico
en la costa del Pacífico”, Proceedings, XV Congreso Nacional de Ingeniería Sísmica, Mexico
City, México, CD-ROM, September (in press).
IBC-2000 (2000), “International Building Code, 2000 Edition”, International Conference of Building
Officials, Whittier, California.
Kelly, J. M. (1999), “Recent development in seismic isolation in the United States,” Revista de
Ingeniería Sísmica, SMIS, 61: 57-72.
Naeim, F. and J. M. Kelly (1999), Design of seismic isolated structures, First Edition, John Wiley &
Sons, New York..
Nagarajaiah, S., A. M. Reinhorn and M. C. Constantinou (1993), “Torsion in base isolated structures
with elastomeric isolation systems,” ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 119 (10):
2932-2951.
NTCS-2004 (2004), “Normas Técnicas Complementarias para Diseño por Sismo”, Gaceta Oficial del
Distrito Federal, October.
MOC-93 (1993), “Manual de Diseño de Obras Civiles. Diseño por Sismo”, Instituto de Investigaciones
Eléctricas, Comisión Federal de Electricidad.
Ordaz, M. (2001). “Programa Degtra, manual en línea”, Instituto de Ingeniería, UNAM (in Spanish).
Pérez-Osornio, M. A. (2004), “Amplificación de los desplazamientos de aisladores de base por efectos
bidireccionales”, MSc. Thesis, División de Estudios de Posgrado de la Facultad de Ingeniería,
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, December.
Skinner, R.I., W. H. Robinson and G. H. Mc Verry (1993), An introduction to seismic isolation, First
Edition, John Wiley and Sons, England.
Tena-Colunga, A. (1996), “Some retrofit options for the seismic upgrading of old low-rise school
buildings in Mexico”, Earthquake Spectra, 12 (4): 883-902.
Tena-Colunga, A., C. Gómez-Soberón and A. Muñoz-Loustaunau (1997a), “Seismic isolation of
buildings subjected to typical subduction earthquake motions for the Mexican Pacific Coast”,
Earthquake Spectra, 13 (3): 505-532.
Tena-Colunga, A., L. A. Gómez-Soberón and M. Salazar (1997b), “Criterios de diseño y
reglamentación de estructuras con aisladores de base para la costa del Pacífico”, Report
FJBS/CIS-97/17, Centro de Investigación Sísmica, AC, Fundación Javier Barros Sierra,
October.
Tena-Colunga, A. (1997), “Evaluación de un método de diseño estático para el aislamiento sísmico de
estructuras de la costa Mexicana del Pacífico”, Revista de Ingeniería Sísmica, SMIS, 57:
1-20.
Tena-Colunga, A. (1999), “International seismic zone tabulation proposed by the 1997 UBC code:
Observations for Mexico”, Earthquake Spectra, 15 (2): 331-360.
Tena-Colunga, A. (2000), “A new method for the seismic design of structures with bilinear isolators
using inelastic spectra”, Proceedings, 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Auckland, New Zealand, CD-ROM, Paper No. 59, February.
Tena-Colunga, A. (2001), “Diseño de estructuras con aislamiento sísmico mediante el uso de espectros
de diseño por capacidad”, Revista de Ingeniería Sísmica, SMIS, 65: 49-80.
Tena-Colunga, A. and L. A. Gómez-Soberón (2001), “Importance of eccentricities in the superstructure
on the torsional response of base-isolated structures”, Proceedings, Earthquake Resistant
Engineering Structures III (ERES III), WIT Press, Málaga, Spain, 145-154, September.
Tena-Colunga, A., M. A. Pérez-Osornio and J. Cano-Licona (2002), “Propuesta de modificación a la
estimación de las fuerzas cortantes del método simplificado de análisis”, Proceedings, XIII
Congreso Nacional de Ingeniería Estructural, Puebla, CD-ROM, Paper No. 156, 1057-1068,
November.
Tena-Colunga, A. (2002), “Seismic design of base-isolated structures using capacity spectra”, Journal
of Earthquake Engineering, 6 (4): 553-586.
Tena-Colunga, A. and L. A. Gómez-Soberón (2002), “Torsional response of base-isolated structures
due to asymmetries in the superstructure”, Engineering Structures, 24 (12): 1587-1599.
Tena-Colunga, A. (2003), “Espectros de diseño por desplazamiento para sistemas de aislamiento
sísmico para las zonas D-I, C-I y B-I de la República mexicana”, Proceedings, XIV Congreso
Nacional de Ingeniería Sísmica, Guanajuato-León, México, CD-ROM, Paper No. XII-08,
103-114, November.
Tena-Colunga, A. (2004), “Propuesta de lineamientos para el diseño por sismo de estructuras con
aislamiento de base. Fundamentos”, Reporte de Investigación 449, División de Ciencias
Básicas e Ingeniería, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, March, ISBN 970-31-0272-7.
Tena-Colunga, A. and C. Zambrana-Rojas (2004), “Torsional response of base-isolated structures due
to stiffness asymmetries of the isolation system”, Proceedings, 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, CD-ROM, Paper No. 2022, August.
Tena-Colunga, A. and M. A. Pérez-Osornio (2005), “Design displacements for base isolators
considering bidirectional seismic effects”, tentatively accepted for publication in Earthquake
Spectra.
UBC-97 (1997), “Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition”, International Conference of Building
Officials, Whittier, California.
Villegas-Jiménez, O. (1999), “Criterios de diseño dinámico para estructuras aisladas sísmicamente en
las zonas costeras del Pacífico mexicano”, MSc. Thesis, División de Estudios de Posgrado de
la Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, February.
Villegas-Jiménez, O. and A. Tena-Colunga (2000), “Dynamic design procedure for the design of base
isolated structures located on the Mexican Pacific Coast”, Proceedings, 12th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, CD-ROM, Paper No. 929,
February.