Seismic isolation for architects

A.W. Charleson
School of Architecture, Victoria University of Wellington

A. Guisasola
Faculty of Architecture, Urbanism, and Design, University of Mendoza
2015 NZSEE
Conference

ABSTRACT: This paper describes the background and content of a book on seismic
isolation written especially for architects. The contents and their sequencing are designed
to address all significant questions that readers might have about seismic isolation. The
aim is to enable readers to make decisions as to whether they want to have some type of
involvement in a seismically-isolated building, perhaps as a member of a design team, or
as tenant of a seismically-isolated apartment building. Although a thoroughly objective
approach is taken to the content, the sheer weight of the positive benefits of seismic
isolation promotes and encourages the uptake of this technology. The paper reports on the
key findings of the project that are of most relevance to architects and suggests areas for
further consideration by structural engineers.

1 INTRODUCTION

Many books and articles on the seismic isolation of buildings have been written for structural
engineers. However, these publications are highly technical in nature and therefore are unsuitable for
the vast majority of others who design, construct, own, insure and inhabit buildings in seismically-
active regions. The purpose of the book then, is to introduce a relatively new game-changing
technology to a wider audience.
A project like this could have been undertaken at any time over the last thirty-five years. However, it
would have inevitably left unanswered many important questions that are raised when discussing the
seismic isolation of buildings. In particular, how confident can we be in seismic isolation and how
does this relatively new approach compare to more conventional ones? Is seismic isolation really
worth adopting?
Within a period of eighteen days ending 11th March 2011, the answers to these questions suddenly
became much clearer. On 22th February the city of Christchurch, experienced a devastating
earthquake. While only one base-isolated building in Christchurch, the Christchurch Women’s
hospital was tested by the earthquake, so was the entire building stock of Christchurch. Several
hundred buildings, many designed in accordance with one of the world’s most advanced seismic
codes, survived without collapse. But tragically, most have subsequently been demolished. This
situation raises considerable uncertainty regarding the appropriateness of modern philosophies of
seismic design.
Then, on the 11th March, Japan was struck by the massive Magnitude 9 Tohoku Earthquake, centred
off the east coast. For the first time, hundreds of seismically-isolated buildings were tested on an
unprecedented scale. These two earthquakes demonstrated the effectiveness of seismic isolation as
well as deficiencies in current design approaches to earthquake attack, accentuating the benefits of
seismic isolation.
The paper introduces the seven main topics of the book which are covered in twelve chapters. Each of
the topics; education, applications, confidence, benefits and limitations, economics, design, and
maintenance, are reviewed briefly below.

Paper Number O-09

Architects need to be aware that while the capability for horizontal movement is the first requirement
for an isolated structure, there are four other requirements as well: vertical support, re-centring,
restraint and damping. In practice, movement capability is provided by elastomeric bearings from
natural or artificial rubber, or sliding surfaces of Teflon and stainless steel, and otherwise complete
separation of the superstructure from the ground. In order to allow almost unrestrained horizontal
movement, an isolation system must therefore support the weight of the building. A re-centring or
restoring force keeps bringing the superstructure back to its original position while preventing motion
during wind gusts. Damping lessens the relative horizontal movement between the superstructure and
foundations, reducing both cost of bearings and other details, and the width of gaps that accommodate
movement.
Typical seismic isolation hardware meets two or more of the above requirements. For example, lead-
rubber bearings meet all five, as do curved sliders, but via totally different mechanisms.

3 APPLICATIONS

A recent overview of seismically-isolated buildings reports that as at 2012 over 6,600 buildings in
Japan were seismically-isolated (Martelli 2012). This number includes 4000 houses. China has over
2500 isolated buildings; the Russian Federation, 550 buildings (and bridges); Italy, 300, and the USA,
approximately 200.There also are up to several tens of seismically-isolated buildings in other countries
including Chile, South Korea, Taiwan, Armenia, and New Zealand.
The types of seismically-isolated buildings in terms of their function and age are extremely diverse.
Before exploring some of their typologies it is worth noting the reasons why owners isolate their
buildings. Ron Mayes summarizes them as:
• Emergency response,
• Continued business operations,
• Protect contents,
• Reduce damage repair cost,
• Protect architecture, and
• Occupant safety – “peace of mind (Mayes 2013).
We encounter seismically-isolated hospitals and emergency response centres, and buildings housing
manufacturing or other functions for whom downtime following an earthquake would be disastrous.
The contents of some buildings are more valuable than the buildings themselves. Frequently, owners
desire to minimize damage and damage repair costs. Perhaps their investment in seismic isolation is an
alternative to paying earthquake insurance premiums and allowing early, if not immediate, re-
occupancy of a building following an earthquake. There are also many buildings of historic
significance that have been seismically-isolated.

4 CONFIDENCE

When modern seismic isolation incorporating the five requirements noted above was first applied to
buildings in the 1980s, its claim for effectiveness was based entirely upon computer modelling and
laboratory testing of isolation hardware, like lead-rubber bearings. Those early applications of the then
new technology required a certain degree of faith in the theory of seismic isolation as well as in
computer analyses. Now, in 2015, the effectiveness of seismic isolation has been demonstrated both in
the real world of full-scale testing, and more significantly, in urban centres of several countries.

92
The effectiveness of seismic isolation is determined by quite different approaches. It is confirmed each
time an isolated building is designed. In most such designs a computer model of the structure
including the isolation system experiences several different earthquake records which subject the
building to the strong shaking expected in the design earthquake. Confidence in seismic isolation is
also grounded in the large body of research that goes back many years. Since then, hundreds of
research papers have been presented at conferences around the world, and numerous scholarly books
written.
Physical testing has been a vital component since the early development of seismic isolation. Now,
entire isolated buildings experience recorded strong motion earthquake records. For example, the
largest shaking table in the world, E-Defense, Japan, subjects concrete and steel buildings up to five
storeys high to 3-D shaking.
Even though the effectiveness of seismic isolation is extensively demonstrated through computer
modelling and physical testing, there is no substitute for measurements and observations during and
after damaging earthquakes. Three approaches can evaluate the effectiveness of seismic isolation after
an earthquake. We can compare the behaviour of identical side-by-side isolated and conventional
buildings, or situations where non-identical isolated buildings are in close proximity. We can also
make use of acceleration measurements taken beneath and within individual isolated buildings to
gauge the effectiveness of seismic isolation. Finally, we can make general comparisons between the
performance of earthquake-affected isolated buildings and conventional buildings. Results from all
these approaches which are presented in a large body of research literature confirm that confidence in
seismic isolation is well-founded.

5 BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS

Benefits of seismic isolation are realised before the occurrence of a damaging earthquake, as well as
during and after such an event. Many benefits, including insurance premium savings, can be realized
even before an earthquake strikes. Others occur during the design phase of a building when they can
lead to improved architectural features.
The architectural benefits of reduced inter-storey drifts and possible lower levels of strength and
ductility can be exploited in more elegant detailing, and more slender and less regular structure.
Numerous case-studies illustrate how architects are taking advantage of seismic isolation to reinforce
and achieve a wide range of architectural objectives. Case studies are grouped in four categories of
architectural concepts and qualities that encapsulate prevalent architectural concepts and qualities in
contemporary architecture (Charleson 2015). The categories most relevant to seismically-isolated
architecture are, grounded – floating, stability – instability, heavy – lightweight, and simple – complex
(Figs. 1 to 4). Structural configurations, unthinkable in conventional buildings, can be considered in
isolated buildings. More slender columns and structural walls are also feasible, as well as simpler and
thinner separation gaps. These potential benefits can improve architectural aesthetics.

Figure 1. Tod’s Omotesando, Tokyo. Toyo Ito 2004. Figure 2. Tama Art University Library, Hachioji,
At the base of the building structure is grounded, Tokyo. Toyo Ito, 2007. Part of the two main
but higher-up it becomes more delicate. facades. The columns touch the floors very lightly.

93
 Figure 3. Prada Boutique Aoyama, Tokyo, Front Figure 4. Inagi Hospital, Tokyo. Kyodo Architects
entrance Japan, Herzog & de Meuron, 2003. An 1998. A complex butterfly-shape plan.
example of structural lightness.

While the pre-earthquake benefits of seismic isolation are tangible, how much more so are those
incurred during and after a large earthquake:
• Reduced trauma to building occupants,
• Reduced injuries to building occupants and passers-by,
• No or minimal structural damage,
• No or minimal damage to architectural (non-structural) elements, and
• No or minimal disruption to building occupancy and function.
In one computer-based study, two three-storey steel braced frame buildings, one seismically-isolated,
were subject to many different earthquakes. Seismic isolation reduced inter-storey drifts and floor
accelerations by factors between 5 and 20, and 4 and 6 respectively. The magnitude of these reduction
factors varied from building to building but have been found to reduce in more flexible, say moment
frame buildings, to a factor of 2.0 (Ryan 2010). The effects of such considerable reductions in drifts
and accelerations mean no structural damage and minimum damage to architectural elements and
building contents.
Limitations of seismic isolation arise from geology, building height, adjacent buildings and site
coverage. Not only should sites underlain by fault lines or liquefiable soils be avoided, seismic
isolation may not be appropriate for sites with deep soft soils. Typical building isolation systems are
also ineffective against vertical shaking.
Seismic isolation provides a less dramatic performance improvement for high buildings as compared
to those that are lower-rise. Nevertheless, now there are numerous isolated buildings in Japan over 20
storeys high and this trend continues in other countries (Fig. 5). For example, a 25 storey isolated
office tower has just been completed in Jakarta. A fixed-base period of approximately 2.0 seconds was
increased by a further 2.5 seconds with isolation. This achieved significant reductions in inter-storey
drifts and forces within the building. These translate to overall improved seismic performance such
that immediate occupancy is expected after the design earthquake (Hussuain 2012).
The effectiveness and application of seismic isolation can be limited by adjacent buildings. It makes
little sense to isolate a building that is adjacent to one that is more vulnerable. All buildings must be
set-back on their sites to avoid pounding neighbouring buildings. For seismically-isolated buildings,
almost all horizontal movement occurs at the plane of isolation. Therefore, irrespective of the building
height a wide seismic gap is required at ground level. A 400 mm wide separation gap around three
sides of a 10 m by 20 m site reduces the gross floor area by 10%. This is potentially a significant
hidden cost of seismic isolation.

94
6 ECONOMICS

It is impossible to say how the cost of a seismically-isolated building differs from that of a
conventional building with a high degree of accuracy. A large number of factors are at play. However,
first we must check we are comparing like with like. Comparing the construction costs of these two
types of buildings is like comparing the cost of an ordinary motor vehicle to one with advanced safety
features. There is no doubt about the superior safety performance, for which we should expect an
increased price.
Few studies have compared the initial costs of seismically-isolated buildings to conventional buildings
with the same seismic performance. Unfortunately, special buildings, often housing essential facilities,
rather than typical buildings are reported upon. Furthermore, the studies do not capture the reduction
in downtime and other benefits seismic isolation provides.
Drawing upon eight case-studies mainly in the USA, Mayes (1990) reports a range of cost of
construction increases up to 5% and 3% savings. Japanese experience is summarized: “Generally, for a
building with less than about ten stories, the initial construction cost is several percent higher than for
the building without isolation, but for structures more than ten stories, there is almost no difference in
construction cost” (JSSI 2013). In New Zealand, a study of four isolated hospitals completed between
2005 and 2013 revealed that the total additional cost of seismic isolation was 3% of their construction
costs (Charleson and Allaf 2012). Since hospitals are heavily serviced, the additional isolation costs
for most other building types can be expected to be slightly greater. In an European example involving
the fast-track build of 4,500 apartments after the damaging 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, Calvi (2010)
reports that seismic isolation represented 2% of the total cost.
Almost all of the additional costs of seismic isolation are incurred in the vicinity of the isolation plane.
This means the cost of isolation per square metre of construction is reduced by increasing the numbers
of storeys. Additional costs arise from a possible additional suspended floor, isolation devices such as
bearings, provision of moats or rattle-space including retaining walls, and moat covers which are
usually required, unless the isolation plane is above or at ground level. Movement joints between
adjacent buildings add to the costs, as well as detailing of flexible electrical and other services, stairs
and elevators that cross the isolation plane, and increased design and peer review fees.
Even for seismically-isolated buildings with normal occupancy, like apartment or office buildings,
some structural savings will partially off-set the additional costs of seismic isolation. Cost savings
other than to primary structural framing are likely as well. In isolated buildings, mechanical and
electrical plant and architectural elements, like suspended ceilings, require less bracing in order to
prevent overturning and sliding.
All published life-cycle analyses for buildings located in high seismic hazard areas of western North
America and New Zealand consistently demonstrate the cash flow benefits of seismic isolation (Ryan
2010, Whittaker 2012, and Cutfield 2014). For example, Terzic and others (2012) calculate a minimum
3% return on investment over a 50 year time frame. They exclude potential insurance savings and
acknowledge even more attractive results for seismic isolation if downtime estimates are refined.
Whittaker (2012) makes a compelling case for owners of seismically-isolated buildings to self-insure.
He shows that the annual costs of earthquake damage, business interruption, insurance premium
assuming no reduction for the isolated building, and annualised deductible are similar for owners of
conventional and seismically-isolated buildings. An update of Whittaker’s spreadsheet shows that
since the spike in insurance premiums immediately after the Canterbury earthquakes has reduced from
approximately 1% to 0.25%, the annualised cost of an uninsured (self-insured) isolated building is 7%
of that of an insured isolated building.

95
7 DESIGN

The successful introduction of any new technology into a design and construction project necessitates
additional communication and a higher level of collaboration between members of the design team.
Once a decision to seismically-isolate is made, the intensity of collaboration increases. Later in the
design process detailed design of architectural details is undertaken. It is worth noting that the 2011
Tohoku, Japan, earthquake showed that the performance of the details left a lot to be desired.
Although in principle, the provision for unrestrained and damage-free movement is straightforward, it
is more difficult to achieve in practice. Saiki and others’ (2013) survey of over 300 isolated buildings
revealed that 30% experienced damage to movement joints. Even though the movements were in most
cases far less than the maximum design displacements, joints did not function as intended by their
designers. Defects were observed due to the location of joints, obstructions in their immediate vicinity,
and lack of maintenance.
Architects are responsible for the design of the moat area and cover plates. Cover plates are available
in many different forms, ranging from simple highly-visible surface-mounted plates to those that are
concealed. They may incorporate additional complexity to provide fire resistance across the gap.
As well as moat covers and other flooring movement joints, capacity for seismic movement is also
required where an isolated building connects to another building, be it isolated or not, at the roof, up
walls and along and across ceilings. Some architectural elements are designed to be sacrificial in a
large event, perhaps steel supports and frangible lining panels. This was the detailing philosophy
adopted for the connection between the buildings shown in Figure 6.

Figure 5. The 26-storey high Yozemi Tower, Figure 6. Rankin Brown Building, Wellington. The
Tokyo. vertical black painted thin metal covering is part of the
wall movement joint between the seismically-isolated
building to the left and the fixed-base building to the
right. Sacrificial steel elements and frangible interior
linings will need replacement after a large earthquake.

8 MAINTENANCE

Once constructed, a seismically-isolated building has unique maintenance requirements. Just like
elevator and fire alarm systems need regular inspection and maintenance, so also isolation systems.
The consequences of an isolation system being compromised, say by building materials blocking a
seismic movement gap, or by bearings suffering severe corrosion, are very serious (Figs. 7 and 8). The
safety of the entire building is at risk.
A maintenance programme therefore needs to address seismic isolation vulnerability from both natural
and human threats. We believe that a maintenance programme should be as legally binding as those
for elevators and fire alarm systems that are regularly inspected and maintained for annual Building
Warrant of Fitnesses. The compliance schedule should include the seismic isolation system at the time
the building owner applies for Building Consent to begin construction.

96
 Figure 7. After 20 years exposure to moisture this Figure 8. A view of a horizontal stainless steel plate
pot sliding bearing is in urgent need of with its protective plastic sheet folded back. When
replacement. (Chris Gannon) installed 20 years ago the stainless steel would have
had a mirror finish. The coefficient of friction will
be far greater than that assumed by the designers.
(Chris Gannon)

9 ISSUES FOR STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS

Considerable international variance regarding technical aspects of seismic isolation design remains.
Martelli (2013) states that ”SI [seismic isolation] is considered as an additional safety measure (with
consequent additional construction costs) in some countries (Japan, USA), while in others (including
Italy) the codes allow to partly take into account the reduction of the seismic force acting in the
superstructure”. As another example, in Japan, the design earthquake is approximately a 500 year
event, but in the USA, isolator displacement is based on a 2500 year return period (Becker 2010). Pan
(2005) points out that in Japan a factor of safety of 1.5 is used to determine the horizontal isolation
clearance dimension. Designers in the USA, however, are not required to use a factor of safety. Some
designers from Japan, China, USA, Italy and Taiwan are attempting to standardize design procedures
internationally (Feng 2012). New Zealand engineers should join this effort.
A conservative approach to determining the movement gap width is essential. Movements calculated
for some soil sites subject to bi-directional near-fault ground motions are up to 15% greater than
expected (Ozdemir 2010), and movement increases at corners of buildings due to torsion can reach up
to 30% in long buildings (Kircher 2006). Wider movement gaps may also assist in future-proofing.
For example, the 150 mm gap around the William Clayton Building, Wellington that was constructed
in 1981, although based upon the best seismological advice of the day, is now considered too narrow.
We recommend that even though the risk of severe structural damage in a seismically-isolated
building is very low, structural engineers should identify and articulate the collapse mechanism to
satisfy themselves, their clients and others, of the overall structural robustness.

10 CONCLUSIONS

This paper discusses the content of a proposed book on seismic isolation written from an architectural
perspective. Given this project’s emphasis upon recent and current practice, it is appropriate to
consider the future of seismic isolation. How might it develop in the coming years?
The extent to which it will be adopted depends on two major factors. The first is the frequency and
severity of future damaging earthquakes. As witnessed after every large earthquake in an urban
setting, the reality of human casualties and collapsed and badly-damaged buildings leads to an surge in
seismically-isolated buildings. The second factor that will influence the extent of the adoption of

97
seismic isolation is the quality of the performance of seismically-isolated buildings. If they continue to
out-perform convention construction, building owners will be inclined to adopt seismic isolation.
Over-confidence in this still relatively new technology must be avoided.
Other drivers as well will promote seismic isolation to building owners. Structural design procedures
are undergoing rationalisation and simplification. The insurance industry is becoming better
acquainted with the benefits of seismic isolation, and on-going research and development is likely to
lead to lower-cost isolation devices. All these advances are expected to result in safer buildings and
communities, as more building owners, architects and engineers request or recommend the application
of seismic isolation in their buildings.

11 REFERENCES

Becker, T.C., Furukawa, S., Mahin, S.A. & Nakashima, M. 2010. Comparison of US and Japanese codes and
practices for seismically-isolated buildings, Proceedings of the 2010 ASCE Structures Congress, 2330-38. p.
2331.
Calvi, G.M. 2010. L’Aquila earthquake 2009: reconstruction between temporary and definitive. Proceedings of
the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Conference 2012, 12 pp., p. 11.
Charleson, A.W. & Allaf, N.J. 2012. Costs of base-isolation and earthquake insurance in New Zealand,
Proceedings of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Conference 2012, Paper No. 041, p. 6.
Charleson, A. W. 2015. Structure as architecture: a source book for architects and structural engineers (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Routledge, chapters 12 and 13.
Cutfield, M.R., Ma, Q.T. & Ryan, K.L. 2014. Cost-benefit analysis of base-isolated and conventional buildings:
a case study, Proceedings of the 2014 New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Conference, Paper
O46, 8 pp.
Feng, D., Miyama, T., Liu, W. & Chan, T. 2012. A new design procedure for seismically-isolated buildings
based on seismic isolation codes worldwide, Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Lisbon, 9 pp.
Hussuain, S.M., AlHamaydeh, M.H. & Aly, N.E. 2012. Jakarta’s first seismic-isolated building – a 25 story
tower, Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, 10 pp.
Japan Society of Seismic Isolation (Ed.), 2013. How to plan and implement seismic isolation for buildings,
Tokyo: Ohmsha Ltd., p. 38.
Kircher, C.A. 2006. Chapter 11 Seismically-isolated structures, in FEMA 451: NEHRP recommended
provisions: design examples, 11-10.
Martelli, A., Forni, M. & Clemente, P. 2012. Recent worldwide application of seismic isolation and energy
dissipation and conditions for their correct use, Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Lisbon, 10 pp.
Martelli, A., Clemente, P., De Stefano, A., Forni, M. et al. 2013. Development and application of seismic
isolation energy dissipation and other vibration control techniques in Italy for the protection of civil
structures, cultural heritage and industrial plants, Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Seismic
Isolation, energy dissipation and active vibration control of structures, September 24-27, Sendai, 10 pp., 1.
Mayes, R.L. 1990. The economics of seismic isolation in buildings, Earthquake Spectra, 6(2): 252.
Mayes, R. 2013. Lecture notes on seismic isolation.
Ozdemir, G. and Akyuz, U. 2010. Response of isolated RC buildings under bi-directional near-fault ground
motions. Proceedings of the 9th U.S. National and 10th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
July 25-29, Toronto, Paper 460, 10 pp.
Pan, P., Zamfirescu, D., Nakashima, M. et al. 2005. Base-isolation design practice in Japan: Introduction to the
post-Kobe approach, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 9(1): 147-71,162.
Ryan, K.L., Erduran, E., Sayani, P.J. & Dhao, N.D. 2010. Comparative seismic response of code designed
conventional and base-isolated buildings to scenario events, Proceedings of the 9th U.S. National and 10th
Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 10 pp.

98
Ryan, K.L., Sayani, P.J., Dao, N.D., Abraik, E. & Baez, Y.M. 2010. Comparative life cycle analysis of
conventional and base-isolated building theme buildings. Proceedings of the 9th U.S. and 10th Canadian
Conference on Earthquake Engineering , July 25-29, Toronto,10 pp. 3.
Saiki, K., Kitamura, Y. & Kani, N. 2013. Damage of expansion-joints for seismically-isolated buildings and
countermeasures, Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Seismic Isolation, energy dissipation and
active vibration control of structures, September 24-27, Sendai, 7 pp.
Terzic, V., Merrifield, S.K. & Mahin, S.A. 2012. Lifecycle cost comparisons for different structural systems
designed for the same location, Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Lisbon.
Whittaker, D. 2012. Economic benefits of seismic isolation, Proceedings of the SESOC New Zealand
Conference, 2-3 November, p. 3.

99